Posted on 12/05/2004 5:58:49 PM PST by Pikamax
Greenhouse gas: Australia won't sign Kyoto deal December 6, 2004 - 11:16AM
Australia was on track to meet targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but Environment Minister Ian Campbell today confirmed the government would not sign the Kyoto agreement.
He said an Australian Greenhouse Office report released today revealed the country was on track to double the size of the economy yet only have greenhouse emissions increase by eight per cent.
The report said Australia was likely to achieve its target of limiting greenhouse emissions to 108 per cent of 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012, as specified by the Kyoto protocol.
Australian representatives will attend a meeting in Argentina this week of Kyoto agreement signatories.
Labor environment spokesman Anthony Albanese today said the government's refusal to sign the agreement was locking Australia out of economic opportunity, but Senator Campbell said signing the agreement would do more economic harm than good.
"We know the economic downsides of being part of the protocol, ... what are the economic benefits?" Senator Campbell told journalists.
Advertisement Advertisement"He's talking about carbon trading, there's no carbon trading taking place at the moment ... and the costs of setting that up are so high they outweigh the benefits."
Mr Albanese said Australia's attendance at the Buenos Aries conference was arrogant.
"The Environment Minister Ian Campbell doesn't mind jumping on a jet with staff and other Australian government officials and going to the conference in Buenos Aires to talk about the protocol that they're not signing up to," he told reporters.
"This is an extraordinary example of government arrogance, of waste and mismanagement."
Senator Campbell defended the government's plan to attend the conference, saying Australia was one of a group of non-signatories due to join in.
Rather than focus on the Kyoto protocol, Senator Campbell said Australia and the world should turn their attention to addressing climate change beyond the Kyoto agreement.
Third-world nations should be part of a new global strategy to reduce emissions by up to 60 per cent, he said.
However, the minister stopped short of setting such a dramatic target for Australia itself.
"The world is going to have to achieve that," he said.
"Australia is two per cent of the world's greenhouse emissions and two per cent of the world economy so we need to be part of all nations joining together to address that reality."
Green groups' criticisms that the nation's greenhouse performance was one of the world's worst were unfounded, Senator Campbell said.
"Anyone who says Australia is the worst performer is just talking down their own nation," he said.
"This report shows that we're in fact one of the best performers - we're on track to double the size of the economy yet only see our greenhouse emissions increase by eight per cent.
"I challenge anyone in the world to find a nation that's achieved that sort of performance on greenhouse while they've had an expanding economy."
AAP
Ya mean they don't want to destroy their economy? How selfish of them. End Sarcasm!
At last some reason is being shown by the Aussies.
Good On them!
Frankly, I don't think "global warming" has anything to do with human activity. The earth has natural warm/cold cycles as it moves through the solar system and galaxy. Ice ages appear periodically every 11,500 years. That has been the case for many millions of years. Long before human activity was even a blip on the environment "radar".
Notice the similarities,both require suspension of scientific practice.
In the case of evolution the two laws of thermodynamics.
To believe in global warming one must throw out the scientific practice of testing and observing.
That is we can not verify climate change after a mere 50-60 years of recording data.
These theory's have become the foundation of liberals/socialists/humanists in their attempt to legitimize the philosophy of mans ascendancy.
That is why any challenge to both of these phony sciences is met with hysterics.
What do you mean "at last"? The Aussies have been with us all the way fom 9-11. They and the Brits are all we can trust.
Does anyone know what countries actually have signed the Kyoto Protocol? As I recall, a lot of the European countries that were criticizing the USA on this issue either didn't sign it or had no chance of meeting its goals.
"That is we can not verify climate change after a mere 50-60 years of recording data."
To which data are you referring? We have been recording temperatures at a wide array of locations for at least 150 years. It seems to me that it data has demonstrated that climate is changing in various locations; Alaska comes to mind - not only has the recorded average temperature there increased by approximately 10F over the last decade, changes in flora and fauna indicates that climate change is occuring in that region. The tree line is moving north, the insect population is moving north (and is creating havoc), the glacier melt has expanded, the permafrost is melting, etc. Incidentially, in today's Arizona Republic, there is a short article about how the increase in temperature in Alaska has reduced the amount in which oil exploration can be conducted in that state. The majority of scientists who study climate concur that climate change is taking place. The jury is still out whether human activity is contributing to the cause. But the evidence is pointing to human activity contributing to warming. Saying that the science supporting the global warming theory is merely junk is an unconvincing ideological argument at best.
Here we go.
1967-98 Average
Jan -2.1
Feb-5.6
Mar-7.1
April -8.1
May-7.1
June-6.3
July-3.4
Aug 0.7
Sept. 4.8
Oct. 7.5
Nov 7.3
Dec 3.3
'67-'98 -1.3
USGS data
What does this mean?Nothing really,other than that weather is almost totally unpredictable.
I know the general climate is somewhat warmer overall in the northeast where I live(excepted the winters of 1993-1994 and 2003-2004)but that proves nothing as far as long term climate change.
Temperature anomalies may be measured in years,decades or centuries which means we don`t have anywhere near the data to make a concrete determination as to global warming.
These may be normal fluctuations and to ascribe them as a permanent long term warming, man made or not, is taking a leap of faith that cannot be verified.
I meant At Last someone else will stand up and say Kyoto is bunk.
Maybe, but the evidence of global warming isn't confined to just temperature changes. (And I think that we have the nouse to determine if the temperature is increasing over time.) Scientists have a number of methods that they use to determine increases in temperature. For example, here is some evidence of global warming cited by National Geographic:
Where do scientists find clues to past climate change? The tale is told in remnant materials like glacial ice and moraines, pollen-rich mud, stalagmites, the rings of corals and trees, and ocean sediments that yield the shells of microscopic organisms. Human history yields clues as well, through records like ancient writings and inscriptions, gardening and vintner records, and the logs of historic ships.
There is little doubt that the planet is warming. Over the last century the average temperature has climbed about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 of a degree Celsius) around the world.
The spring ice thaw in the Northern Hemisphere occurs 9 days earlier than it did 150 years ago, and the fall freeze now typically starts 10 days later.
The 1990s was the warmest decade since the mid-1800s, when record-keeping started. The hottest years recorded: 1998, 2002, 2003, 2001, and 1997.
• The multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) report recently concluded that in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia, average temperatures have increased as much as 4 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit (3 to 4 degrees Celsius) in the past 50 years. The rise is nearly twice the global average. In Barrow, Alaska (the U.S.'s northernmost city) average temperatures are up over 4 degrees Fahrenheit (2.5 to 3 degrees Celsius) in 30 years.
• Over the last million years the Earth has fluctuated between colder and warmer periods. The shifts have occurred in roughly 100,000-year intervals thought to be regulated by sunlight. Earth's sunlight quota depends upon its orbit and celestial orientation.
But changes have also occurred more rapidly in the past—and scientists hope that these changes can tell us more about the current state of climate change. During the last ice age, approximately 70,000 to 11,500 years ago, ice covered much of North America and Europe—yet sudden, sometimes drastic, climate changes occurred during the period. Greenland ice cores indicate one spike in which the area's surface temperature increased by 15 degrees Fahrenheit (9 degrees Celsius) in just 10 years.
• Rising temperatures have a dramatic impact on Arctic ice, which serves as a kind of "air conditioner" at the top of the world. Since 1978 Arctic sea ice area has shrunk by some 9 percent per decade, and thinned as well.
According to the above, my earlier email which cited a 10F increase in Alaska, over estimated the temperature change there, but I think that the crux of the email was correct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.