The Copenhagen Agreement - Australia to lose sovereignty?

[bellenuit]

Is there something in the psyche of conservatives that makes change so difficult to accept? the whole climate change denial/Copenhagen treaty thing reminds me of the aboriginal native title issue of a few years ago.http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/whinyliberals/ SIGN NOW

So_Cynical....

Don't you need to separate a few things here.

I would say almost all but a few head in the sand conservatives accept that climate change is a fact. The issue that many disagree with is that the cause is predominantly man made. I personally am not fully convinced that that is the case.

But accepting that man is the cause, then there are many that don't accept that the emissions trading and other proposed schemes are going to be effective solutions. There are many scientists sceptical about that.

And even if one was to accept the schemes being proposed as the best we can do, that doesn't mean that the Copenhagen Agreement is going to be the proper way to implement the schemes. There are many aspects to the Copenhagen Agreement that seem more to do about power grabbing than solving climate change.

Conservatives or those leaning towards conservatism usually expect sounder arguments than the simplistic slogan solutions offered by the left.

 

[dbcok]

Is there something in the psyche of conservatives that makes change so difficult to accept? the whole climate change denial/Copenhagen treaty thing reminds me of the aboriginal native title issue of a few years ago.

Remember how the NFF and the Coalition were all dead against it...how the farmers were all going to get kicked of there land and suburban blocks were going to get seized....lol

LOL ive started a Petition. http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/whinyliberals/ SIGN NOW

Opposition to any climate change legislations reminds of the anti-smoking lobby.For years they were able to argue that smoking did not cause adverse effects to humans.They were able to stall curtailing legislation for years.
The lobby produced their "medical" experts to front the media and produce the benign reports paid for by the cigarette manufacters.
There were always references to people aged 90 years that had smoked all of their lives and showed no ill effects.
To do nothing on climate change is a course that I do not wish to gamble on.
It seems a lot of politicians are subject to heavy lobbying by the interests that fear that climate change legislation will be detrimental to their narrow agendas.
When isssues such as climate change know no boundaries of course you have to have collective world-wide cooperation,and not have rogue, unwilling countries caring only for themselves.
Can anyone think of any example where Australia has historically and currently,ceded sovereignty to foreign countries.I certainly can.

 

[wayneL]

Opposition to any climate change legislations reminds of the anti-smoking lobby.For years they were able to argue that smoking did not cause adverse effects to humans.They were able to stall curtailing legislation for years.
The lobby produced their "medical" experts to front the media and produce the benign reports paid for by the cigarette manufacters.
There were always references to people aged 90 years that had smoked all of their lives and showed no ill effects.
To do nothing on climate change is a course that I do not wish to gamble on.
It seems a lot of politicians are subject to heavy lobbying by the interests that fear that climate change legislation will be detrimental to their narrow agendas.
When isssues such as climate change know no boundaries of course you have to have collective world-wide cooperation,and not have rogue, unwilling countries caring only for themselves.
Can anyone think of any example where Australia has historically and currently,ceded sovereignty to foreign countries.I certainly can.

The old "what-if" argument.

There are a million what-if scenarios that can be used to justify just about anything.

What id Indonesia decides to invade Oz? Better Nuke them now... just in case. pfffft

Copenhagen gives the right to third world countries to do exactly as you fear... pollute as much as they want while 1st world countries will be restrained. No net result except for handing economic power to China et al on a silver platter to the detriment of the west. They get to be rogues, while we get taxed to oblivion.

The real science is gradually getting out and it is clear that our environmental problems are not (or minimally) co2 induced. It is the biggest straw-man ever constructed in the history of the planet.

 

[Tink]

:topic Interesting isnt it

They did say China was going to be the next World Power

 

[basilio]

There are a number of separate issues in this debate.

Firstly are we in the middle of man created climate change? If we accept the physical evidence of melting icecaps, increasing temperatures, fundamental changes in the behaviour of plants and animals around the world, then our world is becoming rapidly warmer.

If we go a step further and ask "why is this happening now" we are faced with

1) The overwhelming view of 99.9% of relevant scientists that rapid rises in CO2 emissions and other gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are the fundamental reason for this current increase in temperature. This view also states that if we can't/won't quickly reduce CO2 and equivalent emissions temperature increases will accelerate to the point that most of the earth will be uninhabitable for the current ecosystem.

2) Or alternatively, that a host of other factors (sun activity, whatever) are responsible for any (extremely limited) global warming and in particular that CO2 is not a prime culprit. (This view is strongly supported by fossil fuel industries )

In theory at least most of the political leaders in the world have accepted the reality of global warming and the view that CO2 and similar emissions are the cause and must be reduced.

The Coppenhagen summit is a final desperate attempt to work out some massive shift in how we power our world while reducing the use of CO2 emitting fossil fuels. A fundamental part of the approach is that we are all in this together. Big issues like responses to war, responses to natural disasters necessitate massive co-operation and inevitable dislocation. In a bushfire or flood we all have to do our bit in some way. Effectively responding to global warming will require similar changes of behaviour.

Will an international emissions trading scheme be the answer to the issue? Not the way it's going. On a micro level it looks as if most players are still attempting to extract every piece of self interest they can, to game the system and in effect behave as if there really isn't a crisis that needs to be addressed. Cognitive dissonance on an international level.

There is an excellent piece of how these negotiations are being undertaken which underlines this behaviour.

Lifting the lid on climate change talks

Rich countries bullying poorer ones, mud-slinging and back-stabbing - environmental summits can be vicious

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/07/climate-change-talks-2009

If anyone is interested in more of the nuts and bolts of what is happening in the lead up to Copenhagen The Guardian has an excellent range of views.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/copenhagen

 

[wayneL]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/07/climate-change-talks-2009

If anyone is interested in more of the nuts and bolts of what is happening in the lead up to Copenhagen The Guardian has an excellent range of views.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/copenhagen

Basilio,

The Guardian, as the mouthpiece of the Fabian Society, is not an honest broker, just not credible on this issue.

 

[brty]

basilio,

If we accept the physical evidence of melting icecaps

How about you go and look at the evidence before making such sweeping statements. The link below shows the changes in sea ice from the average for Antarctica. Over the last 30 years there is a slight, but becoming more obvious INCREASE in sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere. By the way the IPCC models only took changes up to the end of 2005 into consideration, which showed no significant change up to that time. If you look carefully you will see why that was a good place to stop if you wanted to prove something.


http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg

brty

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Re: Australia to lose Sovereignty to an unelected World Govt. in Dec 09

....Note: for those who still insist on debating Anthropogenic Global Warming, go to the other threads to do this...

This thread isn't to debate Climate Change - it's focused is on the underlying Copenhagen Treaty and what it means for everyone in Australia.

 

[lasty]

I must hand it to the lefties.
After being battered and bruised with the fall of the wall and the collapse of communism, they dreamt up a doosey with good marketing and fear.
However I think they have left their run too late as the Climate Alarmists are being found out and Rudd and Wong are in panic mode.

The reason why this isnt headline news is that most journo's lean to the left.
Talk back radio has uncovered this can of worms.
Rudd refuses to be questioned by Alan Jones. So much for the PM to all people.

Rudd's love with the UN will have us sold out.
His arrogance and attitude including dummy spits is amazing to see.
Whats more amazing is that his popularity is still very high.
Is that smoke and mirrors too or are Australians that dumb they can see through him?

 

[dbcok]

Wayne-Your argument seems to be that there is not man-made climate change,but at present we haven't got enough scientists willing to back that claim.But time is on our side and we will have in the future.
Whatever the arugument surely we have stop sh:tting in our own nest!

 

[Calliope]

Re: Australia to lose Sovereignty to an unelected World Govt. in Dec 09

This thread isn't to debate Climate Change - it's focused is on the underlying Copenhagen Treaty and what it means for everyone in Australia.

I agree. The Climate Change issue has been done to death on other threads by Guardian readers and sceptics, without converting anybody from the sceptic (commonsense) line.

This thread is about whether we should submit to world government by an unelected Comintern.

 

[prawn_86]

Re: Australia to lose Sovereignty to an unelected World Govt. in Dec 09

This thread isn't to debate Climate Change - it's focused is on the underlying Copenhagen Treaty and what it means for everyone in Australia.

Just to reiterate this point.

This thread is not, for the debate of CC, rather the discussion of the treaty specifically and the impacts it (the treaty, not CC) will have.

Further off topic posts will be removed.

Thanks

 

[Buddy]

Re: Australia to lose Sovereignty to an unelected World Govt. in Dec 09

Just to reiterate this point.

This thread is not, for the debate of CC, rather the discussion of the treaty specifically and the impacts it (the treaty, not CC) will have.

Further off topic posts will be removed.

Thanks

Thank you prawn. I am so tired of the AGW debate it puts me to sleep. There are plenty of other places to debate that.

"Copenhagen" is the issue! It's a sham, which is being used by the bleeding hearts in "the West" to atone for the so called sins of past industrial development. The 3rd world is practically irrelevant wrt CO2 levels. As I have said countless times previously, taxation is not the solution. If CO2 is so harmful, then REGULATE IT! Are any of you lefty bleeding hearts prepared to debate that?

The other falsity that these bleeding hearts come up with is that CO2 reduction should be based on per capita emissions. You go down this path and you will FAIL. Again this is just another moral B.S. stand taken by the left. Sounds wonderful but will not achieve anything.

If anyone is serious about this, then reduction needs to be based on total emissions. It's the old 80/20 rule. To achieve a result, concentrate on 80% of the problem. Look at some figures of total emissions:-
China 21.5%
USA 20.2%
EU 13.8%
Russia 5.5%
India 5.3%
Japan 4.6%
Germany 2.8%
U.K. 2.0%

That's about 76% of total (OK you can move the cut-off around a bit but I have cut it off at above 2%).
So that is where the effort has to be if there is any chance of meaningful reduction in overall CO2 levels.

