Greenpeace slams Howard on Kyoto

[rand corp]

Greenpeace has labelled Australian Prime Minister John Howard's refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol as embarrassing following the Russian Government's move to join the global climate protection agreement last night.

Mr Howard has said Australia will achieve its Kyoto benchmarks without signing the treaty.

Greenpeace campaign manager Danny Kennedy said Australia's rejection of the protocol will hurt the nation in the eyes of the global community and economically.

"It's shameful the prime minister refuses to ratify this while the world is proceeding with this important step," he said.

"Kyoto is just a small step in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

"As an Australian citizen I'm embarrassed."

Australia and the United States are now the only developed Western nations who have not ratified Kyoto, which requires industrialised countries to cut or stabilise greenhouse gas emissions by a timetable of 2008-2012 when compared to their 1990 levels.

Mr Kennedy said Australia was ignoring the signs of the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, including drought and fire.

"We are dehydrating ourselves by refusing to cut greenhouse gas emissions," he said.

"We are flying in the face of the warning signs and we are doing it at our own peril.

"This drought is a signal of what's to come."

Australia's non-membership would stop it entering a global credit point trading system under the protocol for greenhouse gas emission reductions, reducing investment in Australia and shortchanging our companies abroad, he said.

Australian companies working in "Kyoto" countries would be required to reduce emissions but would be unable to count reductions in their domestic operations toward those targets.

Carbon credits generated in Australia would not be valid with major trading partners including European countries and Japan and could result in overseas companies shying away from investing in Australia, he said.

"The government's claims that joining the Kyoto Protocol would disadvantage Australia economically couldn't be further from the truth," he said.

"In reality, by locking us out of the Kyoto and the global trading system that it sets up, John Howard is making it more expensive and more difficult for Australian companies to do their bit to tackle climate change.

"Japanese companies, for example, may be less likely to invest here because they will not be able to claim for reductions in emissions."

Over 120 nations have ratified Kyoto.

The protocol will become international law in 90 days, opening up a global market in emissions trading.

- AAP
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/23/1098474913932.html

Additional infomation: (added by me)

Esteemed economist Bjorn Lomborg estimates in his book 'The Skeptical Economist' that the 'Total cost of managing global warming ad infinitum would be the same as deferring the economic growth curve by less than a year". In other words we would have to wait until 2051 to enjoy the benefits we would otherwise have enjoyed in 2050.

Peter Singer in his marvelous book 'One World' at the conclusion of calculating the costs of implemetning the Kyoto Protocol based on Lomburg's figures, poses the question: "is it worth you investing $14.50 now to make sure you don't lose $100 in 40 years time?"

The Kyoto protocol actually looked to re-establish global greenhouse emissions to below 1990 levels It allowed for an increase in Australia's greenhouse gas emissions to slightly above these levels, one of the few developed nations allowed this 'excemption' an largely as a result of Austraslia's tough (and US aligned) stance throughout the negotiation period. In the end, we still shose to fall in with America and refused to sign.

[Daks]

Kyoto now?

[rand corp]

Russia has just agreed to sign on and it becomes International Law [for those who have signed] in 90 days time.

[DidakinthePocket]

the kyoto protocol is a load of rubbish. Australia has 20 Million odd people living in it, and we are expected to have a lower greenhouse output then countries such as America and Russia. Pull the other one!

Why does the 'green' (read left) wing continually attack the Liberal Government for? How about looking at Brazil where the equivilant of 100 MCG's are cleared from the Amazon rain forest EVERY DAY!

Get the priorities straight before attacking the government of this Country. Australia does more to stop greenhouse and climate change then ANY of the other developed countries.

We have sustainable forest projects in place, where the selective cutting technique is used, meaning that only trees which have reached the end of the life span are chopped. Unlike Brazil who employ the clearfelling method, where every tree, regardless of its size, age, etc is chopped.

Also in relation to our forests, trees are replanted, to re generate and to be used again in 25-50 years when they have again reached the end of their life span.

The reason Australias 'output' is high is because its compared to the number of people in the country, but not the size. We are as big as the united states, if not bigger, but we only have 20 million people, as opposed to 250 million in the states. For this reason, when we travel we travel further, and of course, more fuel is used. In Europe or even America as an equivilant, if you drove the distance between Brisbane and Sydney, you would pass through 4 or 5 different states/countries.

Good on the Australian Government for not signing this protocol. It is not good for Australia and not good for the planet. If the world 'powers' were fair dinkum they would be persuing Brazil for their destruction of forest and their contribution to the greenhouse effect and European countries for their excessive and dirty industries which they insist on operating.

Remember a few years ago when chemicals were dumped into one of the major rivers in Europe a few years ago? Romania nearly went bankrupt from the loss of its fishing industry, which still hasnt recovered.

Greenpeace should stop playing Politics and start looking at the REAL issues affecting the environment. Australia signing a protocol (which actually has no enforcable rules about it) whold make us just as stupid as the people who are pushing this.

Thats my rant. How do I know all this? Im not only a Travel Agent, but Im also a TRUE environmentalist. Not interested in politics, but interested in the health of the planet.

Greenpeace is yet another one of these left wing organisations who believe in anti-wealth, pro-welfare and various other things. Rings a bell, yes, think of the Green Party.

[Eunos]

[DidakinthePocket]

please delete this post

[DidakinthePocket]

And which highlands are these Eunos?

In NSW, ALL plantations are replaced, Pine Plantations are being phased out after the Canberra Disaster early last year.

Woodchipping is done to trees which have USELESS timber. Trees that have termites, or other problems with them that cannot be used for standard timber practices.

Like I say, Brazil is clearing at the rate of 100 football fields PER DAY! They clearfell EVERYTHING.

I didnt neglect to say that in some parts of NSW they use a method called Strip Felling. Similar to Clearfelling, but only a section (say 50-100) metres wide is felled. This is felled along say a ridge, with the trees either side being left to reduce erosion.

Clearfelling is NOT used on a wide commercial scale any more in Australia. And its not a case of rocking up somewhere and saying right, this looks nice lets clear it. No way. Trees are now felled using sustainable forest management methods. Once a plot is felled, then trees are re planted.

I agree Eunos, when trees are felled it is devastation, and quite shocking when you see it for the first time. But at the same time, in 5 years time, when these trees have grown again, its a beauitful sight. The Australian Bush as an amazing ability to re generate. Look at a bush fire. Soon after it passes through, all is 'dead' and black, but give it a week or so, and grass starts to grow again. a month or 2 and the leaves are back on the trees. The bush regenerates. Forests are re planted and then felled again in the future. Its a simple case of sustainability.

What I am saying is that thats what the Greem Party/Greenpeace/whoever, should be looking at. Stop attacking political groups and work WITH them to make everything more sustainable. Without that our planet is F**ked. And signing some stupid protocol, worth less then the paper its written on, wont help the planet!

[HAL]

You seem pretty sure about that. Umm. It might take that long. Once more? I hope we can make the deadline. "Without your space helmet Dave, you're going to find that rather difficult" -- HAL.

[Eunos]

Ah, I'm in Vic Tazza, not NSW.
I challenge you to stand in the coup and still hold those views.
And it takes more than 5 years to replace the trees that hold living space for our native species.
Again, you need to experience it first hand, not at the end of a magazine or computer screen.
Don't take me to wrong. Your example of Brazil is accurate and the Aus timber industry is one of the best in the world, but it could be better and your initial description of "selective felling" makes it sound like they chop them down tree by tree after an inspection. That is not true and again I would like you to visit a coup and look at the awesome machinery they use to "clear fell".
If you can, visit a mill in Alexandra called Goulds. They are state of the art, yet will happily admit they could do it better.

[DidakinthePocket]

I agree, its a slow process, and I have seen what its like when all the trees are removed from a patch. There is wastage, and Im not really here to spread propaganda or otherwise for the Australian Timber industry.

Sorry for making selective felling sound like that. Its not true. There is selection that happens, however they arent "throughly" selected, like with scientific tests etc.

As for the machinery that clearfellers (sounds like a race of people, we got blackfellas and whitefellas, anyway, ill leave the comedy to the comedians) it is awesome isnt it. The chains are f**king HUGE!

What I am saying is that the Kyoto Protocol is bullshit and that those who are pushing it would do better stopping those bastards in Brazil chopping the trees then trying to push Australia to waste some ink on a useless document! I am sick to death of these so called environmentalists pushing their extremest ideals.

I looked on the greenpeace website and there was NOTHING, Not a thing, about the Amazon being distroyed at all. Just goes to show doesnt it? They would rather bash the developed countries (capatilist countries) who dont agree with their narrow minded outlook, rather then look at the big picture. Rather typical really, and quite sad.

[CQ]

[DidakinthePocket]

Actually, CQ is it good for the forest to be cut down because it allows it to re-generate. The same thing happens (sort of) when a bush fire comes through, like I have said eariler in this topic. By 'rotating' the trees, they allow the forest to regenerate and refresh again.

But forests cant be just cut willy nilly like they do in Brazil. Australia has the best practices in place when it comes to the management of our forests, and back to the point again, Greenpeace should be aiming at Brazil for their clearfelling of the Amazon, not Australia for our refusal to sign a useless document (which, pardon the sarcasm, I doubt is on RECYCLED PAPER!!!)

[rand corp]

Old growth forests have been regenerating themselves very nicely for millions of years without the aid of man.

You wrote:

"Australia has 20 Million odd people living in it, and we are expected to have a lower greenhouse output then countries such as America and Russia. Pull the other one!"

My response: The United States has a population of just over 300 million people and accounts for 30% of the worlds greenhouse emissions, I would certainly hope we have a lower output.
Per capita, we do have one of the largest outputs per person in the world, this has nothing at all to do with our geography and much more to do with our geology and the management and use of our resources.

Forest management takes this debate down a side alley somewhat, as the more pressing issues are, the sustained and increasing production and use of fossil fuels. However, that said, it should be pointed out that reforestation would not be an issue if these forests were not wiped out in the first place. To suggest that we Australians have a sustainable and manageable timber industry is to be blinkered beyond belief, get out there and have a look for yourself (as I have). It is a complete sham.

Because an under-developed nation such as Brazil is wantonly decimating its forests (an issue that must and is being taken up of itself), does not automatically give the right to a developed nation saying it has the right to decimate its own forests under the guise of a manageable process (which it so obviously is not). It is like the 8-year-old boy from England who wrote the letter to Dr. Mahatiar (when still the quasi dictator of Malaysia) asking him to save the rainforests in Eastern Malaysia. The good doctor's response was to personally right back to this kid telling him that he should admonish the adults that put him up to it, as they had demolished all of their own forests hundreds of years before and he basically had a right to do to his peoples forests whatever he wished.

The whole reason that the Kyoto pact came about was that it is no longer feasible or acceptable to say, I will look after my patch and let the rest take care of their own. The very precedent that kicked the whole process of was that Norwegian coastlines and aquatic life were found to contain radioactive material emitted from a plant in the United Kingdom.

TITP, Its time to get out and smell the carbon.

[DidakinthePocket]

[blackandwhite4life]

You make some good points TITP and your knowledge on this topic far exceeds mine.

One thing that does annoy me when the whole Kyoto treaty topic gets brought up though is that from the right side of politics, the talk is always of massive job losses, but never an acknowledgement of the numerous NEW job opportunities that must arise from a focus and commitment to new energy sources etc.

It seems that there is a golden wave of opportunity (i.e. Profits and $$) from getting in early and becoming a leader in one of the 21st century's major global growth industries. i.e. Environmentally-friendly energy sources.

Isn't making a commitment to such a treaty (even if it is only tokenism initially), the first step in getting this new growth engine for the economy up and going?