PDA

View Full Version : Kyoto: What is it coing to cost us?



Spiny Norman
04-12-2007, 01:57 PM
I'm looking for credible sources of information about the net cost to Australia of signing up to Kyoto. Its been mentioned by a number of commentators (and pollies) to the effect that "its a tremendously important symbolic gesture" and that "it gives us a seat at the table".

Fair enough. I would like to know how much they paid for the seat at the table. Or, if we're making money on the deal, how much money (some commentators have pointed to the opportunity to trade carbon)?

I've heard varying reports of the cost: ranging from A$160M to as much as A$1.6B

If true, that's a very expensive seat and symbolic gesture (I would rather see my money spent differently -- e.g. on providing solar panels and water tanks).

Igor_Goldenberg
04-12-2007, 02:06 PM
I was wondering how the CO2 emission is measured?
When pollies force us to use different fuel that greenies insist is producing less CO2, how do we know it is a fact an not an opinion or estimation?

As far as I know, we do not measure the actual CO2 emitted, we just try to estimate how much is emitted

Capablanca-Fan
04-12-2007, 02:09 PM
If true, that's a very expensive seat and symbolic gesture (I would rather see my money spent differently — e.g. on providing solar panels and water tanks).
As well as doling out money to a corrupt thugocracy as the UN, which as we speak is holding a global warming conference in Bali to which 20,000 delegates have jetsetted, requiring 2.5 million trees to be planted to make up for it. And of course, paying far more polluting countries that have wangled carbon indulgences credits, while China and India continue to belch far more CO2.

It will be hard to feel sorry for lower-income Labor supporters finding the extra fuel costs hard, since they will have reaped what they sowed.

Kevin Bonham
04-12-2007, 05:35 PM
Weren't we meeting our targets anyway? In which case, where's the cost?

ElevatorEscapee
04-12-2007, 05:46 PM
I suspect that there would be a greater long term cost for not signing. :)

Capablanca-Fan
04-12-2007, 08:13 PM
Weren't we meeting our targets anyway? In which case, where's the cost?
If we were meeting our targets, then why sign at all? There is little to be gained and potentially a lot to lose.

Kevin Bonham
04-12-2007, 08:14 PM
If we were meeting our targets, then why sign at all?

For moral authoritaaaah when trying to convince backsliders to sign up to the next round, supposedly.

The Coalition couldn't rebut this argument effectively during the campaign, so let's see if anyone here can do any better. :lol:

Garvinator
04-12-2007, 08:28 PM
I suspect that there would be a greater long term cost for not signing. :)
I don't think signing or not signing will make one bit of difference, except for symbolism.

In all the calculations, what has to be worked out is, in financial terms, what are the costs of not reducing, by a substantial amount, all our pollution makers?

Garvinator
04-12-2007, 08:31 PM
As well as doling out money to a corrupt thugocracy as the UN, which as we speak is holding a global warming conference in Bali to which 20,000 delegates have jetsetted, requiring 2.5 million trees to be planted to make up for it.
I will start to believe that the countries of the world are truly 'fair-dinkum' when they stop having these junkets in well to do, posh, settings.

Something like a human rights convention in Darfur would do well ;)

Capablanca-Fan
05-12-2007, 01:15 AM
For moral authoritaaaah when trying to convince backsliders to sign up to the next round, supposedly.

The Coalition couldn't rebut this argument effectively during the campaign, so let's see if anyone here can do any better. :lol:
Seems like a silly argument. All about symbolism rather than substance. China and India won't ruin their economies because little old Austrayliah, with only 1.5% of the world's emissions, does so.

Southpaw Jim
05-12-2007, 08:09 AM
Weren't we meeting our targets anyway? In which case, where's the cost?
Apparently, when Howard and Costello told us that we would meet them anyway, they were lying wrong. We won't, therefore there will be some cost. Not sure where I heard this.

Spiny Norman
05-12-2007, 09:42 AM
Current projection is that we'll miss by 1%. Perhaps that will be corrected in the next couple of years.

Anyway, I'm still looking for credible resources which indicate the actual $$$ cost to us of signing up for Kyoto (assumption: we do in fact miss the Kyoto target by 1%). Is it A$160M? Or A$1.6B? Something else?

Spiny Norman
05-12-2007, 10:06 AM
This is what Andrew Bolt reckons, in an article today:


THE instant Kevin Rudd signed the paper on Monday to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, he signed away $150 million of your money.

Or possibly as much as $2.5 billion, if reported leaks from senior government figures are right.

If that's what we lost on just day one of our new Kyoto future, imagine what this will cost us in the years ahead. Apart from our sanity, I mean.

You see, the problem with Kyoto isn't just that it's a sweet symbol that will actually do little to cut emissions, and nothing at all to stop the planet warming. (In fact, the planet has stopped warming already, in 1998.)

The real problem is it's a money pit, and we've fallen right in, facing huge fines from the very first day for emitting too much gas.

You didn't know? Oh, dear. Well, I'm sure the media will mention it once they've finished praising our new Prime Minister as a saint of their great global-warming faith.

After all, the bill for signing Kyoto is already landing with an unmissably big bang on desks in Japan ($15 billion), Italy ($15 billion), Spain ($9 billion), Ireland ($450 million) and even little New Zealand ($600 million).

And now Rudd has signed us up for some of the same, and in the same month the Brumby Government jacked up power bills by up to 17 per cent, claiming greenhouse policies were to blame.

Here's how this Kyoto sting works. The developed countries that ratify Kyoto promise to cut their greenhouse emissions by agreed amounts by the year 2012.

Underdeveloped countries can just let rip, which actually makes the whole thing a farce since China is probably the world's biggest emitter, getting much bigger every year and making our own sacrifices useless.

But here's the nasty catch. Countries that don't meet their targets -- by shutting down "dirty" industries or belting consumers with such high prices for coal-fired power that they switch off or buy a pricey green alternative -- must pay a price.

That price is a carbon credit bought from a country that is under its own target, and can sell you the carbon dioxide it has saved, for around $25 a tonne at current prices.

Who are these lucky sellers? Mainly former Soviet satellites whose economies crashed after their targets were set, driving emissions down.

But countries such as Ireland, Spain and Italy have boomed, and so have their own emissions. Right now they're emitting so much above their targets that they'll have to pay those billions for carbon "credits" unless they can slash their gases by 2012.

Fat chance. And wait for the carbon credit price to soar when the pinch comes, and with it our own bills.

Yes, our own bills. Because Rudd this week admitted Australia is already over its own target.

"We are currently likely to . . . overshoot our Kyoto target by 1 per cent", he said on Monday. "(I)f we did overshoot by that 1 per cent then you'll be looking at a penalty . . ."

One per cent works out to, very roughly, six million tonnes of carbon dioxide, or $150 million in equivalent credits, if Rudd doesn't somehow drive down our emissions by 2012.

But no one can really tell just how much we do emit, and the Canberra Times reported yesterday that "senior government sources" said our emissions -- as calculated by the World Bank -- had actually blown out by more than 100 million tonnes.

Work it out: if true, that's $2.5 billion we'd have to pay in carbon credits, if we fail to slash emissions harder than is ever likely.

And the benefit of it all? The temperature won't budge a bit, but Bulgarians will be pleased by our huge donations.

Even more delighted are the 15,000 alarmists, carpet-baggers and salvation seekers now flying into Bali for the United Nations conference on cutting greenhouse gases like the load they just blew out the back of their jets. So said Dominique La Fontaine, of the gimme-cash Clean Energy Council, on ABC television.

"It's a huge atmosphere of excitement here," she burbled from Bali. "I made a presentation this afternoon to an international business delegation and they applauded and stood up. There's quite a few events going on right now -- in bars and clubs around the place people come and celebrate the fact . . ."

Hey! Who's picking up the tab at all these bars and clubs of this great air-conditioned celebration in beautiful Bali for 15,000 global warmers?

I think you'll already have figured the truth of our Kyoto future: that when someone mentions "global warming", hang on to your wallet.

Unfortunately, whilst I have considerable respect for Andrew's perspective, he is not an authoritative source ... I'm looking for the original material that he is obviously using to make these claims.

Garvinator
05-12-2007, 11:06 AM
And Andrew Bolt is also a noted right winger, so just like left wing reporters shouldnt be trusted based solely on their reports, the same goes for Andrew Bolt ;)

Spiny Norman
05-12-2007, 11:19 AM
I basically no longer believe anyone in the media, left- or right-wing, without checking. Which is why I said:

Unfortunately, whilst I have considerable respect for Andrew's perspective, he is not an authoritative source ... I'm looking for the original material that he is obviously using to make these claims.
Maybe its okay to trust ... but verify ... just to be sure. What Andrew Bolt writes is p.o.v. not communication of facts in an unbiased fashion.

Capablanca-Fan
05-12-2007, 11:54 AM
And Andrew Bolt is also a noted right winger, so just like left wing reporters shouldnt be trusted based solely on their reports, the same goes for Andrew Bolt ;)
The difference is that AB is clearly stated to be a commentator. The problem with the Leftmedia is that leftist commentary is dressed up as reportage, illustrated most notoriously in recent times by Dan Rather.

Capablanca-Fan
05-12-2007, 11:59 AM
What Andrew Bolt writes is p.o.v. not communication of facts in an unbiased fashion.

Here is more from AB, and he provides his sources:

Rudd signs, India salivates (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/rudd_signs_india_salivates/)

Now that Kevin Rudd, climate warrior and world uniter, has signed Kyoto, the sharks move in:


Australia’s move to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on Monday would augur well for Indian industry and, at best, would push its case in global negotiations. “It will be to India’s advantage. Australia will have to meet reduction targets. They will want to offset some of these targets by buying carbon credits. India Inc will be only too happy to find another market for its growing carbon supply (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/India_to_gain_as_Australia_signs_Kyoto_pact/articleshow/2593349.cms),” an official told TOI from Bali.

How many billions will we transfer to India as a result of Rudd’s messianic zeal?

Perhaps this stocktake should have done before Rudd signed Kyoto, committing us to a huge bill for carbon credits if we don’t meet our target:


Climate Change Minister Penny Wong has asked her department to calculate the effect of new environmental policies (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/04/2109482.htm) on Australia’s ability to meet its Kyoto target.

Typical. Clean countries like NZ and Oz have to pay millions to polluters like India and the former Soviet republics.

Bill Gletsos
06-12-2007, 11:32 AM
The solution we have all been waiting for. :uhoh: :whistle: :hand:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22879806-29277,00.html

Capablanca-Fan
06-12-2007, 11:48 AM
The solution we have all been waiting for. :uhoh: :whistle: :hand:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22879806-29277,00.html
:lol: :lol: :owned: :eek:

Davidflude
15-12-2007, 09:45 PM
Read the article in today's financial Review.