Both major parties have set the same target on carbon emissions. Why on earth would you pick the most expensive way to get there. I guess by going the most expensive route you get to shift the burden from the polluters to the taxpayers. How economic liberals can support such a clear case of corporate welfare beggars belief.

Do you not think you are just a tad obsessed with Australia's tiny total emissions??

Just plucking random crapola from thin air again, eh?

MOTR is doing a Gillard and trying to deflect from the corruption and criminal behaviour of her party.

not working MOTR!!!!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 12:02pm:

Do you not think you are just a tad obsessed with Australia's tiny total emissions??

The reality is that both major parties have accepted that we have a moral responsibility to reduce our emissions. Abbott is making us pay more and is effectively shifting the burden from the polluters to the taxpayer. What's worse, is that he's also destroying the price signal that will make future reductions so much cheaper.

It's just dumb policy.

MOTR wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 12:15pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:02pm: Do you not think you are just a tad obsessed with Australia's tiny total emissions?? The reality is that both major parties have accepted that we have a moral responsibility to reduce our emissions. Abbott is making us pay more and is effectively shifting the burden from the polluters to the taxpayer. What's worse, is that he's also destroying the price signal that will make future reductions so much cheaper. It's just dumb policy.

You're so good at demonstrating how little you understand of this issue!  ;D

gold_medal wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 12:07pm:

MOTR is doing a Gillard and trying to deflect from the corruption and criminal behaviour of her party. not working MOTR!!!!

I'll take that as a white flag.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 12:19pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:15pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:02pm: Do you not think you are just a tad obsessed with Australia's tiny total emissions?? The reality is that both major parties have accepted that we have a moral responsibility to reduce our emissions. Abbott is making us pay more and is effectively shifting the burden from the polluters to the taxpayer. What's worse, is that he's also destroying the price signal that will make future reductions so much cheaper. It's just dumb policy. You're so good at demonstrating how little you understand of this issue!  ;D

Go on, goldie. Have a go at explaining why Abbott's direct action policy is good policy.

http://images.sp@m.com/profiles/0/0/3/2/7/8/5/6/9/popcorn-77063389126.jpeg

MOTR wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 12:32pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:19pm: MOTR wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:15pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:02pm: Do you not think you are just a tad obsessed with Australia's tiny total emissions?? The reality is that both major parties have accepted that we have a moral responsibility to reduce our emissions. Abbott is making us pay more and is effectively shifting the burden from the polluters to the taxpayer. What's worse, is that he's also destroying the price signal that will make future reductions so much cheaper. It's just dumb policy. You're so good at demonstrating how little you understand of this issue!  ;D Go on, goldie. Have a go at explaining why Abbott's direct action policy is good policy. http://images.sp@m.com/profiles/0/0/3/2/7/8/5/6/9/popcorn-77063389126.jpeg

Easy - it isn't the carbon dioxide tax that we were promised we would not get at the last election, the tax that is driving up electricity prices so much that elderly people preferred to swelter during the summer than use air conditioning, the tax that is scaring away investment in Australia and dissuading people from starting up new small businesses.

Unfortunately, armchair, the economic data coming out tells a completely different story. When the Australian public goes to the poll they will know how much the carbon tax has affected their lives. Now that we've looked behind the curtains Abbott's bogey man doesn't look so scary. What will look scary is the $1300 Abbott is planning to rip from each Australian household to pay for his economically inefficient direct action strategy.

Blame Rudd for ratifying Kyoto

If he hadn't done this - we wouldn't be in this mess

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 12:19pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:15pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:02pm: Do you not think you are just a tad obsessed with Australia's tiny total emissions?? The reality is that both major parties have accepted that we have a moral responsibility to reduce our emissions. Abbott is making us pay more and is effectively shifting the burden from the polluters to the taxpayer. What's worse, is that he's also destroying the price signal that will make future reductions so much cheaper. It's just dumb policy. You're so good at demonstrating how little you understand of this issue!  ;D

MOTR is right. A carbon tax is the best mechanism. Abbott may tell you what you want to hear, but it will cost you an arm and a leg.

