New Aussie PM ratifies Kyoto

forge · Post by **forge** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:59 am

http://au.news.yahoo.com/071109/2/14w3o.html

1st act in Government!

majestic · Post by **majestic** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:27 am

Fucking *brilliant*!!! Wow...this has made my day. Better late than never...

sparklepuff · Post by **sparklepuff** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:32 am

I wish we could join you.

ilia · Post by **ilia** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:17 am

sparklepuff wrote:I wish we could join you.

what's the opposite of hell freezes over? I think that's when you're likely to see 2/3 majority of the US senate in favor of Kyoto. maybe.

chrysalis33rpm · Post by **chrysalis33rpm** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:28 am

Oh, it'll only take another Katrina before Americans start demanding action on climate change.

Good news, Forge.

BTW, the American congress looks poised to pass some *fairly* agressive legislation on fuel efficiency and renewables. It's not nearly enough to get the job done, but it is a stepping stone to something better. (Can you believe that milage standards haven't been improved since the 1980s?)

forge · Post by **forge** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:55 am

chrysalis33rpm wrote:Oh, it'll only take another Katrina before Americans start demanding action on climate change.

Good news, Forge.

BTW, the American congress looks poised to pass some *fairly* agressive legislation on fuel efficiency and renewables. It's not nearly enough to get the job done, but it is a stepping stone to something better. (Can you believe that milage standards haven't been improved since the 1980s?)

I saw "who killed the electric car" on the plane last year - my god that was depressing - California was totally on track with charge stations all over the place and people were buying them and liking them and they could have really taken off, but the Oil company goons got to the Cali. Govt and they chickened out - all the cars were then taken back and destroyed - they were all leased so no one was allowed to keep theirs

M. Bréqs · Post by **M. Bréqs** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:13 am

Why do "environmentalists" (intentional use of quotes) support a program that allows some of the fastest growing polluters to continue their output increases?

Why do they support a program that gives disincentive to Western industry to clean up, by offering a short-term alternative like buying carbon credits from poor countries that allows them to invest in more polluting technology?

Why not support simple legislated caps on carbon emissions, instead of a global ponzi-scheme?

I'm an environmentalist. A real one, rather than some yuppie living in a big ass house with "Kyoto" bumperstickers on each of his two cars, who takes a half a dozen trans-atlantic flights for "eco-tourism". I even voted Green Party from time to time (though not right now, the leader of the Canadian Greens is a wacko).

Real environmentalists don't support Kyoto. It's only going to make the problem worse.

forge · Post by **forge** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:18 am

it's a start

you cant really say by not doing it they are helping

how is not signing helping?

in 20 years our kids and grand kids will probably look back on us as the selfish generation who couldnt be arsed

leaders are meeting in Bali right now to work out the next one to follow Kyoto when it expires in 2012

M. Bréqs · Post by **M. Bréqs** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:54 am

forge wrote:it's a start

you cant really say by not doing it they are helping

how is not signing helping?

in 20 years our kids and grand kids will probably look back on us as the selfish generation who couldnt be arsed

leaders are meeting in Bali right now to work out the next one to follow Kyoto when it expires in 2012

...And I'll support it if the plan is based on hard targets applicable to all signatories, rather than carbon trading etc.

As far as "it's a start" goes, well, I disagree. When you want to get from Chicago to New York, you don't head in the direction of Los Angeles. Kyoto is taking us in the wrong direction, commodifying carbon emissions. Hard caps are the only way to go. Now that people (and countries) have invested heavily in a carbon trading market, there's too much money going around to ever end it.

It would be like abolishing the stock market. Too many people would lose all their money, and they'll never let that happen. By allowing the trading of carbon, we have assured that there will never be hard caps, because that will limit the carbon offset market's growth potential.

Kyoto was never about the environment, it was always about state-welfare and wealth redistribution. That's a legitimate goal to some people (not to me, but I digress)... But don't dress it up as environmentalism and tell me that it's not pure undiluted global socialism. That's dishonest, and for the environment, counter-productive.

As for Australia, good luck with implementation.

noisetonepause · Post by **noisetonepause** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:07 pm

I'll have to agree with Rambo here: carbon credit trading is bollocks.

Brakes need pulling, and Kyoto seems like a compromise.

