Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 62

Thread: Elections Have Consequences ... Australian Style

  1. #1
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Elections Have Consequences ... Australian Style

    as you may or may not recall, last fall Australians voted in a new gov't behind new prime minister Rudd. The central issue of that election was an absolute commitment by Mr. Rudd to sign the Kyoto treaty. However, after his successful election, some Australians began to frantically point out the real world costs and consequencs of doing so. Rudd ordered a detailed cost estimate of the costs to Australians of Kyoto treaty compliance, and one element of that detailed cost study has just been released.



    (snip)"Power bills to double to pay carbon costs
    Matthew Warren, Environment writer | February 01, 2008

    MAJOR Australian greenhouse gas emitters believe that emissions-trading costs of about $65 a tonne of carbon are inevitable, forcing household electricity bills to rise by almost 100 per cent.

    The new director of the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network, Mike Hitchens, told The Australian business should look to evolving carbon markets in Europe to estimate the future cost of emissions trading.

    "We all need to understand that linking to other emissions-trading schemes outside of Australia is inevitable, whether done formally or informally," Mr Hitchens said.

    "That means that it's the world price of permits we need to incorporate into analysis about the impacts on the Australian economy, not simply the implications of setting our own targets.

    "The price of emissions in Australia will very likely be set in Europe. Australia is a price taker for commodities in all other global markets, and we will be a price taker in this global market as well."

    The European Commission has estimated a future price of about $65 per tonne of carbon, with European banks predicting a price of between $60 and $80.

    The National Generators Forum said a price of more than $40 per tonne would eliminate the need for the Government's 20 per cent Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET), while a price at $80 per tonne would effectively double the price of retail electricity in Australia."(snip)

  2. #2
    God/dess leilanicandy's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2005
    Location
    where they like American Boys
    Posts
    2,111
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts

    Default Re: Elections Have Consequences ... Australian Style

    Mel, how would this affect us? I dont understand what this mean.
    If you want the present to be differant from the past, study the past.
    Baruch Spindza

    It is what it is, not what you want it to become, that's important -- at least for now. Today, remember that things worth having are worth waiting for!
    The Stars

    Minds are like parachutes: They only function when open.
    Thomas Dewar

    Dont throw away the old bucket until you know whether the new one holds water.
    Swedish Proverb

  3. #3
    God/dess GoldCoastGirl's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2002
    Location
    ...hehehe... email me to ask me where i am ! (i dare you!)
    Posts
    11,486
    Thanks
    42
    Thanked 127 Times in 51 Posts

    Default Re: Elections Have Consequences ... Australian Style

    He signed it anyway so what is your point?


    enter: E3167322D9 for your 10% discount

  4. #4
    Senior Member Tara_SW's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    160
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Elections Have Consequences ... Australian Style

    Quote Originally Posted by GoldCoastGirl View Post
    He signed it anyway so what is your point?
    based on what I've seen of her postings I'd say the point is her usual. It's an attempt to discourage anything enviromentally positive. that goes double for anything that might cut into oil company profits.

    just my opinion though

  5. #5
    Featured Member
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,030
    Thanks
    21
    Thanked 117 Times in 78 Posts

    Default Re: Elections Have Consequences ... Australian Style

    Quote Originally Posted by Tara_SW View Post
    based on what I've seen of her postings I'd say the point is her usual. It's an attempt to discourage anything enviromentally positive. that goes double for anything that might cut into oil company profits.

    just my opinion though
    I think her opinion is more that the Australian citizens elected this guy to pass the Kyoto and now that he's rushed and got done it, they've just begun to realize what it's really going to cost.

    Which is actually my problem with the Kyoto, it looks so much better on paper. And it is so hard on countries like the US.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    112
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Elections Have Consequences ... Australian Style

    'cos saving a little on electricity is a good reason to destroy the planet?

    and LOL hard on countries like the US... no they really can't deal with it, they're only the wealthiest country in the world! (for now at least, until karma catches up with them, which hopefully is not too far away)

    I voted for Kyoto, and I'll live with the consequence of higher electricity prices. It's good, because electricity consumption is not so inelastic as to make it completely unresponsive to price. If people use less electricity (you know, not chill their homes to sub zero temperatures, while leaving all the lights on with old fashioned light bulbs, using inefficient appliances, etc.) surely that's a good thing?