A carbon tax is telling me how I should live my life.

If people feel strongly in this carbon footprint lark then fine live your life how you wish.

Just don't interfere and tell others how to live.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 1:57pm:

A carbon tax is telling me how I should live my life. If people feel strongly in this carbon footprint lark then fine live your life how you wish. Just don't interfere and tell others how to live.

Andrei, you are such a free rider.

MOTR wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 2:12pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 1:57pm: A carbon tax is telling me how I should live my life. If people feel strongly in this carbon footprint lark then fine live your life how you wish. Just don't interfere and tell others how to live. Andrei, you are such a free rider.

I work in the oil industry.
It's us who do the most to resolve this issue.

My company is more influential than countries.

freediver wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 1:36pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:19pm: MOTR wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:15pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:02pm: Do you not think you are just a tad obsessed with Australia's tiny total emissions?? The reality is that both major parties have accepted that we have a moral responsibility to reduce our emissions. Abbott is making us pay more and is effectively shifting the burden from the polluters to the taxpayer. What's worse, is that he's also destroying the price signal that will make future reductions so much cheaper. It's just dumb policy. You're so good at demonstrating how little you understand of this issue!  ;D MOTR is right. A carbon tax is the best mechanism. Abbott may tell you what you want to hear, but it will cost you an arm and a leg.

or the most likely scenario is that as the rest of the world is beginning to discover that ACC is a massive con, he will do nothing at all which is even CHEAPER than either alternative.

Just as the world refuses to get warmer in its now 17th year, even formerly diehard ACC scientists are starting to realise they were wrong.

So while you might ahve mocked Abbotts 'climatae change is crap' comment. He was right, after all!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 2:14pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 2:12pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 1:57pm: A carbon tax is telling me how I should live my life. If people feel strongly in this carbon footprint lark then fine live your life how you wish. Just don't interfere and tell others how to live. Andrei, you are such a free rider. I work in the oil industry. It's us who do the most to resolve this issue. My company is more influential than countries.

you are quite possibly the worst possible apologist for the sceptic position.

gold_medal wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 2:34pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 1:36pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:19pm: MOTR wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:15pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:02pm: Do you not think you are just a tad obsessed with Australia's tiny total emissions?? The reality is that both major parties have accepted that we have a moral responsibility to reduce our emissions. Abbott is making us pay more and is effectively shifting the burden from the polluters to the taxpayer. What's worse, is that he's also destroying the price signal that will make future reductions so much cheaper. It's just dumb policy. You're so good at demonstrating how little you understand of this issue!  ;D MOTR is right. A carbon tax is the best mechanism. Abbott may tell you what you want to hear, but it will cost you an arm and a leg. or the most likely scenario is that as the rest of the world is beginning to discover that ACC is a massive con, he will do nothing at all which is even CHEAPER than either alternative. Just as the world refuses to get warmer in its now 17th year, even formerly diehard ACC scientists are starting to realise they were wrong. So while you might ahve mocked Abbotts 'climatae change is crap' comment. He was right, after all!

So why does Abbott have exactly the same emission reduction target as the ALP?

Are you saying that Abbott is lying about his emission reduction target?

I am not a sceptic.
I believe humans have caused the world to warm.

gold_medal wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 2:34pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 1:36pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:19pm: MOTR wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:15pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:02pm: Do you not think you are just a tad obsessed with Australia's tiny total emissions?? The reality is that both major parties have accepted that we have a moral responsibility to reduce our emissions. Abbott is making us pay more and is effectively shifting the burden from the polluters to the taxpayer. What's worse, is that he's also destroying the price signal that will make future reductions so much cheaper. It's just dumb policy. You're so good at demonstrating how little you understand of this issue!  ;D MOTR is right. A carbon tax is the best mechanism. Abbott may tell you what you want to hear, but it will cost you an arm and a leg. or the most likely scenario is that as the rest of the world is beginning to discover that ACC is a massive con, he will do nothing at all which is even CHEAPER than either alternative. Just as the world refuses to get warmer in its now 17th year, even formerly diehard ACC scientists are starting to realise they were wrong. So while you might ahve mocked Abbotts 'climatae change is crap' comment. He was right, after all!

For once I agree with you GM. I also think it is highly likely that Abbott is deliberately lying about this.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 12:19pm:

MOTR wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:15pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 12:02pm: Do you not think you are just a tad obsessed with Australia's tiny total emissions?? The reality is that both major parties have accepted that we have a moral responsibility to reduce our emissions. Abbott is making us pay more and is effectively shifting the burden from the polluters to the taxpayer. What's worse, is that he's also destroying the price signal that will make future reductions so much cheaper. It's just dumb policy. You're so good at demonstrating how little you understand of this issue!  ;D

Can't you respond to MOTR?

Why do you want to pay more under Abbott to achieve exactly the same target as the ALP?

How does that make sense?

Well given the increasing evidence that ACC is crap then we will end up doing nothing about these emissions and reap the economic benefit for it.

gold_medal wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 3:18pm:

Well given the increasing evidence that ACC is crap then we will end up doing nothing about these emissions and reap the economic benefit for it.

That isn't true, I think the evidence suggests quite the opposite.

Where I disagree with MOTR is in the mechanics of handling it.

Having Australia subjected to a carbon tax but placing no restrictions on the increases in China and India total emissions is like watching your house go up in flames but deciding to fix the hole in the fence.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 3:25pm:

gold_medal wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 3:18pm: Well given the increasing evidence that ACC is crap then we will end up doing nothing about these emissions and reap the economic benefit for it. That isn't true, I think the evidence suggests quite the opposite. Where I disagree with MOTR is in the mechanics of handling it. Having Australia subjected to a carbon tax but placing no restrictions on the increases in China and India total emissions is like watching your house go up in flames but deciding to fix the hole in the fence.

We are not doing that Andrei. Both labor and liberals have emissions targets that are dependent on the actions of foreign countries.

THERE WILL BE NO PRICE FOR CARBON UNDER A GOVERNMENT I LEAD.

freediver wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 3:27pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 3:25pm: gold_medal wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 3:18pm: Well given the increasing evidence that ACC is crap then we will end up doing nothing about these emissions and reap the economic benefit for it. That isn't true, I think the evidence suggests quite the opposite. Where I disagree with MOTR is in the mechanics of handling it. Having Australia subjected to a carbon tax but placing no restrictions on the increases in China and India total emissions is like watching your house go up in flames but deciding to fix the hole in the fence. We are not doing that Andrei. Both labor and liberals have emissions targets that are dependent on the actions of foreign countries.

Why are we not insisting all countries are tied to a % of total 1990 emissions?
You know China and India are refusing to do their fair share right?

And we're worrying about Australia's 0.1% contribution?

You know China represents one third of global pollution on its own yet bizarrely people want to give them LOOSER targets????

Thankfully global warming is over now and we no longer need to fret over nothing.

freediver wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 3:27pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 3:25pm: gold_medal wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 3:18pm: Well given the increasing evidence that ACC is crap then we will end up doing nothing about these emissions and reap the economic benefit for it. That isn't true, I think the evidence suggests quite the opposite. Where I disagree with MOTR is in the mechanics of handling it. Having Australia subjected to a carbon tax but placing no restrictions on the increases in China and India total emissions is like watching your house go up in flames but deciding to fix the hole in the fence. We are not doing that Andrei. Both labor and liberals have emissions targets that are dependent on the actions of foreign countries.

what rubbish is that? what are you drinking/smoking today? there is NO dependence at all.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 3:31pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 3:27pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 3:25pm: gold_medal wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 3:18pm: Well given the increasing evidence that ACC is crap then we will end up doing nothing about these emissions and reap the economic benefit for it. That isn't true, I think the evidence suggests quite the opposite. Where I disagree with MOTR is in the mechanics of handling it. Having Australia subjected to a carbon tax but placing no restrictions on the increases in China and India total emissions is like watching your house go up in flames but deciding to fix the hole in the fence. We are not doing that Andrei. Both labor and liberals have emissions targets that are dependent on the actions of foreign countries. Why are we not insisting all countries are tied to a % of total 1990 emissions? You know China and India are refusing to do their fair share right? And we're worrying about Australia's 0.1% contribution? You know China represents one third of global pollution on its own yet bizarrely people want to give them LOOSER targets????

