"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.

Rudd is a disgusting hypocrite. All his grovelling to Hu Jin Tao will not mask the fact that Rudd made no request for the Chinese to limit their emissions when he met them at APEC. So if it is OK for the worlds biggest emitter to ignore Kyoto Ugly then why is it not OK for Australia to do the same?

A lot of posts on this forum go on about John Howard grovelling to George Bush but the simple facts are that our values are very similar. Behind the veneer there is no such common ground with a country that sells the body parts of soon to be executed prisoners and then sends the bill for the bullet to the grieving family.

And as for grovelling, you ain't seen nothin yet if Kevie gets his nose up uncle Hu's backside.

Rather than leading from behind Australia as Don Henry is postulating, Australia is actually trying to lead from the front and showing that it is prepared to stand up to the Euro Shonks and some of their half baked ideas.

But the way our forests are being exported as wood chip with bugger all value add and leaving us with the carbon debt, would not change one tot if the timber was turned into something more permanent, such as timber frames and floors where it would last for nearly a hundred years as locked up carbon.

Oh no that wont do, the carbon accounting rules dont allow for that.
It has to be converted into chip and exported in bulk to Japan where they release the carbon, but to our detriment.

All that Henry and his ilk are showing is that the clowns are in charge of the circus anyway.

The Kyoto protocol was, is and forever will be a failed and unsuccessful agreement. As soon as people like Don Henry and the other green activists who are more anti-development than pro-environment agree to abandon Kyoto in exchange for a global agreement that will achieve 50% or more cuts in GHG emissions, then we have a chance at saving the planet. Until this happens, the accusation that Henry, his organisation and others like them are simply playing local politics will remain valid and indefensible.

The APEC outcome was far from perfect but at least it included the USA and China: a significant achievement from which we can start to build a global agreement that has greater likelihood of working.

Bernie Masters,

"The APEC outcome was far from perfect but at least it included the USA and China: a significant achievement from which we can start to build a global agreement that has greater likelihood of working."

Well put Bernie.

Assuming of course that the problem, as yet quite inadequately defined, is actually worth the cost, and those put in charge of the program have more than two neurones to rub together.

It is as sure as hell already too bit much to ask from cretin central, the IPCC, where the lowest common denominator is the standard