Perhaps I'm being somewhat naive but I never saw the point of Kyoto in the last couple of years for a simple reason: All of the publicity on AGW says that it's the level of CO2 in the atmosphere which is causing global warming, yet Kyoto wasn't about actively lowering CO2 levels - it was simply about controlling how much more CO2 we put into the air.

In this, there seems to be a huge contradiction.

If the levels of CO2 are actually the problem (Don Aitkin doesn't seem to believe that it is, but that's not my point) then why aren't we making a big effort to remove the excess CO2 from the air? Why aren't we focussing on the technologies which could actively remove this excess? Why are we making all this hoo-ha about how much more CO2 we put into the air?

Why would Liberal Party take Australia for all it's worth? Because Howard and who he serves are pessimists, believing they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

The Liberal Party showed they don't care about anybody but themselves when they chose not to apologise to Indigenous Australia for past doings like the Stolen Generation.

It seems that non-Labor voters will soon be exhausted saying, "I told you so". Even dyed in the wool Laborites are already begining to see Rudd Labor for what it is.

This is a really poor analysis.

I mean, did the author not even know that Downer was involved with Kyoto drafting as a prospective partner, and that Howard had negotiated toughly precisely so as to position itself to accede? Those negotiations gave Australia huge leeway because of the severely reduced targets, making the calculus of Australia's emissions almost irrelevant. The only substantive thing that happened to change the situation was the election of GWB - who was a vehemently anti-Kyoto. So, to attempt to attribute what was a change of heart (and not a consistent position) to some nebulous sense of fairness is absurd. Clearly it was the political dynamic of the alliance which caused Howard to harden on the Kyoto along with all the adopted Republican talking points that came with it.

Also, can I just say - you don't have to view Kyoto as a panacea to see the utility in signing - that's a strawman. Clearly a universal structure is better than no structured global response. Ratification also entitles participants to shape the successor system, and demonstrates leadership, which in turn leverage other nations, and isolates defectors. That's why the article's attempt to justify our non-ratification by citing the US is so farcical. Australia's ratification was so political precisely because in mirroring the US, we gave political cover for them to do nothing. Lamenting US non-participation is itself a sound reason to ratify.

BN to some extent Nature can absorb manmade CO2 additions if they are drastically slowed and we have not gone past a 'tipping point' with feedback like a microphone in front of a loudspeaker. However the exact limits are still being discussed.

Rudd is to be praised for confronting China with its greenhouse record but has yet to take tough action at home. I'd argue that Australia has considerable international clout as the main coal exporter and owner of 40% of the world's uranium. If (ever)we have carbon cuts at home I think coal and LNG export customers should make the same cuts. Yellowcake exports could be contingent on proven carbon cuts in the importing country, provided they meet several other criteria.

A phenomenon that has emerged since Howard's departure is the dramatic increase in prices for coal, oil and gas. Energy costs are going up even without forced carbon pricing. Whether this alone will lead to conservation and increased renewables is hard to say. Rudd and Garnaut must devise a scheme that steers a middle course, neither recessionary nor carbon prolonging.

Howard was right for the wrong reasons
he never explained the science for CO2 problems is still to be done
Micro bioligy, genetic engineering, still require much research not to mention sub atomic reseach (even the equiptment not yet built and/or operational yet) then simper things like under sea info

lets just do simple things that work and get more interested in current issues like nuclear disamament, Stop all religious wars, and help the developing countries advance.

genernal efforts to reduce all polution to continue and still needs advice and publicity based on science and progress

What I can't fathom is why Howard did not sign up to Kyoto some months before the election, and thereby negate it as a vote loser.

Then in Feb 2008, or sometime after, leave the Kyoto agreement as he would have been able to, because in Feb 2008 the three year moratorium would have expired, permitting all signatories to opt out.

Perhaps he wasnt that cynical after all.

Because Howard, unlike Kevin Rudd, was not a flashy populist politician to go along the stream but had the political and moral fortitude to go against it. His four major policies, of the GST, the war in Iraq, immigration, and industrial legislation, were most unpopular among the electorate, but he had the strength of character to implement them because he believed they were beneficial to the long term interests of the country.

http://kotzabasis8.wordpress.com

That is wrong: “Tackling climate change is widely acknowledged to be one of the greatest policy challenges facing the international policy community”. Not “tackling” but “adapting” to climate change the task is as my English allows understanding the difference between “adopt” and “adapt”. And not my only English-as-second-language is confused with these words as clear from the reading of articles by some high-race-belonging native speakers of.

It seems Mr. J.Howrad’s approach was lacking anything decreasing the mates’ profiting with even elementarily-precautionary environmentally-supportive practical investment suggesting.

Well said Themistocles and bigmal. John Howard- a man true to himself.

I await Keveryman's quotas on coking coal at $350 a tonne.

"GST, the war in Iraq, immigration, and industrial legislation"
Er. Except none of these were good for the country, and he was finally voted out on the last? Apart from GST, all are in the process of being repealed...

It would be nice to know which of these anonymous internet users who have posted on this article are in the pay of a political party, or who are a member of a political party.

Disclaimer: I am a member of NO political party and any points of view are entirely of my own volition, my own brain cells, and with no public agenda, except to make my personal point of view known.

Howard did not adequately explain his quite reasonable views about Kyoto to the electorate, who were themselves controlled by a kind of media driven "madness of the crowds".

The frenzy has now died down.

Its fine for commentators to look back with a kind of cool logic, but at the time of the election you could be crucified for not being a Kyoto believer.

And Howard was.

And I wait your comment on my comments, palimpsest.