Andrei, the only position that is justifiable is a per capita, basis. Assuming countries should be treated equally regardless of population is absurd. We are making demands of other countries. We are just not making stupid demands.


Quote:

what rubbish is that? what are you drinking/smoking today? there is NO dependence at all.

Yes there is. Pleading ignorance doesn't count GM.

www.climatechange.gov.au/government/reduce/national-targets/factsheet.aspx

freediver wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 5:17pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 3:31pm: freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 3:27pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 3:25pm: gold_medal wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 3:18pm: Well given the increasing evidence that ACC is crap then we will end up doing nothing about these emissions and reap the economic benefit for it. That isn't true, I think the evidence suggests quite the opposite. Where I disagree with MOTR is in the mechanics of handling it. Having Australia subjected to a carbon tax but placing no restrictions on the increases in China and India total emissions is like watching your house go up in flames but deciding to fix the hole in the fence. We are not doing that Andrei. Both labor and liberals have emissions targets that are dependent on the actions of foreign countries. Why are we not insisting all countries are tied to a % of total 1990 emissions? You know China and India are refusing to do their fair share right? And we're worrying about Australia's 0.1% contribution? You know China represents one third of global pollution on its own yet bizarrely people want to give them LOOSER targets???? Andrei, the only position that is justifiable is a per capita, basis. Assuming countries should be treated equally regardless of population is absurd. We are making demands of other countries. We are just not making stupid demands. Quote: what rubbish is that? what are you drinking/smoking today? there is NO dependence at all. Yes there is. Pleading ignorance doesn't count GM.

well it is like this... your word is not evidence. if you wish to make a plausible case then make it. repeating yoru position ad nauseum only makes it look weaker.

www.climatechange.gov.au/government/reduce/national-targets/factsheet.aspx

Per capita.

The worlds worst polluter - which produces 1/3rd of the entire worlds emissions - are fine to carry on accelerating at the rate we are.

We need to instead focus on reducing the world's real threat instead....

Falkland Islands, Netherlands Antilles and Gibraltar.

See how absurd your per capita is?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 5:49pm:

Per capita. The worlds worst polluter - which produces 1/3rd of the entire worlds emissions - are fine to carry on accelerating at the rate we are. We need to instead focus on reducing the world's real threat instead.... Falkland Islands, Netherlands Antilles and Gibraltar. See how absurd your per capita is?

China now exceeds the U.S. in the deployment of clean energy and in government investments to further develop renewable technologies.

MOTR wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 6:03pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 5:49pm: Per capita. The worlds worst polluter - which produces 1/3rd of the entire worlds emissions - are fine to carry on accelerating at the rate we are. We need to instead focus on reducing the world's real threat instead.... Falkland Islands, Netherlands Antilles and Gibraltar. See how absurd your per capita is? China now exceeds the U.S. in the deployment of clean energy and in government investments to further develop renewable technologies.

a misleading statistic because china is decades (and in some places centuries) behind the rest of the world in most areas. It is playing catchup which is why the vast majority live in conditions considered primitive 200 years ago. It is not hard to increase at a faster rate than most when you start 35,000 laps behind the leaders.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 5:49pm:

Per capita. The worlds worst polluter - which produces 1/3rd of the entire worlds emissions - are fine to carry on accelerating at the rate we are. We need to instead focus on reducing the world's real threat instead.... Falkland Islands, Netherlands Antilles and Gibraltar. See how absurd your per capita is?

It is not so absurd once you consider the reality, or the morality, of asking China to meet stricter standards than us.

freediver wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 7:28pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 5:49pm: Per capita. The worlds worst polluter - which produces 1/3rd of the entire worlds emissions - are fine to carry on accelerating at the rate we are. We need to instead focus on reducing the world's real threat instead.... Falkland Islands, Netherlands Antilles and Gibraltar. See how absurd your per capita is? It is not so absurd once you consider the reality, or the morality, of asking China to meet stricter standards than us.

only when you use the 'bleeding heart' version of 'standards'. if there is a problem then address it. If not then play around with meaningless nonsense like this.