    What would be the "consequences" of not voting for Kyoto through Rudd? I can assure you that even if they're not so immediate, they're gonna be a whole lot more significant than higher electricity prices!

    I usually share your sentiments Mel, but what *is* your point?

  7. #7
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Elections Have Consequences ... Australian Style

    I'm usually at odds with Melonie, but here's the point from my perspective:

    If you hammer down on industrialized nations to follow Kyoto but give "backwards" nations free rein because they're economically disadvantaged, then you've gained nothing. Industrialists will flock to the backwards nations to avoid the protocols.

    Witness China, who has only monitoring and reporting but no corrective obligations, and has the most environmentally toxic areas on the planet now. If you're just exporting or transplanting the pollution, what good have you done to the world at large?

  8. #8
    Senior Member Tara_SW's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    160
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Elections Have Consequences ... Australian Style

    it would be nice if that really was the point of her post but considering everthing else I've seen her post on the subject of the enviroment-well lets just say I have some serious doubts that's the case but whatever. On to a point more worthy of discussion now

    Doing nothing doesn't acomplish anything at all.

    Kyoto is a good start and when other countries that haven't signed on yet see it actually is in their best interest (and maybe some carrots need to be dangled to make it more appealing) Kyoto can be a really great thing.

  9. #9
    Featured Member
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,030
    Thanks
    21
    Thanked 117 Times in 78 Posts

    Default Re: Elections Have Consequences ... Australian Style

    Quote Originally Posted by salsa4ever View Post
    'cos saving a little on electricity is a good reason to destroy the planet?

    and LOL hard on countries like the US... no they really can't deal with it, they're only the wealthiest country in the world! (for now at least, until karma catches up with them, which hopefully is not too far away)

    I voted for Kyoto, and I'll live with the consequence of higher electricity prices. It's good, because electricity consumption is not so inelastic as to make it completely unresponsive to price. If people use less electricity (you know, not chill their homes to sub zero temperatures, while leaving all the lights on with old fashioned light bulbs, using inefficient appliances, etc.) surely that's a good thing?

    What would be the "consequences" of not voting for Kyoto through Rudd? I can assure you that even if they're not so immediate, they're gonna be a whole lot more significant than higher electricity prices!

    I usually share your sentiments Mel, but what *is* your point?
    I'm probably starting another fight but oh well....

    Where the hell do you get off wishing a poor economy on people? Do realize that our economy trickles down? Do you even know which Americans are really effected by a poor economy? Not the uber rich that you are the actual basis for your problems, but the little guy, who scrapes by as is. But hey who cares if he's can barely get buy as long as American gets told. So many things I could say to you...

    Oh and I guess Australia's gonna step up and take care of the things American can't when our economy goes? You'll take over all the funding we do with the UN and other work abroad? No you'll get a chuckle until it starts to effect you.

    And yes, the Kyoto would be very hard for the United States. As you already pointed out (like an ass) our economy is not in great shape, and to try and implement all the thing the protocal calls for would cripple certain industries. Some of which are the few industries that have yet to go abroad.
    So maybe we should insert the protocals and watch those industries move to India and China where they can pollute even more.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Tara_SW's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    160
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Elections Have Consequences ... Australian Style

    Quote Originally Posted by salsa4ever View Post
    'cos saving a little on electricity is a good reason to destroy the planet?

    and LOL hard on countries like the US... no they really can't deal with it, they're only the wealthiest country in the world! (for now at least, until karma catches up with them, which hopefully is not too far away)

    I voted for Kyoto, and I'll live with the consequence of higher electricity prices. It's good, because electricity consumption is not so inelastic as to make it completely unresponsive to price. If people use less electricity (you know, not chill their homes to sub zero temperatures, while leaving all the lights on with old fashioned light bulbs, using inefficient appliances, etc.) surely that's a good thing?

    What would be the "consequences" of not voting for Kyoto through Rudd? I can assure you that even if they're not so immediate, they're gonna be a whole lot more significant than higher electricity prices!
    fabulous post!!!!

  11. #11
    Featured Member
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,030
    Thanks
    21
    Thanked 117 Times in 78 Posts

    Default Re: Elections Have Consequences ... Australian Style

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Zeno View Post
    I'm usually at odds with Melonie, but here's the point from my perspective:

    If you hammer down on industrialized nations to follow Kyoto but give "backwards" nations free rein because they're economically disadvantaged, then you've gained nothing. Industrialists will flock to the backwards nations to avoid the protocols.

    Witness China, who has only monitoring and reporting but no corrective obligations, and has the most environmentally toxic areas on the planet now. If you're just exporting or transplanting the pollution, what good have you done to the world at large?
    Exactly. Thank you.

  12. #12
    Featured Member aussiebelle's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    1,498
    Thanks
    99
    Thanked 169 Times in 111 Posts

    Default Re: Elections Have Consequences ... Australian Style

    I do agree with you Jay Zeno in that the Kyoto Protocol is not perfect. I feel that both China and India should be included, as the levels of emissions from both of these countries are considerably high.

    However, many Australians (and I included) feel that Australia as a country must address the issue of global warming in order to be a good global citizen and take responsibility for our emissions. The Kyoto Protocol, although not perfect, is a step towards doing this.

    There is much media attention in Australia about global warming and many Australians are very aware and educated about this issue. No matter what steps Australia takes to be responsible and develop a plan for the future, there is no doubt Australia will suffer economically. The coal industry is a major source of energy for Australia and reducing emissions will obviously take it's toll on the country financially.

    However, when it comes down to it, what is the cost of the environment? What is the cost of the future? Surely, the environment can never be replaced and should be a major concern.

    In addition, from the general consensus, many, many Australians are pleased with the ratification of Kyoto and have been wanting this for a long time. Personally, I feel that this signing is a positive step for Australia's future.
    Some mistakes are too much fun to only make once.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    112
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Elections Have Consequences ... Australian Style

    Quote Originally Posted by jester214 View Post
    I'm probably starting another fight but oh well....

    Where the hell do you get off wishing a poor economy on people? Do realize that our economy trickles down? Do you even know which Americans are really effected by a poor economy? Not the uber rich that you are the actual basis for your problems, but the little guy, who scrapes by as is. But hey who cares if he's can barely get buy as long as American gets told. So many things I could say to you...

    Oh and I guess Australia's gonna step up and take care of the things American can't when our economy goes? You'll take over all the funding we do with the UN and other work abroad? No you'll get a chuckle until it starts to effect you.

    And yes, the Kyoto would be very hard for the United States. As you already pointed out (like an ass) our economy is not in great shape, and to try and implement all the thing the protocal calls for would cripple certain industries. Some of which are the few industries that have yet to go abroad.
    So maybe we should insert the protocals and watch those industries move to India and China where they can pollute even more.
    I don't get off from wishing a poor economy on the US. I'm excited by the fact that the fake growth and inflated standards of living that have been supported by fiat currency and the totally unjustified privelege of being the world's reserve currency is about to be imploded! Goodbye US dollar, Hello Gold, Hello Oil, Hello Swiss Franc (if they keep their act together).

    Yeah, 'cos the American "little guy" is so unfortunate compared to the average mexican, brazilian, african, chinese, vietnamese or indian labourer. It's time for the American (and French and German and British and Australian, for that matter) unskilled labourer to start enjoying the same lifestyle as the world's unskilled labourer. Then people might start getting serious about improving their lot. I think Melonie would share my position here!

    Haha, yeah, I love all the "work" the USA is doing meddling with the Middle East. How many billions of dollars a day on the untenable and pointless operation in Iraq?

    I'm also *really* scared, that the US depression is going to affect my stockpiles of gold or my short positions on the US markets!

