A very sensible and level headed antidote to the shrill cries of the knockers and self-haters who want to blame Australia for everything. The per capita shrieks are pretty silly when we have only 20 million people.

No, Bernie Masters, Kyoto is not a copout. It is an intelligent beginning. Meanwhile, your lengthy criticism of Kyoto implies just one course of action, really - that we all should act as individuals, and virtuously walk more, use less electricity etc. Individual action is fine, and it also has an educative effect – and should lead people to demand government action.
But, ultimately, individual action is futile, without legislative action. The imposition of a carbon tax, and mandated renewable energy targets would lead the market to truly tackle the greenhouse gas problem.
It is not irrelevant that Australia’s per capita output of greenhouse gases is so high. By signing up to Kyoto, Australia would be able to deal profitably in international emissions trading.
More importantly, Australia would be telling the U.S.A that we are no longer prepared to fawn over that fossil fool, George Bush. Australia could take a leadership role. And this would be noticed by the countries with developing economies – we have a great symbolic power to influence them, despite our small population. Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com

I'm not sure that China or India would do metals smelting with much lower emissions. Moreover those countries may feel they are entitled to the same per capita emissions (industries and households combined) as Australia so we should lead by example. If carbon taxes were internationally harmonised or backed up with penalty tariffs then the location of smelters may come down to other factors. These include wages, skill levels, water supply and transport as well as technological efficiency. Essentially world emissions need to be cut by half so the countries that can do the most with the least will get the work.

ChirstinaMac,

The Kyoto Protocol is a fraud and a sham. A decent honest protocol would say: you burn it, you cop the blame. However under Kyoto:

1. Major polluters such as India and China are exempt, as it only applies to industrialised countries.

2. If Australia burns a kilo of coal we get the blame. Fair enough.

But if we sell it to Japan and they burn it, we STILL get the blame.

If we tell the Japs to buy their coal from South Africa, and they burn it, NO-ONE gets the blame.

If we wanted to halve our "emmissions" all we would have to do is go on using all the oil etc. we want, and close down our coal export industry. The Japs would buy their coal from South Africa, not one molecule less of CO2 would be generated, but the figures would look great.

The con with Kyoto is that it is a sweetheart deal between the EU and the third world. The EU imports vast amounts of coal and oil, but is not blamed for burning it because it is imported. The exporters are also not blamed because they are in the Annex A list. The oil exporting countries of the middle east, who enjoy huge incomes from it, are also not included in Annex A.

The important facts on population and pollution are:

Only 11% of the world's population live below the equator.

Only 4% of the world's pollution is generated below the equator.

We do not matter. This problem is a northern hemisphere one.

Bernie, it may pay the Liberals to stop wasting time asking questions about India and China, and get on with what we should be doing whether it will be nuclear, solar-powered or wind-powered.

Fossil fuels are going to run out anyhow, so let's get on with it, and use some of the billions of dollars in kitty, that Costello has got in his Future Fund.

There is so much to be done in this country. For a start there was talk by German migrant neighbours when I was a lad in the bush, that with the lack of big rivers in the south, Australia should turn the northern rivers southward to compensate. One way it could be done in the East, they said, was to cut a channel through the headlands of the Darling letting adjacent big northern rivers flow backwards down to the Murray.

Believe it or not there was also rumours during WW2, that the Japs had ideas like the above if or when they took over Australia.

Also recently there has been talk in the bush about diverting the small rivers that flow into Lake Eyre, leaving the big inland lake with just enough moisture, thus making use of the greatest inland natural solar collector in the world.

Anyone that disbelieves, just try walking across a moistly dry inland saltlake on a hot summers day in bare feet.

Finally, going by the way our Liberal government still plays scorn to our Greenie avante guarde, even after stealing their ideas, one wonders about George W Bush even now acting humble pie to the US Democrats. Maybe our little Johnny could take a lesson.

It is surprising, given the obvious left bias of so many contributors to these threads, that no-one has pointed out that the Kyoto Protocol is first and foremost a "Wall St and Bankers" treaty.

Under Kyoto the shareholders of all the major emitters are free to maintain all their current emissions by simply shifting their factories to countries that are outside the protocol.

The only people making any sort of sacrifice for global climate will be the existing employees in countries like Australia who will lose their job.

And Beazley, the champion of the working man, will sign up for those job losses.

"Many critics of Australia's response (or lack thereof) to its greenhouse gas emission complain that we've got the highest emissions per capita of any country on earth. Well, so what?"

So what? It means Australia is once again a disgrace in the eyes of the world, and I've never been more ashamed. That's what.

"now we should focus on how the world - not just Australia - can lower GHG emissions."

An so we are going to somehow force every country including China into signing the global carbon trading agreement are we? And if that fails, then we just go on arguing while the planet burns? That's what happened to Kyoto. Individual countries have to take responsibility for their own mess, not point the finger at others. Ever heard of "leading by example"?

"I don’t trust any poll conducted by green groups" ... "Finally, with regard to the UK government’s Stern report, Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, believes it’s a seriously flawed document"
So you'd prefer to trust the opinion of a crackpot researcher that every other climatologist in the world (thousands of them) is in complete disagreement with?

There is no point in trying to get through to those who put on a song
and dance about Australia not signing the Kyoto protocol.

They simply do not understand the argument that they are themselves
promoting. I spent a considerable time yesterday trying to explain it to someone who had been politically blinded.
It has become political mantra now and they do not require facts as
they just get in the way.

The trouble with national emissions targets us that the easiest way for a country to cut its emission is to import emissions-intensive products such as energy from somewhere else. Conversely, the largest per capita emitters tend to be major exporters of energy and other emissions-intensive products. Hence, according to the WRI, the world’s largest per capita emitter is not Australia but Qatar, followed by the UAE and Kuwait (we’re fourth) http://pdf.wri.org/navigating_numbers_chapter4.pdf (p,22).

Masters’ main point is right – what matters in cutting global emissions is not where something is produced, but how it is produced and how much of it is produced. For as long as the world continues to use minerals and fossil fuel energy, we minimise emissions if things are produced in the countries that make them in the least emissions-intensive way.

For example, Australia’s gas exports to China generate significant emissions here, but because they replace extremely dirty coal fired electricity generation in China, they result in emissions there being lower than they otherwise would be. The net result is lower global emissions but higher Australian emissions. The way Kyoto is structured we could get no credit for the reduction in Chinese emissions to offset these higher Australian emissions. Signing up to such an arrangement would do great damage to our export industries and deliver to no gain in terms of reducing global emissions.

Post Kyoto, I hope we get a genuinely global carbon tax or trading regime that encourages the most efficient production of emission-intensive products regardless of location, as well as providing the price signals that will encourage innovation and penalise pollution

Back in 1984, doing a macro-economics post-grad to strengthen a socio-political degree was surprised to find looking back in the large economics manual, which also contained Reaganomics, a chapter headed Economics and Protection, which was not used in the study.

Further, the chapter contained a suggestion that all discharge pipes from industries similar to Alcoa, should be fitted with monitors and the companies be made to pay accordingly for harm to the environment.

Surely such a law should be brought in right now, and does anyone of our group know why this law was not made legal sometime since, not expected with the Reaganites but surely later with the Clintonites?

Could say that as economic rationalism has helped greedy corporates gain a far stronger hold on our governments even since Reaganomics, guess that could be the answer?

Firstly to be nasty, but politically playful, it is worth asking if Murdoch and presumably his media trumpet climate change is real and an election is in the offing Johnny becomes a believer!

If Murdoch whose media did so much to hype the Iraq war changes his mind will Johnny?

What if popular opinion perhaps doing some homework on the reality of Iraq war or even seeing change got with the mob and wanted as just and humane end to the mess of our making. Lazarus might have a quadruple bypass!

Yes the whole world needs to use available technology. Much technology already exists the Rocky Mountain Institute perhaps one of the earliest real investigator of energy efficiency ways and then of technology but there are many other unused available technics.

Aluminium in Australia, a big user of electricity, from coal fired sources. Some of the energy needed can be met, more expensively at present by the lower heat levels available from solar and maybe wind could do some provisioning. In all such enterprises much is available to make production much more energy efficient and thus reduce energy demand. If all homes were better designed or retro fitted. Entailing a cost whose payback time is low says Lovins, (Rocky Mt Inst) making a major difference to energy needs, solar hot water a added bonus.

UK researchers claim that base load electricity, which is what Nuclear will produce can be provided from alternate sources, recent report to the UK Government investigating alternatives to Nuclear.

Yes Australia has huge coal reserves so clean coal is in our interests but in the mean time there is much that could be done. The subsidies on many alternative sources has been continued by the Government recently.

We have Uranium to sell, our current count needs the money. A Faustian bargain to accept the money for the danger of the waste and short term profit?
Nuclear does not drive cars!

Perseus “The only people making any sort of sacrifice for global climate will be the existing employees in countries like Australia who will lose their job.

And Beazley, the champion of the working man, will sign up for those job losses.”

Agree, that is why the liberals have insisted that any agreement has to be equitable and not disproportionately prejudicing Australian competetiveness.

I note the Europeans are suggesting every product be measured to record the amount of energy used and greenhouse gas produced be recorded for consumer appreciation at point of sale.

The “realist” in me says – why ? People will buy a colour TV regardless that its production consumed X megawatts of energy causing Y kilos of Co2 to be produced.

The “cynical opportunist” in me says – hey I could develop the “calculating system” to generate such guff, there is a killing to be made here!

And should they also include recovery of the energy consumed in making the bricks which were used in building the factory and the steel used in the roof and frame of the premises of subcontractors?

The biggest single problem with Kyoto is who and how to do the sums.

You suggest it was a bankers treaty, well it might be. The problem is bankers never did understand bookkeeping and Kyoto bookkeeping means

“Start with an estimate of an opinion add an assumption, plus or minus an error factor….. and end up with whatever number you really wanted, regardless of the truth”.

Keep on posting, yours is the most sensible comment I have heard about Kyoto.

Untutored mind “Nuclear does not drive cars!”

Yes but apparently you can use it to produce hydrogen (and oxygen ) for use in fuel cells which you can use in cars.

Shifting back into optimist mode, I will trust to the ingenuity of man to resolve what the "worry warts" are presently predicting as the end of the world as we know it. A contraceptive in an airborne spray to dust the developing world with and stop the breeders from overpopulating maybe

Col Rouge,
Yes nuclear can drive cars. Hydrogen to fuel cells to cars has
a very poor EROEI (Energy returned on energy invested, you will see
these initials a lot soon). Electricity to battery is better and can be topped up with solar cells.
I went to the electric car ralley on Sunday
and while there was only about eight cars there it was very educational,
to me anyway. There was a commercially availble conversion on display.

"you don't strengthen the weak by weakening the strong". Amen to that .

In my casual search for potentially more owner friendly pastures I came across a line in a NZ natural resource management document that stated something to the effect of , ‘This fulfills our commitments to agenda 21 of the 1992 Rio earth summit .’ A bit of googling of agenda 21 & I found where our BS water management & land clearing brainwaves may have originated .

Why can’t our government be so honest ?

The above may not seem connected to the current global warming / Kyoto non debate , However parallels exist in regard to who is asked to give something up / pay & who is not . Some interesting reading may be found from agenda 21 & millennium development project .

We should be very careful laying down good intentions , Lest we end up with a good intention paved road .

Remember only a couple of months ago we were doomed to return to the dark ages by peak oil , Now all of a sudden we’re all doomed to fry or drown or something from global warming . A bit rich .

I do seem to remember Howard returning from a UN feel good session saying its time now to deal with global poverty .

Of course efforts to reduce pollution for the sake of reducing pollution are great but I see no reason for committing ourselves to targets for particular types of pollution , If the issue is cleaning up our act we can do that by ourselves , Our own way .

To end , Regardless of what government & the media seem to portray Australia is a signatory to Kyoto.

Latest news: "Fifteen of the world's largest financial institutions are warning that extreme weather linked to climate change could cost more than $1 trillion a year by the year 2040."

Yeah, we wouldn't want to hurt our economic bottom line by reducing emission now would we.

Plerdsus et al.

I would like to add to your observations about coal because there is the same idiotic routine in regard to timber.

If we chop down all our forests and send the pulp to Japan we cop the penalty, they dont, because it is he who cuts the tree down who pays.

So what do the Japanese do,they create credits for themselves by using the profits from the pulp to buy up land in Oz upon which they grow vast areas of blue gum, which when cut down we become the losers, yet again. But because they planted the Greenhouse absorbing forest, they get credits.

The whole coal timber credits/debits scheme under Kyoto is truely bizarre, yet almost daily we have to put up with that hypocrite Henry from the XYZ fund urging us to sign up to Kyoto, be cop further penalties, and by the way make a donation to our coffers.

Coming on top of a bevy of academics telling us that AGW will as likely worse, (based upon the flimsiest of evidence), the whole thing is truely bizarre

Plerdsus

Are your comments about coal correct, in that is it the case that if Japan burns our coal, in Japan, we still get the blame.

Do you have a reference for this please.

Plerdsus.

In the event that you do check back in to this article, and the question I asked of you above,I have found the answer myself from the AGO.

You are not correct with your comments, because the coal we export to Japan which is burnt over there, is to their account, not ours.

There are however, measures called fugitive emissions which flow from the mining operation itself, ie exposing the coal seam to air.

The thing is still dopey in that for coal it is he who burns it, cops the flack, but if it is timber it is he who chops it down in the first place, cops it. Given that we know exactly the tonnages of wood chip exported each year, letting the recipient off in this is way, is a pathetic piece of public policy. Not very bright at all.Poor dears.

"global carbon tax and a global carbon emission trading scheme"
I haven't read the protocol! The above it seems is an important part thereof I understand, for Johny is investigating his own way of implementing it. The protocol was never intended to be the end of all solutions, rather a beginning.
If we believe at all in market forces surely it's a start, maybe a proof that the the market is what so many proclaim it to be, whether we sign or not will mean we are in the discussion or not.
China and India I presume have priorities and without the investment from the world to change those priorities they too will stay out of the discussion.
Carbon trading is the markets answer, a side issue is clean air.

What to believe in a world of obfuscation?
fluff