Remember the Kyoto Protocol?  The only international legally binding framework the world has to reduce emissions? Signing it, to much fanfare, was Labor’s first significant act after being swept to victory in 2007. It signalled Australia’s willingness to finally join international action to fight climate change.

We should not confuse weariness over the domestic politics of climate change, poisoned by months of protracted wrangling over price rises, with the level of public support for action on climate change.

Now, the first incarnation of Kyoto is about to come to its end, but that fight is far from over. A second phase of the Kyoto Protocol would pave the way to a more ambitious and inclusive global climate treaty, which is what we desperately need if we are to avoid dangerous climate change.

While the Government has copped a hammering on many fronts in recent years, the decision to ratify the Kyoto Protocol remains popular, according to polling released last week by WWF.  The Opposition’s climate change spokesman Greg Hunt also is now on the record as saying his party supports signing on to the next phase.

So we need to ask why, with the inaugural five-year commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol coming to an end this year and with clear public support for its continuation, has the Government been holding off on a decision to sign up to the next phase?

As a leading international development agency working in over 90 countries, Oxfam has witnessed first-hand an increasing number of weather-related disasters - from the 2010 Pakistan floods that displaced 20 million people (the entire population of Australia) to the current crisis in the Sahel region of West Africa where low rainfall, poor harvests and high food prices mean an estimated 18.7million people are right now experiencing severe food shortages.

These trends are consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s warnings of less predictable rainfall, more heat waves and significant disruption of growing seasons globally. Oxfam fears that without strong action, 50 years of development gains in poor countries could be lost.

Against this backdrop, the need for an effective global response to the climate crisis is more urgent than ever. Granted, the excruciatingly slow pace of complex international climate negotiations has prompted some to favour a bottom-up perspective on climate action, reconciling disappointments at the UN level with regional and local success stories, such as Germany’s aggressive pioneering of solar technologies, China’s ambitious plan to reduce the emissions intensity of its economy, a Herculean effort by the Maldives to become “climate neutral by 2020”, or our own introduction of a carbon price.

But for the world’s least developed countries, an international solution remains imperative. Only a global approach can address the issue of equity – the disproportionate impact of climate change on developing countries, in particular women, who as the main food producers bear the greatest burden in a changing climate and yet have done the least to cause it. And for Australia, a flight from Kyoto could see us effectively excluded from international carbon markets, making it harder to reach our agreed emissions reduction targets.

A second Kyoto commitment period provides the crucial legal and political segue to a new and more effective international agreement. Without it, the prospects of a comprehensive global treaty, of the world mobilising the funds to support developing countries in building climate-resilient communities, of making good on our own clean energy laws and leveraging these towards stronger global action, are all greatly diminished.

There already is bipartisan support for emissions reduction targets of 5 per cent, with the possibility of this rising to 25 per cent by 2020 under the right conditions. Kyoto is another tool that will help us get there.

We should not confuse weariness over the domestic politics of climate change, poisoned by months of protracted wrangling over price rises, with the level of public support for action on climate change per se, including Australian contributions to international efforts.

The latter, as last weeks’ polling has shown, remains strong. Australians still recognise Kyoto as a success story, as proof that international cooperation is possible, and understand our responsibilities as an advanced economy to play a positive role towards getting an effective global agreement that supports the rights of all communities to development and which avoids dangerous climate change.

No one has seriously suggested that the Kyoto Protocol alone is enough. Rather, it must be understood as a vital step in a bigger process, as it signals that the developed countries with the most historical responsibility for emissions are meeting their commitments. True, it does not place restrictions on major ‘economies in transition’, such as China.

But since the UN Climate Change Negotiations in Copenhagen in 2009, all major countries, including China, have recognised the dangers of climate change and the imperative to reduce emissions. And since the climate change negotiations in Durban in 2011, all major countries, including the US, have committed to working towards a legally binding treaty. Significantly, many countries outside of the Kyoto Protocol are doing more than the advanced economies to cut pollution.

With the international community convening climate change negotiations in Bangkok at the end of this month, Australia needs to get off the fence and commit to staying in the Protocol. Further delay risks compromising progress at the next global climate change summit in Doha at the end of the year.

There are many good reasons for Australia to sign. There is strong community support for Kyoto and a recognition that international agreement is in Australia’s national interest, and the interests of the world’s most vulnerable. There is no good reason not to.

Comments on this post close at 8pm AEST

Most commented

77 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Coxinator says:

      06:32am | 24/08/12

      Carbon the evil gas that we are being tax on producing is in fact colourless, so the picture accompanying this story is deceiving

    • Dood says:

      08:55am | 24/08/12

      Carbon is a solid. The second part of the deception is Carbon dioxide and bother “Greenhouse gases” that are being taxed,  not the black stuff that makes up most of the world that we live in.

    • Babylon says:

      11:38am | 24/08/12

      Everything is deceiving in the Climate Change industry.

      The Climate Scientists cannot agree on a comprehensive theory. We’ve also have scientists caught out manipulating, omitting or exaggerating figures.

      We know that Wind Turbines do not generate enough power for the energy we need. Worse than that, they can only work at 21 percent of the capacities the manufacturers state. We need millions of turbines just for top ups to the grid, which spoil the countryside and create health issues. There are reports of devastation for birds and bees. Renewable energy is so expensive and has been despite $257 Billion dollars of global investment so far. We face ever increasing electricity bills.

      Apart from Australia, no other nation is truly bothering to curb emissions.

      We know that the global development of Coal Fired Power stations is up by 35 percent over the next 10 years at an annual investment of $140 Billion.

      Coal has 30 percent of the energy market, it’s at a 40 year high.

      Oil demand is up, China has increased theirs by 5.5 percent. The middle east has increased production capacity by 1.1 million barrels a day.

      Australia meanwhile is seeking to punish its people and it’s industries with the highest carbon tax, the only one in existence at this time. We see great benefits for the globe in shutting down our coal industry and mining boom in preference for a greener planet.

      In reality Developing countries are just filling the pace we vacate and the global emissions is set to increase by 2020. Indeed even our own Governments emissions modelling shows we will move from from 578 million tonnes in 2010 to 621 million tonnes in 2020.

      Asia is to ADD 2.6 BILLION tonnes of CO2 and India will be ADDING 955 MILLION tonnes of CO2 per year, with new Coal Fired Power Stations.

      We are self harming for nothing. It’s our grand childrens’ future and we’re playing green games with it.

      We need a globally agreed, all nation commitment to reducing emissions, otherwise, Australian sacrifices on their own are pointless.

      At the moment, the only thing we are on course for is black outs because we are planning to jump from Coal to Renewable, bypassing Gas and Nuclear power generation. Oh and a Nobel prize for Julia for sacrificing Australia’s Mining boom for the greater global good..

    • cheap white trash says:

      06:46am | 24/08/12

      Remember the Kyoto Protocol?
      Yep,just like Climate Change,Global Warming…..
      If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years.

      Just let me finish and say this. If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has to be absorbed and that only happens slowly.
      Thanks Tim.
      Now Andrew you and i no that the only way this planet will survive,is if the human race is wiped out True or Not??

    • acotrel says:

      07:27am | 24/08/12

      Considering wot you’ve said, I no this - as it also is with our manufacturing industry - we cannot just lay down and die !
      Our future is in our own hands, it is simply a matter of losing the defeatest mindset, and thinking differently.

    • iansand says:

      08:44am | 24/08/12

      The temperature may not drop, but it will not continue to rise.  Climatologists are realistic.  They accept that rising is occurring and will occur.  However they believe that a rise greater than 2 degrees will be the point where things start to become nasty.

    • Anne Voter says:

      08:51am | 24/08/12

      “If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years”

      That fundamentally misrepresents the problem.

      The aim is not and never has been to *drop* the temperature of the planet.  Plain wrong.

      The aim is to slow the continuing *rise* in temperature, to try to get the overall increase to stabilise at around +2 degrees by mid Century.

      That is a very different thing, and the difference isn’t small, either. Its big.

      Even that +2 degrees will be a big problem to deal with, * if * we can keep it to that.

      Wasted far too many years on dithering and smacking away misinformation already.

    • nihonin says:

      09:06am | 24/08/12

      Well stop being such a defeatist then acoteel, or if you’d rather not, then put up and shut up.

    • David C says:

      11:30am | 24/08/12

      Anne Voter I am confused. The temps have risen approx 0.7-0.8 degrees since the beginning of the industrial age. (roughly 150 years)
      you are concerned this will rapidly escalate to 2 degrees plus by mid century ie less than 40 years. given we have had a relative plateau over the last 15 years in temp rise how can you say we will get this 1.3 + rise in the next 40 years?

    • Babylon says:

      12:01pm | 24/08/12

      Cheap White Trash

      (Im not sure a black man can write that?)

      The problem is Australia is being a mug in punishing it’s people and Industry with the carbon tax, when no other nation is really truly bothering.

      In 2006 China announced it will be building 500 new Coal Fired Power Stations. Thats 36 new Coal Fired Power Stations per year up to 2020.

      ?A Coal Fired Power Station with a 2000 MW capacity can produce 22.6 MILLION tons of CO2 each year.

      Thats equivalent to having 5 million new cars on the road.?

      Wen Shihua, Head of China Mining Group explains:?

      “We are a country with a lot of coal, very little oil and very little gas. The development of coal is the basis of the development of the country.”?

      When asked about tackling Climate Change Wen Shihua replied:

      ?“There is no way that we can replace our production of coal or use alternative sources of energy to totally replace it.” ?

      When asked about whether China would join a Global initiative on tackling climate change Wen Shihua explained:?

      “Because the US and some Western governments don’t abide by the Kyoto Protocol, they are not willing to reduce their carbon emissions… we feel very annoyed about that.” ??

      Australia has killed it’s Mining boom for little return.

    • Mahhrat says:

      06:47am | 24/08/12

      Yep, good article.

      Even if AGW is not real, the pollution we put out is and we, as a first-world, small country with a great climate, should be doing all we can to develop the kinds of power generation 7 billion or so of us will need to live the way we do.

    • L. says:

      07:54am | 24/08/12

      “should be doing all we can to develop the kinds of power generation 7 billion or so of us will need to live the way we do.”

      Coal..

      Nothing else will come close to outputting the amount of power that Bayswater does.

      Hey.. did everyone see that in the UK this week wind power counted for 0% of power output at one point. 3,500 wind turbines made 0% of power required….hugely funny. Or at least it would be if the warmists were not serious putting wind up as a viable alternative for an industrialised nation.

    • Mahhrat says:

      08:32am | 24/08/12

      @L: No problem, how do we clean up after ourselves?

      Mutliply Bayswater x however many the rest of the world needs to run power the same way Australia does.

      THAT is the pollution we should be working around.

      Nobody owns the air - we all share in it.  Thus, we’re responsible for cleaning up after ourselves cost effectively.

    • L. says:

      10:16am | 24/08/12

      “Nobody owns the air - we all share in it.  Thus, we’re responsible for cleaning up after ourselves cost effectively.”

      That’s right.. and I propose we introduce laws immediately to prevent the billions in the 3rd world burning animal dung and using unfiltered and inefficent open wood fires to warm and feed themselves!!!

      Like it or not, our modern coal driven steam turbines are way cleaner and more efficient than what the 3rd world is using. So lets start there… it’s obvious.

      Lets build them new CCGT power generators. Cleaner than they are using now, and will lift them out of poverty, which will lead to smaller families.

    • Mahhrat says:

      11:24am | 24/08/12

      @L: Sources please.  Every scientist I’ve read is concerned on the impact of massive industrialisation.

    • L. says:

      12:01pm | 24/08/12

      “@L: Sources please.”

      Google them, I read that months ago..

      It’s funny the scientists complain about the “impact of massive industrialisation.”

      Just where do these people think their junkets to Rio via 747’s, or supercomputers, or the power for the freezers to store their antartic ice core etc comes from..??

      The likes of say, Hansen form NASA’s GISS is more than happy to jet about to give lectures calling coal trains ‘death trains’...

    • Mahhrat says:

      02:54pm | 24/08/12

      @L:  Err, no, you’re making the statement, you back it up.

      Debate’s now degraded to “because I said so”, and then…what, I’m doubly an idiot because I can’t find proof of the bullshit you’re spouting?

      If that’s the case L, then you’re a peanut with delusions of adequacy.  A full bench of the High Court came to that decision unanimously a couple weeks ago now - look it up online if you don’t believe me.

      Jesus on a friggin’ bike.  It must be Friday.

    • L. says:

      03:03pm | 24/08/12

      “L:  Err, no, you’re making the statement, you back it up.”

      Err, no..can’t be arsed. It’s there, find it if you’re interested.

      By the way, which part are you contesting?

    • thatmosis says:

      06:57am | 24/08/12

      Clear public support, from where. Most of the people I talk to don’t give a damn about the Kyoto protocol but think its a waste of time and Tax payers money. It does nothing except give those tree huggers a warm glow but does nothing to help the environment, like the Carbon tax.
        I would like to know where this polling is done to show that people still think its a great idea as there has been no polling out this way but then again the people out here work hard for a living and don’t like to see millions given away on a Government whim to some organisation that does nothing, like this almost Government not sit on their arses and look trendy waiting for the next trendy thing to say yes to.
        Lets face facts, countries might sign off on this crap but in reality will do nothing that will effect their people or manufacturing unlike the almost Government who supposedly runs this country. China. India, the USA all make the right sounds but in the end do absolutely nothing and without them actually doing something the whole thing is a farce that sounds good but in the end is just so much talk.

    • Anubis says:

      10:10am | 24/08/12

      @ thatmosis - ” I would like to know where this polling is done”

      Nimbin springs to mind

    • thatmosis says:

      03:25pm | 24/08/12

      Yes, sounds about right or maybe the Greens annual meeting of like “minds” certainly not with ordinary people who might just disagree with the intended intentions of the poll.
        These polls make one laugh, they word it in such a way that even if you disagree you are still counted as agreeing, nothing like putting the fix in before the race is there.
        Then we have the column space dedicated to every bleeding heart who stands to make a buck out of the ordinary person with their tales of the Sky is Falling and the money being thrown at any organisation who backs the almost Government view, sad isn’t it that its money and not the real reason that drives this argument forward.

    • wakeuppls says:

      07:01am | 24/08/12

      Ignoring the cooked numbers from the WWF, people are simply sick of listening to the alarmism. The ranting and raving of warmists such as yourself and Tim Flannery have switched everyone off, and rightly so. Good riddance to environmental terrorists.

    • john says:

      09:33am | 24/08/12

      The only ones who are switched off here are you lonely contrarians who haunt the internet looking for scraps of food and relevance.

    • wakeuppls says:

      01:49pm | 24/08/12

      john, you alarmists are far more lonely than I am. Even people with no scientific background don’t buy your garbage.

    • john says:

      02:12pm | 24/08/12

      “Even people with no scientific background don’t buy your garbage.”

      I rest my case.
      A contrarian who doesn’t even understand what he posts.

      Look, there’s some food over there…....

    • acotrel says:

      07:07am | 24/08/12

      Are extreme weather events due to climate change ?  What is the risk in terms of likelihood and potential consequences ? And how should we manage it ?

    • L. says:

      08:06am | 24/08/12

      “Are extreme weather events due to climate change ?”

      No…

      No Cat 5 Huricane had made US landfall in over 7 years.

      The US just had it’s weakest tornado season in 5 years.

      It was warm in the US this summer, but… The US also recorded 127 new LOW TEMP records this summer season. Oddly enough, the low temp records didn’t get any press..Go figure.

    • Old Man Emu says:

      08:08am | 24/08/12

      THe answer to your questions is no, no more than usual and let nature take its course.

    • Babylon says:

      12:23pm | 24/08/12

      What can you do seriously, to reverse 650,000 years of global warming?

      Sorry it’s “climate change” now, not Global Warming, because we could not see warming everywhere.

      (The new title was ushered in using the following technique: “Global Warming doesn’t necessarily mean increased temperatures you idiot, it means changing weather events. Are you stupid? Mentally challenged, selfish? what to use it up for yourself? etc”)

      QUESTION: What can humans do and will they do it?

      We are told that if we reduce emissions to Pre Industrial Revolution period, i.e 1800, then in 100 years MAYBE we will cool the climate enough to see the seas cool in 800 years. This will stop the seas rising 1 metre across the Globe.

      Assuming we obtain global agreement. How are you going to get successive world Governments to adopt the policy and practices of tackling climate change over 100 years?

      Can we live as if it’s 1800?

      Unlike Climate Change the world agrees that a Nuclear war would destroy life on earth.

      Some people in the world agree that wars are never won.

      Yet we have both.

      So there is no chance of obtaining an all nations commitment to tackling climate change. Even amongst those nations that currently adopt token measures, like Europe, there is no guarantee their successive Governments will follow the same policy.

    • Super D says:

      07:09am | 24/08/12

      It is hard to take any article accompanied by an image of billowing smoke (not transparent CO2) seriously.

    • I hate pies says:

      07:11am | 24/08/12

      WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIIIIEEEEEE!!!!!

      ....nah, just joking. But seriously, it’s only people in 3rd world countries, because they have too many people and not enough infrastructure. The problem Andrew speaks of is one of overpopulation, not climate change.
      By the way, drought killed off the Incans and forced the Egyptians to move south - it’s not a new phenomenon.

    • shinydonkey says:

      10:50am | 24/08/12

      Get your facts straight, pie man, and at least try with your spelling.  The Spanish did away the Incas, not drought.

    • Esteban says:

      11:29am | 24/08/12

      I think it was the Mayans who experienced sudden climate change whilst at the limit of their resources.

      Whist the “civilisation” died out there are still people who carry their genes.

      The Incas were engaged in what we might call a civil war when the Spanish arrived.

      As a united front the Spanish could never have conquered the Incas. However in an Iran/Iraq type strategy the incas depleted themselves to the extent that the Spanish were able to prevail.

      Perhaps because the lineage of the next inca was the first born male of the present Inca and his sister it is believed that the inca was mentally impaired by the time the Spanish arrived and were easily manipulated to defeat.

    • bananabender56 says:

      07:13am | 24/08/12

      There have been weather related disasters long before Oxfam came into being. We are also more likely to know about a problem with the increase in global communications. Having lived in the third world a number of times it’s my experience that the mentality of ‘me’ before village contributes to food shortages.
      Perhaps if Oxfam were to start a fund to knock off Mugabe, Zimbabwe would again be the garden of Africa and would to some extent help feed the people suffering from the effects of drought etc.

    • acotrel says:

      07:31am | 24/08/12

      Education is the only answer to controlling the population explosion, that has worked in the past.

    • Gregg says:

      07:53am | 24/08/12

      There have been many floods and droughts about the planet well before industrialisation, CO2 production and the population the planet now has.
      Just as surely, there have been many that have died during famines and certainly people in third world countries face onerous tasks in providing food for themselves.
      To some extent, it could all be considered mother nature’s way and the more we attempt to change the balance the more mother nature may react. For instance as more effort is made to provide equity in power, food production and life styles generally, that will just see energy demands ramp up more enormously than the multitude of mostly coal burning power stations construction in countries like China and India and CO2 production intensification increases rather than reductions.

      There could also be expected more massive population increases with energy/food/lifestyle equity without population control and so energy use will be even higher again at a global level and still we may debate the ultimate outcome and blame human driven climate change on any new catastrophe when it is more than likely not the cause.

      Should we not be looking more at how to adapt better to climate variations, more water harvesting and better use through irrigation and growing methods etc.

    • StevenK says:

      08:48am | 24/08/12

      Whether or not you believe in climate change in the arguement about carbon pricing has become irrelevant.  All political parties have a carbon price policy.
      Labor has the polluters paying Govt. And prices go up.
      Liberals have the Govt paying the polluter. And taxes go up.

      Dont matter which system we have it all comes from one source, the taxpayer hip pocket.

    • L. says:

      10:47am | 24/08/12

      “All political parties have a carbon price policy.
      Labor has the polluters paying Govt. And prices go up.
      Liberals have the Govt paying the polluter. And taxes go up.”

      Actually, I don’t agree.

      Abbott has a policy, sure.. Bu tI firmly believe he only has one due to ‘peer pressure’, and when elected he simply won’t impliment it.

    • Babylon says:

      11:54am | 24/08/12

      No StevenK, Gillard said:

      “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,” Gillard told Network Ten.

      But Gillard planned to invest in Renewables to an extent. And she commissioned the redevelopment of infrastructure and distribution network for electricity:

      “Now I want to build the transmission lines that will bring that clean, green energy into the national electricity grid,” she said. (Aug 2010).

      However, she was later to claim that the horrendous cost of this development was the fault of the States and utility companies.

      Some 50 percent of our electrical bill price increase is attributed to Julia’s request for transmission lines required for weak Renewable electricity, the other 50 percent was THE CARBON TAX.

      Bullshit, with a side order of lies and deceit Aussie? Enjoy!

    • Charles says:

      09:16am | 24/08/12

      This article has so many factual flaws it is hard to know where to start.  In the first instance I would say that Kyoto did nothing to reduce CO2 emissions, so why would we want another?  It is also interesting to note that countries like Canada are adamant they won’t be signing Kyoto II, what do they know that we don’t?

      I am also confused that pushing the world into expo0ensive so called ‘clean’ energy generation is going to help.  I would have thought it would create more misery and misfortune than if you just let them use fossil fuel and get access to a decent energy supply which allows humanity to rise above subsistence existence.

      I fear your ideology overwhelms any semblance of sense and that most of your alarmism is intended to serve your self interest rather than any more noble purpose.

    • kronik says:

      09:43am | 24/08/12

      I fear your rant overwhelms any semblance of sense and that most of your denial is intended to serve your self interest rather than any more noble purpose.

      I also noticed that you didn’t know where to start so you didn’t.

    • L. says:

      11:20am | 24/08/12

      “I fear your rant overwhelms any semblance of sense and that most of your denial is intended to serve your self interest rather than any more noble purpose”

      Care to outline where Charles is incorrcet?

      Canada has stated they are getting out of the Kyoto thingy.

      Kyoto hasn’t dropped CO2 emissions one iota.
      The onlty reason why we in the west live as long as we do is largely because of cheap, abundant, reliable power.

      Please give us some detail on your views Kronik..

    • kronik says:

      12:45pm | 24/08/12

      “countries like Canada are adamant they won’t be signing Kyoto II, what do they know that we don’t?”

      Canada’s Action on Climate Change from their government website.
      “Canada recognizes that climate change is a global challenge requiring a global solution.

      The Government of Canada is making progress towards our ambitious target of reducing Canada’s total greenhouse gas emissions by 17 per cent from 2005 levels by 2020 through a sector-by-sector approach aligned with the United States, where appropriate.

      Federal measures, combined with actions taken by provinces, have brought us one quarter of the way towards our 2020 target.

      We have started with greenhouse gas regulations for Canada’s transportation and electricity sectors - the two largest greenhouse gas emitters -and we will continue to address emissions from other major-emitting sectors.

      Canada has also consistently been a strong supporter of international action on climate change, including by targeting financing where it can have the greatest impact.

      We have contributed $400 million in new and additional climate change financing in the 2010-2011 fiscal year as part of Canada’s commitment under the Copenhagen Accord to provide our fair share of fast-start financing.  Further information will be provided on Canada’s fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 as soon as possible.

      In December 2011, Canada played an active and constructive role in Durban, South Africa at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s 17th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 17).”“
      source: the Canadian government website
      http://tinyurl.com/dx6u7sl

      Do you have link to the Canadian government statement about adamantly not signing kyoto II?

      L.
      ‘Kyoto hasn’t dropped CO2 emissions one iota.”
      Hard to argue with someone that thinks that less CO2 is not emitted when people use less energy or adopt alternative green energy technologies. You know, like the money committed countries make available to accelerate the take up and development of technologies like solar and wind power generation.

    • L. says:

      02:05pm | 24/08/12

      “Do you have link to the Canadian government statement about adamantly not signing kyoto II?”

      You didn’t look too hard..

      ‘Canada is formally withdrawing from the Kyoto accord, Environment Minister Peter Kent said Monday.’

      http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/12/12/pol-kent-kyoto-pullout.html

      “‘Kyoto hasn’t dropped CO2 emissions one iota.”
      Hard to argue with someone that thinks that less CO2 is not emitted when people use less energy or adopt alternative green energy technologies.”

      You really should do some research..

      ‘Global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) – the main cause of global warming – increased by 45 % between 1990 and 2010, and reached an all-time high of 33 billion tonnes in 2010.’

      http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/jrc/index.cfm

    • kronik says:

      02:26pm | 24/08/12

      Perhaps you are hard of hearing or reading or something.

      I specifically asked you
      “Do you have link to the Canadian government statement about adamantly not signing kyoto II?”

      Well, do you?

      Further to you comprehension difficulties, I fear I will have to repeat myself. This time, please use the magnifier app to read the next part.

      ”  Hard to argue with someone that thinks that less CO2 is not emitted when people use less energy or adopt alternative green energy technologies. You know, like the money committed countries make available to accelerate the take up and development of technologies like solar and wind power generation.”

      BTW are you charles BFF?

    • L. says:

      02:43pm | 24/08/12

      “I specifically asked you “Do you have link to the Canadian government statement about adamantly not signing kyoto II”

      They have withdrawn from the ENTIRE protocal. Not phase one…not phase two, they are pulling out of the entire concept. It’s pretty easy to understand… so much for ‘comprehension’.

