News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Alarm at Rudd's weak greenhouse targets 

Alarm at Rudd's weak greenhouse targets

15 Mar, 2009 12:47 PM
Leading scientists at a global climate change conference have issued a direct and unprecedented plea to the world's politicians, saying weak 2020 targets for greenhouse gas cuts such as those proposed by the Rudd Government would let the world slip into catastrophe.

The message was stark: climate change is real, it is happening faster than thought even a couple of years ago, and the effects are likely to be severe if political leaders do not act decisively and soon.

"There is no excuse for inaction," said the strongly worded communique signed in Copenhagen yesterday by more than 2000 researchers from 80 countries, including leading climate scientists from the University of NSW and the Australian National University.

They called on political leaders to reduce "the influence of vested interests" - which, they claimed, hampered efforts to cut carbon emissions.

Politicians were warned that there were only a few years left in which to start making deep cuts.

"Weaker targets for 2020 increase the risk of crossing tipping points and make the task of meeting 2050 targets more difficult," they said.

The Federal Government plans to make the slow start to emissions cuts that the scientists warned against.

It will reduce emissions by 5pc on 2000 levels by 2020, or up to 15pc if other nations also agree to make higher cuts.

This still falls short of the 25-40pc cuts recommended by the climate summit.

Curbing emissions would bring "societal transformation", it said, and this would require a shift from "ineffective governance and weak institutions to innovative leadership in government, the private sector and civil society".

Delegates agreed that most indicators of climate change appeared to show it was happening faster than predicted in the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released in 2007.

They said the "worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised. For many key parameters, the climate system is already moving beyond the patterns of natural variability within which our society and economy have developed and thrived."

That observation was based on hundreds of independent reports delivered at the conference, hosted at the University of Copenhagen.

They painted an alarming picture of rising seas eating into cities, productive land and rainforests turning to desert, and a real possibility of war and social breakdowns within a few decades as shortages widened social divides.

Grim predictions apart, the summit also focused on solutions to avert the worst effects of climate change.

"We already have many tools and approaches - economic, technological, behavioural, management - to deal effectively with the climate change challenge," the scientists said.

"A wide range of benefits will flow from a concerted effort to alter our energy economy now, including sustainable energy job growth, reductions in the health and economic costs of climate change, and the restoration of ecosystems and revitalisation of ecosystem services."

Prince Charles has also called for action. "The best projections tell us that we have less than 100 months to alter our behaviour before we risk catastrophic climate change," he told an audience in Rio de Janeiro.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Individuals CAN prevent Global Warming, I am not completely convinced CO2 has anything to do with Global Warming. That notwithstanding, I am certain that reducing our reliance on fossil fuels is both a good idea and necessary, for a large number of obvious reasons. The good news is that we can all make a difference. It goes way beyond buying a few (polluting) low-energy light bulbs, and will have a real impact if even half of those concerned about Global Warming follow the proposals. The beauty is that even if only half do this, it makes no difference what the rest do! Renewable energy will become cheaper than fossil fuels with enough investment in the technology, and everyone will move over naturally!

Firstly, buy renewable energy. As far as I am aware, you have the choice to buy renewable electricity in all developed countries. If you cannot now, you should campaign for that inalienable right immediately. Currently our own household buys 25% of our electricity as renewable, costing us about US$33 extra per year. 100% would cost US$183)*. Some argue that if millions of householders (and industries, I would hope) buy renewable energy, there will not be enough. If you do not buy it, there will NEVER be enough. If you do, the money will be used to INVEST in infrastructure for future renewable energy, so making the expense just as effective. Merely by choosing to buy this, you are immediately and directly investing in the renewable energy industry, and sending a powerful and undeniable message to those who matter, the people who actually generate electricity, not environmentalists or politicians who may have different agenda.

Secondly, stop investing in 'Big Oil' and 'Big Coal'. It comes as a shock to many ordinary citizens to be told that the huge greedy corporations actually make money for THEM, not for some faceless consortium. Sure, corporate flunkies may make millions of dollars, but WE, as investors, make billions, and even trillions. Their huge payouts and massive junkets are insignificant compared to the profits the companies make for their investors. You may well think that you do not invest in these companies, but if you have a pension or investment fund, you almost certainly do. These funds will, quite obviously, be invested in the very companies that make the most profits and returns for their investors. All these corporations are doing is actually acting effectively YOUR instruction, ie to get the best possible return. If WE stop investing in them, they fail, and will be forced to change their practices to survive in a capitalist environment.

The answer is to choose ethical investments (there may be different names). Talk to your financial adviser and make the switch now. ONLY YOU control your investments. Make the choice and stop letting others do it for you.

You control the future, not governments or environmentalists. The message is that YOU control the future of energy production with your wallets. The bad news is that it will cost, but nothing the environmentalists or governments will ever do about this issue will cost you less than this, and most of what they want to do will take control away from you and waste most of your expenditure in bureaucratic bungling and misguided foolishness, in my opinion. This simple two-step approach has all the potential to work and with no complex side effects that I can see immediately. It has a direct and immediate effect. It is so rare that we are able to do something so straightforward in this complex world. If Global Warming concerns you, I urge you to put your money where your mouth is, and make an immediate difference TODAY, before the power is taken away from you.

* Based on a usage of 5,000 kWh of electricity. Source: http://www.originenergy.com.au/1142/Green-energy-FAQs#extrac ost http://www.carbonclimate.info/2009/03/individuals-can-preven t-global-warming.html

Posted by JER0ME, 16/03/2009 6:08:38 PM
And last week it was 30 deg C below average temps in western Canada, setting many new record lows. Have to love global warming....
Posted by CdnFarmer, 17/03/2009 2:39:05 AM
Names and addresses of these leading scientists must always be given, so that in ten years time, when their alarmist views are proven to be just that, we can remember them. The environmental movement has been hijacked by their own form of the taliban, they are now trying (and succeeding) to force their religion upon us all. A small proportion of eminent scientists opposed to these "radical totalatarian" views are rarely heard. However I believe the tide of commonsense may be turning and many people are beginning to see through the hype and fear mongering, to the agendas behind it.
Posted by rod, 17/03/2009 10:04:29 AM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
POLL
Q: If a federal election were held on Saturday, which party would you vote for?

Labor
(16.8%)

Liberal
(40.5%)

Nationals
(25%)

Greens
(8.6%)

Family First
(1.3%)

Independent
(5.9%)

Other
(1.8%)

Total Votes: 1043
Poll Date: 15 March, 2009

Most popular articles


Irwin Hunter 160x160


Farm Weekly







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...