Aussie's going down with poor environmental policy

[BaliBabyDoc]

Yahoo Asia
Global warming (news - web sites) may increase deaths and injuries due to flooding in Australia by as much as 240 percent by 2020, and cause a huge jump in the number of Pacific islanders whose homes could be washed away, a new report said.

The study, which was commissioned by the Australian government, also warned that the risk of tropical diseases, like dengue, could spread south in Australia and urged the authorities to start preparing the health system.

Australia, which ranks as the world's top per capita emitter of greenhouse gases due to huge coal exports and its small population, has infuriated environmentalists by joining the United States in rejecting the Kyoto pact.

Malaria and dengue, both mosquito-borne, may spread with up to 1.6 million Australians potentially exposed to dengue by 2050.

More vulnerable than wealthy Australia are the largely poor and low-lying islands of the South Pacific, the report said. Most affected would be the Papua New Guinea islands, Micronesia and Kiribati.

(edited for brevity)

 

[Thraxen]

Spin, spin, spin... Clinton didn't sign on either, so how is Bush solely to blame now?

 

[KenGr]

I didn't go read the whole story (since enough was quoted to demonstrate it was scientifically bogus) but did it say anything about Bush? Or was that Doc's idea?

Note the parallel stories in the recent news stating that Europe is not making the Kyoto goals and in fact is missing them by more than the US. In fact, if the French and German economies weren't tanking and if the UK hadn't developed huge gas reserves to cut coal and oil use, Europe would be increasing emissions instead of marginally decreasing. If one believes in greenhouse gas global warming (I don't) then you also have to understand that signing a "feel good" treaty doesn't stop the effects, actually reducing the emissions does.

As noted in the previous post, the Clinton administration negotiated this treaty knowing full well it would never be signed by the US. Clinton never pushed for ratification. He just left it laying on the table for a future embarrassment after he and Gore got the headlines and photo ops.

I guess if the Aussies want to bash themselves, it's OK but what possible difference does the "per capita" greenhouse gas emissions in Australia make. What are there, 30 million Aussies? Compared to 1.2 billion Chinese and 800 million Indians who were effectively exempted from Kyoto?

Even thought I don't believe in the global warming theory from a technical point of view, I could potentially support it if I believed it was an honest attempt to address the perceived problem. But the Kyoto agreement was so politically biased it was doomed to failure. Even if the advanced nations met the goals, emissions would increase drastically in the developing world.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Clinton didn't sign on either, so how is Bush solely to blame now?

Little bit of reach there . . . stop being so defensive. Just making an observation that Aussie pols are moving right of center even though the potential harm from global climate change has greater ramifications than in the US.

Even thought I don't believe in the global warming theory from a technical point of view, I could potentially support it if I believed it was an honest attempt to address the perceived problem. But the Kyoto agreement was so politically biased it was doomed to failure. Even if the advanced nations met the goals, emissions would increase drastically in the developing world.

From a technical standpoint the correct terminology is global change. Global warming was adopted for the sake of the layperson but like many adoptations the process of simplification distorts the message. The Kyoto Proctol was certainly flawed but try this on. The developed nations have essentially consumed/polluted more than their share. By paying the upfront costs of developing new technologies they would essentially subsidize the subsequent use of those technologies in developing countries. Of course, it's all a mute point if Brazil cuts down half the Amazon and Indonesians burn Java and Sumatra.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Titled edited to avoid criticism of the Emperor's environmental policy when it isn't mentioned by name in the link.

 

[Amused]

THE SKY IS FALLING!

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Amused
THE SKY IS FALLING!

OH MY GAWD! RUN!

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: Amused
THE SKY IS FALLING!

OH MY GAWD! RUN!

Clinton and Gore knew the Kyoto treaty was flawed because some of the expectations were way too unrealistic nor did it adequately address third world countries. They had hoped to revise it, instead of entirely abandoning it. President Bush abandoned it without offering an alternative.

I believe enviromental concerns trescend petty partisan lines, we are slowing changing the climate by the inordinate amount of poison we put in the air. While there is no imediate "THE SKY IS FALLING" concern, the consequences will be felt in 5-15 years.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: KenGr
I didn't go read the whole story (since enough was quoted to demonstrate it was scientifically bogus) but did it say anything about Bush? Or was that Doc's idea?

Note the parallel stories in the recent news stating that Europe is not making the Kyoto goals and in fact is missing them by more than the US. In fact, if the French and German economies weren't tanking and if the UK hadn't developed huge gas reserves to cut coal and oil use, Europe would be increasing emissions instead of marginally decreasing. If one believes in greenhouse gas global warming (I don't) then you also have to understand that signing a "feel good" treaty doesn't stop the effects, actually reducing the emissions does.

As noted in the previous post, the Clinton administration negotiated this treaty knowing full well it would never be signed by the US. Clinton never pushed for ratification. He just left it laying on the table for a future embarrassment after he and Gore got the headlines and photo ops.

I guess if the Aussies want to bash themselves, it's OK but what possible difference does the "per capita" greenhouse gas emissions in Australia make. What are there, 30 million Aussies? Compared to 1.2 billion Chinese and 800 million Indians who were effectively exempted from Kyoto?

Even thought I don't believe in the global warming theory from a technical point of view, I could potentially support it if I believed it was an honest attempt to address the perceived problem. But the Kyoto agreement was so politically biased it was doomed to failure. Even if the advanced nations met the goals, emissions would increase drastically in the developing world.

