Australia yes, NZ No to Kyoto 2

Written By: - Date published: 9:33 pm, November 9th, 2012 - 45 comments
Categories: uncategorized - Tags:

According to the Sydney Morning Herald “New Zealand has broken ranks with Australia and refused to sign up to a second round of the Kyoto Protocol.” The SMH went on:

The announcement comes just hours after Climate Change Minister Greg Combet announced Australia was ready to sign up to Kyoto 2 with a handful of conditions. It leaves Australia joining the European Union and just a handful of other major greenhouse gas emitters in recommitting to the world’s only climate treaty.

New Zealand joins other wealthy and high greenhouse gas emitting countries Japan, Canada, Russia and the USA in not signing up.

Moana Mackey’s response was swift:

New Zealand’s international reputation has taken a massive hit today with the Government’s decision to not commit to the second stage of the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, says Labour’s Climate Change spokesperson Moana Mackey.

“This is a day of shame for New Zealand, our reputation as a good international citizen has taken a massive hit. To pull out of Kyoto the same day that Australia committed is humiliating. Australia’s position used to be essential to Government policy when it suited National. But now that Australia is tackling the critical issue of climate change, National is silent. National doesn’t take climate change seriously. It has gutted the emissions trading scheme and has now withdrawn from Kyoto commitments.

There is no longer an effective tool for limiting our gross carbon emissions, which is a blow to our carbon forestry sector and damaging to the important 100% Pure brand. National’s short term thinking is damaging medium term business growth and putting the future of our children in jeopardy.”

45 comments on “Australia yes, NZ No to Kyoto 2 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. kiwicommie 1
    9 November 2012 at 10:00 pm

    I don’t like Kyoto as it doesn’t go far enough to cut emissions and seems to exclude the largest emitters. But saying that, if you are going to leave Kyoto it should be because you are prepared to cut emissions further than in the treaty; not because you want to ignore the issues of climate change and not keep up with international obligations. The NZ 100% brand is already damaged beyond repair, many tourists scorn the 100% Pure Brand now because of the negative media attention New Zealand has gotten (over the failure of the government here to tackle environmental issues).

    Tourists are not a given, but National seems to believe they are. Tourists can visit Sweden, Norway, Canada, Iceland,etc and get just as scenic views; and it is cheaper and easier for tourists to get there. New Zealand tourism is failing to brand New Zealand correctly or effectively enough to keep tourists from outside China and the Asia-Pacific region. Middle Earth and 100% Pure won’t keep tourists here indefinitely, the earlier will last as long as the Hobbit stays ‘cool’ and in the news; the later is already starting to unravel.

  2. Neville Winsley 2
    9 November 2012 at 10:40 pm

    Truly appalling…

  3. peterquixote 3
    10 November 2012 at 1:09 am

    Australia has a bad PM, and an idiot Labour Government run by trades union NSW and Victoria.
    Soon a new Government end of Kyoto

    • Colonial Viper 3.1
      10 November 2012 at 1:12 am

      Do you mean a new Govt led by Abbott the misogynist woman hater?

      • One Tāne Huna 3.1.1
        10 November 2012 at 7:40 am

        I think Peter is going his best to emulate his borrowed surname, but while he has the “silly old fool” side of things down pat, he needs to work on the comedic aspects.

  4. infused 4
    10 November 2012 at 8:20 am

    Good. It’s a pile of shit.

    • Colonial Viper 4.1
      10 November 2012 at 8:46 am

      Wreckers and haters. Of the global ecosystem.

      • kiwicommie 4.1.1
        10 November 2012 at 9:34 am

        Well that has been their job from the beginning. New Zealand has one of the lowest mining royalties for destroying the environment (1% to NZ, 99% to foreign mining companies), some would argue the lowest. That’s a hand that feeds the government, that is for sure.

  5. One Tāne Huna 5
    10 November 2012 at 9:49 am

    Well that’s that then: there is no longer any doubt that the National Party represents a clear and present threat to New Zealand’s national security. Any action taken against them must be seen as an act of self-defence.

  6. Fortran 6
    10 November 2012 at 11:00 am

    Roll on 2014 then we can get back to normality with Kyoto.

    The Greens will insist as one of their many colation conditions.

    • Colonial Viper 6.1
      10 November 2012 at 11:06 am

      Climate change is happening mate, ‘normality’ is wishful thinking.

      • Steve Wrathall 6.1.1
        10 November 2012 at 5:12 pm

        Yes, and has for 4.6 billion years. Your point?

