"The Kyoto Protocol was established precisely because the “aspirational” commitment in the 1991 framework failed to halt the spiralling rise in global greenhouse pollution. Binding targets are the way to cut emissions."

They have worked soooo well to date. ;)

"It’s time for Australia to do the right thing by the rest of the world - and by future generations - and ratify the Kyoto Protocol before the post-2012 climate negotiations in December."

Whats the point...India and China will obliterate our cuts in less than a week. Besides the temperature of the Southern Hemisphere is the same as it was in 1978 when satellites first started measuring global temps.

Didn't you know, Alzo, Australia won't do the right thing unless George Dubya says so.

Howard however has proven to be a mixture between a colonial statesman looking to follow a higher power rather than lead in global decisions, yet a champion at coming in on the grouter in his home base, as he is proving against the Greenies and Dem's.

Cheers - BB, WA

BACKWARDS and DANGEROUS in it's broader context.

Village Farmers and our regional domestic trade markets gained nothing from APEC... not even a mention.

The "safety" issues be they food or security reflected a specific lack of knowledge from the Federal Liberal Government.

Floods, Earthquakes and Conflict determine the local enviornment in the smaller economies. We didn't address these issues and nor anything constructive in relation to Human Rights for those with less and suffering.

I see the talks a one-sided - as a poor show on the future, unless you belong to the mining resource sectors. APEC given the resource cost... gave nothing back.

APEC needs to be reformed and I believe Rudd for his humanitarian awareness would have had a different sort of APEC... deliverying a balance of gain both in through larger and smaller trade deals.

We as the outsiders also would have learnt more about ther local pressing issues faced by each of the economies as the transparency in the MEDIA might of had more to tell - given the restrictions and what we actual saw....

.

The problem that is faced by the proponents of the kyoto protocol is that if only 50% of the emitters reduce their consumption of carbon, the price of carbon goes down, and the others increase their consumption.

The end result is that the compliant nations pay a heavy economic price and end up subsidising the non compliant nations.
Excluding China and India makes the kyoto protocol pointless.

China and India, should face lesser targets, but making them exempt is suicide.

Australia can't lead at all on climate change and the very notion that we could is an example of delusional thinking. We do not have enough weight in the world to "lead" on ANYTHING of global importance.

If you want to know the meaning of "folie de grandeur" Don Henry's article may be the defining example

"Folie de grandeur" indeed.

Why bugger up ones economy to achieve an outcome that will have a trivial impact upon a problem that they cant properly define, that is itself based upon science that the IPCC says the bulk of which they have only a low level of scientific understanding (LOSU),of the main components.

What sort of negotiators leave out the biggest emitters because they are classed as developing countries, and should be given free kicks when their development is a consequence of the risks and efforts made by those who are now classed as developed. To completely separate the issue between developed and yet to be developed, just shows what a folie it all is anyway.

What sort of system is it that says that if you chop a tree down you cop the penalty (eg wood chips to Japan) but if you dig coal up and export it, it is the user that pays the penalty.

Don Henry in his previous document to OLO was getting all hot and bothered over the Tasmanian wood chip industry, but is now getting all hot and bothered over not signing Kyoto, when that will probably make the wood chipping position even worse.

It might be more credible if these self promoting gad flies could be even a little consistent.