      ”  Hard to argue with someone that thinks that less CO2 is not emitted when people use less energy or adopt alternative green energy technologies.”

      Seems you haven’t heard the word.. Wind and Solar and the cause of emissions increases…

      [A]s wind rarely produces more than 25% of its faceplate capacity it needs 75% backup – which due to the necessity of fast response times needs OCGT generation (CCGT can respond quickly but the heat-exchanger systems upon which their increased efficiency relies, cannot – so CCGT behaves like OCGT under these circumstances). CCGT produces 0.4 tonnes of CO2 per MWh, OCGT produces 0.6 tonnes. Thus 0.6 tonnes x 75% = 0.45 tonnes. Conclusion: Wind + OCGT backup produces more 0.05 tonnes of CO2 per MWh than continuous CCGT.

      Read that..?/ Because wind us useless, we release MORE co2 than byt natural gas alone…

    • Charles says:

      09:20am | 24/08/12

      I have a relative who is closely associated with the major mining companies, BHP, Rio Tinto, etc.  He told me a couple of months ago that these mining businesses had decided that they were going to mothball new projects until Julia got turfed out of power.  I guess we are starting to see the results of that policy in action now

    • Babylon says:

      11:42am | 24/08/12

      it’s all moving to Africa.

      India and Asia have already started getting their coal from there.

      We need to shake of green theory and move back to rational economic thinking.

      The only way we can do that is to change Government.

    • bailey says:

      12:09pm | 24/08/12

      Hey babble-on
      Has Whyalla been wiped off the map yet?

      PS I can think of nothing green that would make a green shake taste good. What do you put in your green shake and what kind of ingredient is a theory?

    • L. says:

      12:15pm | 24/08/12

      “He told me a couple of months ago that these mining businesses had decided that they were going to mothball new projects until Julia got turfed out of power. “

      Then they should state as much.. If they don’t outline their reasons, if Gillard is relected, they will have no one to blame but themselves.

    • L. says:

      12:15pm | 24/08/12

      “He told me a couple of months ago that these mining businesses had decided that they were going to mothball new projects until Julia got turfed out of power. “

      Then they should state as much.. If they don’t outline their reasons, if Gillard is relected, they will have no one to blame but themselves.

    • Babylon says:

      01:32pm | 24/08/12

      G’day Bailey!

      You know as well as I that Gillard spent the first two years of the Carbon tax collection monies bailing out Whyalla and associated Industries.

      Reported in the Daily Telegraph. Dollar amounts of compensations paid to protect from the evil carbon tax:

      Power Generators ( $5.5 Billion)
      Coal Miners ($1.3 Billion)
      Steel ($300

      If the Gillard Government had not spent the carbon tax on bail outs, Whyalla would be one of a few places in the poo.

      Hey Bailey, do you not feel lied to that the Carbon tax was supposed to pay from investment in Renewable energy, but instead has been used to buy votes and plug up the holes it tore in the economy?

      This week a Gillard supporter told me the Carbon tax was designed to “PUNISH” the Australian people, so they become more green aware.

      I said nobody has the right to “PUNISH” me for 650,000 years of Global warming. Who do these people think they are?

      The Gillard supporter also went on to say that certain industries that have a heavy carbon footprint will never be able to become ‘green’ enough to survive. By necessity places like Whyalla, she said, must close to get the emissions cuts.

      She was a very cute, lively intelligent pretty girl, but what she laid out was the economic death nell of Australia’s traditional industries and a veritable employment holocaust for the Australian working man.

      Despite Gillards bail out, OneSteel in Whyalla shed 430 jobs. Google it and see they light.

    • bailey says:

      02:17pm | 24/08/12

      oooh, the telegraph.

      Now you do know they have no regard for the facts babble-on. Much like you.

      Answer the question babble-on has Whyalla been wiped off the map?

    • taxed cizen says:

      09:23am | 24/08/12

      agree : we should wake up to the global warming scare, finally realize it is a a hoax and renounce the Kyoto treaty as Canada did.

    • Anubis says:

      09:58am | 24/08/12

      To the author - “weather-related disaster” does not equate to Climate Change.Pakistan has floods, Africa has droughts, just as Australia has floods and droughts, and have had through all of recorded history. For mankind to say they can predict the weather on the basis of such a small recorded history of this worlds climate is nothing but sheer arrogance.

      When the models used by the IPCC and the Climate Change gravy train can actually start to be right then maybe more people will listen. But whenever the models are applied to real-world results they are just so wrong it is laughable. Attempts to use the models on historical weather records has shown that the models can’t even come close to what really happened in the past two hundred years. In REAL science, if your model is consistently wrong then you throw the model out and start again. But in climate change science you persist with the model and create ever more dire predictions in order to rally the troops to the cause (and keep the gravy train full).
      correlation does not equal causation

    • Stephen says:

      10:07am | 24/08/12

      Here we go again…more Warmongering propaganda, with bold statements based on emotion rather than fact, by one with a vested interest in making wealthier countries dig into their pockets.

      Gotta love these global crusaders, who pump up their self importance with faux compassion for every other nation on the planet except their own.

    • willie says:

      10:34am | 24/08/12

      You might think farm reapropriations only happen in Zimbabwe or Marxist Russia. Wrong. Rudd stole the rights to about $10B worth of farmland when he ratified Kyoto. This is the only reason Australia has met? Is close to meeting its Kyoto targets.
      Shit environmentalism is so easy when you steal other peoples money to pay for it.

    • earl says:

      11:04am | 24/08/12

      I wish there was a clear choice on climate change policy, i.e. one party is completely for and the other completely against significant action on climate change mitigation. That way we wouldnt be forced into choosing to support action if we did not want it.

    • Geko says:

      11:18am | 24/08/12

      Here we go Punch’s regular warmist rant pushing The Great Global Warming Scam!

      Too bad the world ain’t warming eh?
      But why let the facts get in the way?

      An Ominous Quote For Our Warmist Friends And Their AGW Hoax

      “If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,”

      Dr Nicola Scafetta, Duke University in North Carolina.
      He is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been “steady warming from 2000 until now”.

      ——————————————————
      We’ve Had Global Cooling For 22 Years Now
      October 21 2009

      A new study by Craig Loehle of the US National Council for Air and Stream Improvement warns that most global warming models didn’t predict this cooling:

      “Global satellite data is analyzed for temperature trends for the period January 1979 through June 2009.  Beginning and ending segments show a cooling trend, while the middle segment evinces a warming trend.
      The past 12 to 13 years show cooling using both satellite data sets, with lower confidence limits that do not exclude a negative trend until 16 to 22 years.  “

      http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3230

    • Geko says:

      11:36am | 24/08/12

      So whatever happened to the Great Global Cooling Scare of the seventies?
      Swept under the carpet to make way for the Great Global Warming Scam?


      “We’re on a definite downhill course for the next two centuries”
      Prof Hubert Lamb, Director Climate Research, University Of East Anglia, 1972
      The good professor forecasts a new ice age.


      The CIA Predicts Global Climate Change Disaster
      According to the CIA’s analysis, “detrimental global climatic change” threatens “the stability of most nations.”

      And, alas, for a global phenomenon, Canada will be hardest hit. The entire Dominion from the Arctic to the 49th parallel will be under 150 feet of ice.

      Oh, wait.

      That was the last “scientific consensus” on “climate change,” early seventies version, as reflected in a CIA report from August 1974, which the enterprising author Maurizio Morabito stumbled upon in the British Library the other day.


      The CIA’s “Global Cooling” Files
      “A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems”
      written by the CIA for ‘internal planning purposes’ in August 1974
      http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/5592803/the-cias-global-cooling-files.thtml


      The great Global warming Scam will most likely go the same way!


      http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/24/why-climate-change-is-hot-hot-hot/

    • Geko says:

      11:52am | 24/08/12

      Here is the actual CIA global cooling file in PDF format for your reading pleasure!

      http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf

      Note how they attributed all of the nasty weather events to global cooling which our current crop of apocalyptic warmist friends now attribute to mythical manmade warming!

    • L. says:

      12:20pm | 24/08/12

      “The CIA Predicts Global Climate Change Disaster
      According to the CIA’s analysis, “detrimental global climatic change” threatens “the stability of most nations.””

      So, the CIA is making climate perdictions (not their core business), and we are expected to think they are right?

      But..

      This is the same CIA that didn’t see the coming of the fall of the Berlin Wall (which is their core business).

    • Geko says:

      11:39am | 24/08/12

      OOPS ... an inconvenient FACT ....

      The fastest 30 year rate of warming was in 1828!

      The 30-year period ending 2006 ranked 20th for rate of warming.

      The 2000’s do not rank amongst the top ten fastest 30 year warming periods since 1651!

      So much for mythical AGW!

      http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/01/cet-temperatures.html

    • Pratt says:

      12:14pm | 24/08/12

      Excellent work.
      Link to a denier website to support your view with fiction instead of facts.

      Why don’t you link us to the CSRIO or NASA or any legitimate scientific journal to prove your point.

      Whats next? wattsupwiththat?

    • L. says:

      02:10pm | 24/08/12

      “Why don’t you link us to the CSRIO”

      haha.. The last CSIRO on the Aust climate had to be publically withdrawn from publication because a ‘denier’ site spotted the flaws in their ‘logic’, where the ‘peer reviews’ didn’t’... a tad embarrassing that.

    • Big Moss says:

      11:42am | 24/08/12

      Whats the problem? - it is fixed. We have Carbon tax to save Australia and the world - done. Sorted. Happy happy happy.

    • Geko says:

      12:24pm | 24/08/12

      Andrew your article demonstrates to me that you should really get some help for your condition ....


      Addicted To Doom, Apocaholism

      Over the five decades since the success of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring in 1962 and the four decades since the success of the Club of Rome’s The Limits to Growth in 1972, prophecies of doom on a colossal scale have become routine. Indeed, we seem to crave ever-more-frightening predictions—we are now, in writer Gary Alexander’s word, apocaholic. The past half century has brought us warnings of population explosions, global famines, plagues, water wars, oil exhaustion, mineral shortages, falling sperm counts, thinning ozone, acidifying rain, nuclear winters, Y2K bugs, mad cow epidemics, killer bees, sex-change fish, cell-phone-induced brain-cancer epidemics, and climate catastrophes.

      So far all of these specters have turned out to be exaggerated. True, we have encountered obstacles, public-health emergencies, and even mass tragedies. But the promised Armageddons—the thresholds that cannot be uncrossed, the tipping points that cannot be untipped, the existential threats to Life as We Know It—have consistently failed to materialize. To see the full depth of our apocaholism, and to understand why we keep getting it so wrong, we need to consult the past 50 years of history.

    • Geko says:

      01:04pm | 24/08/12

      Pratt you mention the CSIRO ....

      Why Do Obviously Gullible Govts Still Believe The Warmist Crap Coming From The CSIRO?
      March, 20 2012

      Professor Sinclair Davidson is delighted that the Financial Review now attacks the CSIRO for hyping up the “permanent drought” scare that panicked gullible governments into building hugely expensive and now useless desalination plants in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne.

      All good and accurate.

      But Davidson adds:

      “Pity they weren’t publishing stuff like that before the carbon tax passed the Parliament.”
      http://catallaxyfiles.com/2012/03/19/the-afr-toughens-up/

      Absolutely.

      But that was under a different editor, who let green evangelists and group-thinkers on the paper run riot.

      And the Fin still needs to take the next step: to suggest that if the CSIRO and other warmist bodies were so wrong in predicting the effects of global warming, they might also be wrong on warming’s extent and causes, too.

      How well do they really understand the climate and what drives it?

      And should we really rely on their clearly inadequate “science” to now shift the entire economy onto more expensive forms of power?

      AND ...

      Why won’t the warmist agenda-driven CSIRO come clean on its scare report?
      July 21, 2008

      CSIRO Wars
      Attempts to get some summary data from the Drought Exceptional Circumstances report out of Australia’s scientific organization CSIRO, in order to check the statistical significance of the results, have been described as a saga. The way this has been picked up on various blogs and comments shows the depth of concern people have about data access for checking scientific work.

      Steve McIntyre at ClimateAudit describes the saga as “a recent lurid report on Australian drought, only to be stonewalled on grounds of ‘Intellectual Property Rights’, a pretext familiar to scpetical readers.” In another post he finds fault with another aspect of the report, writing that CSIRO produced “an interesting example of a promotional press release, that would daunt the most adventurous stock promoter, followed by mealy-mouthed and untrue excuses by the government department.”

      The CSIRO is still stonewalling on a request by a leading modeller to let him check the data it used to claim we’re facing terrible droughts thanks to global warming.

      This is a scandal. And the CSIRO’s claim - seized on so gratefully by the KRudd Government - looks even more suspect by this refusal to let it be reviewed

      http://landshape.org/enm/csiro-wars/

      Hiding their data like true “scientists”!!

    • Geko says:

      01:10pm | 24/08/12

      Hey Pratt .... NASA? ... the home of “Arch Warmist” Hansen?
      Surely you jest!

      Top NASA Scientists, Engineers, Astronauts Hit Back At Hansen’s Alarmism
      Apr 10 2012
      “At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.”

      March 28, 2012
      The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
      NASA Administrator
      NASA Headquarters
      Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
      Dear Charlie,

      We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

      The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

      As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

      For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

      Thank you for considering this request.

      Sincerely,

      (Attached signatures) AN ABBREVIATED LIST

      CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science
      CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

      Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

      /s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
      /s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
      /s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
      /s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
      /s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
      /s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years

      List cut short here for space reasons.

    • Babylon says:

      01:41pm | 24/08/12

      Oops is this whats known as ‘a spanner in the works’?

    • bailey says:

      03:33pm | 24/08/12

      “Oops is this whats known as ‘a spanner in the works’? “

      No, it’s what’s known as the Heartland Institute.
      A lobby group for big oil. Comprising tea party members and right wing fringe dwellers.

      You’d fit right in.

    • Geko says:

      01:12pm | 24/08/12

      Hey Pratt, you wrote
      “Excellent work.
      Link to a denier website to support your view with fiction instead of facts”

      So the Central Engalnd Temperature Record from 1651 is fiction????

      Yeah right.

    • Jen says:

      01:47pm | 24/08/12

      “So the Central Engalnd Temperature Record from 1651 is fiction?”

      You are a riot Geko.
      NASA, and the CSIRO are in cahoots to mislead the world, and the Central Engalnd Temperature Record from 1651 should be our guide to enlightenment.

    • Sarah Bath says:

      02:55pm | 24/08/12

      Climate change is real.  There is plenty of research such as those found at the East Anglia University.  Most of climate harming emmisions are because of the methane polluters in our agricultural industry. That is why we want to tax this inefficient industry and replace it with a viable sustainable herbicultural industry. This will not only save the planet but animal welfare is protected and our health is improved.

    • Geko says:

      03:09pm | 24/08/12

      Hey Sara Bath, you wrote ...
      “Climate change is real.  There is plenty of research such as those found at the East Anglia University.”

      Agreed.
      Climate change in both cooling and warming is real as the good professor from East Anglia demonstrated in the seventies!!
      We’ve had it for millions of years.

      “We’re on a definite downhill course for the next two centuries”
      Prof Hubert Lamb, Director Climate Research, University Of East Anglia, 1972
      The good professor forecasts a new ice age.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter