Comments on: Middle ground government: Poznan and the ETS White Paper

By: Keith Bedford

Keith Bedford — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

It is growing more and more obvious that we will miss the boat on climate change. although the science is clear and we can destroy our world we are generally non believers in science. Look at the way we do not support it and we do not encourage people to study it. It looks to me that we will leave to our descendants a world that is unlivable in for our species and the species that inhabit it with us. What do you expect from a species that developed the hydrogen bomb and persecuted those that opposed it.

By: Venise Alstergren#2

Venise Alstergren#2 — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I must be getting senile. It was an English scientist who wrote into Crikey-because Andrew Bolt wouldn’t answer his letters-. Trust me!

By: Tom McLoughlin

Tom McLoughlin — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

As mentioned on the string yesterday, quoting Monica Oliphant of International Solar Energy Society, Sydney Conference, Australia like 193 other countries has 1.22% or less of global emissions. These 194 constitute fully 30% of global emissions.

On the other hand 15 countries emit more than Australia making 70% of global emissions.

To my way of looking at things that's 193 countries that will be influenced by the approach of middle of the road Australia. The Howard mean and tricky approach, or the love and kindness to all People approach.

Australia can accept it's role as a pivotal small to middle ranking power and face up to our historical responsibilities. The Global Financial Crisis is actually a useful opportunity to kick start the retooling of our energy economy from a comparatively lower base compared to a few months back, with much less distractions about boom windfall profits.

By: Venise Alstergren

Venise Alstergren — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Calling this present disaster ‘Climate Change’ immediately gave the hired help (Rupert Murdoch being the hirer)
room to manoeuvre; twisting facts and trampling over anyone elses’ opinions. One Andrew Bolt-about a year ago-received, via Crikey, a plea that Bolt had taken his thesis, and turned it completely around and used these altered facts as proof that Climate Change was a non-event. Andrew Bolt was, quite simply, devastated. I don’t think!
A much easier way of selling this idea is to call it for what it is. POPULATION EXPLOSION. This is much meatier. And a wonderful mine-field.

By: robert

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

“reforming centre” my arse - the government are fence-sitting do-nothings.

Michael T is right when he says it’s either the end of the world and something dramatic must be done … or it isn’t. Craven Rudd needs to choose a side and either get serious about trying to avert the climate catastrophe, or he needs to have the decency to tell the electorate that he misled us and that he has no intention of doing what is necessary to save our children.

If he doesn’t, the current government will be remembered by history, if there is a society to remember, as worse than those who tried to appease Hitler prior to WW2.

By: Cathy

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

The reforming centre no doubt will become another bit of memetic jargon annoying the daylights out of ordinary working Australian families! Doesn’t it grate this kiddies and mums and dads etc…? On climate change he’s going to walk the fine line of being everywhere and nowhere because to be utterly hackneyed that’s politics. Stuffing around on an issue such as climate particularly when its as unpredictable (sorry) as the weather is all they can do without plunging all credibility on a long shot. The issue has a million diversions that will be used by all sides of parliament to delay a decision. Political parties don’t make decisions they talk about them.

By: Leon Arundell

Leon Arundell — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Climate Change Targets

If Kevin Rudd, Climate Minister Penny Wong and her adviser Ross Garnaut were in charge of the world’s road safety, Australians could drive their big cars through school crossings at 220 km/h until 2020, while Frenchmen would accept a voluntary limit of 150 km/h.

By 2050 the limit for Australians would reduce to between 50 and 100 km/h, unless they buy Omissions Trading speeding rights. Princess Mary’s Danish bicycle would be limited to 20 km/h, and Romanian pedestrians would be limited to 2 km/h.

These restrictions would be conditional on Chinese and Indian commitments. Chinese pre-schoolers would have to accept a 1.2 km/h speed limit, and Indian toddlers would be limited to 0.4 km/h,.

These changes would reduce school crossing speeds by 60%. By coincidence, this is also the amount by which we need to reduce global emissions if we are to stabilise the climate.

The people of the world currently emit an average of 5 tonnes of CO2 each year. The Australian Government proposes that between 1990 and 2050 Australians will average almost 15 tonnes.

Is this the example the developed world wants to set for Chinese people who currently emit 3 tonnes per year, and Indians who emit 1 tonne?

By: Jim D

Jim D — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Bernard; I agree with your interpretation of what the Rudd Government is up to here, but I have a question: why didn’t the Government take a base-position/contingent-position proposal to Poznan? They could have said there that the low target 5-15% figure (or whatever they come out with) is on the table and committed already, and then offered further cuts if the large emerging economies meet a set of targets negotiated for them during the period to 2020. They could have done this under a pre-arranged partnership with some other large emitters - the UK would almost certainly have gone with that, and maybe a couple of others as well. That way, the Government could have neutralized the sucker-punch argument against a heavy non-contingent commitment that the knuckleheads over at News Ltd (and now Barnaby Joyce as well, it seems) are waving about: it could simply respond that the low targets stay in place until real commitment from the other global partners is in hand, and then they will change. This would also have allowed the Government to avoid being characterized as the negotiation-undermining Bali-repudiator at the Poznan meeting. If I have managed to think of this, obviously they must have considered it as well? Yes?

By: Michael T

Michael T — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

‘Middle of the debate’, in this context will result in pissing off everyone, both the ‘deniers’ and the ‘believers’.

It’s time this government actually stood up for something and made a decision that they think is ‘right’, not some political compromise to keep everyone happy.

Either the world is ending, and something dramatic needs to be done. Or it isn’t, and nothing needs to be done.