The trouble I have is that there are no other international plans on the table. Nothing is being worked on. I get the feeling many don't see a (possibly potential) problem. I agree that the Kyoto treaty is now a shadow of what it could have been - but where's the international alternatives that deliver what you ask? Actual emission cutbacks?

Cheers,

Andy

 

[jjones]

Goddamn Aussie's are going to destroy the world before we can conquer it! Bastages!

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

While there is no imediate "THE SKY IS FALLING" concern, the consequences will be felt in 5-15 years.

Actually the regions susceptible to most mosquito vector diseases have been growing.

Of course in the US we have little to worry about because we've got advantages according to the site of poor science which critiques what it calls poor science.

But it might not be so cool if you happen to live somewhere else like say Bangladesh.

But I bet if you try the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, or Cato . . . they would say mosquito-borne illness is probably just a function of not enough DDT in the environment.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: Amused
THE SKY IS FALLING!

OH MY GAWD! RUN!

Clinton and Gore knew the Kyoto treaty was flawed because some of the expectations were way too unrealistic nor did it adequately address third world countries. They had hoped to revise it, instead of entirely abandoning it. President Bush abandoned it without offering an alternative.

I believe enviromental concerns trescend petty partisan lines, we are slowing changing the climate by the inordinate amount of poison we put in the air. While there is no imediate "THE SKY IS FALLING" concern, the consequences will be felt in 5-15 years.

I like how you state this as fact.

 

[Alistar7]

in as little as 5 years, wow, can't wait....

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
in as little as 5 years, wow, can't wait....

You might have to wait a little longer.



Taking the Temperature

"....
This study, Restructuring Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years: A Reappraisal, compares the data recorded by many of Mother Nature?s own ?thermometers,? called by the study authors ?proxy records.? What are these? They include the ratios of isotopes in the layers laid down year by year in ocean bottom sediments and Greenland?s ice, the growth patterns in ancient tree rings, deposits in annual mud layers reflecting the mix of pollen from flowers that grow and bloom ? as well as the mix of microorganisms that live or die ? at different temperatures, and much more. This study also includes indirect human recordings of temperature ? such as priestly or royal records of severe weather, or of the date on which a pond froze or the first snow fell or last snow melted each year. Temperature and climate change can be deduced from such natural and human data.

By weaving thousands of such threads together, Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and his colleagues have produced heavily-documented evidence of climate change in many parts of the world over the past millennium.

And ? much to the surprise of those propagandized to believe in global warming by Kyoto advocates ? these scientists conclude from this mountain of evidence that the ?warming of the 20th Century across the world seems neither unusual nor unprecedented within the more extended view of the last 1000 years. Overall, the 20th Century does not contain the warmest or most extreme anomaly of the past millennium in most of the proxy records.?

Compared to Earth?s climate over the past 600 years, the 20th Century was warmer. But as Albert Einstein might say, it?s all relative. Climate was actually warmer 1,000 years ago, at the time of Viking exploration, than it has been during our lifetimes. And back then human beings were not causing global warming by burning huge amounts of natural gas or oil. This ?Medieval Warm Period? from about 800 to 1300 A.D. was entirely natural.
...

Nations such as France and Germany have their own reasons for trying to rope the U.S. into the serpent coils of Kyoto. These socialist European nations with active Green political parties are already economically crippled by environmentalist regulations and taxes. The only way they can compete with non-Kyoto nations like the United States and Australia is to lure us into the same swamp that mires and hobbles them.


"

 

[Fencer128]

You make it sound like an open and shut case of "there's no man made global warming". There is slightly more of an arguement to be made than only what is presented here. I guess the president's own advisors have been "propagandized" here too? (I just found this quickly on google)

A recent NRC report, which the Bush administration requested last year when scientists criticized the White House for its slow response to growing evidence of global warming, concluded that "human-induced warming" will continue through the 21st century.

While it conceded great uncertainties in the many models of climate trends that experts have produced, the report predicted that the planet's climate would warm by 2.5 to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit by the century's end due to human activity.

This demonstrates - and there's plenty more professional opinion - that climate change is not necessarily ambivalent to our environmental policies. To basically label one half of the arguement as being rubbish is to deny a lot of informed opinion. Sure - there are people who believe climate change is not occuring as a by product of human activity, but there is a very sizeable - dare I say it - majority of professional opinion that believes otherwise to one degree or another.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Fencer128]

Here is an interesting NASA article on the subject.

Here is a cautiously pessimistic view on the impact of emissions.

Here is an optimistic view (that is that emissions aren't a problem) of the situation.

It is not clear cut (and if we back the wrong horse it may cost us BIG time).

Cheers,

Andy

ps Just for fun - here is a particularly biased article on the subject. You have to love the tone and the angle.

 

[etech]

You make it sound like an open and shut case of "there's no man made global warming".

Fencer, please be a little more careful in who you attribut something to.

I didn't say it, the researchers at Harvard produced the research.

and NASA


Commondreams as a source is an interesting choice.
"A non-profit news service providing breaking news & views for the progressive community. "

I'd like to see the orginal report.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: etech

You make it sound like an open and shut case of "there's no man made global warming".

Fencer, please be a little more careful in who you attribut something to.

I didn't say it, the researchers at Harvard produced the research.

and NASA


Commondreams as a source is an interesting choice.
"A non-profit news service providing breaking news & views for the progressive community. "

I'd like to see the orginal report.

Sorry - I wasn't deliberately implying it was your words - just that you were presenting a single side in your reasoning. With regard to the articles, I just grabbed them off google. I'd like to see that report too!

Cheers,

Andy