What they said VIII
Kevin Rudd 9 November 2009
The Australian Government is also committed to intensively engaging to support an ambitious agreement in Copenhagen.
…
The Government I lead will act.
Kevin Rudd 20 December 2009
Australia will do no more and no less than the rest of the world, and that is our position.
Update: Kevin Rudd 9 November 2009
And we are just 31 days away from the Copenhagen Conference of Parties – an historic moment to forge a global deal to put a global price on carbon.
Ross Garnaut 21 December 2009
Expectations were overblown, so it’s not the slightest bit surprising; it’s not appropriate to be greatly disappointed.
Advertisements
Admin
Ken Nielsen
Rafe
Samuel J
Sinclair Davidson
Australia will do no more than the rest of the world, eh?
So Abbott was right.
C.L.
December 20, 2009 at 6:24 pm
it is kind of internally consistent if you believe rudds crazy premise that ‘acting first’ would make other people more likely to make bigger cuts. climate change action is a situation where there is a (assumed) net benefit of acting together but a net harm to an individual acting alone and there is an opportunity to negotiate before acting. i suspect in these situations a strategy of ‘acting alone’ results in you getting owned and other people just enjoy the benefits of you acting alone.
drscroogemcduck
December 20, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Certainly good to see Rudd adopting Abbott’s cautious approach to this ridiculous scam… I mean, policy.
Abu Chowdah
December 20, 2009 at 6:32 pm
I don’t believe that if Australia had adopted an ETS it would have been the first to do so, particularly when 186 countries had already signed Kyoto
Was there something else?
rog
December 20, 2009 at 7:23 pm
There is heaps in the Rudd speech that has been overtaken by events, but it doesn’t lend itself to the ‘What they said’ format.
Sinclair Davidson
December 20, 2009 at 7:47 pm
While climate change cautious–I was always a climate change CONFERENCE sceptic.–The hot air at the conference probably didn’t help the planet.
David Green
December 20, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Rog, I used to think your position was considered, but the statement
“I don’t believe that if Australia had adopted an ETS it would have been the first to do so, particularly when 186 countries had already signed Kyoto”
Pretty much demonstrates that at heart your position is emotive, and that you don’t really know much about Kyoto, beyond a touching belief in the ideal of Kyoto.
It is, and always was, an instrument to create an economic handbrake against the rapidly growing US economy, with the faint hope it would make the EU feel better. It is amazingly convenient that 1990 was chosen as the reference year (a bad one for the US), but one that the EU “umbrella” could take advantage of the collapse of the economies (and emissions) of eastern Europe and the coal mines of Wales.
The Euroweenies that designed Kyoto just recruited the developing countries (most of the signatories) along for the ride. They didn’t have to do anything but express solidarity.
Don’t believe me? Well, ask yourself this: What difference to world emissions has Kyoto made? How many of the signatories that were actually required to reduce emissions have met their targets (most signatories weren’t required to do anything)? It was always a joke.
In any case, apart from the EU “umbrella” ETS, can you describe the 186 ETS systems you believe was the result of Kyoto?
(Sorry if this seems a bit aggressive – I just despise the Kyoto protocol as a stunning example of really, really bad policy dressed up as the only way to save the future)
entropy
December 20, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Firstly nothing Rudd said in his initial statement has been compromised by his second statement.
Secondly Kyoto signatories agreed to cut emissions by various methods which include a cap and trade system which may include an ETS. Rudd has already pledged Australia will adopt a cap and trade system. Many countries already have an ETS, as does NSW.
I’ll let someone else deal with the conspiracy theories.
Kyoto might well be bad policy but it is the only one still standing. There are a lot of other imperfect policies, Doha and nuclear non proliferation treaty to name a couple but when we have a perfect world we can dispense with them.
rog
December 20, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Rog the ball is in your court – perhaps you could list the economies with ETS systems in place and also show whether they have achieved their Kyoto targets. I’m also wondering what % these economies make up of the 190-odd signatories.
Sinclair Davidson
December 20, 2009 at 8:58 pm
NSW has a cap and trade? huh?
jc
December 20, 2009 at 9:01 pm
The EU countries for one and yes, NSW.
rog
December 20, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Rog:
We know about the EU ETS. There’s nothing new in that, Einstein.
Please show evidence of the NSW and how it operates.
jc
December 20, 2009 at 9:29 pm
So depending on how we count the EU (one federation or as individuals) we might have one economy with an ETS? or 20 odd? The EU is not going to hit its Kyoto targets. So we should adopt a cap and trade, why? If you honestly thought that AGW was a problem and you thought it could be resolved by policy intervention, why go for a policy simply because its the only policy in town, why not look around for a policy that could work?
Sinclair Davidson
December 20, 2009 at 9:30 pm
The EU’s carbon “pollution” trading scheme is really working out well too. Just ask Europol.
A few weeks ago, Rog was saying there’d be a double dissolution over the ever-popular ETS. Funny, not much talk of that now. Rudd was saying we absolutely had to have an ETS NOW so we could influence the world and stop the warming. The Copenhagen disaster proved that ‘the world’ doesn’t give a rat’s arse what Australia does, that nothing we do makes any difference anyway and that Tony Abbott was 100 percent right.
C.L.
December 20, 2009 at 9:36 pm
I think poor Roger is confusing the Hunter River salinity trading scheme with an ETS designed to reduce global emissions when he claims NSW has an ETS.
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/licensing/hrsts/index.htm
It is an example of how a trading scheme can be used to address a specific example in a limited market. The great mistake IMHO is thinking that it can be credibly applied to a national/global problem.
entropy
December 20, 2009 at 10:18 pm
that should be :
“It is an example of how a trading scheme can be used to address a specific externality in a limited market.
entropy
December 20, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Entropy:
It’s best to ignore Rog. He occupies the room next to Homer at the nursing home and the reprobate (Homer) seems to be influencing him with swill.
The other day Rog was suggesting that nuclear energy emits carbon. It’s “carbon unfriendly” as how he described it. That sort of stupid crap can only come from Homer.
jc
December 20, 2009 at 10:24 pm
c’mon jc. we’re only 17 posts into the thread. Let’s get to a 100 before the abuse flows.
Sinclair Davidson
December 20, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Sorry Sinclair. I’ll wait until the 100th comment. You can delete if you want. No probs.
jc
December 20, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Well explained, entropy, Kyoto was one of those silly diplomatic games in which the EU tried to nobble the US (and Japan).
Australia was irrelevant to the game, which is why got got a soft target.
I doubt that any nation took it seriously or even gave it much thought after their delegation got home.
Ken Nielsen
December 21, 2009 at 5:37 am
Not much point in showing you evidence JC, you only interest seems to be in incessant and repetitive ranting.
rog
December 21, 2009 at 6:03 am
Oh, forgot about that one. Rog, the salinity scheme I linked to above is a better example of a trading scheme, The one you are talking about has even less participants, and is very limited in application. A national ETS like the CPRS would have very little in common with it.
entropy
December 21, 2009 at 6:27 am
JC pretends to have no knowledge of the enormous amounts of carbon invested in the construction of a nuclear energy site.
rog
December 21, 2009 at 7:48 am
(rog – I’m trying to keep the personal anamosities down so we can progress the discussion/thread.)
It seems to me that the carbon cost of construction exists for all alt-energy sources. On a per-unit cost of reliable energy is the construction carbon cost for a nuclear power plant more or less than, say, a windmill?
Sinclair Davidson
December 21, 2009 at 8:05 am
Sinc, all energy comes at a carbon cost, there are no cost free alternatives.
Having said that, CO2 over the life of a windfarm has been calculated at 26 g CO2/kWh whereas by conventional sources of 413 g CO2/kWh
Presumably “life’ includes construction and decommissioning
One of the problems is that due to the large upfront capital costs of a nuclear plant it must be run at capacity to achieve a reasonable return.
Obviously decommissioning a nuclear facility would be vastly more expensive than a windfarm.
rog
December 21, 2009 at 8:38 am
rog – I understand it all comes at a cost. What I’m interested in is the CO2 cost per unit of reliable energy over the economic life of the asset. So the 26g must be weighted up and the 413g weighted down. Similarly for nuclear (a very expensive option right now for other reasons too) including decommissioning costs.
Sinclair Davidson
December 21, 2009 at 8:45 am
I realise you might not know the answer, but I think that is the type of question that needs answering. As John Humphreys has emphasised we need to know the costs of energy sources for a given level of economic activity.
Sinclair Davidson
December 21, 2009 at 8:46 am
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/protecting-big-carbon.html
dover_beach
December 21, 2009 at 9:57 am
JC pretends to have no knowledge of the enormous amounts of carbon invested in the construction of a nuclear energy site.
Rog, I don’t pretend anything of the sort. I’m just not as dumb as you are.
Do you think the output of energy from the plant would be like millions of multiples more than the input?
What do you think, Rog? Give it a go and try to “think” it through.
jc
December 21, 2009 at 10:37 am
It’s still not at 100 comments jc. 😉
Seriously, the CO2 cost of wind has to allow for the alternate generation capacity required for when the wind doesn’t blow. Nuclear is the only serious alternative to hydrocarbons.
pedro
December 21, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Sinkers are you trying to argue an ETS has no effect on carbon at all?
Is this related to your extraordinary belief that the temperature doesn’t get cooler as altitude rises
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
December 21, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Homer – what are you talking about?
Sinclair Davidson
December 21, 2009 at 2:11 pm
you are saying an ETS has no effect. This contradicts basic micro-economics.
Yesterday you were saying a higher altitude had no effect on temperature. Somethings that contradicts science
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
December 21, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Thats not true Pedro, by using a large grid you can have wind at various locations cutting in whilst other areas are quiet.
Nuclear isnt a serious option at all, it is an outdated technology
rog
December 21, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Windfarms can make money too but you need the grid.
CSIRO are looking at it as has the Germans.
It will probably be beyond JC as it is an “intelligent grid”
He opts for the easy option
rog
December 21, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Homer, I can’t find anywhere in this thread where I say the ETS has no effect. Nor do I recall saying altitude had no effect on temperature.
Sinclair Davidson
December 21, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Nuclear isnt a serious option at all, it is an outdated technology.
Rog is now saying the base load muscle required to power the United States, for example, should be replaced with windmills.
C.L.
December 21, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Sinkers that is what you saying about the EU.
You altitude silliness is about the NZ BOM ‘bullshit’ as you stated
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
December 21, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Ah, sorry. I understand now.
Yes. Let me be very clear. I reject with contempt the explanation given by the NZ NIWA in explaining the difference between their heating trend and the graph shown by the New Zealand climate science coaltion. The NIWA graph shows a warming trend after about 1940 and they claim that this is due to moving one station in 1928. I am happy to believe that the two locations have a 0.8c temperature difference, but not with a 12 year lag.
Sinclair Davidson
December 21, 2009 at 4:10 pm
CL’s poster boy mad monk Abbott is preaching that bible reading be made compulsory in schools;
He must be praying for a miracle.
rog
December 22, 2009 at 7:44 am