IT came direct from Kevin Rudd’s mouth: the Labor Party cannot commit to ratify a post-2012 second Kyoto period unless Australia’s conditions are met.
Having spent 10 years of worship at the symbolic altar of Kyoto, Labor is suddenly selling a very different message. It is the opposite message: Kyoto has become conditional. Its sanctification is coming to an end.
The Australian – Labor sees the light on next Kyoto phase
Labor finally admits the Government was right all along
THE uncomfortable facts about climate change have forced Labor to admit the inconvenient truth about its own position on global warming. If Labor wins office, Mr Rudd may find himself in the same position for which Labor has long criticised the Howard Government, refusing to ratify a post-Kyoto agreement because it does not include developing nations such as China and India.
The Australian – Closing the climate change policy gap
KEVIN Rudd has tried to restore order to Labor’s chaotic climate change policy by “absolutely” refusing to ratify the post-Kyoto agreement unless China and India sign on.
The Labor leader’s climate change policies were thrown into disarray on Monday when Peter Garrett said it would not be a “deal breaker” for a Labor government if developing nations, such as China, did not accept binding targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
The Australian – Rudd seeks climate control
“I DON’T know if global warming will destroy the earth, but it is already frying brains.
Check out Peter Garrett’s.
Labor’s environment spokesman has got the faith so bad – saying Labor would sign a deal to slash our emissions even if bigger countries wouldn’t – that Labor’s leader, Kevin Rudd, had to shoot him.
Which makes two frontbenchers that Rudd has executed for saying precisely what Rudd himself has said.
Now there’s a sign of a leader who is making it up as he goes along, and is so hungry for power that he’ll say anything and ditch anyone.
But it’s also a sign that when it comes to global warming, Labor hasn’t a clue how to make the huge but useless cuts in emissions it has promised without bleeding us dry.
What a farce.”
Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun – Labor’s beds are burning
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I’ll say it’s a farce, it’s the biggest beat up of the year. All John Howard does is pounce on the slightest ambiguity in a statement, place his interpretation on it, and beat up the strawman he has created. Meh, it worked for Tampa, it’ll work again.
No SJT it’s far more than the beat up of an
ambiguity.
Labor has spent the last 5 years excoriating the Government for not signing Kyoto and sneering at the reason ; that Kyoto doesn’t impose any CO2 reduction targets on major emitters.
It then, in the space of 24 hours, it unambiguously conditioned any participation in a treaty on CO2 to the involvement of all signatories to redution targets.
If you’re genuinely in favour of an international agreement which leads to significant reductions in emissions, then Kyoto wasn’t it.
Celebrate the obvious ; now both sides are committed to something more realisitc on top of the Asia Pacific Climate Declaration.
It’s gotta be about reality not politics.
I don’t know why everyone can’t grasp that there is a difference between kyoto and post-kyoto:
Coalition:
1. Don’t ratify kyoto because it doesn’t include developing countries
2. Don’t enter a post-kyoto agreement unless it includes developing countries.
Labor:
1. Ratify kyoto, because developed countries need to take the lead
2. Don’t enter a post-kyoto agreement unless it includes developing countries.
Its a pretty simple and obvious difference isn’t it? And hardly represents a massive backflip, after 5 years or whatever.
Labor’s position is pretty much what was negotiated at kyoto by all countries – that the 1st phase is where developed countries take the lead, and in subsequent phases developed countries get involved.
So let’s try and avoid re-writing and warping history to suit out political ends everyone ok?
my second-last sentence should read “…and in subsequent phases develop-ING countries get involved.”
Thanks Steve great summary – the lead post and beatup is utterly silly. Of course we’re not going to write a blank cheque for post-Kyoto. The first Kyoto position was also negotiated by OUR negotiators – ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHT PERCENT and the Australia “clause”. And so they will now have to negotiate an even harder second round – especially if we haven’t signed Kyoto I as they know we’ll probably renege and not ratify.
Right wingers are getting nervous. Gee guys the sky might fall in eh? Panic – flee – run for the hills – buy gold.
Andrew Bolt indeed – ROTFL – a pillar of balanced reporting.
I agree it’s pretty straight forward to grasp Steve.
Kyoto = targets for reductions for some but not all emitters with little or no real impact on AGW.
Post Kyoto ( including the Asia Pacific Climate Declaration based on technology transfer ) = hopefully ALL emitters committing to targeted reductions minimising economic costs by utilising the best technology.
Of course if political onanism takes priority and form matters more than substance then nothing changes.
Sometimes John Howard evil racist , warmonger, Bush lackey , right wing fundamentalist etc might actually be right – let’s all take a deep breath and open our minds to the unthinkable.
Asia Pacific = no real promise to do anything.
Results delivered thus far = zilch.
Howard now considering Rudd’s renewable target. So indeed thye’re all moving ground during the campaign.
But what we most remember is the game playing and inaction during the Howard years. We’re now seeing a flurry of announcements. Maybe some are good initiatives too but very very late. Sorry most of us stop believing in these guys long ago.
Probably a good time for the Libs to get out anyway – they’ll leave Labor a legacy of high interest rates and inflation as the global cycle turns.
Kyoto has inevitably and predictably failed. Post Kyoto has to be all about technological solutions and adpatation to inevitable climate change.
The Asia Pacific Declaration set out a framework which included the following’
“We need concerted international action with all economies contributing to shared global goals in ways that are equitable, and environmentally and economically effective.”
Sounds pretty promising to me.
Add in an acknowledgement by China that reduction targets are necessary for ALL , the committment of the US and the recognition that technology holds the key and it looks great.
At any rate , it’s made the same contribution to reducing AGW as Kyoto has so far – zilch.
Too easy to flush you out luke – not even pretending anymore eh?
And there was a time when you believed in ” these guys” when was that?
ROTFLMAO.
Nice try at oversimplification, Steve. The facts are that one side based their policy on practical steps to deal with reality while the other one whipped up a lather of moralistic symbolism.
It tells us even more about what sort of “leader” captain Rudd really is. The first sign of serious contact and he buggs out and burns his own men. It is what generations of aussie diggers have recognised as the very worst kind of leader, the “gong hunter”. Eyes solely on the prize and bugger the cost in good men.
Dearie me, Kev07 has said it is “absolutely fundamental” that developing nations sign up to Kyoto emissions targets….
is that a backflip?
They’re all getting worried. Fret. Fret. Fret.
Sky will fall in. You’re all going to die. Interest rates will be 1000%.
One morning Garrett says absence of China and India was no “deal-breaker’ to post-Kyoto agreement.
Rudd endorses that statement.
Later that night Garrett says developing country commitments were essential to post-Kyoto agreement.
Naa, that’s not a backflip.
I was interested to see the comment to the effect that developed countries must sign the Kyoto accord to show leadership.
Is this leadership “do as I say”, or “do as I do”?
The records of the signatories in actually reducing emissions is not what I would call leadership. The examples that they are setting is that there is no real commitment to reducing CO2 emissions at all, in fact almost all have increased emissions.
If this is the justification for Australia to sign the Kyoto accord, then it is a falsehod.
It is also interesting that the only target that Labor has comitted to is for 2050, not 2012. I do not understand this.
If Labor wins, and sign the Kyoto acord, what will be their emission reduction target?
“By example shall you lead”
PP
Or if we’re going to get religiously zealous aka Al Gore;
“By their works ye shall know them” Luke 13:26