Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Kyoto protocol’

Andrew Bolt thinks Kevin Rudd is throwing money away for no good reason:

Kevin Rudd is determined to ratify the Kyoto Protocol despite knowing it will probably cost us billions

In fact, by ratifying Kyoto, Rudd will instantly commit us to paying a $1.6 billion fine in carbon credits (correction: $160 million. See Update 3 below) unless we manage to get back under our target. That’s based on the European price last week of $26.85 for carbon credits for each tonne of CO2.

So why is Rudd signing away our cash?

Of course, Bolt believes global warming is not occurring, so he can see no reason at all to risk any fines or to attempt to reduce greenhouse emissions. Which means that he continues to question why Rudd has ratified Kyoto, despite the fact that he gave the answer himself:

In fact, by ratifying Kyoto, Rudd will instantly commit us to paying a $1.6 billion fine in carbon credits (correction: $160 million. See Update 3 below) unless we manage to get back under our target.

If you start from an assumption that global warming is not happening, then what Rudd has done is the equivalent of putting a few thousand dollars on a horse at 200-to-1 – but without the possibility of winning back hundreds of thousands of dollars.

But if you start from the position that the preponderance of scientific evidence supports the notion that global warming is occurring and that a proximate cause is the production of greenhouse gases by human activities, then things look a bit different. Rudd is tying our financial well-being to our effectiveness in contributing to the well-being of the environment. He is moving toward ensuring that Australia, including its householders and its corporations, have a vested interest in reducing our impact on the world. And he is making up for lost time.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Action!

Let’s get this party started.

Read Full Post »

The GG are going all out to discredit Peter Garrett and tag Kevin Rudd for another backflip relating to Labor’s position on Kyoto. Says the Editor-at-Large:

Welcome to Labor’s climate change policy chaos. While John Howard can be attacked for not ratifying Kyoto, he does more importantly have a post-2012 policy that is sensible and his minister, Malcolm Turnbull, does know what it is.

Except, of course, that Turnbull apparently doesn’t agree with the pre-2012 policy. Kelly also writes off Kyoto as a failure (if so, which is questionable to say the least, the US and Australia have helped to make that so), asserts that Australia is leading an “umbrella group” of industrialised nations (leading toward “aspirational targets”, and leading from the rear), and suggests that Garrett’s position threw away any coherent negotiating position, but that Rudd’s reframed position is a “me too” of Howard on climate change.

Shanahan (with Patricia Karvelas) gets into the act as well:

China’s President Hu Jintao and US President George W. Bush both agreed to the Sydney declaration on greenhouse gas emissions. Mr Garrett’s concession on not seeking binding targets on developing countries would allow China to back away from the Sydney declaration and avoid binding targets from the UN process on climate change beginning in Bali in December.

Except that the Sydney declaration did not commit anyone to binding targets anyway.

Labor certainly hasn’t been handling climate change well and Garrett is not putting in a flawless performance, but the GG’s assertion that Team Howard has a coherent and world-leading position that will inevitably bring us toward binding emission targets for all is nonsense. If you’re going to smack a party for internal contradictions and flawed policy positions, have the decency to apply the same approach to all parties.

There’s more discussion on this going on at Larvatus Prodeo, where the consensus appears to be that this is, and should be treated as, a minor issue rather than a major gaffe.

Meanwhile, Mark Vaile has made his own contribution of climate change skepticism, demonstrating just what leadership the Coalition can be expected to provide on this issue.

Read Full Post »

Dolly goes topsy-turvy

So, Malaysia ratified the Kyoto protocol on 4th September, 2002, has committed to join the successor to Kyoto, and its government has been proactive in dealing with climate change. But when its Trade Minister suggested that Australia and the United States were grandstanding in their push for an APEC climate change agreement, what was Dolly’s response?

“I think in the end Malaysia will agree with us that the issue of climate change is a very important issue and needs to be addressed,” he said.

“It needs to be addressed by the world community and Australia is part of the world, and so is Malaysia, and so is China and the United States.”

Yes, I think in the end they will agree with you – because you will have begun to agree with them.

Read Full Post »