Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
The G8: Rudd’s self-fulfilling climate prophecy
The G8: Rudd’s self-fulfilling climate prophecy
by Andrew Glikson
With no intermediate targets defined, no clean energy technology assistance given to developing countries, come 2050, a magic wand will be waved, carbon emissions will be cut by 80 percent, mean temperatures limited below 2 degrees C, and pigs will fly.
“The G8 made no firm commitment to help developing countries financially cope with the effects of rising seas, increased droughts and floods, or provide the technology to make their carbon-heavy economies more climate- friendly.” Nor did the G8 decide of a shorter-term target, despite warnings from a UN panel that they must cut emissions by between 25 percent and 40 percent by 2020, to keep average global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees C.
Having committed Australia to a failure standard of 5 percent CO2 emission cut by 2020 relative to 2000, should no global agreement be reached in Copenhagen, Rudd’s “pessimism” regarding an agreement reminds of a lagging runner shouting at those in front “I told you so”.
If Howard’s earlier rejection of the Kyoto Protocol can be attributed to ignorance, there can be little excuse for Rudd’s virtual inaction in view of his insight “At the end of the day, the atmosphere doesn't sit around and neutrally observe grand political agreements.”. In telling the Danish PM “negotiations for an agreement were not on track and that he was quite worried about it", little mention is made that Australia, a rich coal exporter and one of the highest per-capita carbon emitter, has committed itself to standards that are virtually guaranteed to make no difference to runaway climate change.
Nor are CCS schemes likely to eventuate on a scale sufficient to mitigate emissions in time. While at a cost of US$0.50–8.00 per sequestration of a tonne of CO2, translated to about 15 to 240 $billion for sequestration of one year’s emissions of about 30 billion tons CO2, is only a fraction of what the world spends on wars, the reluctance of the G8 to extend clean energy technology to developing countries does not bode well in this regard. Likely a similar fate awaits the CCS as
Even if the above effort is made, current levels of near 450 ppm CO2-equivalent (which includes methane) requires fast tracked development and application of CO2 down-draw techniques aimed at reducing levels to below 350 ppm. At current emission rates of about 2 ppm CO2/year, by 2050 CO2-equivalent levels will exceed the 500 ppm level at which the Antarctic ice sheet formed 34 million years ago, including likely tipping points out of human control.
NGOs are trying to make the difference, including Al Gore’s inspired new think tank (Safe Climate Australia - SCA), launched at an event to be attended by almost 1000 business leaders. SCA is modeled on a similar project, Repower America, which Mr Gore co-ordinates in the
Rudd must know he was given a stark choice. He can continue to appease the big polluters or, alternatively, he could assume a Churchill-like leadership regarding what he has described as the “Greatest moral challenged of our generation”.
 |
|
 |
 |
| © 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
Somebody took all the loot
The "science" is irrelevant, too many pages, and too many forests have been cut down fighting that puppy. It's all about the final result.
Environment taxes are attractive for one reason, and one reason only: they widen the tax base. Many think this is a good thing (socialists mostly), however, I wrote widen not increase. And that's the brilliance behind whatever brains trust mapped this plan out - they found the socialists (possible trouble) and sold them the moon.
The stupidity and duplicity of politicians is accepted and factored in throughout any thinking society.They're (politicians) paid hacks and front for a much wider power. Although, even the most sceptical couldn't help but be shocked by the "bailout" - something that will live in infamy for future generations. Another topic.
Something as life changing (for many people, especially poor people) as a staples consumption tax deserves discussion. Serious, "fighting words" discussion. The current "front company type fraud" is the most disgraceful thing I've been witness too in western democratic society. Hopefully things can't get any worse.
Any opposition political party could win government easily by telling the simple truth about this tax. A number (thousands) of easy (even for idiots) examples can be shown. That this isn't happening scares me more than anything single thing.
Politicians are predictable, that's what makes them acceptable (it certainly isn't their ability). When the short sighted naked lust for power isn't enough for a politician; Houston we have a major problem.
Any young guy/girl with a "possible" future, that isn't questioning the duplicity of statism isn't in the game. Witness such things as the environment tax (tax on air), and behold, your very real, and your very near future.
The fog of political war
I think Al Gore will have more worry about his "own people" by that stage. Or more precisely what his "own people" think of him.
The moment this tax is passed, is moment reality collides with spin. Al sure as hell better pray all the ducks are lined up. Unless there's something I and everybody I respect have missed with this tax, it's equivalent to political Armageddon. It'll stand as a testament to just how self destroying (and deluding) the lust for short-term political and economic power can become.
This tax doesn't economically help anybody, and that includes government (only that sting will come later). It does however hurt some people much more than others. It's so regressive, so utterly hurtful to the little guy, you could be forgiven for thinking it was written by Republicans of Hell Inc.
Social Democrats agreeing to this tax is akin to the Vatican Bible burning. It's ripping up (actually burning and trampling the corpse) a central and very core socialist belief: regressive consumption taxes hurt the poor! That I'm even bringing their own philosophy up says something about where they're at, no?
A Republican wouldn't be bringing up something like inheritance distribution taxes (not if their life was held in regard), and up until recently I didn't think a Democrat would bring up something like this. Well they did, and they have, and now they'll need to live with it.
A National Park is a nice place to visit; however nobody wants live there. If this tax turns out the way I (and many others) think it will, the Democrats have one mountain of a big problem. Not only can Obama start packing his bags, the party itself might be very lucky to survive. The scare campaigns for a tax like this in action, are endless and self fulfilling. Once the "bad" starts, it only goes to worse.
Think of a political base as a tent, you don't piss inside a tent, well, at least not your own. Democrats seemingly have an unnatural knack of never learning this. The biggest worry for the next Republican President in waiting, is that this lunacy is passed, I imagine there's nothing like a certain won eight year election cycle.