Kyoto

[pedro san pedro]

You may have heard about the Russian Government decision to move ahead with ratification - THIS IS REALLY EXCITING NEWS so thought I'd give you a quick update on what the decision means.

RUSSIA:
The Russian government yesterday gave its approval for ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, clearing the way for the treaty - the world's only international agreement to reduce emissions of CO2, the main greenhouse gas responsible for climate change and global warming - to become international law.

To come into force, in other words to become legally binding on countries to meet their commitments, 55 countries representing 55% of industralised countries' global emissions had to ratify.The next step for the Russians is to ratify in their own parliament, the Duma, which will take a few weeks. Then it will take another 3 months for the Kyoto Protocol to come into force - things move slowly at the international level!

WHAT IT MEANS INTERNATIONALLY:
In 1997 the Protocol was signed by 165 nations including Australia and the US. It was an incredible moment but since that time, powerful interests from the coal and oil sectors have done everything they could to undermine the treaty and action on climate change.

But thousands of campaigners and millions of people have refused to give up and finally, after 7 years, we have an international agreement to begin the long, difficult but necessary task of avoiding dangerous climate change

We know that ratification of the Kyoto Protocol is only a first step towards combating climate change. Many in environmentlists are calling at least a 60% reduction in greenhouse emissions by 2050 which is needed to avoid dangerous climate change.

BACK IN AUSTRALIA (my home front) : The Prime Minister has one week before the election to show he is serious about climate protection and announce that Australia will ratify! The ALP, Greens and Democrats already support ratification.

So for Australians, it is a question of when we will ratify, not if. To stop dangerous climate change, we have no choice but to join the international community on this.

[Militant]

I fear you might be under a slight misconception. Russia will only sell their credits for much needed cash (for the war on the Chechans), while not lowering their emissions. It will render the whole process a moot point, methinks.

[Beccie]

I would not be too optimistic about Australia's obligations and the effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol. First of all Australia has an energy intensive economy, that means agricultural and extractive industries are of significant importance to the Australian economy. Carbon dioxide emissions are therefore of critical importance to economic prosperity and the Australian way of life.

The Kyoto protocol revealed a new style of Australian diplomacy characterised by a pursuit of national interest and a cautious approach to multilateralism. It was argued by the Australian government that reduction targets should take in account the individual circumstances of each country and hence Australia should be aloud to increase its CO2 emissions because of a growing population, a heavy reliance on fossil-fuel exports and its importance to employment and investment. The Australian approach to the Kyoto protocol led the US to claim that if Australia is aloud to increase its CO2 emissions then it can to, this will have serious consequences for world environment. Without the US support of the Kyoto Protocol it will not come in to full force. Australia's approach to the Kyoto protocol revealed that Australia was more concerned with protecting national interests then fulfilling its obligations to the world community.

I think it is unrealistic to believe, especially with the re-election of John Howard, that Australia's approach to environmental diplomacy will change. This is most unfortunate for the international community and the environment.

[pedro san pedro]

yeah, as an environmentlist i was, to say the least, a little dissapointed by the election result.

the howard government is aiming for a measly 2% of the national grid to be produced renewable energy by 2010. not the best eh? :angry:

[Palmares]

Australia originally signed the protocol before, but backed out after the US did right? That's what you were saying right Beccie?

The thing is though, why should the protocol take into account population increases? Australia by no means has the greatest populations increases either.

Malchom Turnbull once said that the US has the best population increase rates. And that's due to illegal immigration! Phillip Adams pointed this out to him and I don't believe he had a reply!

[ComradeChris]

It just pisses me off that the Americans won't sign. They produce 36.1% of the Earth's greenhouse gas emmissions. What a bunch of enviroment-murdering idiots!

[Beccie]

Originally posted by Cthenthar@Oct 20 2004, 04:35 AM
Australia originally signed the protocol before, but backed out after the US did right? That's what you were saying right Beccie?

