Comments on: The Poznan circus and the emissions target sideshow http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/12/10/the-poznan-circus-and-the-emissions-target-sideshow/ now with extra source Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:27:01 +1100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Graeme Lewis http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/12/10/the-poznan-circus-and-the-emissions-target-sideshow/#comment-8565 Graeme Lewis Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-8565 Yes - this Govt that was going to change not only Australia but indeed the world, is yet again going to wimp out of any hard decisions. It's quite pathetic.<br /><br />The only " decisive" things they are doing is giving away the farm, as they hand out money to anyone who cries - even the Indonesians today - billions here and billions there, with no regard for how much remains in the bin, or where they are going to look for more when the bin is empty. <br /><br />If human activity is in fact the cause of climate change, Kevin Peter and Pennie should be "decisive" in their formulation of policy RIGHT NOW, and set some realistic and meaningful targets - 25-50% of a 2008 base by 2020. Let's get serious and do our bit for the world, just like Kevin07 said he would.<br /><br />If not, and maybe that is what they have secretly opined, then these sorts of minmal targets are fine to try to reduce the levels of pollution that shouldn't be happening anyway, climate change or not!! Yes - this Govt that was going to change not only Australia but indeed the world, is yet again going to wimp out of any hard decisions. It’s quite pathetic.

The only ” decisive” things they are doing is giving away the farm, as they hand out money to anyone who cries - even the Indonesians today - billions here and billions there, with no regard for how much remains in the bin, or where they are going to look for more when the bin is empty.

If human activity is in fact the cause of climate change, Kevin Peter and Pennie should be “decisive” in their formulation of policy RIGHT NOW, and set some realistic and meaningful targets - 25-50% of a 2008 base by 2020. Let’s get serious and do our bit for the world, just like Kevin07 said he would.

If not, and maybe that is what they have secretly opined, then these sorts of minmal targets are fine to try to reduce the levels of pollution that shouldn’t be happening anyway, climate change or not!!

]]> By: Bernard Keane http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/12/10/the-poznan-circus-and-the-emissions-target-sideshow/#comment-8566 Bernard Keane Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-8566 Thank you Steve.<br /><br />This article would've been much improved if I'd stuck to one word for a more stringent target, rather than shifting between "up" and "down" every sentence. Thank you Steve.

This article would’ve been much improved if I’d stuck to one word for a more stringent target, rather than shifting between “up” and “down” every sentence.

]]> By: Steve Campbell http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/12/10/the-poznan-circus-and-the-emissions-target-sideshow/#comment-8567 Steve Campbell Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-8567 Dear Bernard,<br />normally I agree with much of what you say. In this instance I am afraid that you are very much off the mark. The international community has been muddling through for years on the climate negatiations, and, as you know, has been slowed to down to a glacial pace - mostly by the interventions of large polluting industries like coal and oil. We've seen two decades of misinformation, prevarication and obfuscation. <br /><br />We don't have much time left to deal with the climate crisis, if any. Not setting hard targets will not only be percieved as a failure, but will in fact be a practical failure of momentous proportions. <br /><br />I agree that we need a strong ETS, and this is lookly unlikey. But we dont have time left for soft starts, lowering targets at a later date, or to slowly ratchet up the pressure on big polluters. We can't put off the hard work, even in light of a financial crisis. And if we don't jump in the negotiations - neither will the US, Russia, the Eu etc etc...I fear that your article will give comfort to an Australian government that is not feeling enough heat in Poznan. <br /><br />Apart from this, and your position on nuclear, keep it up.<br /><br />best<br /><br />Steve Campbell<br />Head of Campaigns<br />Greenpeace Australia, Pacific. Dear Bernard,
normally I agree with much of what you say. In this instance I am afraid that you are very much off the mark. The international community has been muddling through for years on the climate negatiations, and, as you know, has been slowed to down to a glacial pace - mostly by the interventions of large polluting industries like coal and oil. We’ve seen two decades of misinformation, prevarication and obfuscation.

We don’t have much time left to deal with the climate crisis, if any. Not setting hard targets will not only be percieved as a failure, but will in fact be a practical failure of momentous proportions.

I agree that we need a strong ETS, and this is lookly unlikey. But we dont have time left for soft starts, lowering targets at a later date, or to slowly ratchet up the pressure on big polluters. We can’t put off the hard work, even in light of a financial crisis. And if we don’t jump in the negotiations - neither will the US, Russia, the Eu etc etc…I fear that your article will give comfort to an Australian government that is not feeling enough heat in Poznan.

Apart from this, and your position on nuclear, keep it up.

best

Steve Campbell
Head of Campaigns
Greenpeace Australia, Pacific.

]]> By: Tom McLoughlin http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/12/10/the-poznan-circus-and-the-emissions-target-sideshow/#comment-8568 Tom McLoughlin Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-8568 The big recent solar conference was crying out for the Govt green light, and as documented on the 7.30 Report Monday night. It's quite clear we can reach stronger targets, in fact embarrassingly easy to. But the politics seems to be full of sabotage. It's as if we really are desperate as a federal govt to maximise coal exports and squash the renewables transition as long as possible. <br /><br />I agree with Steve Campbell this is madness. <br /><br />Paul Kelly in The Australian pushes the same ol' same ol' running convoluted sophistry. Monica Oliphant as President of the International Solar Energy Society (UN affiliated, huge number of member countries) daught in law of Sir Mark Oliphant spiked Kelly's ilk with gusto at the above conference. She noted that when people complain that Oz is only a bit over 1%, that only 15 countries are above us in emissions and 193 countries making up 30% total global emissions are just like us less than or equal to 1.22% of total emissions. <br /><br />If Australia squibs it 193 countries below us in the rankings have their excuse totalling 30% global account. That's big. She was quite a speaker I do say. Of course she is right. Did anyone look as lame as Peter Garrett on 7.30? Sad or what. The big recent solar conference was crying out for the Govt green light, and as documented on the 7.30 Report Monday night. It’s quite clear we can reach stronger targets, in fact embarrassingly easy to. But the politics seems to be full of sabotage. It’s as if we really are desperate as a federal govt to maximise coal exports and squash the renewables transition as long as possible.

I agree with Steve Campbell this is madness.

Paul Kelly in The Australian pushes the same ol’ same ol’ running convoluted sophistry. Monica Oliphant as President of the International Solar Energy Society (UN affiliated, huge number of member countries) daught in law of Sir Mark Oliphant spiked Kelly’s ilk with gusto at the above conference. She noted that when people complain that Oz is only a bit over 1%, that only 15 countries are above us in emissions and 193 countries making up 30% total global emissions are just like us less than or equal to 1.22% of total emissions.

If Australia squibs it 193 countries below us in the rankings have their excuse totalling 30% global account. That’s big. She was quite a speaker I do say. Of course she is right. Did anyone look as lame as Peter Garrett on 7.30? Sad or what.

]]>