On Mar 16, 3:05 pm, "oobnz" wrote:
"Fran" wrote in message

...
On Mar 16, 2:07 pm, "oobnz" wrote:





"Fran" wrote in message

....
On Mar 16, 1:25 pm, wrote:

On Mar 15, 4:12 pm, Fran wrote:

On Mar 15, 4:25 pm, "Trevor Wilson"

wrote:
"Fran" wrote in message

...

Here's hoping the Senate will block the ETS in its current form..

The Opposition is right in this respect: the current scheme is
deeply
flawed.

There is simply no way that the indicative 5-15% targets will be
close
to adequate. Likewise, the free permits to big polluters and the
inability of the scheme to be able to take account of reductions
in
household emissions will seriously sap commitment to action. Once
in
place, the need for "investment certainty" will trump all
possibility
of significant changes to the operation of the schem. Australia
will
be stuck with a poor scheme for ten years.

If the price of having a scheme up and running is locking in such
a
polluter-friendly scheme for ten years, then I say we can wait. If
we
can't have an adequate scheme up and running by July 2010, then
waiting a further year, for a better senate is a small price to
pay.
If the big polluters were smart, they'd take Rudd's offer and lean
on
Costello's mob to pass it.

Right now, the best hope is that the coalition holds out and
forces
the government to deal with the Greens and we get a better scheme
based on

a) a target of at least 25% reductions by 2020
b) all permits auctioned
c) all sectors (including transport and agriculture and forestry)
covered

**Agreed. Rudd has been a massive disappointment in this respect. He
is
pandering to the fossil fuel lobby and has zero regard for the
future
of
this nation (planet). Mind you: He's still light years ahead of the
morons
in the Liberal Party.

I'm not sure what either of them has regard for beyond securing
office.

He's way behind the Greens in almost every aspect.

That's true

Fran

So how does shutting down the australian economy make a difference to
global emissions?

1. That's a strawman. Nothing I've proposed entails "shutting down the
Australian economy". Quite the reverse -- it entails founding it on a
more certain and sustainable basis.
************************************************** ********************

That won't result from sending energy prices through the roof komrade!!!
It's called "economic suicide"!!

If Australia is currently a net importer of liquid fuels. If this
balance changes and it becomes a net exporter of liquid fuels, this is
an advantage. If the price of the fuel Australia is a net importer of
goes up by less than the profit we make trading fuels we make her and
export, Australia is ahead not behind, and as Australia's imports
fall, even more so.





************************************************** ******************************
2. Plainly, if Australia cuts net emissions by 25% by 2020 then global
emissions will be to that extent lower. Currently Australia is
responsible for about 1.4% of world emissions so on that basis, they
would fall by about 0.375% of current emissions

3. Australia's energetic participation will put pressure on other
nations to match our targets. Were Australia to adopt a trivial target
(as is now proposed) those in other countries could well say as you
have "what's the point since the difference will be trivial; we need a
global agreement for robust targets or none at all"

As you may have noticed, the Maldives (pop.385,000) is going carbon
neutral by 2019. This is a largely symbolic gesture, but it makes
everyone else look bad -- especially since their country probably
doesn't have a future longer than 50 years, or 80 at most, and that is
largely down to the recklessness of the rest of us.

Are you saying that we can make a difference for the year or so it
takes for India and china to grow their emissions?

Yes. Every little bit helps, but more importantly, it is a statement
of commitment to a robust and ubiquitous system.

Look at it this way. Whether I choose to throw rubbish from my car
window or not, the total amount of litter will be about the same. Yet
if I'm opposed to littering, am I not bound to refrain from littering
myself, even though it won't make much difference? Of course I am.

Australia can't argue for others to have larger targets than it sets
for itself. Almost any country can agree to 5% and use Australia as
case in point. If Australia wants 15% it has to make this its minimum
target, and if it wants 25% that's what it must say it will do as a
minimum. So it's not merely Australia's direct emissions we are
discussing here, but those of the other countries like Australia.

As to China and India they are still emitting much less than we are
per capita.
************************************************** *****************************

Do you still maintain that you're not an apologist for the massively
increasing emissions from these two countries, komrade???

As to China and India they are still emitting much less than we are
per capita.
************************************************** ******

BUT the total for over 1.5 billion people is much greater.
I thought this climate change scam was an "emergency", or is it only an
"emergency" in western countries???


There are two separate uestions here

a) total emissions
b) who should bear the the cost of reducing them

Clearly, we want China's 1.3 billion people and India's 1 billion NOT
to copy what we did and keep increasing emissions. Accordingly, as to
(a) everyone should be involved, including China, India, Brazil,
Mexico, Indonesia etc ...

However as to (b) the *costs* associated with not following the
ruinous path adopted by the US, Europe, Australia etc the bulk of this
per capita should be borne by the west, since we are per capita richer
and the beneficiaries of the system that has created the urgency in
(a) above.
\


Fran