Comments on: Five to 15: Kevin Rudd’s sorry climate capitulation

By: John Hassall

John Hassall — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

China are on board, they are building sustainable cities and investing in renewables while all our technology is going to them and the Governator. Where is the investment? December 15 better bring some bloody action!

It's a beautiful day? Don't think so, not until I can enjoy the sun and stop thinking about how it's going to be hotter for longer in summer-higher water restrictions will appear- all instead of scrapping the the pipeline and the de-sal plant (not to mention the channel deepening -what happened to that Crikey?).

We have the technology for solutions, they are there waiting, we don't need targets we need flat-out action and political will, the parts per million will look after themselves.

By: Ray

Ray — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

This is typical of the alarmist claptrap that greens go on with. Instead of unquestionably accepting that global warming is man-made and engaging in never-ending hysterics, why can’t they get off their butts and spend time researching the literature on causes of climate change. A good place to start would be the The Australian of 18 July 2008 article at http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24036736-17803,00.html by scientist, Dr David Evans, who has spent years studying global warming. He concludes that man-caused global warming is a myth.

By: Graeme L

Graeme L — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Yes - it is clear that big Kev and his useless mates Penny and Peter - to say nothing of Ross Garnaut - as they flap about assuring us that climate change really is an impending man-made disaster, really have absolutely no idea of the politics and the reality of the whole matter.
If they are right, and man is causing it, then urgent action is important, and that just is not 5-15 by 2020.
If they are wrong, 5-15 is right, because this pollution of our air should be stopped anyway.
Come on guys - it’s one or the other!!!

By: BurgerD

BurgerD — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

This news is very disappointing.

I am living in the UK at the moment and as an Australian I am a little embarrassed witnessing how much further ahead the Brits are in dealing with this pressing issue. Last month a new Climate Change Bill was passed that enshrines in law 32% emissions reduction targets for 2020 and 80% reductions by 2050. Over here both sides of politics acknowledge that climate change is a serious problem and in 8 months I have not yet seen or heard any substantive arguements between the different sides of politics regarding the need to act now and act fast. Yes, the legislation is not perfect, but the UK government is so far ahead of the Oz government it makes me sad.

I work in local government and even at this level, the local politicians are truly concerned about climate change and are pushing for even tougher emissions reductions targets and renewable energy initiatives.

Come on Oz, 5 to 15% reductions? It really is pathetic. Maybe we need the same kind of rivalry between the poms and the aussies with regards tackling climate change as exists on the sporting pitch . Because I have to say, the poms are kicking our asses!

By: Andrew Glikson

Andrew Glikson — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Thank you for an excellent article Anne Rose.

Sadly this sounds like the end of Rudd’s promised “evidence -based policies”.

I fear future generations may be betrayed all the way to 6 degrees C ?

For the scale and time frame of runaway climate change, look at a recent paper published in:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Dangerous-Climate-Change — by-Andrew-Glikson-081206-176.html

DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE: LESSONS FROM THE RECENT HISTORY OF THE ATMOSPHERE

Andrew Glikson
Earth and paleo-climate scientist
Australian National University
Canberra, A.C.Y. 0200

By: fay

fay — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

“These targets are not acceptable. The Government must go back to the drawing board. Or in this case, back to the cabinet room. And stay there until cabinet decides on a target range that at least includes the minimum number that leaves the possibility of a global deal based on 450 parts per million on the table. Which is, of course, as Garnuat found: 25%.”

Er, didn’t Garnaut say, lately, that we should slow down until China et al get on board. Many people are confused on the constant position changes with global warming,excuse me, I mean climate change, 60% no 40% no 20% no 10% no 25%… I’m tired and it’s a beautiful day in our beautiful country.