Comments on: Damn the Pacific: Australia gags its island neighbours

By: Venise Alstergren

Venise Alstergren — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 06:11:11 +0000

MARK MUNRO: You could say the same thing about Malcolm Turnbull. However, I digress. It is the country which is speaking, ultimately the sheer size of our mineral wealth will determine how loud the voice is.

By: Mark Munro

Mark Munro — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 08:14:36 +0000

Rudd has issued a Call to Action to other world leaders, calling for urgent action to address the threat of climate change. When you think about it, I find this statement hilarious. The other world leaders don’t give a damn what Rudd thinks. Does anyone honestly believe India and China care what Rudd thinks or says. The problem I see with Rudd, his ego makes him think that he is one of the big players in world politics, when in fact he’s a nobody.

By: Stuart Moore

Stuart Moore — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 07:56:50 +0000

The emissions debate is a ‘red herring’ given that (a) reducing ‘emissions’ will have negligible impact (if even measurable) on the Islander dilemma. Much better that $$ and common sense are directed to managing and living with the issues.

By: Jon Hunt

Jon Hunt — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 23:51:25 +0000

I think the point is one of Australia deliberately giving an misleading representation of the events, regardless of whatever the reality is. If 45% reduction is necessary it is necessary, regardless of whether possible or not.

By: Daniel Aquilina

Daniel Aquilina — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 09:24:42 +0000

Australia shouldn’t be throwing its weight around, and KRudd needs to learn his place in this world. Whilst we need to reduce carbon emissions a 45% reduction on 2000 emissions levels by 2020 is absurd to say the least.

Producing electricity makes up roughly 33% of all emissions in Australia. If over the next 10 years we were to replace all of those power stations with all “eco friendly” stations that use renewable energy, can you imagine the up-front cost? Where will the government/private sector get the billions they need to build these plants? If this money is from the government, great - where do you want to sacrifice, health, education or national security? If the money comes from the private sector, where is the proof they will get any return on their money that they invest?

Another area that produces a lot of carbon emissions - transportation. If there was adequate public transport provided in Australia at a reasonable cost people would use it. I don’t use public transport because it will take me 3 hours by train to get to my university that takes me 40 mins to drive to. As for busses, theres only one a day and its at double seating capacity, with many people left in the lurch every day.

There needs to be a gradual change in the way we do things, whether or not this climate change fad lasts. George, you say that China is kick-starting the renewable energy revolution … then why is it expected to almost tripple its 1990 Co2 emissions by 2025? True it is doing a lot compared to, say, Australia, but they are still increasing their carbon emissions. Any decrease in Australia’s will be nothing compared to China’s expected increase

By: Venise Alstergren

Venise Alstergren — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 08:32:29 +0000

As usual our political leaders make the sort of gut-wrenching, gorge-raising, limp-wristed and boring speeches they always make prior to doing nothing whatsoever about a major problem.
Government voices off-screen to be heard saying.”WTF does it matter? These people are not numerous enough to invite racial hatred amongst Australian hoons. So, as soon as their islands and homes become unworkable we’ll just bring them to mainland Oz”.
“But wont they mind giving up their land?”
“Nonsense, they’ll love Queensland”.
If there is any consolation, it will be about the time these islands go under at about the time when Australia goes under, on all it’s cities and towns which are exposed to the sea.
Being a despicable person I see a window for outright chicanery. Blackmail! Assure the inhabitants-and mean it-we’ll do everything they want. Provided they all vote to condemn the obscene practice of Japanese whaling. For purely scientific purposes of course.

By: george

george — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 06:48:46 +0000

It is a tragedy for the people of the small island nations that countries like Australia are populated by people who “imagine” that it is impossible for us to do what it would take to rescue their homelands from annihilation. It is not impossible to reduce emissions by that much, and to fail to do so is a crime.

What is “completely divorced from reality” are those leaders and followers in developed countries to imagine that this is simply another political game of compromise. What I found sad about the Pacific Island Forum was that Rudd described the need for climate action as a matter of “national survival” in the Pacific. It is that, of course, but much more importantly, it is a matter of cultural survival and, for many, a matter of personal survival. Some of them have already started making plans to uproot entire communities. Could the Australians reading this please take a moment to imagine how devastating that is?

MichaelT perpetuates all of the usual myths about this question — not the least of which that it is all China’s fault, when in fact, China is doing a hell of a lot more about kick-starting a renewable energy revolution that australia is. It’s not costing them thousands of jobs, its making thousands of jobs. We have lost thousands in our failure to commit to renewables in any serious way. Of course it means shutting down coal power stations — but it also means starting up many more renewable ones.

Fiddling about at the edges, as Rudd is, is a lose-lose strategy. We will get runaway climate change and miss out on the jobs and economic renewal we could get from radically changing our ways. The only credible way forward is to commit to at least 40% cuts, and get on with the job.

By: MichaelT

MichaelT — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 06:11:18 +0000

Of course they should be allowed to have their say, but somewhere in here we should mention that a reduction in greenhouse gases of 45% by 2020 is simply IMPOSSIBLE. I imagine this would require the entire world to shut down its coal-fired power stations, transfer to renewable power and abandon the use of petrol-driven cars. And to achieve all of this in ten years time, when the renewable power sources are not yet capable of delivering base load power. And China is building coal-fired power stages at the rate of Australia’s entire industry every four months, if Martin Ferguson is to be believed.

And I take it you mean a 45% reduction in emissions, not a 45% reduction in the CO2 content of the atmosphere.

It ain’t going to happen. No politicians in the world are going to enforce this scale of change, which will lead to the loss of countless thousands of jobs, on the basis of some unvalidated computer models.

This debate is completely divorced from reality.

By: Colin Jones

Colin Jones — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 05:51:19 +0000

Of course Australia can throw it’s weight around with the Pacific Island nations. They’re not as big as China. Of little importance to Rudd, Wong and Smith that their nations are already suffering indirectly from King Coal.