If you concentrate on countries with highest per capita emissions you will achive almost nil impact (apart from the USA). The numbers for the top 5 are (I have taken a cut-off at great than 10t per capita):-
USA 20t per capita, total emission 20.2%
Saudia Arabia 18, total emission 1.3%
Australia 18, total emission 1.3%
Canada 14.5, total emission 1.9%
Czech Republic 11.5, total emission 0.4%
Norway 11, total emission 0.2%
Only totals to about 25% of total emissions.

To me this proves that the ETS in Australia will have no impact, other than negative, as high emitting industries are moved to less regulated countries. And for what logical reason would you transfer billions of dollars from Australia to 3rd world countries, in order to reduce CO2 levels? Folks, it will not work!

 

[shortlist]

The real science is gradually getting out and it is clear that our environmental problems are not (or minimally) co2 induced. It is the biggest straw-man ever constructed in the history of the planet.

Absolutely 100% solid gold cast-iron correct.

 

[Smurf1976]

Re: Australia to lose Sovereignty to an unelected World Govt. in Dec 09

Just to reiterate this point.

This thread is not, for the debate of CC, rather the discussion of the treaty specifically and the impacts it (the treaty, not CC) will have.

Further off topic posts will be removed.

Thanks

The most relevant point there is that the treaty doesn't impact climate change - that is a completely separate issue.

If we take the climate change argument as being 100% correct and caused largely by CO2 then we would need to reduce CO2 emissions in order to reduce climate change - that's something that I doubt anyone would disagree with.

But, and this is the point that advocates of the treaty seem to have trouble grasping, the treaty does not reduce emissions of CO2.

As a means of combating CO2-induced climate change, this treaty doesn't actually do anything. That makes it rather pointless to support it unless it had some other advantage for this country, which it doesn't seem to.

It all sounds like the Lima agreemnt round 2 - a second round of shifting industries from one country to another with the overall outcome being that production, resource use and pollution all go up, not down, as a result of an increase in the number of countries classified as "developed".

 

[Ageo]

Wow this is scarier then 1st glanced at. Does rudd have all the say or does it have to pass through parliament?


I can see overtime average people will be working just to stay afloat.

 

[Calliope]

How's this for a laugh. Clive Hamilton,the Green's candidate for Higgins and Australia's leading global warming alarmist, says the Copenhagen sceptics are creating a climate of fear.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-climate-of-fear/story-e6frg6zo-1225796249862

He's also the bloke who is not keen on democracy;

Recently Hamilton has appeared to suggest - equivocally and ambiguously, it's true - that, in view of our looming climate catastrophe, it may be necessary to "suspend democratic processes", presumably so that a caste of wise and benevolent professional administrators can override our selfish instincts, and solve our problems for us.

 

[Smurf1976]

Whilst we worry about taxing the emissions from burning fuel we are completely ignoring the question of how we're going to get that fuel in the first place.

I'd seriously like to know what Rudd (and every other political leader) plans to do in order to keep the wheels turning given the massive cancellations and delays to oil projects internationally following the financial crisis.

November 2009 and we're all worried about treaties concerning emissions.

3 months' time I'll quite likely be posting about the blackouts in Vic / SA and why they were inevitable at some point (if not this Summer then it's only a matter of time before a major problem hits...).

And whenever the global economy recovers we'll be hearing non-stop whinging about the soaring price of petrol.

The common theme here? We desperately need a proper energy policy rather than the single issue focus we've had since the 1970's that fails to see the big picture. The Copenhagen Agreement fails to meaningfully address any of the energy problems we face, CO2 included.

 

[Julia]

Wow this is scarier then 1st glanced at. Does rudd have all the say or does it have to pass through parliament?


I can see overtime average people will be working just to stay afloat.

It first has to be passed by the House of Representatives then if that happens it has to get through the Senate.

If the Libs vote it down in the House, it gives Mr Rudd the trigger for a double dissolution election. He would like this as on current polling he would clearly win another term. He would then be able to bring down his anticipated 'horror' budget (where he will have to claw back the money wasted in the stimulus payments in order to get the Budget back close to surplus) with impunity because he will have just been voted back in for another term.

The dissenting Liberals don't share their Leader's distaste for an early election and are prepared to hold out for their belief that the ETS is a poorly contrived piece of legislation and will be ineffective in ameliorating CO2 even if we were to accept that the CO2 is anthropogenic anyway.

So, Ageo, there you go: I think that's more or less a summary of where it's at for now.
Others might want to correct me.

 

[Mickel]

It first has to be passed by the House of Representatives then if that happens it has to get through the Senate.

If the Libs vote it down in the House, it gives Mr Rudd the trigger for a double dissolution election.

Julia, I think you mean Libs/Nats vote it down in the Senate. Rudd has a majority in the House of Reps.