PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd last night did an about-face on deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, days after Australia’s delegation backed the plan at the climate talks in Bali. A government representative at the talks this week said Australia backed a 25-40 per cent cut on 1990 emission levels by 2020. But after warnings it would lead to huge rises in electricity prices, Mr Rudd said the Government would not support the target. The repudiation of the delegate’s position represents the first stumble by the new Government’s in its approach to climate change.
Peter Jean, Herald Sun, 7 December 2007
INDONESIA has struck out at developed countries for presenting “empty propaganda” during climate change negotiations in Bali and stalling proposals to pay to protect the world’s forests. “When it comes to the negotiating table here in Bali, they only come with promises,” Mr Salim said. “When it comes to the negotiating table here in Bali, developed countries are stingy. “Where are you?” Mr Salim asked of Australia, the United States and Britain. Indonesia’s Forestry Minister, Malam Kaban, yesterday said his country could expect “big payments” from the scheme, as much as $US10 billion ($11.48 billion).
Sydney Morning Herald, 7 December 2007
NUSA DUA, Indonesia (Reuters) – The United States has invited major economies to Hawaii next month for a new round of talks about setting goals to curb greenhouse gas emissions, a senior U.S. official said on Thursday.
The White House sent invitations on December 1 for the meeting of 17 major economies, which account for more than 80 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, said Harlan Watson, the chief U.S. at U.N. climate talks in Bali, Indonesia.
“The meeting will be held in Honolulu,” Watson told Reuters. He said he believed the dates of the Hawaii meeting were January 29 and 30. The United States held a first round of the talks in Washington in late September.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Rush Limbaugh just read this post on the air, then he moved on to report on the kangaroo tummy stuff.
So just in case one of his minions sneaks back by for a peek. Howdy Rush!
Right on dude. Say hey Snerdly.
It was always a dilemma, how do you increase prices without increasing “mortgage stress” to “working families” – lets face it, the ALP invented these terms as an election stunt and they will now come back to haunt them
ooooo – ooooo – we’re all going to die.
Settle the f down and see what happens.
What happened to AP6? With India and China standing firm on not reducing emissions, Indonesia demanding big bucks from Western countries, and Cerumen having just signed a blank cheque on behalf of the Australian taxpayer, John Howard is looking more like a statesman than ever.
errr nothing ….
Debate is a messy business Paul. Its easy to look superficially good if you avoid it.
AP6 meant that China and India would have had to contribute whereas Kyoto let them of the hook.
Garnault is trying to figure that one out, “prisoners dilemma”
Maybe Kevin 07 is belatedly discovering that significant reductions in CO2 come at a cost and so we need to aim for maximum reduction for minmum cost?
Now what could such a solution be?
Steve, are you happy with the blank cheque aspect of ratifying Kyoto? Do you think the fact that we have ratified will influence the Chinese response?
Personally I think not, as they either take AGW seriously and decide to reduce emissions without outside pressure, or they don’t take it seriously and are just playing a diplomatic game to see what concessions they can obtain for themselves.
Given that developing countries are projected to overtake developed countries in total greenhouse emissions by 2015, what possible logic is there in exempting them from reduction targets? Assuming the goal is to actually reduce atmospheric CO2, that is.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalghg.html
This is so terribly disappointing.
I was hoping that a country somewhere–perhaps Australia–would drive itself into penury and below to meet the requirements of the ‘greenhouse gas’ regime.
Often, one can only hope for the spectacular discreditation of the latest greenie scam. Unfortunately, they tend to go with a whimper, rather than a bang. Like the bloodless coup over DDT. Bodies on the ground, but it’s not like they got shot or bombed or something.
The world has been cooling since 1998 and if that continues, the worldwide misery from a cold climate will discredit the greens once again.
The last time the greens were discredited was 1945, with the fall of the Nazi party. At some point, humans will tire of repeating the green mistakes.
Looks like Kevin Rudd and his climate change Minister will need to look at Tasmanian Forestry for a cheap and practible solution to removing and storing green house gasses.
A recent study (http://www.forestrytas.com.au/news/2007/12/tasmanias-state-forests-storing-more-carbon-each-year-than-the-carbon-emitted-by-half-a-million-cars ) found that actively managed forests for timber production are sucking carbon from the atmosphere at the rate of around 700 thousand tonnes per year, thanks to Forestry Tasmania’s management strategies.
These strategies are built upon the National Forest Policy Statement approved by the last ALP government and the Regional forest Agreement signed by John Howard on behalf of the former Liberal Government.
Clearly the lawful and sustainable forest management in Tasmania has multiple benefits of jobs, wealth creation and saving the environment.
Its a pity the Rainforest Action Network refuses to tell this story to Australia’s international markets.
Schiller – “The last time the greens were discredited was 1945, with the fall of the Nazi party. At some point, humans will tire of repeating the green mistakes.”
Actually I think Schiller deserves an award here. You see how he has tied all the right wing bullshit lies into ONE short post and with so few words – nice going.
DDT – greenies – cooling since 1998 – Nazis – wonderful stuff!!!!
Why did BHP, RIO et al support greenhouse restrictions? Because they thougth that they would be grandfathered – no burden on existing businesses, but new competitors would be hit by 50% plus higher power costs. For big business, greenhouse is an excuse to establish a monopoly-effect and screw consumers. At the moment, the new Government is saying no grandfathering, so BHP et al may change their tune.
Nobody in their right mind is going to build any new facility with the prospect of being hit by 50% higher power costs. In effect, the capital strike starts now. All new plants will go to China until sanity and grownups return.
Bali Day 5
The clouds cleared briefly this morning to reveal the dark green of Mt Agung, Bali’s highest volcano, dressed with white mist. Memories flooded back. I was last here thirty years ago as an undergraduate.
In east Java, I climbed Mt Bromo from the east side and then decided to continue on to the south coast of Java. At one stage, while walking in high altitude mist on a jungle trail, I came into a village that seemed a little strange, and then I realised it was the pigs with coarse black hair. This was one of the few villages not overrun by the Muslims in the 17th century, and still practicing animism. The simple, welcoming mountain people provided food and shelter until I descended to the plain below. A calling card shown to me indicated that the last white man that came through there was four years previously. In all, it was a two week period without meeting another person who spoke English.
That is why I went across the road today to make a donation to the forest people staging a protest against the IPCC Conference. They don’t want their forests locked up in management schemes and depriving them of a livlihood. As anyone who has lived up here knows, only constant vigilance stops places from being overrun by the rapacious jungle – witness what happened to Angkor Wat.
So, after more than 30 years, I was able to reciprocate, in some way, the kindness shown to me by the people of the forest.
Who would have ever guessed that someone from the left would flip-flop on an issue?
Its going to cost us either way.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/farms-face-climate-devastation/2007/12/06/1196812922296.html
ABARE, the home of libertarian economics within the Howard Govt, now turns to the dark side.
“AUSTRALIA could suffer a massive decline in farm production and agricultural export earnings in coming decades unless it can halt climate change or adapt to it, a report to the Federal Government has warned.
In a stark assessment of Australia’s vulnerability to a heating planet, a key research agency has predicted that production of wheat, beef, dairy items and sugar will fall by about 10% by 2030 as temperatures rise and rainfall declines.
By 2050, it warns the nation’s total economic output could have been shaved by as much as 5% as key agricultural exports are slashed by between 15% and 79% — placing Australia among the nations worst affected by climate change.
The warning from the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd yesterday distanced himself from suggestions at the Bali climate change conference that Australia would back an agreement on making deep cuts to greenhouse emissions by 2020.”
Like to have a laugh at Monckton’s expense? Walter Mitty might be a more appropriate title for him.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/may/06/observerreview.climatechange
Paul – “PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd last night did an about-face on deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, days after Australia’s delegation backed the plan at the climate talks in Bali. A government representative at the talks this week said Australia backed a 25-40 per cent cut on 1990 emission levels by 2020.”
Not wanting to get in the way of a sensationalist headline but did Rudd ever commit to what his spokesman said? As far as I know Rudd was always going to wait until the results of the report he commissioned.
“Mr Rudd said he supported a longer-term greenhouse emissions cut of 60 per cent of 2000 levels by 2050.
But the Government would not set medium-term targets until a report by economist Ross Garnaut was completed next year.
