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.

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


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)


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

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.

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."

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

How is Howard's scheme better?

OK then, how would you improve on kyoto?