Basic fairness is not bleeding heart nonsense. Unless you plan on pointing a gun at the Chinese and telling them that they are only entitled to 1/10th the emissions we are then your alternative simply will not work. Surely you understand the concept of something not working, even if you have no concept of fairness? The Chinese do not share your delusion that the historical geopolitical accident that happened to group them into a larger group than us means they have to put up with your self indulgent crap. You are right that they are a bigger problem. You are wrong that this excuses us from doing our part, or that being one-eyed and selfish will somehow help solve the problem.

freediver wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 9:51pm:

Basic fairness is not bleeding heart nonsense. Unless you plan on pointing a gun at the Chinese and telling them that they are only entitled to 1/10th the emissions we are then your alternative simply will not work. Surely you understand the concept of something not working, even if you have no concept of fairness? The Chinese do not share your delusion that the historical geopolitical accident that happened to group them into a larger group than us means they have to put up with your self indulgent crap. You are right that they are a bigger problem. You are wrong that this excuses us from doing our part, or that being one-eyed and selfish will somehow help solve the problem.

The Chinese - and given my upcoming trip back there in mind this is not a criticism of the country itself - are building more dirty power stations than any other country in the world bar none.

The emissions are 1/3rd of the world.
Beijing - a beautiful place that it is - is clouded in smog daily.
Chinese respiratory problems are through the roof in the last decade.

China is making strides on cleaner energy - and we are partnering them to do it hence my trips with others - but they are a million miles away from the picture you paint.

The reality is if you go with this per capita guff, you'd regard the worst offenders in the world as Gibraltar, Netherlands Antilles, St Lucia and Falklands Islands.

All well and good from a fluffy all-hold-hands be fair to one another mindset - but wouldn't remotely fix the problem.

To use a different analogy, the bath is full and pouring over the side and you're concerned about emptying one end with a cup but allowing the two taps (India and China) to remain on full at the other end.

Then you wonder why your cup emptying hasnt helped?

Andrei, you are the one attempting to argue that some countries should act and others not. No-one else here is.

Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries

That's not what I am arguing.
I am stating the target should be total based and a flat rate.

The country's figure in 1990 and the target emissions needs to be a set % of that.

That way the United States has a set reduction to be say 90% of that and China should be 90% of their 1990 level.

The Falklands aren't penalized absurdly then and everyone reduces.

"Global emissions should be reduced to reduce the threat of climate change. We in the United States should play our part. But let me tell you something, I'll be damned if America is going to pick up the bar bill for the Chinese and everybody else"
President George W Bush, Kyoto.

freediver wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 10:09am:

Andrei, you are the one attempting to argue that some countries should act and others not. No-one else here is. Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries

That is the basis of the Kyoto Protocol

195 countries signed up to it and most have ratified - but only 32 of the countries (who signed and ratified) are penalised if it failed to meet the targets

this list is found in Annexure A

this is the epitome of some doing and others don't

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 10:51am:

That's not what I am arguing. I am stating the target should be total based and a flat rate. The country's figure in 1990 and the target emissions needs to be a set % of that. That way the United States has a set reduction to be say 90% of that and China should be 90% of their 1990 level. The Falklands aren't penalized absurdly then and everyone reduces. "Global emissions should be reduced to reduce the threat of climate change. We in the United States should play our part. But let me tell you something, I'll be damned if America is going to pick up the bar bill for the Chinese and everybody else" President George W Bush, Kyoto.

So if a country that was dirt poor in 1990 wants to increase their standard of living, they should be forced to pay money to wealthy counties for the right to pollute at the same level? That is what it means for wealthy countries to not pay the tab for poorer countries?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 9:15am:

[quote author=freediver link=1359770116/36#36 date=1359805884]Basic fairness is not bleeding heart nonsense. Unless you plan on pointing a gun at the Chinese and telling them that they are only entitled to 1/10th the emissions we are then your alternative simply will not work... The Chinese - and given my upcoming trip back there in mind this is not a criticism of the country itself - are building more dirty power stations than any other country in the world bar none. The emissions are 1/3rd of the world. China is making strides on cleaner energy - and we are partnering them to do it hence my trips with others - but they are a million miles away from the picture you paint. The reality is if you go with this per capita guff, you'd regard the worst offenders in the world as Gibraltar, Netherlands Antilles, St Lucia and Falklands Islands. All well and good from a fluffy all-hold-hands be fair to one another mindset - but wouldn't remotely fix the problem. To use a different analogy, the bath is full and pouring over the side and you're concerned about emptying one end with a cup but allowing the two taps (India and China) to remain on full at the other end. Then you wonder why your cup emptying hasnt helped?

This might make sense from a nation-state view of the world - where all these individual countries just do their own thing.

But they don’t. China’s emissions are high because it’s the world’s manufacturer.

Switzerland’s emissions are low because it’s the world’s banker.

The world is a global economy. The "bleeding hearts" are not giving India and China and India a free license to pollute. The world relies on their production capacity. If China doesn’t manufacture all that stuff, that production goes somewhere else. The global economy is about borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. The Kyoto convergence strategy is exactly this - assisting India and China to converge their development with the more developed countries.

It’s not bleeding heart nonsense. If the world’s economy does not converge, we’ll merely see polluters country-shopping. As Andrei knows, this is standard business practice. The multinationals are competing for all that cheap labour and low environmental standards. Based on development in Latin America and South East Asia over the last 30 years, once India and China develop their economies, they will pollute less. Developed countries with urban middle classes and service economies create less greenhouse gasses and deforestation. Pollution and deforestation rely on poverty.

It’s not bleeding heart nonsense, it’s hard economics. If the biggest polluters are encouraged to develop, they’ll pollute less in the long run. Again, this is not some socialist dream, but based on economic data. GDP and carbon emissions correlate. Economic growth and carbon emissions correlate. They generally peak when countries go through the cowboy stage of development, and reduce with urbanisation and the development of more efficient transport and energy systems. Basically, developed countries produce more with less.  It’s called efficiency.

Inefficient developing countries have bad electricity grids, poor roads and untrained people - hence no one wants to do business there and they become poorer and less efficient: the poverty trap.

Developed countries have good energy and transportation systems, hence it’s cheaper to transport goods and services and set up shop there. To become developed, countries rely on foreign investment. Without this, they’ll continue cutting down forests to burn wood, using generators for electricity, and generally sitting there baking in the sun and staying poor. Well, running around madly carrying water on their heads and taking their goods to market on mules - if they have them. Poverty is a huge waste of energy.

This is why developing industrial countries like China and India are given some leeway: the Kyoto convergence strategy. And it’s working. China is slowly coming around to more sustainable energy sources.

However, if the developed world - including the highest per capita emitter, Australia - relies totally on the developing world to lower their emissions, there is bad will all round. India is still in the pre-contemplation stage of moving to a low carbon economy. It does look at Australia and think, bugger it. Why should we do it all? Most of our population are farmers running around madly carrying water on their heads. How can they seriously ask us to place the cost of more expensive, low-emmitting energy onto them?

So, sure there’s a bleeding heart element to this debate. There are parts of India with no power at all. How can Australia seriously expect people who have not even put in basic infrastructure to reduce their C02 emissions?

The economy, based on all that activity and energy, profitable or not - is global. Until there is a semblance of a level playing field, the world will not become more efficient or more environmentally sustainable. This isn’t a bleeding heart ideal, it’s a basic economic fact.

The countries with the highest levels of economic growth will continue to be high consumers of energy. They will continue to produce all that C02 because we will continue to consume their goods and services. And because they’re cheaper, without regulation, we’ll be forced to.

Yes, friends, this is how the world works, bleeding hearts and all.

Look, there is a tonne in that post from Karnal that I agree - particularly regarding the complexity and inter-linking of the global economy.

However it doesn't deal with the actual problem itself.

Whether people like it or not, China pollutes 1/3rd of the entire world's pollution.
That's not a made up number its fact.

China has increased its pollution over the last decade by more each year than a country like Australia pollutes in total.

So in layman's terms, if Australia reduced its pollution to ZERO, China's increase would offset it and add more.

China's increases over the Kyoto programme was FIVE TIMES that of all the countries reductions added together.

That is the reality of the problem.

Yeah there is a bleeding heart issue here.
People take the "Oh but China was poor in 1990, we should let them pollute to catch up..."

That's like us at work sitting around at the end of the year and going "ooooh Elf struggled in Latin America this year, we should cap our drilling and give them some of our rigs to catch up..."

The route I take - everyone has a year, everyone has the % to get to - may be tough on some, but it will a step to fixing the problem.

Because as the figures show you - handing China and India Get-out-of-Jail free cards pretty much fks up any advances the rest of us make.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 1:04pm:

Yeah there is a bleeding heart issue here. People take the "Oh but China was poor in 1990, we should let them pollute to catch up..." That's like us at work sitting around at the end of the year and going "ooooh Elf struggled in Latin America this year, we should cap our drilling and give them some of our rigs to catch up..."

Exactly. And companies do that all the time.

But that’s not the point - we RELY on Chinese manufacturing. It’s the reason why the real cost of manufactured goods has lowered dramatically over the last 20 years.

This will not stop. China  is, and will continue to be, the world’s manufacturing centre. The only people giving China a free ticket are the companies that outsource their production there - and the consumers who buy manufactured goods.

Which is everyone.

How can a company blame one of its centers for high production costs when that centre is the engine room of the entire operation?

China might be currently in a polluted haze, but so was Amerika, so was Mother England.

Until we can develop less polluting sources of energy, this will continue, and this is exactly why the developing and developed worlds need to price carbon and invest in more sustainable alternatives.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 5:49pm:

Per capita. The worlds worst polluter - which produces 1/3rd of the entire worlds emissions - are fine to carry on accelerating at the rate we are. We need to instead focus on reducing the world's real threat instead.... Falkland Islands, Netherlands Antilles and Gibraltar. See how absurd your per capita is?

So by your absurd logic - if China suddenly decided to split into 4 independant nations - then the problem would go away?  because "China" would no longer be the largest emitter?

The world's worst polluters are those people that create the most pollution.  Australians are amongst these people.  The average Australian/American/Western European is responsible for about 4 times more emissions that the average Chinese person. 

see how absurd you trying to categorise a global problem by arbitrary national boundaries is?

gold_medal wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2013 at 3:18pm:

Well given the increasing evidence that ACC is crap then we will end up doing nothing about these emissions and reap the economic benefit for it.

Why does the Liberal Party have exaclty the same emission reduction targets as the ALP?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:25pm:

see how absurd you trying to categorise a global problem by arbitrary national boundaries is?

Well the current protocols split it out by national boundaries.
In the United States we have a target - which is punishingly higher than China or India.

The point is still valid - China pollutes 1/3rd of the world's emissions.
They have accelerated absurdly since 1990.

They are building more dirty coal power stations than the rest of the world added together.

They have admitted their emissions will NOT reduce for another decade.

India has stated that emissions reductions are not as important as reduction of poverty.

They are not exactly pulling their weight compared to the rest of us.

Let me tell you, that's the overriding view here in the United States too.
Why should we pull all the weight when the Chinese upstarts are not?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:43pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 2:25pm: see how absurd you trying to categorise a global problem by arbitrary national boundaries is? Well the current protocols split it out by national boundaries. In the United States we have a target - which is punishingly higher than China or India. The point is still valid - China pollutes 1/3rd of the world's emissions. They have accelerated absurdly since 1990. They are building more dirty coal power stations than the rest of the world added together. They have admitted their emissions will NOT reduce for another decade. India has stated that emissions reductions are not as important as reduction of poverty. They are not exactly pulling their weight compared to the rest of us. Let me tell you, that's the overriding view here in the United States too. Why should we pull all the weight when the Chinese upstarts are not?

Yes - we understand that there are some very stupid and backward people in the USA.

The USA is in no position to think China is not "pulling its weight".

The climate change effects being felt NOW are due in little part to Chinese emissions.  They are mainly due to the historic emissions of he past century from the people of the Western democracies, since CO2 remains in teh atmosphere for up to a century

TOP 10 historic emitters:

1. US: 339,174 MT or 28.8%
2. China: 105,915 MT or 9.0%
3. Russia: 94,679 MT or 8.0%
4. Germany: 81,194.5 MT or 6.9%
5. UK: 68,763 MT or 5.8%
6. Japan: 45,629 MT or 3.87%
7. France: 32,667 MT or 2.77%
8. India: 28,824 MT or 2.44%
9. Canada: 25,716 MT or 2.2%
10. Ukraine: 25,431 MT or 2.2%

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/21/countries-responsible-climate-change

China is up there certainly - but still a long long way behind the USA.  And a long long long  way behind the sum of the USA and the other modern industrialised nations of the 20thC (USA+UK+Fr+Ger+Can+Aust etc...)

But if we are to classify polluters by their nationality - as you seem to think is important - it is he USA that is not "pulling it's weight" - not China.

gO kARNAL, JEEBUS IS IN THE HOUSE!

Seriously, nice posts!  :D :D  8-)

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:25pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 2nd, 2013 at 5:49pm: Per capita. The worlds worst polluter - which produces 1/3rd of the entire worlds emissions - are fine to carry on accelerating at the rate we are. We need to instead focus on reducing the world's real threat instead.... Falkland Islands, Netherlands Antilles and Gibraltar. See how absurd your per capita is? So by your absurd logic - if China suddenly decided to split into 4 independant nations - then the problem would go away?  because "China" would no longer be the largest emitter? The world's worst polluters are those people that create the most pollution.  Australians are amongst these people.  The average Australian/American/Western European is responsible for about 4 times more emissions that the average Chinese person.  see how absurd you trying to categorise a global problem by arbitrary national boundaries is?

You're missing Andreis use of the word 'we'.

--->> everything is a weapon!  :o :o :o :o :o

You're missing Andreis use of the word 'we'.

--->> everything is a weapon!  :o :o :o :o :o

You're missing Andreis use of the word 'we'.

--->> everything is a weapon!  :o :o :o :o :o

You're missing Andreis use of the word 'we'.

--->> everything is a weapon!  :o :o :o :o :o

You're missing Andreis use of the word 'we'.

--->> everything is a weapon!  :o :o :o :o :o

You're missing Andreis use of the word 'we'.

--->> everything is a weapon!  :o :o :o :o :o

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:43pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 2:25pm: see how absurd you trying to categorise a global problem by arbitrary national boundaries is? Well the current protocols split it out by national boundaries. In the United States we have a target - which is punishingly higher than China or India. The point is still valid - China pollutes 1/3rd of the world's emissions. They have accelerated absurdly since 1990. They are building more dirty coal power stations than the rest of the world added together. They have admitted their emissions will NOT reduce for another decade. India has stated that emissions reductions are not as important as reduction of poverty. They are not exactly pulling their weight compared to the rest of us. Let me tell you, that's the overriding view here in the United States too. Why should we pull all the weight when the Chinese upstarts are not?

You should tell America to get the nukes fired up because you're about to give the order to fire!!  :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-*

==>>go on, admit it: you're a softie trying too hard!  :-* :-* :'(  ;D

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:43pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2013 at 2:25pm: see how absurd you trying to categorise a global problem by arbitrary national boundaries is? Well the current protocols split it out by national boundaries. In the United States we have a target - which is punishingly higher than China or India. The point is still valid - China pollutes 1/3rd of the world's emissions. They have accelerated absurdly since 1990. They are building more dirty coal power stations than the rest of the world added together. They have admitted their emissions will NOT reduce for another decade. India has stated that emissions reductions are not as important as reduction of poverty. They are not exactly pulling their weight compared to the rest of us. Let me tell you, that's the overriding view here in the United States too. Why should we pull all the weight when the Chinese upstarts are not?

'Name calling' now is it?? Tryhard Internet Fascists are clueless bores, seriously!!