PS: Congrats on getting rid of John Coward (the hunt), though!

forge · Post by **forge** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:23 pm

noisetonepause wrote: PS: Congrats on getting rid of John Coward (the hunt), though!

that's the main thing I'm celebrating

and whateer the ins and outs of Kyoto, the point is that it was the FIRST thing Rudd did in office - and before that the first thing he did after the election was give all his ministers homework to go to 2 homeless shelters and 2 schools in their electorate to get the first hand take on what is needed...yes, yes I know cue cynicism etc blah blah but I'll take that over Howard any day

the ONLY thing the Howard govt ever talked about was money and economy - they probably did a good job at that, but they were like Thatcherite bulls in a china shop with it and I'm glad the new mob are taking more of an interest in other things with more social intentions

anyway, I know it's all really shit and no one is really any good and we're all doomed etc etc etc, but let me enjoy this little moment of hope, they dont come along that often

and having this dude as environment minister is never a bad thing in my books:

udp · Post by **udp** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:28 pm

Two questions. 1) What if we all sign on to Kyoto and the global warming disasters that we're "all" so afraid of never happens? 2) What if we all sign on to Kyoto and follow it to the "T" and global warming disasters happen anyway?

forge · Post by **forge** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:35 pm

udp wrote:Two questions. 1) What if we all sign on to Kyoto and the global warming disasters that we're "all" so afraid of never happens? 2) What if we all sign on to Kyoto and follow it to the "T" and global warming disasters happen anyway?

well, if we're on a sinking ship, should we set it on fire too to make it all over quicker?

it's getting to the point where it's getting pretty hard to ignore that emissions are having an effect - the latest report was pretty damning

we have to do something

chrysalis33rpm · Post by **chrysalis33rpm** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:39 pm

forge wrote:
chrysalis33rpm wrote:Oh, it'll only take another Katrina before Americans start demanding action on climate change.

Good news, Forge.

BTW, the American congress looks poised to pass some *fairly* agressive legislation on fuel efficiency and renewables. It's not nearly enough to get the job done, but it is a stepping stone to something better. (Can you believe that milage standards haven't been improved since the 1980s?)
I saw "who killed the electric car" on the plane last year - my god that was depressing - California was totally on track with charge stations all over the place and people were buying them and liking them and they could have really taken off, but the Oil company goons got to the Cali. Govt and they chickened out - all the cars were then taken back and destroyed - they were all leased so no one was allowed to keep theirs

Yeah, I saw that one, it was depressing, shit.

As for Kyoto - haven't studied it enough to have an opinion, other than "it seems like a step in the right direction" (note the intentional use of quotes).

As for carbon trading, its like anything else, its all in the details of the implementation. Its not a socialist plot Breqs, calm down. Of course it can be gamed to favor the poor countries selling credits to rich corporations, just like democracy can be gamed by selling votes. I like the idea of hard caps but its just not politically feasible yet. Maybe after Katrina 2 and gas hits 8 bucks a gallon.

Paws- a compromise is still better than no action at all, and is pretty much what you get in politics, right?

I am all for any of our brave wealthy countries to self-impose a hard cap, but don't give me the Bushie line that China and India have to take cuts if we're gonna take any. They were exploited by the West for centuries and now face major challenges just feeding, housing, and clothing their populations. Lets make some room for them to grow by consuming less space ourselves - that would be some real leadership. Its obvious that as a society develops a broad middle class which educates its women* as well as its men (*actually a key point), it's birthrate drops dramatically and its population begins to insist on quality air, water, and open space - so it is not hypocritical for an environmentalist to want rapid economic development in the third world. What we should be doing is everything we can to promote the development of sustainable energy sources which are cheaper than fossil fuel (hello Google!), and encouraging their deployment, enabling the third world to leapfrog technologies, much as they have done with the telephone (using celllular towers instead of landlines because its cheaper).

If the West doesn't show the guts to solve this problem, guess what - China or India WILL. But right now, they are occupied with more basic concerns, and we can't really afford to wait another day, can we? Besides, it would be embarassing if they beat us to the punch.

chrysalis33rpm · Post by **chrysalis33rpm** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:49 pm

udp wrote:Two questions. 1) What if we all sign on to Kyoto and the global warming disasters that we're "all" so afraid of never happens? 2) What if we all sign on to Kyoto and follow it to the "T" and global warming disasters happen anyway?

Reasonable questions which can be answered with a slight amount of research:

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.

Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized, although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century (pages 13 and 18 )[13].

The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.

World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century (table 3) and that:
Sea levels will probably rise by 18 to 59 cm (7.08 to 23.22 in) [table 3].
There is a confidence level >90% that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall.

There is a confidence level >66% that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.

Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.

Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the past 650,000 years
In IPCC statements "most" means greater than 50%, "likely" means at least a 66% likelihood, and "very likely" means at least a 90% likelihood.