    For the record, I think India and China should be made by economic or other pressures to sign up to Kyoto. Unfortunately, the fact that the USA has stupidly cornered themselves into a position where they are now the lap dogs of Beijing due to the threat of having all their bonds dumped and therefore facing economic armageddon. But just because they don't ratify Kyoto, does not mean the rest of the world should follow suit. The rest of the world should bear down on them, not use them as an excuse to continue destroying the earth.
    Last edited by salsa4ever; 02-01-2008 at 01:01 AM.

  14. #14
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Elections Have Consequences ... Australian Style

    t would be nice if that really was the point of her post but considering everthing else I've seen her post on the subject of the enviroment-well lets just say I have some serious doubts that's the case but whatever.
    the Kyoto would be very hard for the United States. As you already pointed out (like an ass) our economy is not in great shape, and to try and implement all the thing the protocal calls for would cripple certain industries. Some of which are the few industries that have yet to go abroad.
    So maybe we should insert the protocals and watch those industries move to India and China where they can pollute even more.

    As I have posted about consistently in other threads, my point about the Kyoto treaty and carbon credits is that they can't and won't achieve the stated objective. The reason for this is as simple as it could possibly be. 'Developing' countries like China and India are more or less EXEMPT from carbon emissions reductions under the provisions of the treaty. Furthermore, the Chinese gov't and other 'developing' country gov'ts are officially on record that they will NOT accept future treaty provisions that would force them limit carbon emissions down the road.

    Thus on a global basis, the Kyoto treaty as it presently exists would add ponderous additional costs for essentially all non-nuclear energy users in developed countries - while providing no similar cost increases for energy users in 'developing' countries. One result of this will be a lowering of the standard of living of 'poor' people in developed countries - assuming that their gov'ts don't institute new social welfare programs designed to allow middle class people to 'pay for' the rising energy bills of the 'poor' people, which would lower middle class living standards as well.

    Another result, one that is arguably far more important, is that all industrial activities that require large amounts of energy would have an even larger financial incentive to close down operations in the developed country in favor of setting up new operations and/or outsourcing from a developing country.

    Another result, and one that is of the utmost importance, is that the resulting new industrial operations in developing countries that will replace closed down operations in developed countries will in fact produce far MORE total carbon emissions. The reason of course is that the infrastructure of developing countries and the environmental regulations of developing countries simply doesn't bother to force the gov't and/or industries to invest large amounts of money in emission controls or efficiency. How much more blatant can this point be than the fact that China is constructing unscrubbed coal fired power plants at the rate of two new power plants per week ! The result of this is that the new production facility constructed in China or India will in fact generate significantly greater carbon emissions than the old production facility in a developed country that was closed down ... because the old production facility in a developed country at least had some level of pollution controls. The same point applies to new power plants in developing countries producing more emissions than the power plants in developed countries ... especially when the new Chinese power plant supplying a new factory is burning dirty coal with unscrubbed stacks, while the developing country's power plant that used to supply a closed down factory was burning more efficient lower pollution natural gas or oil.

    So my point here is that, in exchange for paying an electricity bill that is much higher, and in exchange for paying higher prices for everything with a direct or indirect fossil fuel content, and in exchange for future loss of industries and associated jobs, what Australian voters will have actually accomplished in terms of global carbon emissions reductions is not only zero but LESS THAN ZERO on a global basis - since the increased carbon emissions that result from migration of industrial activity to 'developing' countries will be greater than the carbon emission reductions that occur in the 'developed' countries as industries move away ! However, the only statistic that seems to be important to politicians and local media and local advocates is that carbon emissions in the 'developed' country do in fact decrease ... but this is just a variation on the old NIMBY theme.

    And where CO2 / global warming is concerned, the old NIMBY principle of removing a garbage pile from one area's back yard while creating a new garbage pile that is twice as high in another area's back yard doesn't accomplish anything whatsoever ... because unlike the garbage heap that will more or less stay put, CO2 will redistribute evenly through the earth's atmosphere.
    Last edited by Melonie; 02-01-2008 at 03:55 AM.

