Australian Politics Forum

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

OOOPPPS
May 29^th, 2011 at 7:50pm

Kyoto deal loses four big nations May 29, 2011

DEAUVILLE, France: Russia, Japan and Canada told the G8 they would not join a second round of carbon cuts under the Kyoto Protocol at United Nations talks this year and the US reiterated it would remain outside the treaty, European diplomats have said.

The future of the Kyoto Protocol has become central to efforts to negotiate reductions of carbon emissions under the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change, whose annual meeting will take place in Durban, South Africa, from November 28 to December 9.

Developed countries signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. They agreed to legally binding commitments on curbing greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming.

Advertisement: Story continues below Those pledges expire at the end of next year. Developing countries say a second round is essential to secure global agreements.

But the leaders of Russian, Japan and Canada confirmed they would not join a new Kyoto agreement, the diplomats said.

They argued that the Kyoto format did not require developing countries, including China, the world's No. 1 carbon emitter, to make targeted emission cuts.

At last Thursday's G8 dinner the US President, Barack Obama, confirmed Washington would not join an updated Kyoto Protocol, the diplomats said.

The US, the second-largest carbon emitter, signed the protocol in 1997 but in 2001 the then president, George W. Bush, said he would not put it to the Senate for ratification.

Back to top

IP Logged

cods Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 88048	Re: OOOPPPS Reply #1 - May 29^th, 2011 at 7:50pm I guess its up to us BIG guys to keep this ball rolling!
Back to top	IP Logged

Kat Gold Member Offline Socialism IS the answer. Posts: 17709 Everywhere and no-where Gender:	Re: OOOPPPS Reply #2 - May 29^th, 2011 at 7:54pm Good show!! Now WE need to do likewise. This scam has gone quite far enough.
Back to top	IP Logged

Maqqa Gold Member Offline 14% - that low?! Posts: 16000	Re: OOOPPPS Reply #3 - May 29^th, 2011 at 8:06pm
Back to top	Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number IP Logged

Sprintcyclist Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 42496 Gender:	Re: OOOPPPS Reply #4 - May 29^th, 2011 at 8:19pm HAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Back to top	Modern Classic Right Wing IP Logged

progressiveslol Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17029	Re: OOOPPPS Reply #5 - May 29^th, 2011 at 8:32pm Oh no I guess they know climate change is bogus as well. Stupid Australian labor party. You dont get China included in actual cuts, then the argument of doom and gloom is just BS. Guess we idiots were right all along. After all, these countries are 'REPUTABLE' arent they.
Back to top	IP Logged

perceptions_now Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 11694 Perth WA Gender:	Re: OOOPPPS Reply #6 - May 29^th, 2011 at 8:37pm As I have said previously, it is all in or it just won't work and I suspect that the short term self-interest of too many countries will probably win the day, until it's effectively, too late!
Back to top	IP Logged

progressiveslol Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17029	Re: OOOPPPS Reply #7 - May 29^th, 2011 at 8:40pm perceptions_now wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 8:37pm: As I have said previously, it is all in or it just won't work and I suspect that the short term self-interest of too many countries will probably win the day, until it's effectively, too late! The science would have to be better than it is today. Get rid of the IPCC fearmongers.
Back to top	IP Logged

creep Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1881	Re: OOOPPPS Reply #8 - May 29^th, 2011 at 8:59pm cods wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 7:50pm: I guess its up to us BIG guys to keep this ball rolling! Yes, Australia must don its cape and wear their undies on the outside, for it will be Australia once again that will save the world!
Back to top	IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: OOOPPPS
Reply #9 - May 29^th, 2011 at 9:07pm

progressiveslol wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 8:40pm:

perceptions_now wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 8:37pm:

As I have said previously, it is all in or it just won't work and I suspect that the short term self-interest of too many countries will probably win the day, until it's effectively, too late!

The science would have to be better than it is today. Get rid of the IPCC fearmongers.

I don't propose to argue who is right & who is wrong now, although I believe there is sufficient information to make Climate Change credible.

Now, forget everything else about who is correct & who is not, about this ideology or that one, the crucial question is what will be the cost to us and our children, in the longer term, if we take the Peak Oil line, we are wrong and do not take whatever actions are possible to mitigate the worst effects of the GHG/Climate Change problem?

So, what are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing?

In other words, what are the costs, benefits & losses involved, in being correct &/or incorrect, if we move on my senario's, versus moving on the assumption that there is no problem?

Back to top

IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: OOOPPPS
Reply #10 - May 29^th, 2011 at 9:14pm

perceptions_now wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 9:07pm:

progressiveslol wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 8:40pm:

perceptions_now wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 8:37pm:

As I have said previously, it is all in or it just won't work and I suspect that the short term self-interest of too many countries will probably win the day, until it's effectively, too late!

The science would have to be better than it is today. Get rid of the IPCC fearmongers.

I don't propose to argue who is right & who is wrong now, although I believe there is sufficient information to make Climate Change credible.

Now, forget everything else about who is correct & who is not, about this ideology or that one, the crucial question is what will be the cost to us and our children, in the longer term, if we take the Peak Oil line, we are wrong and do not take whatever actions are possible to mitigate the worst effects of the GHG/Climate Change problem?

So, what are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing?

In other words, what are the costs, benefits & losses involved, in being correct &/or incorrect, if we move on my senario's, versus moving on the assumption that there is no problem?

COME ON EVEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO ADMIT.. TAXING SOPMETHING CAN HARDLY BE CALLED A SAFE BET TO CURE GW......

ONLY TRUE BLUE IDOTS WOULD BELIEVE THAT... SINCE WHEN DID ROAD TAX FIX OUR ROADS??????

THE ONLY THING THAT WILL MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IF AND I MEAN BIG IF... THE SCIENCE IS CORRECT..

IS TO CLOSE THE COAL MINES YESTERDAY..

now you are talking baby....lets do it.. lets show the world how big we are.....well???????????????????????????????????????????? how concerned we are!

Back to top

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: OOOPPPS
Reply #11 - May 29^th, 2011 at 9:17pm

perceptions_now wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 9:07pm:

So, what are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing?

[/b]

In other words, what are the costs, benefits & losses involved, in being correct &/or incorrect, if we move on my senario's, versus moving on the assumption that there is no problem?

You are now calling 22,000,000 Australians representing the whole of "humanity"???

the other 6,800,000,000 humans on Earth would love to know they don't rate as humans

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: OOOPPPS
Reply #12 - May 29^th, 2011 at 9:55pm

Maqqa wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 9:17pm:

perceptions_now wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 9:07pm:

So, what are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing?

[/b]

In other words, what are the costs, benefits & losses involved, in being correct &/or incorrect, if we move on my senario's, versus moving on the assumption that there is no problem?

You are now calling 22,000,000 Australians representing the whole of "humanity"???

the other 6,800,000,000 humans on Earth would love to know they don't rate as humans

No, it's you saying that!

As I said earlier tonight & on many previous ocassions -
perceptions_now wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 8:37pm:

As I have said previously, it is all in or it just won't work and I suspect that the short term self-interest of too many countries will probably win the day, until it's effectively, too late!

What I said, was -
So, what are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing?

In other words, what are the costs, benefits & losses involved, in being correct &/or incorrect, if we move on my senario's, versus moving on the assumption that there is no problem?

Let me give you a hint -
If I am wrong and proper Global mitigation proceeds , then it may reduce Global GDP by say 5% and the Recession we had to have will be worse than it should have been.

If you are wrong and proper Global mitigation DOES NOT proceed, then it is quite likely that those 7 Billion humans you care so much about (NOT), will quite likely die!

I've made my choice!

Back to top

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: OOOPPPS
Reply #13 - May 29^th, 2011 at 10:00pm

cods wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 9:14pm:

perceptions_now wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 9:07pm:

progressiveslol wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 8:40pm:

perceptions_now wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 8:37pm:

As I have said previously, it is all in or it just won't work and I suspect that the short term self-interest of too many countries will probably win the day, until it's effectively, too late!

The science would have to be better than it is today. Get rid of the IPCC fearmongers.

I don't propose to argue who is right & who is wrong now, although I believe there is sufficient information to make Climate Change credible.

Now, forget everything else about who is correct & who is not, about this ideology or that one, the crucial question is what will be the cost to us and our children, in the longer term, if we take the Peak Oil line, we are wrong and do not take whatever actions are possible to mitigate the worst effects of the GHG/Climate Change problem?

So, what are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing?

In other words, what are the costs, benefits & losses involved, in being correct &/or incorrect, if we move on my senario's, versus moving on the assumption that there is no problem?

COME ON EVEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO ADMIT.. TAXING SOPMETHING CAN HARDLY BE CALLED A SAFE BET TO CURE GW......

ONLY TRUE BLUE IDOTS WOULD BELIEVE THAT... SINCE WHEN DID ROAD TAX FIX OUR ROADS??????

THE ONLY THING THAT WILL MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IF AND I MEAN BIG IF... THE SCIENCE IS CORRECT..

IS TO CLOSE THE COAL MINES YESTERDAY..

now you are talking baby....lets do it.. lets show the world how big we are.....well???????????????????????????????????????????? how concerned we are!

Apparently, you have not read my many posts, where I have disagreed with both a Carbon Tax and an ETS?

There are ways to do what needs to be done, but neither the Carbon Tax or an ETS, will achieve what is needed, in an appropriate way!

Back to top

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: OOOPPPS
Reply #14 - May 29^th, 2011 at 10:59pm

perceptions_now wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 9:55pm:

Maqqa wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 9:17pm:

perceptions_now wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 9:07pm:

So, what are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing?

[/b]

In other words, what are the costs, benefits & losses involved, in being correct &/or incorrect, if we move on my senario's, versus moving on the assumption that there is no problem?

You are now calling 22,000,000 Australians representing the whole of "humanity"???

the other 6,800,000,000 humans on Earth would love to know they don't rate as humans

No, it's you saying that!

As I said earlier tonight & on many previous ocassions -
perceptions_now wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 8:37pm:

As I have said previously, it is all in or it just won't work and I suspect that the short term self-interest of too many countries will probably win the day, until it's effectively, too late!

What I said, was -
So, what are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing?

In other words, what are the costs, benefits & losses involved, in being correct &/or incorrect, if we move on my senario's, versus moving on the assumption that there is no problem?

Let me give you a hint -
If I am wrong and proper Global mitigation proceeds , then it may reduce Global GDP by say 5% and the Recession we had to have will be worse than it should have been.

If you are wrong and proper Global mitigation DOES NOT proceed, then it is quite likely that those 7 Billion humans you care so much about (NOT), will quite likely die!

I've made my choice!

not IF you are wrong but it's a matter of YOU ARE wrong

You are wrong because of your inability to give a YES/NO answer to the question of

Will an Australian Carbon Tax reduce global temperature?

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged