http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Indonesia-is-No-3-greenhouse-gas-emitter/2007/06/04/1180809417003.html

Indonesia is among the world's top three greenhouse gas emitters because of deforestation, peatland degradation and forest fires, a new World Bank and British government climate change report shows.

An increase of global temperatures has already resulted in prolonged drought, heavy rainfall leading to floods and tidal waves in Indonesia, putting the archipelago's rich biodiversity at risk, the report said.

Indonesia's total annual carbon dioxide emissions stand at 3.014 billion tonnes, putting it behind the United States, which is the world's top emitter with 6.005 billion tonnes and China at 5.017 billion tonnes, according to data from the report.

Indonesia's yearly carbon dioxide emissions from energy, agriculture and waste are around 451 million tonnes while forestry and land use change are estimated to account for a staggering 2.563 billion tonnes, the report, Indonesia and Climate Change: Current Status and Policies, said.

Indonesia's rainforests are being stripped rapidly because of illegal logging and palm oil plantations for bio-fuels and some environmentalists say they could be wiped out altogether within the next 15 years.

According to some estimates, the tropical South-East Asian country - whose forests are a treasure trove of plant and animal species including the endangered orangutans - has already lost an estimated 72 per cent of its original frontier forest.

Forest fires, often deliberately lit by farmers as well as timber and oil palm plantation owners, are a regular occurrence on the Indonesian islands of Sumatra and Borneo during the dry season.

Indonesia's neighbours have grown increasingly frustrated with Jakarta's failure to tackle the annual dry season fires, which last year triggered fears of a repeat of months of choking haze in 1997-98 that cost the region billions in economic losses.

"Indonesia's lowland tropical forests, the richest in timber resources and biodiversity, are most at risk," said the report. "Fires from peatland have become the largest contributor to haze, which is also a major source of carbon emission."

Indonesia will host the next annual Kyoto Protocol meeting on the resort island of Bali in December.

In 2004, Indonesia ratified the protocol, which requires about 35 developed countries to lower their emissions to below their 1990 levels between 2008-2012. Developing nations are excluded from the emissions cuts during the first phase.

Which all adds up to demonstrate the futility of the Kyoto protocol.

Indonesia would have only signed because it gives them an economic advantage (they are not a nation renowned for their forward thinking nor diplomacy) while giving them an 'out' because most of the 35 developed nations haven't been able to meet anywhere near their targets anyway

Australia was correct in not ratifying the agreement IMHO.

IQSRLOW wrote on Jun 4^th, 2007 at 8:43pm:

Which all adds up to demonstrate the futility of the Kyoto protocol. Indonesia would have only signed because it gives them an economic advantage (they are not a nation renowned for their forward thinking nor diplomacy) while giving them an 'out' because most of the 35 developed nations haven't been able to meet anywhere near their targets anyway Australia was correct in not ratifying the agreement IMHO.

I disagree with the refusal of Australia to ratify the KYOTO protocol..to say it is futile is a retrospective , backward thinking comment.

To give you an idea, China and India will build 800 coal fired power plants over the life of Kyoto. These extra emissions alone will be a minimum of 5 times the overall reduction that Kyoto would achieve (and that is if all nations actually met their targets)

To give you an idea, China and India will build 800 coal fired power plants over the life of Kyoto. These extra emissions alone will be a minimum of 5 times the overall reduction that Kyoto would achieve (and that is if all nations actually met their targets)


Well a link to a relevant article would be appreciated IQ..

IQ I don't think the failure of poorer nations, who emit far less per capita than we do, is a reasonable excuse for us not to participate in international agreements. How can you argue that it would give Indonesia an economic advantage if they can't emit as much per person as we can?

IQSRLOW - I agree entirely.
people are making targets with no idea of how to get there, what effects they may cause, if it will benefit anything at all.
Gives them an excuse to fly all around the world on big salaries and have meetings though.

Possibly indonesias effects are the worst. Given they they are chopping down and burning forests.

people are making targets with no idea of how to get there

You sure about that? No idea at all?

Background on kyoto

See also: Global warming
The Kyoto Protocol is an agreement made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Countries that ratify this protocol commit to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases, or engage in emissions trading if they maintain or increase emissions of these gases.

