The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The Election about … Something > Comments

The Election about … Something : Comments

By David Ritter, published 15/11/2007

Latham's comments on the Seinfeld election are seriously flawed: the differences between Rudd and Howard are clear and critical.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All
JA,

Signing Kyoto may very well have significant effect on global warming as it will put political pressure on the US to sign. As it stands only the US and Australia are being stubborn about this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kyoto_Protocol_participation_map_2005.png

(Participation in the Kyoto Protocol: green indicates countries that have signed and ratified the treaty, yellow indicates those that have signed and hope to ratify it, and red indicates those that have signed but not ratified it.)

Sometimes showing leadership is sufficient even if the gross effect is not great. For example, New Zealand's decision to give women the vote in national elections. Not many women worldwide were given the vote as a result of this decision; but the net effect was great.

Lev, signing Kyoto will have exactly nil effect on global warming (not a single signatory is on track to meet their emmissions reduction targets, most have actually gone up), Labor has committed to bring "some" of the troops home but has not set a timeline and all the currently existing AWA's will still be in force for several years.

Doesn't matter who you vote for you won't notice the difference in a year.
Posted by JA
Posted by Lev, Monday, 19 November 2007 11:22:45 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Lev,

Of the 172 countries that have signed and ratified Kyoto only 34 actually committed to reduce their emmissions (Russia, NZ and the Ukraine committed to no increase - but no reduction either).

Notable signatories who committed to do absolutely nothing include - Mexico, Brasil, China, India, Malaysia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, South Korea, Chile, Peru, Pakistan and Indonesia. Taiwan did not even get that far, they are described as having ("no position as yet"). I haven't done the math but I suspect that this list probably represents about 3 to 4 billion people, roughly half or two thirds of the earth's population.

Kyoto is not a panacea for global warming. By any reasonable measure it has been a crashing failure. Less than 20% of the counties who have signed and ratified have committed to anything and most of those still have rising emissions levels. Kyoto has been around since 1998 and now almost ten years on, what has it actually achieved? Bugger all. "Decisive action on climate change" means we actually need to physically do something!!

Signing dismally flawed Protocols has not produced any results in nearly a decade. Time to forget about signing documents and start pressuring our pollies of all persausions to physically do something.
Posted by JA, Monday, 19 November 2007 12:33:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi JA,

I realise the figures you cite, but the thing is that's the best we can get out the international community thus far. If we can't get them to commit to Kyoto, we certainly can't get them to commit to something stronger.

Essentially the Protocol calls upon wealthy nations to reduce emissions, and allows for developing nations to continue development with a second assessment (in 2012).

It doesn't help that the US and Australia refuse to ratify. This does not provide much-needed international leadership.

Sure, it's no panacea - I don't think anyone suggests that. If the (non-binding) Washington Agreement can improve things that's fine as well.

"Anything that helps" at this stage would be a sound motto; and signing Kyoto certainly isn't going to increase the problem of AGW.
Posted by Lev, Monday, 19 November 2007 1:20:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Climate sceptics have grown very quiet recently. I believe they've come to their senses and realised they're flogging a dead horse.

The majority of Australians must surely realise that Howard, despite his spin, remains a climate sceptic and has no intention of making any difference to the massive emissions in Australia from pollutant industries. No doubt he would respond to my objection by declaring: "It's the economy stupid."

Projections from the resource industry indicate that the boom will continue until around 2021. With the ignominious lack of enforcement to mitigate GHG's, the degradation to our environment will be irreversible.

Where does the nickel go? Or the gold, iron ore, alumina etc? Up the stack of course. Australia's atmosphere is now heavy in particulate matter (PM), coating clouds and inhibiting precipitation, thereby exacerbating drought conditions.

And last year the Iron and Steel industry alone released some 570,000,000 kgs of CO to our atmosphere. That's some 500 million in excess of the CO released from the supply of electricity.

Livestock and feed crops now occupy 58% of Australia's land mass.

I too have a dislike of unions, however, voters must realise that the return of a Liberal government, exploiting our fragile environment, will tip us into the sea.

Tomorrow's political aspirants had this to say about the serious issue of anthropogenic emissions:

Climate Change

Moved by NSW
Passed at Federal Council 2007, Melbourne

The Young Liberal Movement of Australia: Policy Platform on the Environment: 2007

"Supports the introduction of nuclear power as a clean alternative energy source

"Recognises the lack of scientific consensus regarding both the existence and impact of man-made global warming

"Recognises the problems inherent in the politicisation of scientific research

"Calls upon the Federal Government to not take any drastic action to address alleged man made global warming until there is conclusive scientific evidence of its existence.

"Supports the Federal Government's current stance to not ratify the Kyoto Protocol."

The environment and the economy make odd bedfellows. Considerations to both must be in equitable proportions. Unfortunately it is not and we all know which fellows share Mr Howard's bed.
Posted by dickie, Tuesday, 20 November 2007 7:04:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Very briefly:

My own article in response to Mark Latham's second article in the Financial Review of Satarday 17 November may be of interest. It's called "Mark Latham's political Gift to John Howard" and it can be found on Margo Kingston's Web Diary at http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2195
Posted by daggett, Saturday, 1 December 2007 1:10:08 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy