Wayne Swan's misplaced confidence in Australia's recovery

In the meantime, Australia will be busy demonstrating how competitive its coal pricing is for China and it's close neighbours.

Carbon caps

Having proclaimed Australia as the world leader and innovator in greenhouse gas reduction and global warming sensitivity, Rudd appears happy to ignore the increasing pollution from China's massive coal mining, energy, steel, aluminium and cement expansion programs. China's emissions were horrendous before 2000, but a decade of continuous record industrial and energy generation expansion has seen China's emissions skyrocket.

So, just how does the Rudd, Wong, Garrett trio intend to secure a meaningful reduction in global greenhouse emissions with such massive ongoing growth in China's major polluting industries?

When examining this massive and increasing expansion in emissions, the use of 2000 CO2 levels as a benchmark, lacks credibility. One would expect China to jump at the 2000 benchmark, but it still wants a benchmark in the 1990s.

So where does Penny Wong stand on this? Poor old Peter, he must be in there somewhere; just can't find his way out of the woods for the trees.

Although impressive by Australian standards, China's much vaunted commitment to wind generation is minimal in terms of overall reduction. China loves Kyoto. It has no commitment to comply, and the CDM (clean development mechanism) scheme is proving a highly profitable foreign exchange earner.

Keep in mind the effect of the global atmospheric circulation system on emissions and that Australia produces less than 1.2 per cent of recorded global emissions. So, how will Australia's stand-alone reduction affect global warming in Australia? If Australia immediately cut all GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions, the overall effect of global warming on Australia would be negligible. When considering the overall impact of China's current and future emissions on global warming, the argument of per capita emissions ignores the obvious.

The Rudd "fuzzy feel" carbon reduction strategy

Stage I

A 5 per cent carbon reduction against 2000 levels by 2020, regardless of action taken internationally.

A firm and irrevocable commitment for the next 9 and a half years.

Stage II

A reduction by a further 15 per cent of 2000 levels by 2020, if a global agreement falls short of stabilising CO2 below the 450-ppm target, but satisfies the White Paper criteria.

Global agreement include which countries? Just how flexible is the White Paper Criteria? Is there a plan "B" outside the White Paper?

Stage III

A reduction of 25 per cent of 2000 levels by 2020 if the world agrees to stabilise CO2 at or around the 450 ppm level.

"World," means which countries precisely? In the event of failure, Rudd should enlighten Australians on "Plan C," we appear likely to need it.

The question of course is: why make a decision that can have a major impact on an entire nation that is so vague and based on so many variables and unknowns?

China is not even half way through its massive coal and energy intensive industrial development programs. How can the 2000 levels of CO2 emissions be relevant or considered serious?

What are the intermediate and end game plans if all fails? The Rudd, Wong, Garrett trio have placed Australia's credibility at risk. Do they envisage revising the 2000 CO2 level benchmark for all countries to accommodate China's ongoing increasing CO2 emissions to 2020 while the rest try to cut back?

Do we retain the 2000 CO2 level benchmark and just sit back and watch global warming continue to rise because of China's massive increasing emissions to 2020 and beyond?