        • RedLogix 6.1.1.1
          10 November 2012 at 5:18 pm

          Make up your mind buddy.

          One moment you are insinuating that the planet’s climate is stable and cannot be affected by a piffling bit of CO2, the next you are telling us that it’s unstable and changes all the time.

          Which is it?

        • One Tāne Huna 6.1.1.2
          11 November 2012 at 12:19 pm

          “…has for 4.6 billion years…”

          How would you know, with your negative level of expertise on just about everything? Oh, that’s right: Paleoclimatology.

          Wanker.

  7. bbfloyd 7
    10 November 2012 at 2:58 pm

    Normality can be descibed as a situation that manages to stay static through two generations, so “normality” has always been a matter of perception…. so yes, it would be wishful thinking to pine for what was normality…..

    What makes me uncomfortable, is the thought that the new “normality” may have me being ashamed to admit being a kiwi….. to people who used to look to us for leadership……

    THAT is disquieting….

  8. Monique Watson 8
    10 November 2012 at 5:06 pm

    Oh thank God that’s the end of Kyoto. We’re a small country that can’t afford to pass on costs to the end consumer for what effectively is a non proven phenomenon.
    Yay – we standing with the economic giants of the world rather than the socialist ninnies like Gillardia.
    And you should all be pleased because it is less likely to impact on worker wage levels.

    • RedLogix 8.1
      10 November 2012 at 5:14 pm

      for what effectively is a non proven phenomenon.

      Fuck me … yet another Nobel Prize winner in Climate Science posts a devastating de-bunking on The Standard!

      How did we get so lucky?

    • mickysavage 8.2
      10 November 2012 at 5:18 pm

      I am interested Monique.  What scientific training and/or understanding do you have?

      • Monique Watson 8.2.1
        10 November 2012 at 7:17 pm

        Yeah none. Just an impeccable bullshit detector. Got any scientific proof yourself?

        • mickysavage 8.2.1.1
          10 November 2012 at 7:26 pm

          Only this bunch of cranks.  And there is this warning that the climate change scientists who predicted the most adverse outcomes seem to be the most likely to be right but what do they know?

          So tell me how about yourself.  Apart from an anti intellectual bravado do you have any proof that these guys are completely wrong? 

        • RedLogix 8.2.1.2
          10 November 2012 at 7:32 pm

          Has it occurred to you that “impeccable bullshit detector” really does not cut mustard? That anyone can say those words and make that claim with equal … and pointless … effect?

        • One Tāne Huna 8.2.1.3
          11 November 2012 at 3:27 pm

          MW: “…scientific proof…” – there’s no such thing. You can prove things in Mathematics, not in sciences.

          as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality Albert Einstein.

          So, was your demand for “proof” a matter of scientific illiteracy, or were you just arguing in bad faith?

  9. Steve Wrathall 9
    10 November 2012 at 5:19 pm

    “New Zealand’s international reputation has taken a massive hit today … says Labour’s Climate Change spokesperson…”
    Our reputation amongst whom? Seriously. “Japan, Canada, Russia and the USA [are] not signing up…” so obviously they wont be wagging their fingers at us naughty Kiwis.

    So who please tell me are these international opinion-holders that we are supposed to impress by increasing the cost of fuel, food and everything else, for everyone? And why are their opinions worth so much more than the Japs, Canuks, Russkis, Yanks, and all the others who are getting on with the business of providing their people with cheap, reliable energy?

    • RedLogix 9.1
      10 November 2012 at 5:29 pm

      Japan, Canada, Russia and the USA [are] not signing up

      So what? Does this mean that CO2 no longer has an infra-red aborption spectra?

    • Anne 9.2
      10 November 2012 at 8:20 pm

      For your information Steve Wrathhall, New Zealand trained meteorological scientists and climatologists enjoy an excellent international reputation. This is in large part due to the extremely variable maritime climate we experience, which calls for extra expertise than is required in most other regions. Our weather scientists are widely sought after, and can be found in most of the top overseas research units in Britain, Europe and America.

      • Steve Wrathall 9.2.1
        11 November 2012 at 3:23 pm

        How many of these “well-respected” meteorologists immediately disassociated themselves from the error-ridden 2007 IPCC report? Or did the vast majority stay mum until early 2010 when even the IPCC was forced to admit its catalogue of howlers?

        Climate researchers are human beings and are just as susceptible to ego and self-interest as the people who sell your car.

        • Colonial Viper 9.2.1.1
          11 November 2012 at 3:27 pm

          Nah its all good mate. Don’t worry about it.

        • One Tāne Huna 9.2.1.2
          11 November 2012 at 3:32 pm

          How many of these “well-respected” meteorologists immediately disassociated themselves…

          None.

          “Error ridden” – no, it isn’t. AR4 represents the best available information – but has been shown to be overly conservative in its forecasts.

          But that just brings us back to the question: how would you know the first thing about it?
          Where’s the clue you pretend to have?

        • Doug 9.2.1.3
          11 November 2012 at 3:52 pm

          Could you please catalogue these errors for us and then explain how they refute the IPCC’s conclusions.

          Yes climate researchers are human and fallible that is why science has peer review that requires mistakes to be corrected and learned from, unlike car sellers or people that comment on blogs.

          • Steve Wrathall 9.2.1.3.1
            11 November 2012 at 8:15 pm

            http://www.nrwa.org/benefits/whitepapers/2010_Update/Appendix%20C%20%20Errors%20in%20IPCC%202007%20-%20Final.pdf
            “This list, presented in alphabetical order, is not intended
            to be comprehensive…”

            • mickysavage 9.2.1.3.1.1
              11 November 2012 at 8:24 pm

              Feck Steve the link is to the National Rural Water Association website.

              Have you got anything to say that global warming is not happening?  Picking holes in some of the details is not the same thing … 

            • RedLogix 9.2.1.3.1.2
              11 November 2012 at 8:38 pm

              Oh look let’s check one item at random:

              Netherlands Sea Levels – The 2007 IPCC report claimed rising sea levels endanger the 55 percent of the Netherlands it says is below sea level. The portion of the Netherlands below sea level actually is 20 percent.

              The Netherlands is a geographically low-lying country, with about 20% of its area and 21% of its population located below sea level,[10] and 50% of its land lying less than one metre above sea level.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands

              In the IPCC report is stated that 55% of the Netherlands is situated below sea level. This should have read that 55% of the Netherlands is prone to flooding: 26% of the country is at risk because it lies below sea level, and another 29% is susceptible to river flooding.

              http://www.pbl.nl/en/news/pressreleases/2010/20100705-Key-findings-of-IPCC-on-regional-climate-change-impacts-overall-considered-well-founded

              In other words … so fucking what. A meaningless quibble. Yet when the endless contradictions, pathetic errors and gross deceptions of the denier cretins are repeatedly pointed out to them, their only response is to recycle some other already discredited crap. This is not a debate, it’s a debased charade.

              Frankly Wrathall you are despicable, deluded and vile filth peddling dangerous drivel. Personally I’ve had enough of you; if I see you trying to get oxygen with your bullshit here again I’ll delete it.

            • One Tāne Huna 9.2.1.3.1.3
              11 November 2012 at 9:19 pm

              Wrathall, your desperate bullshit is so easy to demolish. RL covers the Netherlands statement – so I checked another one of your linked fantasies – food shortages in North Africa. The EPA notes that:

              “The process described by Dr. Vogel is consistent with the IPCC’s guidance on the use of gray literature, as previously described in Volume 1 of the RTC document”

              Two for two.

              Oh, and Fox? Monckton the proven liar? Aren’t you just a little bit embarrassed by the low-life company you are keeping?

              PS: I checked further – the “African Food shortage error” claims were made on a blog, by someone calling himself “Sinclair Davidson” – a complete nobody, and yet is cited by the NRWA (“Davidson 2010”) as though it were a peer-reviewed article.

              Are you such a brainless dupe, Wrathall, that you swallow this crud? You must be an Objectivist.

  10. TEA 10
    10 November 2012 at 8:20 pm

    Looks to me like National and New Zealand First will be the next New Zealand Government.
    Labour will be to gutless to side with the Greens and state what they will do before the next election from fear of failing worse than the last election.

  11. coge 11
    12 November 2012 at 3:04 pm

    Approx 87% of all nations are not signing up for Kyoto 2. Hence NZ isn’t going to suffer any backlash in real world terms, particularly since we are part of the global consensus on this (at least as far as Kyoto 2 is concerned)

  12. waynewhoever 12
    25 November 2012 at 11:27 am

    NZ refused to sign up to a second round of the Kyoto Protocol?
    Best news I have ever heard!
    Well done JK and the National Govt!

Links to post