The thing is though, why should the protocol take into account population increases? Australia by no means has the greatest populations increases either.

Malchom Turnbull once said that the US has the best population increase rates. And that's due to illegal immigration! Phillip Adams pointed this out to him and I don't believe he had a reply!

Yes Australia did originally sign before they backed down.

It was argued by the liberal government that Australia's reduction target should take into account our energy intensive economy (i.e. our reliance on CO2 emissions for economic growth) and our growing population (I'm not sure how fast our population is growing but this is what the government said). Therefore our reduction target was something like +8% i.e. our CO2 emissions would increase over the next 50 years.

I'm not sure why the protocol took into account population increases. I assume the government was arguing that because our population is increasing our consumption rates will be higher and therefore we will need to release more CO2. I think population was an important factor in determining reduction targets for third world countries and Australia used it as an excuse to increase emissions.

[Felicia]

Originally posted by pedro san pedro@Sep 30 2004, 11:05 PM
You may have heard about the Russian Government decision to move ahead with ratification - THIS IS REALLY EXCITING NEWS so thought I'd give you a quick update on what the decision means.

RUSSIA:
The Russian government yesterday gave its approval for ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, clearing the way for the treaty - the world's only international agreement to reduce emissions of CO2, the main greenhouse gas responsible for climate change and global warming - to become international law.

To come into force, in other words to become legally binding on countries to meet their commitments, 55 countries representing 55% of industralised countries' global emissions had to ratify.The next step for the Russians is to ratify in their own parliament, the Duma, which will take a few weeks. Then it will take another 3 months for the Kyoto Protocol to come into force - things move slowly at the international level!

WHAT IT MEANS INTERNATIONALLY:
In 1997 the Protocol was signed by 165 nations including Australia and the US. It was an incredible moment but since that time, powerful interests from the coal and oil sectors have done everything they could to undermine the treaty and action on climate change.

But thousands of campaigners and millions of people have refused to give up and finally, after 7 years, we have an international agreement to begin the long, difficult but necessary task of avoiding dangerous climate change

We know that ratification of the Kyoto Protocol is only a first step towards combating climate change. Many in environmentlists are calling at least a 60% reduction in greenhouse emissions by 2050 which is needed to avoid dangerous climate change.

BACK IN AUSTRALIA (my home front) : The Prime Minister has one week before the election to show he is serious about climate protection and announce that Australia will ratify! The ALP, Greens and Democrats already support ratification.

So for Australians, it is a question of when we will ratify, not if. To stop dangerous climate change, we have no choice but to join the international community on this.

oh good! We need as many countries on this train as possible.

I'm not sure what's going to happen with Canada. It's been a very long time since anything to do with Kyoto has been in the news, and it's been a very long time since I've watched any TV whatsoever, so I'm very out of touch with these things

But with Paul Martin, being the all american boy he his, may side with the US on many issues like this one. Reguardless of what we've chosen in the past. I can't even remember if Canada ratified the agreement, man my memory's going, this is bad

[pedro san pedro]

i'm pretty certian that canada is still on board.

[truthaddict11]

Kyoto treaty is nothing but enviromentalist fluff
there is not even any real proof or evidence that human production of C02 has contributed to climate change. and only 2% off all greenhouse gases are created by humans. We need to take the focus off of CO2 and focus on getting rid of emiting real polutants such as smog, mercury and acid rain

[DaCuBaN]

Kyoto treaty is nothing but enviromentalist fluff
there is not even any real proof or evidence that human production of C02 has contributed to climate change. and only 2% off all greenhouse gases are created by humans. We need to take the focus off of CO2 and focus on getting rid of emiting real polutants such as smog, mercury and acid rain

Couldn't agree more - anyone who actually looks into meteorology will surmise likewise. It's not just gas emisions we need worry about either, it's the culture of dump. We need to try and make our world more reusable, rather than simply restricting the amount people can pollute.