  15. #15
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Elections Have Consequences ... Australian Style

    Look at it this way. If developed countries have to cut their pollution in half while developing countries are allowed to increase their pollution tenfold, you haven't done anything for carbon levels and toxic emissions.

    I'm not talking from a standpoint of economics, politics, sociology, or some overarching sense of "fair" or "justice." I'm talking from the standpoint of a guy who's looking at global limited resources and declining environments and wanting things that work. If a "place to start" moves the planet backwards and makes things worse, I'm not much interested.

  16. #16
    Featured Member
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,030
    Thanks
    21
    Thanked 117 Times in 78 Posts

    Default Re: Elections Have Consequences ... Australian Style

    Quote Originally Posted by salsa4ever View Post
    I don't get off from wishing a poor economy on the US. I'm excited by the fact that the fake growth and inflated standards of living that have been supported by fiat currency and the totally unjustified privelege of being the world's reserve currency is about to be imploded! Goodbye US dollar, Hello Gold, Hello Oil, Hello Swiss Franc (if they keep their act together).

    Yeah, 'cos the American "little guy" is so unfortunate compared to the average mexican, brazilian, african, chinese, vietnamese or indian labourer. It's time for the American (and French and German and British and Australian, for that matter) unskilled labourer to start enjoying the same lifestyle as the world's unskilled labourer. Then people might start getting serious about improving their lot. I think Melonie would share my position here!

    Haha, yeah, I love all the "work" the USA is doing meddling with the Middle East. How many billions of dollars a day on the untenable and pointless operation in Iraq?

    I'm also *really* scared, that the US depression is going to affect my stockpiles of gold or my short positions on the US markets!

    For the record, I think India and China should be made by economic or other pressures to sign up to Kyoto. Unfortunately, the fact that the USA has stupidly cornered themselves into a position where they are now the lap dogs of Beijing due to the threat of having all their bonds dumped and therefore facing economic armageddon. But just because they don't ratify Kyoto, does not mean the rest of the world should follow suit. The rest of the world should bear down on them, not use them as an excuse to continue destroying the earth.
    Hah. If you think those are going to last your in for a surprise, we're in a downswing, but we'll bounce back, we always do, its the nature of our economy. I still don't understand why you would want to see someones economy fail, unless you saying that it would improve your lifestyle because you have gold and short positions...

    So you want everyone to share the lot of the worst off in the world? Excluding yourself of course. Do you really think that would change anything?

    I meant the billions of dollars that we give in aid work and "loans" to other countries, loans which are never repaid. Not to mention the money we pay to fund the UN. Whose going to do all that? Not you, not anyone, you'll just ask why America isn't doing it anymore.

    I didn't mean you personally, I meant foreign economies.

    If the protocol won't do anything then the US signing it is just a statement, an extremely costly statement.

    And I'm just curious, if the US economy did go to pieces, and we wern't the strongest anymore. Who would that leave on Top? China? You want China as the most economically sound place on earth? I'm sure they'll take an active role in helping other countries and furthering human rights.

  17. #17
    Senior Member Tara_SW's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    160
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Elections Have Consequences ... Australian Style

    I call bullshit that it can't and won't have a positive effect. </p>
    I also do not agree that other countries not currently part of Kyoto will never, ever, ever under any circumstances join Kyoto. World leaders often do change positions on serious matters.
    Last edited by Tara_SW; 02-01-2008 at 12:31 PM.

  18. #18
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: Elections Have Consequences ... Australian Style

    Quote Originally Posted by jester214 View Post
    I'm probably starting another fight but oh well....

    Where the hell do you get off wishing a poor economy on people? Do realize that our economy trickles down? Do you even know which Americans are really effected by a poor economy? Not the uber rich that you are the actual basis for your problems, but the little guy, who scrapes by as is. But hey who cares if he's can barely get buy as long as American gets told. So many things I could say to you...

    Oh and I guess Australia's gonna step up and take care of the things American can't when our economy goes? You'll take over all the funding we do with the UN and other work abroad? No you'll get a chuckle until it starts to effect you.

