[VOOK]

Kevin Rudd announces target for cut in emissions by 2020

Quote

KEVIN Rudd became a target himself today after he announced modest and conditional targets to cut greenhouse gases, thought to be responsible for global warming.

As the Prime Minister saud there would be an unconditional 5 per cent cut in emissions by 2010, which could increase to a maximum 15 per cent if the rest of the world agreed to a similar target, a single female protester screamed: "No!"

It was a sentiment shared by the Australian Greens, scientists, environmental experts and other protesters, many of who had advocated cuts of 25 to 40 per cent to avert catastrophic climate change.

Meanwhile business labelled the proposed scheme "high risk" at a time of global recession despite billions being handed out to cushion the economic blow for the power industry, other businesses and consumers.

The pain - what the scheme will cost

Critics complained the compensation measures would effectively cancel out the scheme's effectiveness at modifying behaviour and also left next to no money to invest in energy efficiency and green alternatives.

Mr Rudd said today's white paper targets represented a responsible course of action.

"We are not going to make promises that cannot be delivered,'' he told the National Press Club in Canberra today.

"We are starting the scheme with appropriate and responsible targets, targets that are broadly consistent with other developed countries.''

The targets deliver necessary reform to tackle climate change while supporting Australia's economy and securing jobs during the global recession, he said.

"Treasury modelling demonstrates that we can deliver on this 5 to 15 per cent commitment while maintaining solid economic growth.''

"No"

As Mr Rudd spoke a female protester screamed "No!'' and kept shouting as she was removed from the National Press Club in Canberra.

The protester is believed to be Annika Dean, who released a press release earlier in the day detailing the planned protest.

"This announcement means the Australian Government is willing to sacrifice the Great Barrier Reef to appease the big polluting companies that are fuelling global climate change,'' Ms Dean said.

In Brisbane protesters from the Brisbane Southside Climate Action Group staged a sit in at the foyer of Kevin Rudd's local electorate office, describing today's targets as "weak".

This afternoon Australian Greens leader Bob Brown called the plan an example of Mr Rudd's "dismal politics" and a "failure of leadership".

Our Goverment Rocks!

[trin]

No bolded important bits :/
Also wtf does that mean....(the article)

[ENKC]

Of course it's not enough, but trying to accomplish ANYTHING in the face of fierce primary industrial resistance is like getting blood from a stone. Remember, these are the companies who have a stranglehold on the Australian economy, so getting enough politicians to be willing to piss them off and do the right thing is no mean feat. At least we HAVE a target now, unlike the previous government's refusal to even acknowledge the problem's existence.

[Neon]

He's right though. Cutting down to 50% or 0% or w/e everyone wants just isn't realistic. They should do it but they can't, especially while the economy is in turmoil.

I think that he's trying to work for both the economy and the environment is better leadership than the greens have to offer. They would bring the world crashing down pretty quickly =\.

[VOOK]

ENKC, on Dec 15 2008, 01:48 PM, said:

Of course it's not enough, but trying to accomplish ANYTHING in the face of fierce primary industrial resistance is like getting blood from a stone. Remember, these are the companies who have a stranglehold on the Australian economy, so getting enough politicians to be willing to piss them off and do the right thing is no mean feat. At least we HAVE a target now, unlike the previous government's refusal to even acknowledge the problem's existence.

Rudd could come out tomorrow and say "We're killing all people who are left-handed, it's costing the economy to much to make unidirectional tools." And you'd be happy.

5% over 12 years? That's 0.4 a year - Brilliant.

And Neon it's 15% not 50% - 5% is not going to do anything at we're gaining at a rate nearly higher then that and as the years go on it'll get worse. It's like putting a bushfire out with a bucket, it'll work - but it's not going stop to problem.

[Neon]

didn't the article say 2010?

[ENKC]

VOOK, on Dec 15 2008, 01:51 PM, said:

Rudd could come out tomorrow and say "We're killing all people who are left-handed, it's costing the economy to much to make unidirectional tools." And you'd be happy.

Wait, what?

...

Seriously, what?

[VOOK]

ENKC, on Dec 15 2008, 02:01 PM, said:

Wait, what?

...

Seriously, what?

As long as it's good the economy you don't seem to mind how much Rudd f*cks you over, lies to you.

