The proof that JWH and the Liberal party are false climate converts can be seen in the wording of the "Sydney Declaration".

Admittedly the primary role of APEC is Trade but more recently Security, Defence and Environmental issues have been added to the agenda in recent summits.

"Aspiartional" targets means unenforcable targets.

Green House emissions wasn't even mentioned.

Instead, Energy Intensity target suggestions of 25% by 2030 @ 1% annually starting from a based year of 2005 means absolutely nothing. Australia currently averages about 1% energy intensity annually so basically the statement means "We'll just keep doing what we are doing now."

"We agree to work to achieve a common understanding on a long-term aspirational global emissions reduction goal to pave the way for an effective post-2012" basically means that the APEC nations will work together to find out what their aspirational goals will be on gloabl emissions by 2012; essentially wasting 5 years.

If JWH is serious about climate change he would've tried harder - all this after he claimed to be a climate change convert. You will also notice that he doesn't use the word "climate change" anymore - the new Liberal buzz word is "climate shift".

IQSRLOW wrote on Oct 15^th, 2007 at 11:28pm:


Firstly, as a matter of public disclosure (and because I'm new here) I'm not a greenie, nor am I a one-eyed Labor or Liberal supporter. I am fairly apolitical and see myself as a Swinging voter. I rent in the semi affluent suburb of Glen Iris and Peter Costello is the Federal member of my electorate. Having said all that I will be voting for Labor this election.

Check out this site for Kyoto Protocol target status as at 2005:
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/kyoto_protocol_2002_target_status

Kyoto Prootocol enforcable targets as I understand them....

1) Annex 1 countries (or developed countries) must reduce emissions by a collective average of 5%.

2) Non Annex 1 countries (or developing countries) are exempt but can participate.

3) The EU nations collective targets is to reduce emissions by 8% by 2012 (to equivalent 1990 levels)

4) Australia and Iceland are the only 2 countries in the world permitted to INCREASE emmisions to 8% and 10% repectively.

5) Right off the bat the EU nations have a tough job - they have to actually REDUCE emissions to 1990 levels (that means levels as at 17 years ago).

6) Australia only has to maintain or rather progressively reduce emission only.

7) To say that EU didn't make their quota and therefore is a failure is simplistic and false. Note that the timeframe for set targets is 2012. To have reached the targets now would mean that they are well ahead of schedule. Therefore, its premature to label it a failure when the task is still ongoing.

8) The UNEP (link above) shows that most of the EU has already reached their allocated targets, with many that are very close to fulfilling them. Spain, Italy, Cyprus, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Ireland still have a long way to go and most likely will not achieve it.

9) It's an exaggeration to say that "none of the signatories have met their obligation". That catch cry first sounded back in 2003. I think it's time people stop living in the past.

10) To say that JWH got it right... what did he get right? Australia has the second easiest job to do within the context of the Kyoto Protocol - 8% increase by 2012. Every other nation (except Iceland and developing nations) have to decrease the emissions. We can't even do that?

Cheers!

Lol. By affliations I'm assuming that you mean political. As you've said I've already mentioned it elsewhere (psst, it's swinging).

Global and climate change is more a concern to me than an affliation as such. Sure, I care about the environment. And yeah, I worry about what the world is going to be like when my unborn child grows up. Wealth is immaterial when you are living in an apocalyptic-like world. Yeah, I know I'm being overly dramatic but hey I tend to write with a flourish. But essentially I think you know what I trying to say.

I think I mentioned "aspirational" targets in the context of the Sydney Declaration. In that context, there are no targets. I mean, 1% annual enegry intensity for 25 years from a based year of 2005 as I've already said is a target of doing nothing different.

However, a collective global target of 5.2% where in order to achieve that the EU must reach 1990 levels which is to say they must collectively reduced by 8% is a real and tangble goal. But you mentioned symbolism... I don't understand, what symbolsim? The Kyoto Protocol goals are real, they are set and they are being met by most of the EU (admittedly some are failing). There are no symbols here. Its real, it's achievable and for the most part in the EU they are achieved already.

OK. Nobody has ever said that the Kyoto Protocol is perfect (at least I don't think anyone has). And I would be very naive to believe that it is; but luckily I don't. The Protocol and the UN has determined China and India to be non-Annex 1 countries (very large ones). I admit that they should play some part in this and the Protocol can only improve from here. Sure, it's flawed. but its real! For Australia to say "But what about India? What about China? Boo Hoo Hoo!" Or in your own words "Boo f*king Hoo." This is akin to to seeing one member not pulling their weight in the game and saying "Well, if he's doing it easy then I won't play either" - acting like a spoilt brat in another words and the whole team loses the footy match.

Why are we all adhering to water restrictions? I hope that you are. Because if we all act together we can save water for the future or at least until the rain comes (fingers cross). If you see a water wally would you say to yourself... well if he's not doing it then I'm not doing it too? This first phase of the Protocol only last until 2012. From its inception in 1997 that is only 15 years to work this. This first phase is only for developed nations who are already emitters historically. The next phase (I agree) should and probably will involve India and China.

Let me suggest this to you. The car runs on three cylinders but at least it'll get you to where you want to go. Once you got there you can get the car fix to keep going. To say "The Protocol is flawed! I'm not doing it!" is like getting all stroppy and in the moment of anger you rip out a second cylinder from the car. Now it'll take you longer to drive to your destination and you might not even make it. Boo f*king hoo.

We are a world player. We are part of the global society. We are citizens of the world. Let's act like one.

I can be pretty long winded I know. Sorry. Cheers!

China and india emit far less per person than Australia
That will soon change

Kyoto is far better than nothing
I disagree. Kyoto is a flawed framework that will achieve nothing and cost a great deal

freediver wrote on Oct 16^th, 2007 at 11:42am:


I agree. Hence my three cylinder car analogy.   The "It's flawed" line and therefore don't do it is negative, is not forward thinking, and is very much a "right here, right now" statement.  Especially when they don't come up with a real and better plan that doesn't reek of political self interest.

Essentially the Sydney Declaration says that "we will think about what our aspirational goals will be and will formulate an answer by 2012" is not a real plan. It means that they are going to waste their time and get back to us in 5 years. That is, if they will actually think about it. The Sydney Declaration is non binding and not enforcable.

Along with the "It's flawed" line is the other tired line that "none of the EU nations have achieved their targets yet." That comment was first sprouted out in 2003 when it was true. But then again, 2003 was 9 years away from the goal line. Its now 4 years later and although a handful of EU nations are still behind; nearly a third of nations has already achieved their targets (5 years early). However, they still shout that same mantra of it not being achievable.

Cheers!

I watched it on ABC to avoid the bloody silly worm.  Johnny has my vote - then again he already did.  There is no doubt he is a great public performer with little Kevvy acting like an uneducated schoolboy when asked to actually enunciate a policy.  He ran for cover every time.

Johnny will win in November.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 21^st, 2007 at 10:12pm:


Unfortunately in our two party system if you go against Johnny you get Kevvy.  Not you specifically, but the electorate generally I mean.

Most of Little Kevvy's rantings are ill considered, his 'broadband policy' for example which would see the taxpayer making profits for private enterprise telcos.  And his new tax package which will see Australians worse off than they would be under a coalition.  Or his commitment to abolish work choices which would cause interest rates to sky rocket.  He has no idea of the consequences of his blundering.