    And yes, the Kyoto would be very hard for the United States. As you already pointed out (like an ass) our economy is not in great shape, and to try and implement all the thing the protocal calls for would cripple certain industries. Some of which are the few industries that have yet to go abroad.
    So maybe we should insert the protocals and watch those industries move to India and China where they can pollute even more.

    I look forward to the day when America becomes more isolationist - and it is coming mark my words.

    Oh - save Dafur! Nope. An example of American isolationism.
    Oh - feed the Somalis! Nope. A hard learned example of American isolationism.

    The list will grow bigger and finally the rest of the world can step up the plate to get something done.

    Name a country that is in the top ten debtor nations, has the most % of its population in prison; porous borders that any drug dealer, terrorist, sex slaver, or smuggler can walk across; uses capital punishment; taxes it's population to no end; and anyone who wants to can walk in and start insisting on the government using their language? Sounds like a third world nation?

    We are well on our way to being one and when that happens, pray for the world.

  19. #19
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: Elections Have Consequences ... Australian Style

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    As I have posted about consistently in other threads, my point about the Kyoto treaty and carbon credits is that they can't and won't achieve the stated objective. The reason for this is as simple as it could possibly be. 'Developing' countries like China and India are more or less EXEMPT from carbon emissions reductions under the provisions of the treaty. Furthermore, the Chinese gov't and other 'developing' country gov'ts are officially on record that they will NOT accept future treaty provisions that would force them limit carbon emissions down the road.

    Thus on a global basis, the Kyoto treaty as it presently exists would add ponderous additional costs for essentially all non-nuclear energy users in developed countries - while providing no similar cost increases for energy users in 'developing' countries. One result of this will be a lowering of the standard of living of 'poor' people in developed countries - assuming that their gov'ts don't institute new social welfare programs designed to allow middle class people to 'pay for' the rising energy bills of the 'poor' people, which would lower middle class living standards as well.

    Another result, one that is arguably far more important, is that all industrial activities that require large amounts of energy would have an even larger financial incentive to close down operations in the developed country in favor of setting up new operations and/or outsourcing from a developing country.

    Another result, and one that is of the utmost importance, is that the resulting new industrial operations in developing countries that will replace closed down operations in developed countries will in fact produce far MORE total carbon emissions. The reason of course is that the infrastructure of developing countries and the environmental regulations of developing countries simply doesn't bother to force the gov't and/or industries to invest large amounts of money in emission controls or efficiency. How much more blatant can this point be than the fact that China is constructing unscrubbed coal fired power plants at the rate of two new power plants per week ! The result of this is that the new production facility constructed in China or India will in fact generate significantly greater carbon emissions than the old production facility in a developed country that was closed down ... because the old production facility in a developed country at least had some level of pollution controls. The same point applies to new power plants in developing countries producing more emissions than the power plants in developed countries ... especially when the new Chinese power plant supplying a new factory is burning dirty coal with unscrubbed stacks, while the developing country's power plant that used to supply a closed down factory was burning more efficient lower pollution natural gas or oil.

    So my point here is that, in exchange for paying an electricity bill that is much higher, and in exchange for paying higher prices for everything with a direct or indirect fossil fuel content, and in exchange for future loss of industries and associated jobs, what Australian voters will have actually accomplished in terms of global carbon emissions reductions is not only zero but LESS THAN ZERO on a global basis - since the increased carbon emissions that result from migration of industrial activity to 'developing' countries will be greater than the carbon emission reductions that occur in the 'developed' countries as industries move away ! However, the only statistic that seems to be important to politicians and local media and local advocates is that carbon emissions in the 'developed' country do in fact decrease ... but this is just a variation on the old NIMBY theme.

    And where CO2 / global warming is concerned, the old NIMBY principle of removing a garbage pile from one area's back yard while creating a new garbage pile that is twice as high in another area's back yard doesn't accomplish anything whatsoever ... because unlike the garbage heap that will more or less stay put, CO2 will redistribute evenly through the earth's atmosphere.

    Ya uzez to many wordz for simple thinkers.

  20. #20
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Elections Have Consequences ... Australian Style

    China signed Kyoto, and I'm looking at what's happening there.