Although I guess since a ton of people who got money last week from the goverment, their "care level" has dropped off now since they got their bribe. Oh don't think I'm picking on you, I'm picking on Rudd for giving money to some people but not all.

And I'm not just talking about me, no one in my entire family 40+ people, NOTHING. And some of them are old, (but not old enough) have a disabilities (but not disabled enough) and some have kids (but apparently earn too much money).

You'll excuse me if the government this and the previous aren't very high in my praise book.

[Neon]

We agree with his rationale and apparently that means we're blind followers? Please, Vook, you're above that.

I think they could do better than that if the oil companies weren't so powerful. They could take a bigger hit without the economy crashing but I don't think we could meet the numbers the greens want. Which is sad because we need to do better than that.

A bigger issue is the lack of truly viable green alternatives, but the oil industry seem to have a block on that too if you're into conspiracies.

[PlasmaDavid]

I love it VOOK, you complain when Rudd doesnt follow through with promises, and now he's admitting a target is unrealistic and is adjusting what he's "promising" so they can actually meet it and now you have a go at him for that.

[Neon]

PlasmaDavid, on Dec 15 2008, 02:55 PM, said:

I love it VOOK, you complain when Rudd doesnt follow through with promises, and now he's admitting a target is unrealistic and is adjusting what he's "promising" so they can actually meet it and now you have a go at him for that.

because politics isn't only about meeting the promises you made before the election.

Also because half fulfilling a promise isn't the same as fulfilling it

[ENKC]

Well after a long conversation I think Vook and I have arrived at something of an 'agree to disagree' position. People don't always interpret my posts to mean the same thing that I genuinely believe they mean when I write them, but such are the problems of communication in general. Let's just bear in mind that a bit of spirited discussion is a good thing, and what the forums are here for. Anyone is free to disagree with my logic, but when I feel my honesty and integrity are being questioned, I do take offence to it.

[LordZod]

I think in the current state of the world, the government have to get their priorities right. It's well documented that I think the whole global warming thing is ridiculous, that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it, just like those arguing for it are. This should fall down the list of issues as at the moment and in the next few years, we have this financial business to sort out. In years prior to this, the world's economy hasn't been screwy, so governments the world over have had ample time to explore other issues such as global warming. But for the time being, please, focus on the more pressing issues- yes, the greens will continue to go on, but hey, that's what they seem to be doing usually, protesting. I'm just sayin'.

[Neon]

Even if global warming is a joke, there's still the issue of oil not being a renewable resource. We need to move away from it soon, so lets move to something that's also not going to accelerate or amplify climate change.

It's a high priority, but (others will disagree) not worth the risk of making a fairly substantial overhaul to the market while the economy is in turmoil.

[VOOK]

PlasmaDavid, on Dec 15 2008, 02:55 PM, said:

I love it VOOK, you complain when Rudd doesnt follow through with promises, and now he's admitting a target is unrealistic and is adjusting what he's "promising" so they can actually meet it and now you have a go at him for that.

Adjusting a promise is the same as breaking, sorry.

[Obscurus]

PlasmaDavid, on Dec 15 2008, 02:55 PM, said:

I love it VOOK, you complain when Rudd doesnt follow through with promises, and now he's admitting a target is unrealistic and is adjusting what he's "promising" so they can actually meet it and now you have a go at him for that.

What Vook just said. >__>
If you don't think you could honestly do something, don't promise it.

I had alot of faith in Rudd. But his two big hooks for me, Better Internet and fixing the Environment, hes fcked up on. I can understand how now, with the whole economic thing right now, he had to make unforseeable reajustments to his policies. But still, this was a mighty backdown from what he had promised.

[borgster101]

This is a difficult situation, though it appears the decision has been based on a short term safer option than thinking about it in the long term.

Disregarding the environmental impacts, there is some serious economic consequences if climate change isn't addressed, there may be short term economic losses in taking strong action now, however there will be larger ones in the future if no action is taken. Also the notion that there is a market failure when pollution has no cost in the economy, i.e. it's an externality that has a real impact on our world and the economy but the agent who emits the pollution does not pay a price for it. Penny Wong touched on this issue in an interview I heard, which is a fair statement, there needs to be a price put on these emissions to shift behaviour, because thats how the economy works.