“I think speculation on individual numbers prior to that is not productive and I would suggest it would be better for all concerned if we waited for the outcome of that properly-deliberated document,” Mr Rudd said. ”
and this from
http://www.alp.org.au/media/0407/pcloo300.php
“RUDD: In the release we indicate that we expect an interim report to be produced by the middle of 2008. We expect that then to become the subject of public comment with the object of a final report being produced by October 2008. This is a serious piece of work, if you look at the amount of time which was invested by Sir Nicholas Stern in producing the Stern Report in the United Kingdom, this took a long period of time to do – that’s why we want to start it now. If we do form the next Government of Australia, if the Australian people vote for us at the end of the year, I don’t want to start off flat and cold on this question. I want the work well underway, that’s why I’m pleased to be able to partner with the States and Territories now to get this critical work done. It must therefore be got underway now so that we can have that done early into the term of the new Government.”
Can anyone supply a reference where Rudd said that he supported 20-40% cuts by 2020?
Hang on isn’t the latest ABARE model based on modelling done on agricultural yields using data and methodology from earlier estimates of models on global warming that have since been refined.
Weren’t these results of the mathematical moddelling reported with and without carbon fertilization, giving a 15% difference in crop yields. Yet only the ‘without’ figures are presented by ABARE.
Or what about the estimate in the referenced document that predicts a 100% decrease for Northern Australia by 2080.
I hope the taxpayer or the farmer is not asked to foot the bill based on these modelled estimates!
No I think you’re quite right Ender – Rudd announced a VERY impressive sounding cut over the next 43 years ( he’ll tell us how he’ll do it by the next election hopefully ) a demonstration of how serious he is about CO2 reduction.
He’s also going to convince the major developing emitters of the world to reduce their economic growth as well as I recall?
As opposed to championing an existing, viable solution which could achieve a max 50% cut in 10 – 15 years ; thank God that lying , denying , environmental vandal Howard got what he deserved.
cinders – for the hundreth time – if lack of available water – no CO2 fertilsation turbo-boost – FACE experiments are also very equivocal. Also interesting depending on where you are – CO2 reduces frost tolerance. And in grazing lands maybe CO2 favours woody scrub over grass (so less cows per ha). Don’t be surprised what you find if you look hard enough.
20% of this, 60% of that in 20 or 30 or 40 years time….thats what I call evasion
I agree with Ender (falls off chair) it was the spivocrats who got carried away with their own self importance and decided they would commit us to targets that no-one had authorised. But this is nothing new. Ros Kelly had no cabinet approval to endorse the original position of the Rio conference in 1990. And it has been down hill ever since.
Welcome to reality street KRuddy. Dont trust a bimbocrat any further than you can kick his but.
Australia to be ‘climate bridge’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7130106.stm
Expect to be walked all over soon!
What an imbecile. The govt of the day sends the negotiating team. I’m sure they said “just do anything you feel like – don’t bother checking back – anything will be just fine”. I’m sure they also say “Don’t take any options – just one inflexible position that we stick to regardless of any developments”.
And gee does the govt then in turn have to do a thing called “ratify” the agreement. What an ape arse you really are. And unrepresentative swill to boot.
From Kevin Rudd’s first media statement as federal Labor leader:
“This fork in the road has emerged because John Howard has taken a bridge too far. A bridge too far on industrial relations, a bridge too far when it comes to Iraq, and a bridge too far on climate change by not going far enough.”
Now “Australia’s new PM has told China he will act as a bridge between Beijing and the developed world in negotiations on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.”
He is metaphorically destitute.
Luke and others might like to read the reference relied upon by ABARE, its chapter on climate projections for nations shows that precipitation (available water) remains almost constant or in some areas increases for Australia!
The actual reference models that a ‘perferred’ estimate is a 27% decrease in agriculture production without carbon fertilisation and only 15.6% if the impact of having more CO2 in the atmosphere is taking into account.
Perhaps some may care to look at
Cline, W. 2007, Global Warming and Agriculture: Impact Estimates by Country, Center
for Global Development and Peterson Institute for International Economics, Washington
DC (www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/14090#Chpt).
However I think it is is important that the Australian public is presented with both scenarios not just the ABARE ‘without fertilisation’.
Cinders
what use is more rain in the Kimberly for farmers in the South East of Australia?
“Ape Arse” – oh Lukey boy ROTFLMFAO.
After a really shitty day that got me laughing!
Can I use that ( without attribution)??
SJT – you do make me laugh. Your fanatic defense of the alarmist cause, your oh so confident pronouncements / projection that are busted even before you utter them, and your almost sycophantic support for the RC mob – well, it’s to be admired.
I don’t want to get into any arguments – this in only for info…
BUT
November in South East Australia has been a very wet month with lots or areas receiving more than double their average rainfall.
http://www.bom.gov.au/web03/ncc/www/awap/rainfall/anomaly/month/colour/latest.gif
It is likely to continue – this afternoon in Sydney, the streets had a foot of water flowing down them. It rained like it has not for a long long time. The La Nina (which IIRC you denied for so long) is showing it’s teeth.
The November Nino CPC/NCEP Nino SST indices show that the surface anomalies have again decreased over November. Note – we have had some of the Nino region anomlies the coldest since records started. Both September and October Nino 1+2 region were the coldest in absolute terms ever. The November Nino anomaly is the lowest ever (all months).
YR MON NINO1+2 ANOM NINO3 ANOM NINO4 ANOM NINO3.4 ANOM
2007 8 19.16 -1.64 23.86 -1.1 28.58 0.12 26.2 -0.5
2007 9 18.57 -1.92 23.52 -1.31 28.12 -0.36 25.77 -0.87
2007 10 18.8 -2.11 23.36 -1.54 27.86 -0.55 25.22 -1.38
2007 11 19.45 -2.19 23.16 -1.79 27.42 -0.94 25.06 -1.45
ftp://ftp.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/wd52dg/data/indices/sstoi.indices
AND
Since Jan 2000, this November was the first month where the RSS MSU LT Global Temperature anomaly was negative – i.e. below below the 1979 through 1998 mean!
http://www.remss.com/pub/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_0.txt
It’s raining and it’s getting colder!
Sound of popping cork – cheers
Arnost
Jim – you may.
I have just completed my training at the finishing school for blog debating, the Ian Aloysius Mott Finishing School of Deportment and Etiquette. Web address is http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/FU_METRO_SCUM_TURDS
Arnost my dear chap, may I kindly draw your attention to the pattern that my colleague, SJT, has referred to as a “long term pattern”. You are such a bounder for introducing seasonal variation.
Another cucumber and dill sandwich perhaps?
Cinders I have no problem with an analysis of the effects of CO2 if done rigorously. I’m unsure it has been done. Effect on C3/C4 species competition, drought frequency and also greater numbers of insect pest generations and diseases need to be factored in if you wish to do this properly.
Thanks for the reference.
Luke
Whenever the opposite team goes to the trouble to lay on a very clever, refined, and especially (when they stretched their imaginations) an elegantly sophisticated sledge – the answer is always to point and yell:
SCOREBOARD!
“It is likely to continue – this afternoon in Sydney, the streets had a foot of water flowing down them. It rained like it has not for a long long time. The La Nina (which IIRC you denied for so long) is showing it’s teeth.”
The La Nina had apparently begun at the start of this year. After some disastrous and mostly useless floods, it then disappeared. We now have more floods in some areas of Australia, which for you seems to be all of Australia. The southern parts are still very much in trouble. As the experts have said, it’s going to take a lot more than just this to call the drought over.
SJT – the La Nina has officially not yet begun. If you will note – most official reports qualify this event by saying “La Nina CONDITIONS exist” or similar.
Yeah, right Arnost. Still waiting for the rain here.
“China insisted Friday the U.S. and other wealthy nations should bear the burden of curbing global warming, saying the problem was created by their lavish way of life. It rejected mandatory emission cuts for its own developing industries.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071207/ap_on_re_as/bali_climate_conference
ABARE forecasts and “moddeling” are treated with the contempt they deserve, by the great majority of farmers.
Really, do they ever get anything right? I have always planned for the opposite of what they predict, and am doing fine.
Used to go to their annual ‘Outlook Conferences’, held annually in Canberra. That is until I recognised them for what they were.. An annual ‘gabfest’ between a bunch of quangocrats and a mob of agro-politicians, many of whom were failed farmers.
rog – “”China insisted Friday the U.S. and other wealthy nations should bear the burden of curbing global warming, saying the problem was created by their lavish way of life. It rejected mandatory emission cuts for its own developing industries.””
While not condoning the Chinese for rejecting emission cuts they do have a point. The US with less than 3% of the world’s population consumes 25% of the world’s oil and emits 22% of the worlds greenhouse gases.
On a per capita basis the Chinese are far behind Australia, Europe and the US. The problem is China’s huge population.
China will have to accept emission cuts and controls eventually however we must lead the way with cuts of our own.
The problem with the ABARE forecasts is that for ten years they have been libertarian economics PC, and have actively campaigned against global warming. Finally, they have faced up to the facts.
I swore I would never use that stupid Internet argot, but here goes:
“China will have to accept emission cuts and controls eventually however we must lead the way with cuts of our own.” (Ender at December 10, 2007 08:32 AM.)
ROTFL
Hmmmn. With a response like that from the Boy Bluster, we can all conclude that my perspective was pretty close to the mark. Basically, the eunuchs got their rocks off on all the applause at Bali and they forgot their rightful place in the world. Like true grovellers, they got off on the approval and just couldn’t help themselves from giving away more Australian jobs (other than their own).
And here we go with that per capita emissions crap again. There are 300 million Americans, of whom about 250 million are doing some serious emissions. There are 1300 million Chinese, of whom about 250 million are also doing some serious emissions.
This notion that the existence of a vast population struggling just above subsistence level somehow legitimises the emissions of an affluent minority in the same country is seriously corrupted logic. Interestingly, it is the classic rationalisation of the green/left elites who have managed to do similar stunts many times in recent past. Fawning over the Bolshoi Ballet while 10 million were starving in the country side is a case in point. And Al Gore’s little excesses have only just begun.
Mean while, what will Krudd do about all those Kiwis (40,000 a year) who move to Australia but leave their emission entitlements behind? Lets see now, 40,000 @ 25 tonnes equals a million extra tonnes in emissions each year. And what about the Brits and all the other “first world” migrants. If migrants from other OECD nations are to continue to raise our population by 0.5% each year then logic would demand that our national emission target should be adjusted accordingly.
And logic would also demand that the emission entitlements of the migrant source country be adjusted (downwards) accordingly.
A target of 20% emission reduction is still a policy of maintaining the other 80%. And that remaining 80% has the potential to be a very valuable entitlement. Consequently, a target of 20% reduction by 2020 (12 years hence) should be adjusted by the 80% entitlement from the migrant source country. And if they were all of similar emission volume then a country with a 0.5% migrant intake would have its target adjusted to 86% by 2020 as the emission entitlement moves with the movement of permanent residents.
Some 6% variation in emission entitlement over just 12 years makes this issue “a relevant matter” that must be taken into account if Rudd is to exercise power properly, as defined in Judicial Review.
But just watch the Eurospivs choke on that one.
Oh no – back to mangled neo-Raphaelite impenetrable speeches.
“eunuchs got their rocks off on all the applause at Bali ” – WTF – what wankfestery
zzzzzzzzzzzzz
“Neo-Raphaelite”? Sounds clever Luke but what exactly is the scientific or intellectual significance of a minor change in artistic style in 400 year old italian paintings?
Is this something you picked up in the correspondence course “jibbering boofhead 101” to make you sound less and less of a fool?
Did I say neo – I should have said Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood. Have you noticed the excessive ornate and garish style of the period. That’s what your crap sounds like. Rhetorical slops. Your poor wife if you walk around the house poncing on like that. What’s shopping for groceries like. Do you lecture the checkout operator. I can imagine them saying – “just take it for free; anything; but just go”.
chrisgo – “”China will have to accept emission cuts and controls eventually however we must lead the way with cuts of our own.” (Ender at December 10, 2007 08:32 AM.)
ROTFL”
So I assume you have got up off the floor so consider this and see how keen you would be.
Dear China,
We are one of the worlds leading emitters of greenhouse gases per capita in the world while on a per capita basis you are one of the lowest.
However due to your very large population in absolute terms you contribute greatly to global warming so we want you to reduce your emissions. So your population that only emits a small amount per person must reduce their emissions by going without some more.
Please note: As Australia is small and does not emit much, we are going to go on living much as we are now and not compromise our quite luxurious lifestyles one tiny bit to reduce our emissions but we really want you to.
Regards
Australia
How does that sound Chrisgo – reasonable?
Another fantasy played out entirely inside Ender’s head. Great story, shame about the tenuous link to reality.