    National Geographic is not a conservative or economics driven institution.

  21. #21
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Elections Have Consequences ... Australian Style

    Yes China and India signed the Kyoto treaty as 'Annex 2' countries, meaning that they are exempt from emissions limits. I'm sure that America would also sign with an 'Annex 2' classification - because with this exemption in place the treaty is essentially meaningless !!!! As to a willingness by China's and India's gov't to actually reduce emissions in the future, they couldn't possibly be clearer on this issue !

    (snip)"The International Energy Agency (IEA) on 6 November released a report, The World Energy Outlook, projecting that China will overtake the US in carbon dioxide emissions by 2009, a decade earlier than previously anticipated. The IEA’s revised estimate highlights the growing challenge that China’s robust economic growth poses for global efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions through the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

    The IEA re-evaluated China’s contribution to global greenhouse gases in light of the 13 percent annual increase in its coal use since 2003. China relies on coal for 67 percent of its energy, and nearly 70 percent of its greenhouse gas emissions come from the energy sector. Construction of new coal-fired plants has expanded exponentially to support China’s economic growth and increasingly urbanized population, who now live in cities with record air pollution.

    The Kyoto Protocol distinguishes between developed (Annex I) states, which are obligated to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to approximately 5 percent below their 1990 levels by 2012, and developing (Annex II) countries, which are not subject to these rules. Annex I states may offset their emissions by participating in emissions trading among themselves or by contributing to a Clean Development Mechanism and providing green technology to Annex II countries.

    Although the US accounts for 25 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, the Bush administration opted out of the treaty in large part because China and other industrializing developing states such as India are not required to comply with Kyoto emissions limits. Australia, currently the second largest per capita emitter, has refused to participate for the same reason. [the Australian policy was recently reversed as a result of the election of PM Rudd and a 'sign Kyoto immediately' platform - sic]

    Drafted in 1997, the Kyoto Protocol only was entered into force on 16 February 2005, after Russia signed it. Russian participation meant that 35 countries representing 55 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions in 1990 would be covered by the treaty.

    Although China signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1998, Beijing contends that requiring developing countries to adhere to the same limits as developed states would be unfair given the great discrepancy in income and per capita emissions. Some Chinese officials also assert that the US and other developed countries benefit by shifting polluting industries offshore to China. Such arguments fail to address the major point: China’s contribution to global warming is expanding rapidly to everyone’s detriment, including the Chinese people.

    In mid-November, representatives from 180 states met in Nairobi to discuss the future of the Kyoto targets after 2012. The group failed to agree on a timetable for future cuts. China and India remain adamantly opposed to making developing countries subject to future limits, a position that is unlikely to change unless the US and Australia join the treaty."(snip)

    from

    and

    (snip)"BEIJING,: China will reject any agreement that calls for binding limits on carbon dioxide emissions that will replace the Kyoto Protocol, an EU official said Wednesday.

    Guido Sacconi, chairman of a visiting European Parliament delegation, said that was the impression he got after three days of talks in Beijing with government and environmental officials.

    "In the private meetings we have had, particularly with Chinese politicians, there were of course some differences of opinion," Sacconi, who heads the European Parliament's Temporary Committee on Climate Change, told a news conference.

    "The main difference is, unlike the European Parliament or the European Union, the Chinese believe that it will not be possible, in the agreement which follows the Kyoto Protocol, for China to accept any binding obligations — this was one difference between us."(snip)




    Look at it this way. If developed countries have to cut their pollution in half while developing countries are allowed to increase their pollution tenfold, you haven't done anything for carbon levels and toxic emissions.
    Actually, for Annex 1 signatories to the Kyoto treaty like Australia, you HAVE done two things. #1 You have INCREASED the amount of total global carbon and toxic emissions for precisely the reason you have stated - that far more carbon and toxic emissions will result from the relocation / outsourcing of Australian industries to China and India than was previously being emitted in Australia to produce the same number of goods. #2 you have saddled yourself with a significant cost premium for anything energy related, which in turn winds up being paid to a Chinese or Indian company who agrees to reduce their emissions slightly (with a commission being paid to Al Gore's carbon credits trading company in the process).

