NationStates Jolt Archive

About 2 hours ago, the Prime Minister of Australia unveiled his national energy package which seeks to invest heavily in renewable energies like:

(a) wind
(b) solar
(c) HDR

While Australia will not be ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, it is understood that greenhouse gas emissions will be lowered below the level outline in the protocol and in less time!

...Reasons why Australia should not ratify the Kyoto Protocol:

(a) Only advanced economies are subject the demands of the protocol (annex 1 nations). Developing economies such as China are still allowed to pollute unconditionally.

(b) Increasing regulations will see many industries move offshore to countries like China. Investment will be redirected to developing nations which will pollute to a greater extent as they progress.

(c) As a result, global emissions of CO2 will likely increase.

(d) Australia will have lost jobs and industries. Economic recessions will become commonplace.

...Mark Latham suggests we should go it alone on defence by his Iraq pullout plan and "fortress australia" idea...so why does he feel we cannot go it alone on environmental protection too?

Goodluck with this "Fortress Australia" plan. If it is what I think it is, you'll likely need it to protect your beautiful continent from the ravaging barbaric troops of the US of A and its totalitaristic and religious dictator.

Goodluck with this "Fortress Australia" plan. If it is what I think it is, you'll likely need it to protect your beautiful continent from the ravaging barbaric troops of the US of A and its totalitaristic and religious dictator.

Fortress Australia is an idea that Australia can defend itself without allied assistence. The US would never invade Australia (Bush is not THAT bad) but there are others locally who would love to get their hands on our resources and land.

*Streaks through thread*

Goodluck with this "Fortress Australia" plan. If it is what I think it is, you'll likely need it to protect your beautiful continent from the ravaging barbaric troops of the US of A and its totalitaristic and religious dictator.

Essentially Australia cannot defend itself without its allies so any policy claiming we can is absurd.
There is as much chance of the US invading Australia as there is Osama bin Laden becoming the next Pope.

*streaks thorugh thread*

So what do the hardline greens think?

Take the lead? Some stupid idea to bury CO2 underground instead of reducing emissions. OK

The best thing against global warming is better air conditioning. :D

Well: to be serious. There is certainly a need to adress this issue. However: it should be done in a realistic way.
Nuclear power is also an option to reduce the emissions of carbone dioxid and other emissions.
The Kyoto protocoll is stupid because it is excluding China and India who have increased there emission much more than even the far reaching plans in the industrial nations go. They must go on bord and at least restrict the growth of emissions. Until that is not the case such treaties doesn´t make sense.
And by the way: as a european I know that the temperature in the early middle age was MUCH HIGHER than today. There was wine productin in South Sweden were even today that isn´t possible.
There was a period calle little ice age between 1500 to 1800 where the average temperature went down substantially. That is the point where we have to start with. The warming tendency has clearly natural causes, since it is marking the end of the little ice age.
They may be human influence in it. However that is not very high according to many experts it is only 20-30% up until now. This influence may grow due to the economic development of Asia.
However much of research needs to be done to find out the influence of natural causes (sun activity, vulkanos, other natural causes) and human influence.

The green panic makers are mistaken. They predicted in 1980 the end of all forests in Europe. Well: they are in pretty good shape, today.

Take the lead? Some stupid idea to bury CO2 underground instead of reducing emissions. OK

Actually, you aren't far off of the natural way to alleviate the greenhouse effect; which is to lock away CO2 into the rocks, soils, oceans, and ice. This didn't work on Venus because of the already high temperatures 'baking out' the CO2 from the surface and into the atmosphere.

Good luck with that...really. OMG it's Dubbya and he's got an invading force!!! OMG they killed Canda!!! That Bastard!

Take the lead? Some stupid idea to bury CO2 underground instead of reducing emissions. OK

Actually, you aren't far off of the natural way to alleviate the greenhouse effect; which is to lock away CO2 into the rocks, soils, oceans, and ice. This didn't work on Venus because of the already high temperatures 'baking out' the CO2 from the surface and into the atmosphere.

Let's hope it does work, but as for the long term effects, no idea. Still we need to stop deforesting and reduce emissions as well as reduce our dependency on fossil fuels.

They are planning to pump the gas underground. In my opinion your assertion is correct but the carbon is in the form of coal and oil as well as other rocks. Except we burn coal and oil ...

whats the point of not ratifying Kyoto but then going by its recommendations anyway? they may as well have joined.

whats the point of not ratifying Kyoto but then going by its recommendations anyway? they may as well have joined.

I'd do it. Even Russia decided to join leaving only Australia and US out.

From an article by Bjorn Lomborg (author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist") about that dumb film just out on global warming

------------------------------------------------------------------

If politicians were to snap to attention, what would be achieved? Implementing the Kyoto agreement on climate change would cost at least $150 billion each year, yet would merely postpone global warming for six years by 2100. The family in Bangladesh who will get flooded will have an extra six years to move.

Even if the movie's creators are right – and the scientists are wrong – and the Gulf Stream does collapse within a decade, then Kyoto would have made no difference.

For the cost of implementing Kyoto in just one year, we could permanently provide clean drinking water and sanitation to everyone on the planet. Yet it is unlikely that Emmerich will cast Brad Pitt creating sewerage systems in Kenya for his next glamorous movie. Nor is he likely to tell us the tale of governments investing in malarial vaccines or global conferences removing trade barriers.
----------------------------------------------------

Yay! Lets impoverish ourselves for no good reason!

of course australia leads the way. thats what we're here FOR but really, does this thread matter?

Before Lomborg gets held up as a champion of the anti-environmentalist movement, I'd like to point out that he retracted much of what he wrote in The Sceptical Environmentalist. His position is that we may be wasting precious resources and funds on ill-advised environmental projects rather than helping the needy. He's right there.

Kyoto was a cop-out and should have been much stronger. Sadly, there's no political or economic will to do what needs to be done.

Other points...

Storing CO2 is risky. It may get released again through human or geological activity.

Kybernetia - the issue of whether or not humans are having an effect on climate change is woefully misunderstood. Our influence may be small but that does not reduce its significance. The climate is a system of balancing forces and factors. Our actions are destabilising these systems, creating poitive feedback mechanisms where there were negative ones. The Earth will recover, it always does. We won't though. Environmentalists are actually pretty anthropocentric. We want humanity to survive.

[quote="San haiti"]whats the point of not ratifying Kyoto but then going by its recommendations anyway? they may as well have joined.[/quote

Because Kyoto is unfair on advanced economies and does NOT reduce global emissions at all. In fact CO2 will increase worldwide because of Kyoto.

(see first post)