Environment

Dec 10, 2009

Hamilton at Copenhagen: Lulu’s back in town

The Australian delegation in Copenhagen should not be surprised if the rest of the world takes a jaundiced view of any arguments it advances for the treatment of land-based emissions, based on our past Kyoto behaviour.

Twelve years ago, as the Kyoto conference drew to a close, it was clear that the protocol had at least two gaping loopholes. One, dubbed “Russian hot air”, referred to the excessively high target negotiated by Russia.

17 comments

Leave a comment

17 thoughts on “Hamilton at Copenhagen: Lulu’s back in town

  1. Most Peculiar Mama

    Clive,

    Now that you are no longer a politician…we would love to hear your opinion on the growing dissent amongst the scientific – and general – community around alleged man-made global warming and the significant damage being wrought on the Copnehagen conference objectives by the disgraceful ClimateGate scandal.

    Surely you’ve heard of it?

  2. Frank Campbell

    Is Crikey going to shove this evangelical tosser down our throat EVERY day?

  3. Roger Clifton

    Farmers need alternative transport fuels. Diesel is a major item of any farmer’s budget. For that matter, pretty well anyone working in a primary industry or in remote Australia is vulnerable to a carbon tax on fossil-carbon-based transport fuels. The rural lobby seems set on evading such price pressures.

    Whereas city folk may anticipate battery-powered vehicles, compressed gas or hydrazine-based fuel cells, someone who wants to bring live cattle to market wants some sort of liquid hydrocarbon for his old truck.

    Methanol is a practical alternative fuel, with our modern fleet can be readily converted. However, its production and distribution requires government planning, not evasion.

  4. MichaelK99

    One would have thought that those who don’t like what Clive has to say would have the common sense just to skip his articles.

    What I find incredibly tiresome is that the comments threads in Crikey are far too often filled with comments from the climate change deniers. We know that you don’t agree, so why do you have to keep saying it again and again.

    In my opinion no denier has added any new information or thoughts to this debate. It’s just repeating the same old rubbish.

    And this going around in circles makes it a waste of time to read the comments on Crikey as it is just the same people saying the same thing, usually with little mention of the original article.

    I would love it if Crikey one day (soon) decided that it is no longer appropriate to waste everybody’s time with more of the same climate change denial rubbish in threads such as this.

    Crikey should set up a forum for discussing whether or not climate change is true. No censoring the debate. Just putting it in one place so that those who have already make up their minds can, if they wish, ignore it.

    The moderators should then delete such discussions from threads such as this.

    This would then open up the comments for some interesting discussion.

  5. D. John Hunwick

    Australia’s action on climate change (as against its words) is abysmal. Not only did we negotiate a special clause at Kyoto, we then refused to sign the protocol anyway. NO developed nation has done as much to derail action on climate change as my own bloody country. The only place for forests in negotiation is their continued protection with maybe some credit for extending them. UNtil the world reduces use of coal, oil and gas the danger of climate change increases. As for the Australian agriculture sector, the more they are protected the greater the burden the rest of us. It seems that poeple action in the coming months will be required to bring home to politicians that we want more ation than they are prepared to support.

  6. Frank Campbell

    MichaelK99: Same old authoritarianism…silence dissent, or send it to the sand-pit out the back.

    I didn’t want this wave of religious fervour to monopolise everyone’s attention. Blame the cult. So much else I’d rather be doing, but while the ETS/MRET and the cult hold sway, I’ll attack them. And the proto-Fascist tendencies they encourage.

    And I’m not a “denier” BTW. But I am a Greens voter.

  7. Joe Hoogland

    A carbon tax would eliminate most of these thorny issues of offsets, accounting tricks, allowing for the “might have occureds” as real savings etc. A carbon tax where part of the revenue was returned to those farmers who created carbon storage would give farmers another crop choice. Land clearing can be included in this scheme. If the ETS is the worldwide scheme of choice, let’s join in.

    It would also prevent developed nations trading pollution rights with under developed countries.

    But the more I compare a carbon tax against an ETS, the more I favour the former. Perhaps someone can provide me with a case against a carbon tax, other than that the world is well down the path of global ETS?

  8. Most Peculiar Mama

    @MichaelK99

    “…The moderators should then delete such discussions from threads such as this…”

    Indeed.

    We should all discuss only what YOU want to discuss and only if YOU agree with the topic.

    ‘…This would then open up the comments for some interesting discussion…”

    Pretty hard to have a ‘discussion’ when everyone is nodding in furious agreement.

    Is the above rant representative of the type of ‘discussion’ you offer the Crikey community?

    Spare me please.

  9. stephen

    Dear Roger, doesn’t methanol require the turning over of huge swathes of food producing land tofuel production?. Meat is already a very inefficent food source in terms of co2 and water. Powering it’s production with bio-fuels might not be such a good idea.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details

Sending...