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 02-01-2008 at 05:02 PM.

  22. #22
    Senior Member Tara_SW's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    160
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Elections Have Consequences ... Australian Style

    if you think Kyoto won't work then what is your solution? so far it seems to be just to do nothing and stay with the status quo, is that correct and if not please explain why your solution is so much better and how it's should be implemented?
    Last edited by Tara_SW; 02-01-2008 at 06:54 PM.

  23. #23
    Featured Member
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,030
    Thanks
    21
    Thanked 117 Times in 78 Posts

    Default Re: Elections Have Consequences ... Australian Style

    Quote Originally Posted by Tara_SW View Post
    if you think Kyoto won't work then what is your solution? so far it seems to be just to do nothing and stay with the status quo, is that correct and if not please explain why your solution is so much better and how it's should be implemented?
    It won't work, it will just shift more pollution to places like India and China. At the cost of countries like the United States who will pay economically. If there was a plan to fix that things, that actually fixed things, then I would say hang the cost and support it. But whats the point of hurting ourselves and not fixing the problem? Its just a huge costly statment.

    We don't need a "better solution" because Kyoto isn't a solution at all.

  24. #24
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Elections Have Consequences ... Australian Style

    My point is that if Kyoto produces more pollution, it's not good. A "start" that pulls the world back is not a good start.

    I'm neither a scientist nor a politician, but I'd try to get all countries to sign into:

    Measurable standards to adopt renewable resource energy generation.
    Measurable standards for industrial and individual carbon and other emissions.
    Agreement on development of mass transit with goals ratcheted up for population density (i.e., subways work better in NYC than Cody).
    Development of greener building standards.
    Ever tighter vehicle hydrocarbon standards, consumption and emission.
    Agreement on ridding levels of toxicity in consumer goods.

    And so on.

    So Ptuistan says, "It's no fair! We don't have the scrubbers and filters that the First World does!" Then buy them from the First World before you start flooding their markets with cheap shit. It'll be a good investment for everyone.

  25. #25
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Elections Have Consequences ... Australian Style

    ^^^ believe it or not I would agree to all of the above ... providing there was some way to actually enforce equal reductions / equal emission standards. Anything short of that only winds up being expensive lip service which may make some people's environmental consciences feel better but actually increases the total amount of emissions on a global basis.

    One analogy that comes to mind is raising the minimum wage. In theory the additional labor costs improve the life of the minimum wage worker. But in practice, raising the minimum wage simply costs minimum wage workers the jobs they previously had because the extra labor costs prompts businesses to hire illegals at a much lower labor cost or to outsource to foreign countries where labor rates are much lower. In the process, not only do US minimum wage workers wind up worse off, but illegal or foreign unskilled laborers wind up working under far worse conditions than the US minimum wage worker previously worked under. In other words, not only isn't the original objective accomplished, but on a global basis things wind up worse off than before government tried to 'improve' the situation. This is the 'law of unintended consequences', and it seems to happen EVERY time that politicians come up with a new idea that sounds good in theory but hasn't been thought through in terms of actions and reactions in the real world.

    How could a fair global system of emission reductions ever happen ? Basically that would require a 'new world order' global government superseding the sovereignty of individual countries ! I can't see that happening short of World War 3 ... with China being the loser !!!

    Actually, IMHO the root of the problem actually is that certain gov'ts will do anything to gain power - certain businessmen will do anything for a profit - and starving / oppressed people are much more concerned with this week's need for food / shelter / necessities than with potential effects of pollution or CO2 causing really bad stuff to happen to their grandchildren.

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 02-02-2008 at 04:55 AM.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-13-2009, 03:05 PM
  2. elections have consequences - even primary elections
    By Melonie in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-10-2008, 10:20 AM
  3. Elections
    By greenidlady1 in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-02-2007, 01:21 AM
  4. 2006 Elections
    By SC_dude in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-14-2006, 08:19 PM
  5. 2006 Elections
    By SC_dude in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-09-2006, 05:07 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •