 | The Bullroarer - Thursday 25 October 2007 | TOD: Australia/New Zealand | Australia: The Place To Be (Part 1) |  |
15 comments on The Bullroarer - Friday 26 October 2007
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
User login
Contact
- anz at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Archives
GAIA Host Collective
Garrets dead right. We have lost out a lot by not ratifying kyoto. This will only become worse as Australia remains a pariah in the burgeoning climate alliance.
The current administration itself is the flaw. Howard needs to get his lips off GWB's arse long enough to look at what the science says CC and PO has in store for us. He will not (can not?) do this and obviously could not care less what reality has in store for his small-minded vision of the world and the future of the Australian economy.
I guess thats what happens when your political party and members of your family (such as Lyall Howard: Nephew) rely on the likes of Rio Tinto for money money money money
Come the election I am not sure who I will be voting for but I am dead certain who I am voting against.
There's no excuse any more not to vote Greens in this election. They are the _ONLY_ federal party with a peak oil policy (although, thanks to the Minister for Sustainability in Queensland, there is one state ALP with a peak oil policy). If for no other reason to send a message to the pollies about peak oil and climate change, it's up to us to vote Green on November 24.
I think the WA state government has a transport policy that is at least partially influenced by peak oil too - I've seen Carmen Lawrence and Alannah MacTiernan associated with peak oil events from time to time.
http://www.energybulletin.net/1630.html
I will be voting Green. Me and about 3 other people that is. I absolutely will not vote for Howard and Rudd is just another grey suit. But voting Green won't make much difference.
I shouldn't worry about it. No country has done anything about CO2 yet. Europe is totally non-compliant with Kyoto. So in Japan. The talk is just hot air. Carbon trading is about paying poor countries to cut their emissions so you can ignore the issue and feel better about yourself. The real interest is energy security and Kyoto is just a cover for that.
For example, the UK government's published estimates on future oil and gas consumption are factoring in a rise of consumption. We had Tony Blair saying global warming was the most important thing. So what's the rest of the government doing? Maximum economic growth through record levels of immigration. And this in a country that will be trying to import 80% of its oil and 90% of its gas in 2020. It's still GDP first and to hell with the planet.
Kyoto 2 will get nowhere so save your blood pressure. China has been the biggest emitter of C02 since 2006. If you include methane from paddy fields they have been the biggest emitter of GHGs for some time. Will they sign Kyoto 2? No! Will India? No! 75% of global GDP is exempt from Kyoto 1 and the rest haven't done anything.
Frankly, the environment suffers from what economics call the 'tragedy of the commons'. It doesn't belong to anyone so no one defends it. It's also impossible to measure or police CO2 emissions.
You are just been given a dummy to suck to comfort yourself. The only hope with CO2 is peak oil taking down the economy IMO.
No country has done anything about CO2 yet.
Recent New Zealand Government initiatives might contradict that kind of thinking.
They have produced some impressive sounding targets, are introducing carbon trading, and have effectively placed a 10 year moratorium on any new fossil fuel generators being built for main supply (I understand small backup generators are still allowed).
They are aiming for 90% renewable power by 2020? 2050? – Something of that order.
Rail extension and electrification is going ahead in Auckland after much fighting and uphill struggle by advocacy groups like FAST,CAA, walkauckland, and the campaign for better transport.
Ok, I concede that talk is only talk until something actually starts being constructed, but it is a positive step all the same.
It is interesting to note that some of the strategies and campaigns to reduce the boogie-monster of climate change (I acknowledge it just don’t think we small countries can do diddly-squat about it so shouldn’t bother) actually also help with peak oil problems – improved public transport/rail/Renewables etc.
While I’d rather the politicians and uncle Helen and all focused on Peak Oil as their burning issue rather than the wonderful political straw mad of climate change which gets them out and globe trotting, some of the changes made because of it are useful to the peak oil cause (if only accidentally)
You can vote for me, if you live in the electorate of Charlton...I'll be putting my web-page together tomorrow.
(pdf link) http://www.aec.gov.au/pdf/profiles/c/charlton.pdf
One thing to note about the Greens: Greenpeace has consistently called Peak Oil theory (and, now, I guess, fact) a "Big Oil Schill" or a plant or put-up job as Big Oil tries to distract from Global Warming.
I get the feeling the anti-Global Warming and Peak Oil Activist Jeremy Leggett (Hope I've spelt his name correctly) this anti-peak oil Feeling of Greenpeace may well be why he left the organisation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Leggett
I know the Green candidate in Charlton, a woman by the name of Susan Pritchard. I don't think she's ever heard of Peak Oil (but I could be wrong).
I've been trying to get freight back to rail (and hence try to stave off the worst effects of Peak Oil) since the early 1990's. I didn't know about Peak Oil formally until 2000~2003, when i found out about Life After The Oil Crash. In the course of trying to get rail back as the Primary Means of Land Transport in Australia, i had to learn about the Oil Industry, and knew of Oil depletion, but I did not know it was called "Peak Oil".
Uh, I'm confused, why are you conflating the Greens with Greenpeace? Most Green members and candidates seem to be peak oil aware in my experience. In fact, they've repeatedly called on state and federal government's to adopt the oil depletion protocol. And it was Greens senator Christine Milne that proposed the Senate Inquiry into Australia's future oil supply and alternative transport fuels. What Greenpeace thinks about peak oil is irrelevant, much like the organisation itself (these days).