The Kyoto Protocol now covers more than 160 countries globally and over 55% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

At its heart, the Kyoto Protocol establishes the following principles:

Kyoto is underwritten by governments and is governed by global legislation enacted under the UN’s aegis
Governments are separated into two general categories: developed countries, referred to as Annex I countries (who have accepted GHG emission reduction obligations and must submit an annual greenhouse gas inventory); and developing countries, referred to as Non-Annex I countries (who have no GHG emission reduction obligations but may participate in the Clean Development Mechanism).
Any Annex I country that fails to meet its Kyoto obligation will be penalized by having to submit 1.3 emission allowances in a second commitment period for every ton of GHG emissions they exceed their cap in the first commitment period (i.e, 2008-2012).
By 2008-2012, Annex I countries have to reduce their GHG emissions by an average of 5% below their 1990 levels (for many countries, such as the EU member states, this corresponds to some 15% below their expected GHG emissions in 2008). While the average emissions reduction is 5%, national limitations range from 8% reductions for the European Union to a 10% emissions increase for Iceland; but since the EU intends to meet its obligation by distributing different rates among its member states,[4] much larger increases (up to 27%) are allowed for some of the less developed EU countries (see below #Increase in GHG emission since 1990). Reduction limitations expire in 2013.
Kyoto includes "flexible mechanisms" which allow Annex I economies to meet their GHG emission limitation by purchasing GHG emission reductions from elsewhere. These can be bought either from financial exchanges (such as the new unrelated-to-Kyoto EU Emissions Trading Scheme) or from projects which reduce emissions in non-Annex I economies under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), or in other Annex-1 countries under the JI.
Only CDM Executive Board-accredited Certified Emission Reductions (CER) can be bought and sold in this manner. Under the aegis of the UN, Kyoto established this Bonn-based Clean Development Mechanism Executive Board to assess and approve projects (“CDM Projects”) in Non-Annex I economies prior to awarding CERs. (A similar scheme called “Joint Implementation” or “JI” applies in transitional economies mainly covering the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe).
What this means in practice is that Non-Annex I economies have no GHG emission restrictions, but when a GHG emission reduction project (a “GHG Project”) is implemented in these countries, that GHG Project will receive Carbon Credit which can be sold to Annex I buyers.

The Kyoto linking mechanisms are in place for two main reasons:

the cost of complying with Kyoto is prohibitive[citation needed] for many[citation needed] Annex I countries (especially those countries, such as Japan or the Netherlands for example, with highly efficient, low GHG polluting industries, and high prevailing environmental standards). Kyoto therefore allows these countries to purchase Carbon Credits instead of reducing GHG emissions domestically; and,
this is seen as a means of encouraging Non-Annex I developing economies to reduce GHG emissions since doing so is now economically viable because of the sale of Carbon Credits.
All the Annex I economies have established Designated National Authorities to manage their GHG portfolios under Kyoto. Countries including Japan, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Spain and many more, are actively promoting government carbon funds and supporting multilateral carbon funds intent on purchasing Carbon Credits from Non-Annex I countries. These government organizations are working closely with their major utility, energy, oil & gas and chemicals conglomerates to try to acquire as many GHG Certificates as cheaply as possible.

Virtually all of the Non-Annex I countries have also set up their own Designated National Authorities to manage the Kyoto process (and specifically the “CDM process” whereby these host government entities decide which GHG Projects they do or do not wish to support for accreditation by the CDM Executive Board).

The objectives of these opposing groups are quite different. Annex I entities want Carbon Credits as cheaply as possible, whilst Non-Annex I entities want to maximise the value of Carbon Credits generated from their domestic GHG Projects."

An analysis of why Kyoto is flawed by Richard Cooper- Prof of International Economics at Harvard Uni

http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/cooper/papers/Kyotoprotocol.pdf

That is a reason to fix the flaws, not to abandon it.

I'm not saying any and all forms of emissions trading is bad, but Kyoto is not the way forward.

How is Howard's scheme better?

Who said it was?

OK then, how would you improve on kyoto?

It's a conundrum but all emissions need to be on the table.

All emissions? So people should have to pay for the right to fart?

So oceans and freediver, how are they going to reduce the carbons ?
there is all figures, limits, penalties, costs, credits, acronomyns in that posting.
But no ideas on how to reduce GHGs  

To date, kyoto has made more GHGs than it has saved.

To date, kyoto has made more GHGs than it has saved.

That's absurd.

Thanks  :)

kyoto is ineffective and inefficient

look at the GHGs released to get all the bigwigs from all over the world into one meeting.  
They stay in 5 star hotels, get chauffeur driven in limos, have swanky 3 hour lunches.
With no real outcome.
Lots of feelgood words and acrononyms, lambasting countries that do not join the voluntary group.

Howard gets double points for not wasting his time and adding to GHGs.

Do you even know what the outcome was?

The outcome ?
Yes, they all signed bits of paper.