These targets are clearly not enough, the other issue is that climate change is a global issue, which needs a global solution, so at the end of the day if the rest of the world doesn't come together and agree, what Australia does will be moot. It all seems like a wasted opportunity with the recent summit in Poland I believe regarding climate change, Australia was called out for being one of the worst contributors and not having any strong plan, with these low targets you can see why the government didn't announce the plans until returning to Australia.

The world leaders really need to get together on this one for any real changes to take place.

[LordZod]

Neon, on Dec 15 2008, 05:56 PM, said:

Even if global warming is a joke, there's still the issue of oil not being a renewable resource. We need to move away from it soon, so lets move to something that's also not going to accelerate or amplify climate change.

It's a high priority, but (others will disagree) not worth the risk of making a fairly substantial overhaul to the market while the economy is in turmoil.

That's a good point. At the end of the day, we all know that sometime in the future, we're going to run out. There's still a heap we can use, so we have time, but we need to get something doing... The question is, who's going to be the one to use the last litre of petrol? I mean, someone is going to... What difference does it make if it's this generation (it's not going to be, anyway) or the next? As long as we have time to get an alternative, things will be ok. And we do have time, don't try and tell me we don't...

[Vertigo v3]

Anthropogenic global warming is a con, so meh.

As for climate change, it's happening regardless. We should be investing our time and money into adapting to it, instead of trying to stop it.

[LordZod]

Vertigo v3, on Dec 15 2008, 09:32 PM, said:

Anthropogenic global warming is a con, so meh.

As for climate change, it's happening regardless. We should be investing our time and money into adapting to it, instead of trying to stop it.

Thank god I'm not the only one who thinks along these lines! And here I was thinking I was alone in my thoughts...

[Vertigo v3]

LordZod, on Dec 15 2008, 07:39 PM, said:

Thank god I'm not the only one who thinks along these lines! And here I was thinking I was alone in my thoughts...

Great minds think alike, don't they?

[PlasmaDavid]

No, just stubbron skeptics whor efuse to move on past "this isn't happening" to "well let's do something about it"

Though it's sad because even if Australia stopped using fossil fuels overnight, it would have next to no impact on the world, what with us being %2 of the entire worlds GDP (or whatever).

Not saying this is in any way a reason to not Reduce Reuse and Recycle, but it's just a point for thought.

[LordZod]

Vertigo v3, on Dec 15 2008, 09:44 PM, said:

Great minds think alike, don't they?

I'd say so!

PlasmaDavid, on Dec 15 2008, 10:12 PM, said:

No, just stubbron skeptics whor efuse to move on past "this isn't happening" to "well let's do something about it"

Though it's sad because even if Australia stopped using fossil fuels overnight, it would have next to no impact on the world, what with us being %2 of the entire worlds GDP (or whatever).

Not saying this is in any way a reason to not Reduce Reuse and Recycle, but it's just a point for thought.

Reducing Carbon emissions and recycling the rubbish we produce are two very different things... aren't they? Excuse my ignorance.

And yes, why are they worrying about Australia when the US, China etc would be doing a lot more damage than us? Even NZ have to cut back... Err... riddle me this- what the hell would a comparatively tiny nation like that be doing to cause global warming?

Also, just heard on the radio as the top headline that the Great Barrier Reef will now disappear as a result of not cutting emissions by 25% or whatever it was. Um... So this cut back was going to be the saviour of all our environmental problems?

[PlasmaDavid]

LordZod, on Dec 15 2008, 09:03 PM, said:

I'd say so!




Reducing Carbon emissions and recycling the rubbish we produce are two very different things... aren't they? Excuse my ignorance.

Still very much part of Reduce Reuse and Recycle.

EVERYONE has to make an effort, and what a developed (but small) country like our own can do is show that it can be done, how it can be done, and develope the techniques to do it. Hopefully influencing the big nations, like that capitalism loving bastard China.

[Obscurus]

Vertigo v3, on Dec 15 2008, 07:32 PM, said:

As for climate change, it's happening regardless. We should be investing our time and money into adapting to it, instead of trying to stop it.

As much as I agree, us as humans can adapt very well.
Animals, plants, etc, however can't.