The Kyoto Protocol is not necessary

[DavidPartay]

Ok guys, before I say what I have to say, I'm sure we can all agree on one thing:

The evidence provided to us by all known sources (primarily the media) shows us that global warming is fact. As I am not a scientist, I am not going to dispute this claim and for the sake of validifying what I have to say, I am going to presume it is fact.

Now, the current hot topic in the news is the deal with global warming - and there is a LOT of criticism being thrown at John Howard for not signing the protocol.

All I am saying is that, since when did it become necessary to sign a document to say you're going to do something?

If I go to the dentist, he doesn't make me sign a contract saying I'll brush and floss my teeth regularly. I do it out of my own choice.

Why should Australia sign a document of terms (which New Zealand - of all places - has managed to breach), when Australia can reduce emissions by our OWN efforts?

Signing the Kyoto Protocol is NOT a necessary facet of reducing pollution in any part of the world - the Greens, ALP, media and Howard-haters are just using it as blank ammunition to fire at the Coalition. Even if you dislike Howard for everything else he's done, please at least take the time to realise that the Kyoto Protocol is not necessary for saving our atmosphere.

[calais_304]

fair enough, but i must say this time the greenies were right

[vt1538]

Exactly.
No matter who seems to be in power the oppositions job is to make it look like we got it wrong at the ballot. If they want to help clear up pollution they should be getting together with the govt in power instead of all this backstabbing. Nuclear will help clean up emmissions but they are fighting it all the way.
Save a tree, plant a greenie.

[Jimboss]

But the whole situation for the Kyoto protocol is that it needs the support of all countries, not just those who want to support it. And the biggest issue that i can't wrap my head around is that Australia would meet the protocol requirements without any problems (we meet the requirements every year, and will continue to do so).

The excuse that the US hasn't ratified just doesn't fly with me, this BS conservative government has got it in it's head that the US is doing everything right ... need i point out the state of their economy? or health system? or unemployment rates?

If anyone comes back saying that the Howard government is doing this country a world of good (and especially mention interest rates), i am quite happy to argue otherwise.


ANYWAY, back on topic, Australia should 'ratify' the Kyoto Protocol for the simple reason to say that we have. Why shouldn't we? we meet the requirements every year, it is not going to adversely affect us in any way.

[Morgasshk]

Exactly.
No matter who seems to be in power the oppositions job is to make it look like we got it wrong at the ballot. If they want to help clear up pollution they should be getting together with the govt in power instead of all this backstabbing. Nuclear will help clean up emmissions but they are fighting it all the way.
Save a tree, plant a greenie.

beautifully put, couldn't agree more. Annoys heck out of me the way the opposition does that, ffs... just start doing as best YOU can and let peole see that, rather than waiting for whomever IS in power to F**K up and then take the dropped reins...

[Jimboss]

And also, just so people don't think i'm a greeny or anything, i think Howard is spot on the money in terms of looking to Nuclear Power as the only viable source of energy. I think that it is quite extraordinary to think that for the last 20 or 30 years Greens and the like (Greenpeace etc.) have not supported, and opposed, the use of nuclear power. If nuclear power had been adopted more quickly that it has, there would be less demand for fossil fuels and the world would not have the climate change 'epidemic' that we are having.

[vt1538]

But the whole situation for the Kyoto protocol is that it needs the support of all countries, not just those who want to support it. And the biggest issue that i can't wrap my head around is that Australia would meet the protocol requirements without any problems (we meet the requirements every year, and will continue to do so).

The excuse that the US hasn't ratified just doesn't fly with me, this BS conservative government has got it in it's head that the US is doing everything right ... need i point out the state of their economy? or health system? or unemployment rates?

If anyone comes back saying that the Howard government is doing this country a world of good (and especially mention interest rates), i am quite happy to argue otherwise.

ANYWAY, back on topic, Australia should 'ratify' the Kyoto Protocol for the simple reason to say that we have. Why shouldn't we? we meet the requirements every year, it is not going to adversely affect us in any way.

Why should we have to ratify when we already meet or exceed the demands. We can show that we dont need to be a part of a group to do whats right for the environment.

[vxexec350]

To me its a case of transparency, why not sign as an act of goodwill. If we are going to work on the problem anyway why not join in with other countries and perhaps share intelligence to more rapidly solve this important issue.

my
$0.02c

Pete

[Morgasshk]

australia being the nice guy will get roped into monitoring it for other countries...

[minux]

And also, just so people don't think i'm a greeny or anything, i think Howard is spot on the money in terms of looking to Nuclear Power as the only viable source of energy. I think that it is quite extraordinary to think that for the last 20 or 30 years Greens and the like (Greenpeace etc.) have not supported, and opposed, the use of nuclear power. If nuclear power had been adopted more quickly that it has, there would be less demand for fossil fuels and the world would not have the climate change 'epidemic' that we are having.

lol, nuclear power in a country that cant even sustain water supply for the population, yes that makes it a very viable source of energy. You know how much water is required for Nuclear reactors? The only viable energy source is natural such as wind or solar. If we had decent water supplies and a population that wasnt outgrowing the coutnry then yes nuclear would be a great way to go.

[DavidPartay]

Obviously the biggest problem with our water supplies is that they're ALL in the wrong places. Mangrove Dam (supplies Gosford Shire of the Central Coast) is down to 16% (possibly less). To my knowledge (don't quote me), Warragamba dam is no better, or perhaps the only numbers I've heard recently are the numbers for Mangrove.

Mangrove was also drained by 30% when they connected Wyong Shire's water supply (northern Central Coast) to Mangrove Dam just in case the levels got low so they could transfer water between the dams - WHAT A WASTE?!

My idea from a couple of months back is still a better solution than anyone else has come up with. Build big dishes on the tops of all the buildings in Sydney and create a drainage system which will channel ALL the water into the dam. Being as 99% of the rain Sydney gets is coastal and gets nowhere near the catchment, this might actually HELP the situation.

Of course, it'll never be done because it costs money and it's not a scientific solution like desalination.

I do not believe Australia should sign the Kyoto Protocol, simply because we don't have to to get things right.

[J_D]

The problem is we can reduce our emissions as much as we like but all nations must be made to comply with reduction targets because multinational corporations will move production to whichever countries are exempt. China is a case in point. The reason we have a relatively clean environment is because the Chinese make most of our goods(with the resulting pollution involved) and send them here. The problem has been displaced to China, but what happens there affects the whole globe. Until we have uniform laws the problem wont be solved, as much as I hate John Howard I have to agree with him on this one.

[Garth]

the kyoto agrement, ha, yet another failuire.

sustainable water suply. ha, who is gonna pay for that

let's face it, australia has become a country of number crunching, it may be the infomation technology age, but it's realy the age of accountants.
ill use brisbane as a example. we have got hardly any water up here ourself. the brisbane water suply's are down to 25% collectivly. so the bettie government decides ok, let's all build a huge network of pipes and recycle our water and put a disalination plant in somewhere to make a water grid, he makes 2 new dams and puts all these restrictions in place.

now, the problem is, do make all this happen, is you need money, money has to come from somewhere, us. so what does the government do, raise the price of something to pay for all this work.
everywhere i go i hear people saying they dont wanna pay extra for water, this goes to show how stupid peopel can actualy be. the same goes for the kyoto agrement, who is gonna pay for all these things to be carried out.
john howard is a gutless looser, who is unable to make a decision without first calling his bum buddy george w bush. and i imagin kim beazly would be the exact same. so untill this government does wake up and smell the coffee, im afraid to say taht we will run out of water, and prob kill the planet before anything is actualy done about it

[Jimboss]

lol, nuclear power in a country that cant even sustain water supply for the population, yes that makes it a very viable source of energy. You know how much water is required for Nuclear reactors? The only viable energy source is natural such as wind or solar. If we had decent water supplies and a population that wasnt outgrowing the coutnry then yes nuclear would be a great way to go.

Yes, i am well aware of the amounts of water that a Nuclear Power plant would use, and i don't see it being an issue when looking at the bigger picture. As the usage would only be 25% more than a coal plant (but with zero greenhouse emissions), It would be a simple matter if planning and research to find the best location to have the reactor (which has relatively decent rainfall etc). Another interesting thing to note is that the 'waste' water is recycled and is harmless to be put back where it came from (rivers, lakes and other natural water sources).



But back to the topic of the Kyoto Protocol, i agree with peoples statements that it is not useful, but that is because it has been misused and there has not been enough pressure on those countries who are not apart of it. My main objection is that the US is not apart of it, it is not worth regulating the small countries when the largest producer of greenhouse emissions is continuing to produce them at incredible and uncontrolled rates.

[J_D]

I think the best thing for Australia to do would be to meet and exceed the Kyoto targets but not sign the agreement, after all we cant just sit on our hands and do nothing just because other nations are. If this global warming issue is as big a thing as the scientists say it is the nations that dont cut their emissions will face serious repercussions from everyone else in the future. The larger worry IMO is the depression that will come from global warming and the definate possibility of another world war. After all the second world war started because of the great depression of 1929/30.

[Shortsta]

Hi all....time for my 2 cents worth.....

Some points to note first off.....

1. Australia only contributes 1.5% of all CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions globally. not much, but we have a small population, and on an emmissions per head of population, we are actually the worlds largest emitter of CO2. We are greedy consumers.

2. Nuclear power, whilst not producing greenhouse emissions, and for all intents and purposes to date (fingers crossed) short of 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl, there has not been a major escape of pollutant material. Heaven help us though that the reality is a single "accident" with an unregulated escape of pollutants from a nuclear facility into something like a waterway, not only looks bad at the time, but renders that natural resource or waterway unusable 'virtually indefinately'...or at least well beyond our childrens childrens lifetimes.

3. Yes, we do meet our Kyoto targets (though we negotiated at the time for some of the most lenient requirements for any country involved in the development of the treaty), but that is not really the point. The point is this...
- China will be the largest producer of greenhouse emissions worldwide in a few years
- They currently use 1/2 of the worlds concrete per annum...
- They currently use 2/3 of the worlds steel per annum...
- They will need to produce massive amounts of energy to service their rapid growth and development.
- Currently they use 'dirty power' like coal stations.

China will be in a position where their emmissions in a week, will equal ours in a year.

What is the outcome of all this ranting.....We are small fish emmittors against a country like China. why do our committments to Kyoto matter then...

Here it is folks..........

China have stated there is no point in them ratifying the protocol if country's like Australia wont sign.

Maybe us signing wouldnt push China to ratify also, but by christ, i hope so. With the next round of negotiations to be held in approximately 6 years, i hope that by then we can convince China to invest in cleaner, lower emmission producing technologies by leading through example...for all our sakes.