Oh, then they shook hands, patted each other on the back, smiled for piccies, swoppped presents, hopped back into chauffeur driven limosines, got driven back to their 5 star restaurants for a last swanky meal or 3.
And flew back to their honmes 1st class in jets.

Sorry, quite forgetful of me.  Hope they had a good time there at my expense.

You forgot to mention that emitting CO2 in Europe costs about $40 per tonne now.

I agree with IQSRLOW and Sprintcyclist in that Kyoto is ineffective and inefficient, but not for the same reasons. It doesn't work because it doesn't set targets for developing countries, doesn't include the USA, China or India nor does it talk about things like technology or expertise transfer. As well as that, I don't agree with slugging business for GHG emissions and leaving it at just that. Any plan to combat 'Climate Change' has got to be comprehensive and it HAS to include the corporate world. I actually agree with Howard in that we should look for a plan that doesn't impact negatively on the economy. However, considering Canada's Conservative government is implementing a comprehensive plan that includes a 20% reduction in GHG emissions by 2020, that it predicts will have a negative impact on economic growth - in the decimals, Howard shouldn't really be having great difficulty. But then Howard doesn't like change. Especially not climate change.

I don't agree with slugging business for GHG emissions and leaving it at just that. Any plan to combat 'Climate Change' has got to be comprehensive and it HAS to include the corporate world.

What did you mean by that?

freediver wrote on Jun 5^th, 2007 at 12:47pm:

All emissions? So people should have to pay for the right to fart?

Don't be ridiculous.

Under my scheme, anyone who farts would be put to death in gas chambers, ironically using CO2 and because of the demand, giant CO2 generators would be installed...but I will make sure they are powered by wind farms.

Progs - I agree.  
Any push to reduce GHGs has to essentially be instigated by corporations and customers.
Financially the public will pay for it. Any charges to corporations will filter down to customers.

last time I heard, CO2 per ton had a "theoretical" price of $20 - $40.
As set down by an unrealistic committee.
The market price is about $0.06c.  When it is traded.

The market price is about $0.06c.  When it is traded.

Where did you get that from?

I think the radio.

;D

http://www.cheatneutral.com/

Amusing yet comparatively emotionally accurate

IQSRLOW - hahahha
Keeps the karma equal also !!

Good politics forum if you like
lively debate





http://www.debaterelate.com/phpBB2/index.php
[/url]

http://www.getup.org.au/campaign.asp?campaign_id=86

Looks like someone is lost for words.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Australia-Indonesia-in-forest-agreement/2007/09/09/1189276520874.html

Australia and Indonesia have signed a $100 million forestry agreement which aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions by about 700 million tonnes over 30 years.

The Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership aims to preserve 70,000 hectares of peat land forests in Indonesia's Kalimantan region, re-flood 200,000 hectares of dried peat land and plant up to 100 million new trees on rehabilitated peat land for conservation purposes.

It has the potential to reduce greenhouse gases by a greater amount than Australia's total annual emissions.

"The deforestation and burning of Indonesia's vast peat lands is the largest single source of its greenhouse gas emissions," Mr Downer said.

"Greenhouse emissions will not be reduced by posturing and stunts. They will be reduced by effective diplomacy, and the sort of international leadership shown by Australia in driving the establishment of AP6, the Sydney Declaration and this important global initiative."

---

Indonesia to plant 79 million trees

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Indonesia-to-plant-79-million-trees/2007/11/28/1196036984864.html

Indonesia, which has been losing its forests at a rapid pace in recent years, launched a campaign to plant 79 million trees ahead of next month's UN climate change conference in Bali.

"We have been negligent in the past, now we have to get our act together," President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said to state news agency Antara, adding he had planted saplings on the outskirts of Jakarta.

The drive is part of a global campaign to plant one billion trees launched at UN climate change talks in Nairobi last year.

Forestry ministry officials said 79 million saplings were collected from local governments around the archipelago and they planned to complete the planting in one day.

According to Greenpeace, Indonesia had the fastest pace of deforestation in the world between 2000-2005, with an area of forest equivalent to 300 soccer pitches destroyed every hour.

Yudhoyono said that illegal loggers and their financers were "common enemies" and must be brought to justice.

South-East Asia's biggest economy is also among the world's top three greenhouse gas emitters because of deforestation, peatland degradation, and forest fires, according to a recent report sponsored by the World Bank and Britain's development arm.

Environmental groups are concerned that rapidly expanding palm oil plantations, partly driven by ambitious plans for biofuels, are damaging the country's rainforests.

Participants from 189 countries are expected to gather in Bali in next month to discuss a new deal to fight global warming. The existing pact, the Kyoto Protocol, runs out in 2012.