by David Steven | Nov 21, 2007 | Climate and resource scarcity
Yesterday, while railing against UNAIDS for its failure to provide accurate estimates of the number of people with HIV/AIDS, I was casting around for the first person to make the wrong-about-HIV=wrong-about-climate-change link.
I couldn’t find anything then, but our friend Claudi Rosett has now made the link:
Could there possibly be a certain parallel here between past UN alarmism over a wildfire global AIDS pandemic, and Ban Ki-moon’s latest pronouncement that to stop the imminent, irreversible, dire, apocalyptic, overwhelming, total, unquestionable and abruptly looming climate catastrophe (he went and saw a melting glacier for himself — who are we to question what that means?), there must now be a titanic planet-wide wealth transfer, with the UN as fee-collecting broker and middleman?
At the imminent UN climate conference next month by the warm beaches of Bali, where UN staffers will collect their per diems while UN eminences plan ways to chill our economy, will anyone dare to bring that up?
by David Steven | Nov 21, 2007 | Climate and resource scarcity, East Asia and Pacific
My response to Alex’s post is – why wouldn’t Kevin Rudd take Australia back into Kyoto? The country is already tracking its Kyoto target and is quite capable of meeting it:
The Tracking to the Kyoto Target report projects the levels of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2008-2012. It forecasts Australia’s emissions to be 109 per cent of 1990 levels by 2008-2012.
Australia is committed to achieving an emissions target of 108 percent of 1990 levels by 2008-2012 and the report shows we are within 1 percent of meeting that target.
Rudd, it seems, will bear little political cost if he triumphantly returns his country to the fold. New Zealand, however, is in a a more difficult position. It’s in Kyoto, but will miss it will miss its target by 12% on current projections. According to the New Zealand Institute, a leading think tank:
With the benefit of hindsight, a previous commitment on climate change, in the form of New Zealand’s obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, was negotiated and ratified without a full understanding of the New Zealand position. The official view at the time of New Zealand’s ratification in December 2002 was that New Zealand would receive a significant national benefit.
As it has turned out, however, New Zealand has incurred a financial liability currently estimated to be in excess of $500 million.
The Institute concludes that New Zealand should still aim to meet its Kyoto targets – but by 2020, not 2012.
by Alex Evans | Nov 21, 2007 | Climate and resource scarcity, East Asia and Pacific
What a coup it would be for the UN – and Ban Ki-Moon in particular – if one of Kyoto’s prodigal sons returned to the fold ahead of the Bali climate summit (running from 3-14 December).
That’s exactly what could happen if Australian Labor Party leader Kevin Rudd (profile here) wins Saturday’s general election there. He’s already said that if elected, he will personally lead the Aussie delegation to the summit – and that a Labor government would “immediately” reverse John Howard’s refusal to accept binding targets for Australia.
The FT yesterday cited polling data putting Labor 10 points ahead.
