Oz election thread #3 - Rudd's Labour

I would like Australia to show some leadership on the issue, by setting and sticking to our own targets...then we can condescendingly tell other countries what to do !!!

I would like Australia to show some leadership on the issue, by setting and sticking to our own targets...then we can condescendingly tell other countries what to do !!!

Late breakthrough at climate change summit

Maria Hawthorne
December 15, 2007 04:10pm

A NEW agreement on tackling climate change was forged late this afternoon when the United States caved in and agreed to support the Bali roadmap.

The US concession - 14 hours after the initial deadline passed - came after two weeks of talks and a day of high drama, in which conference head Yvo de Boer stormed out in tears and American delegates were booed and jeered.

"We will go forward and join consensus," US lead negotiator Paula Dobriansky told the 190-nation meeting to cheers and applause from the exhausted delegates.

Delegates rose to their feet and clapped and cheered as conference president Rachmat Witoelar banged down his gavel and declared that the roadmap had been adopted.

The breakthrough came less than 90 minutes after Australia's lead negotiator, Climate Change Minister Penny Wong, said an agreement looked unlikely but promised to keep working for consensus.

"We know that building a global consensus on this issue of climate change will not be easy ... but Australia is here for the long haul," Senator Wong said.

"We said that we would play a constructive role now and in the future and that is precisely what Australia has done."

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono took the extraordinary step of addressing the delegates, urging them to compromise in the interests of the world.

And Mr de Boer, the executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, was given a standing ovation after he returned to the hall in the Bali International Convention Centre after earlier breaking down and leaving the gruelling negotiations.

Delegates agreed to launch talks on a new global warming pact to succeed the Kyoto Protocol in 2012, including nations which had not ratified Kyoto such as the US.

US says climate deal not good enough

December 16, 2007 05:47am
THE United States has voiced "serious concerns" about a deal reached at the UN climate conference in Bali, emphasising the need for major developing countries to be included in greenhouse gas emissions targets.

In a statement following the end of the global conference, in which the United States found itself isolated in its stance against new emissions goals for developed countries, the White House said big developing economies also had to be covered by specific emissions targets.

And it said that any new agreement to succeed the UN Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, must acknowledge a country's sovereign right to pursue economic growth and energy security.

While there were positive aspects to the conference's deal to seek a new treaty by 2009, the "United States does have serious concerns about other aspects of the decision as we begin the negotiations", the White House said.

"The negotiations must proceed on the view that the problem of climate change cannot be adequately addressed through commitments for emissions cuts by developed countries alone.

"We must give sufficient emphasis to the important and appropriate role that the larger emitting developing countries should play in a global effort to address climate change," it said.

The White House also said coming talks need to differentiate between wealthier emerging countries and those with smaller economies in the commitments made toward reducing emissions.

"In our view, such smaller and less developed countries are entitled to receive more differentiated treatment so as to more truly reflect their special needs and circumstances."

The statement was a reiteration of the adamant US position toward the Kyoto Treaty and the Bali talks that large, rapidly growing economies like China, India and Brazil must themselves commit to emissions cuts if efforts to slow climate change are to be equitable and effective.

The US position nearly scuttled the Bali deal before a last-minute compromise allowed Washington's negotiators to sign on.

Washington had said it would not accept a joint statement agreed by nearly all of the 190 nations present as it wanted developing countries such as China to make tougher commitments.

But on an unscheduled 13th day of talks, the United States - the only major industrial nation to reject Kyoto - reached a last-minute compromise with the European Union to avoid mentioning any figures as a target for slashing greenhouse gas emissions.

Despite finally going along with the Bali pact, in its statement Washington insisted that the agreement has "not yet fully given effect to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities that is a pillar of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change".

Empirical studies on emission trends in the major developing economies now conclusively establish that emissions reductions principally by the developed world will be insufficient to confront the global problem effectively," it said.

Accordingly, for these negotiations to succeed, it is essential that the major developed and developing countries be prepared to negotiate commitments, consistent with their national circumstances, that will make a due contribution to the reduction of global emissions."

The US statement stressed that any successful negotiations on reducing global emissions had to accommodate the national economic interests of those taking part.

... but countries like China & India are hardly at the same stage of development (or industrialization) as countries like the US, Australia & European countries. It's the frenetic rush to catch up, with the obvious terrible consequences for the environment, that is cause for alarm.

Here's Frank Zappa's definition:
You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline. It helps if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a beer.

The main point I was making, was that any nation with nuclear weaponry,in my eyes, is not a developing nation.