Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Wayne Swan's misplaced confidence in Australia's recovery

By Arthur Thomas - posted Thursday, 14 May 2009


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?

Advertisement

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?

Advertisement

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?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

6 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Arthur Thomas is retired. He has extensive experience in the old Soviet, the new Russia, China, Central Asia and South East Asia.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Arthur Thomas

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 6 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy