Ah, it must be wonderful to be a lefty politician smacked in the face with reality
PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd last night did an about-face on deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, days after Australia’s delegation backed the plan at the climate talks in Bali.
A government representative at the talks this week said Australia backed a 25-40 per cent cut on 1990 emission levels by 2020.
But after warnings it would lead to huge rises in electricity prices, Mr Rudd said the Government would not support the target.
The repudiation of the delegate’s position represents the first stumble by the new Government’s in its approach to climate change.
Rudd just learned first hand what could happen when one tries to please people who are hysterical over climate change, ie, the natural processes of the Earth and Sun.
An ESAA report released this year found cutting carbon emissions by 30 per cent of 2000 levels by 2030 wold push up power costs by 30 per cen
Not to mention all the reallocation of $$$$ to non-productive countries from productive countries that has been bandied around. Why does the word “socialism” come to mind? Well, that, and hypocrites, regarding the Bali meetings.
Greenpeace campaigner Steven Campbell said Australia should slash carbon emissions by 20 to 40 per cent of 1990 levels by 2020.
Why? As in, “why 1990?” What is the significance? So many of these climahysterics, when not chaining themselves to boats and trees, say that climate change started either in the 1980’s or the turn of the last century. So, why 1990? And, if it is 1990, why are they not slamming Bill Clinton for not “doing something,” including his failure to sign Kyoto?
Tell ya what: all those who believe climate change is mostly man’s fault or all man’s fault, you change your lifestyle, pay more for energy, and give lots of your money to the UN. What? You do not want to do that? You want everyone else to do that, because you just cannot give up your Suburban, what with all the rugrats, soccer games, vacations, and, you just do not have the time? Go figure.
More: Ran across this over at Questions and Observations this morning, hadn’t had a chance to return to it
The IPCC falsified data showing a sea level rise from 1992-2002 according to Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. In an interview by George Murphy, Mörner cites various examples of falsification of evidence claiming sea level rises.
Meanwhile the US delegation to Bali is saying it won’t agree to any drastic cutback/redistribution of wealth either. What’s next? Cats and dogs sleeping together?
But back in DC the House of Representatives is passing a bill aimed at cutting greenhouse gases and increase the cost of just about everything for the average US citizen. Idiots.
And, between sessions, the Democrats who are pushing the bill are running around in their big gas burning SUVs. Funny little critters.
The reason they use 1990 levels as a benchmark is because that was when countries first began negotiating on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which came in to effect in 1994. It was also after 1990 that there was a huge jump in the amount of greenhouse gases poured in to the atmosphere, so it made sense to reduce back to those levels. It’s really just a benchmark date for people and governments to work with. It has nothing to do with when climate change ‘started’, which is generally now agreed to have begun around the Industrial Revolution when coal and oil first began to be used in such huge quantities.
Incidentally it was George Bush Snr. who refused to do anything about climate change at the first climate change conference (the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992). He said, and I quote, “The American way of life is not on the negotiating table.” Meaning Americans would not alter their dependence on fossil fuels even though, back then, they were responsible for 2/3 of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, with only 5% of the world’s population.
Teach what if it isn’t all the fault of man ? what if it isn’t even 1/2 ? what if it is say 49% the fault of man or 40% or xx% ? should man then try to reduce his impact ?
Not to be snarky, Grace, but I know that, I was asking more in terms of “why is 1990 the measurement the penultimate? Why not when global warming supposedly started?” It is arbitrary.
Bush 41 was right to ignore it. If it was so bad, why didn’t Clinton sign Kyoto, as well as do something the 8 years in office?
If someone could pin the percentage down specifically, John, then the answer would be “yes.” What we should be looking at is not the reduction of CO2, but of methane, which is a much more pervasive and dangerous greenhouse gas. Furthermore, we really should be concentrating on other envirnmental issues above climate change. It annoys the hell out of me that climate change is in the forefront, while clean air, water, land, conservation, saving species, etc, all take a back seat. Believe it or not, I am a big environmentalist.
Teach, what scientific study do you base your opinion about methane on? Because these are the same studies that discuss man-made greenhouse gases in general (one of which is methane though it does occur naturally as well) and states that the burning of fossil fuels is contributing the most to global warming. You cannot separate the two and yet you continue to make these broad, sweeping generalizations without any data, without any numbers. You state it’s the Sun – OK, but where is the data that would account for the changes we are seeing? You say it’s mostly methane – fine, but again you give no numbers and you ignore the fact that methane is also man-made and has been quantified in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. Where is your evidence?