Paul Kelly writing in today’s The Australian has suggested that
“The Sydney climate change declaration is a success for John Howard, a good outcome for APEC and an incremental step on the long journey to find global agreement on a post-2012 emissions policy.
“The leaders’ declaration is exactly what the APEC forum was established to do – confront the big issues and strike a regional position to influence global outcomes…
“It is the first time so many nations from the developed and developing worlds have backed this concept [a long-term aspirational global emissions reduction goal]. It is also the first time the APEC region has embraced aspirational targets for energy efficiency and forest expansion.
“This is the first such agreement involving the major polluters, the US, China and the Russian Federation,” Howard said at APEC’s conclusion.
A friend of mine in Washington emailed this morning:
“APEC and the ‘Sydney Declaration’ got ten sentences at the bottom of page 14 in today’s New York Times. There was a story above it by a staff reporter that commented that the Australian media were more interested in what the President ate than his policies – it made us look like complete hicks – unfortunately it’s true. And then the article went on to explain that ‘Bums for Bush’ was not a campaign by hobos – but rather a nude protest.”
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“aspirational …goal”? My aspirational goal is to win lotto this month and then retire.
Yes, that’s about all the substance of an aspirational goal. I’m ruly amazed at all the column-centimetres that have been written about such a non-event.
Working towards an aspirational goal? You would think even a politician would be embarassed by such a confluence of weasel words.
What a pity it wasn’t a declaration by Rudd and Obama?
Imagine how well it’d be received here and elsewhere if it wasn’t Bush and Howard!
Dont forget, aspirationals can vote.
Jennifer, the NYT is hardly a reliable source.
Unfortunate that not too much ground made on tariffs at APEC however there is now full agreement by all to make DOHA succeeed.
The two global powerhouses, China and the US, agreed on climate change goals.
GWB pulled China up oberving that they dont spend anything on themselves, they have no services therefore no reliance on imports. He also told them to ease up on political and religious disidents. He said that whilst he is looking forward to the Beijing Olympics human rights is still an issue and he will not be dissuaded from meeting with the Dalai Lama.
A poke in the eye from the US, no wonder the NYT played it down.
Do aspirers have more fun than deniers?
And if your aspiration is a fizzer well at least you had a go (well maybe you didn’t), but it’s the thought the counts (well maybe it doesn’t).
OK – you win.
Australian Environment Foundation Conference, 8-9th September: Who Cares?
Any news on how the conference went?
“Do aspirers have more fun than deniers?”
You could try to aspire to something Luke, instead of this puddle of despondency that you play in.
If only there were other areas where aspirational targets could be applied. They’d be just as effective, after all.
http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/09/aspirational-targets.html
Says the “Grinch” – ROTFL coming from a “Rog” the one liner King. Give us a guest post Rog instead of smarmy attacks. Give us something of substance.
I am currently working towards having an aspiration. I shall then take that aspiration and use it to create a goal. I will then try to achieve that goal.
Somehow I feel there has to be a quicker way.
What we have here is an aspirational target wrapped in a motherhood statement and served up on a golden platter.
So what did Rudd say to uncle Hu? All that fluent putonghua (mandarin) and all he came up with was an exercise in brown nosing and grovelling. Where was Rudds fervent demand that Hu Jin Tao do something about the worlds biggest CO2 emitter?
Well, er, it must have been lost amongst the platitudes or sent to the unclaimed baggage section at Kyoto airport.
This khow towing turkey is too meek to give a toss about Tibetan genocide, the extrajudicial killing of religious minorities and the failure to recognise the legitimate self determination of the Taiwanese and no-one even bothers to ask what, or more importantly, when, he will get around to setting a target for the worlds greatest emitter.
And the wankers on this blog who continue to defend Kyoto Ugly as an important first step that the Australian Government should ratify as a test of our commitment, then have the unmitigated gall to criticise an APEC statement that is just as non-binding but actually includes the two biggest emitters, China and the USA.
So lets spell this out. Rudds key platform on climate change is to ratify Kyoto. Kyoto has no binding targets for any third world nations, including China. Rudd has completely accepted the chinese position that they have no responsibility to limit GH emissions.
It is no use being fluent in putonghua if Rudd has his head jammed so far up Uncle Hu’s backside that he has lost sight of daylight. He should heed the old chinese saying, “jue nei ma ge hai”.
You’re right Mott, Rudd should have followed Bushies and Howard’s examples by openly challennging Hu on China’s environmental & human rights abuses. Gee you talk prejudiced crap. Since when did you give a toss over tibetans anyway?
Oh and re: emissions, recall we agreed on this blog once (at least jennifer agreed) that we should calculate emissions per head.
Who cares? in the title is spot on. Who cares? Clearly those leaders are sufficiently insulated to not care.
Pinxie asks, “Since when did you give a toss over tibetans anyway?” Since I lived in ethnic Tibetan villages for a time in 1979 at the top of the Manang Valley just this side of the border. We were twelve days walk from the nearest road.
Wak je nei jan hai m ji do, nei che sin gei nui.
Impressive. You don’t speak Tibetan though. Would you seriously want an Aussie PM or PM aspirational to give the middle finger to Hu over human rights though? No national leader ever has done so, going all the way back to 50s. Why’s that? Good reason or every world leader has been a gutless wonder?
Being sympathetic to their plight, you must share the Tibetan’s greatest concern after Chinese genocide – about climate change & disappearing glaciers. Or do you reckon AGW’ll do em a bit of good?