Written By:
advantage - Date published:
9:04 am, November 30th, 2015 - 10 comments
Categories: climate change, Environment, global warming, sustainability -
Tags: Anthony Albanese, Australian Labor Party, Bill Shorten, paris cop 2015
In a week of massive climate change activism, Australian Labor will today proudly nail its colours to the mast.
Australian Opposition Leader Bill Shorten will today reveal his party’s long-awaited post-2020 emissions reduction targets, after committing to tougher climate action than the coalition.Labor would aim to cut emissions by 45 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030, as part of a longer term plan to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
Senior opposition frontbencher Anthony Albanese says there will be extensive industry consultation before the target is set in March to determine Labor’s market-based mechanism.
“Business has recognised it is in their interest to move sooner rather than later to a carbon-constrained economy,” he told the Nine Network.
“The sooner you move the cheaper it is.”
Here’s a Labor Party that understands good principle, and great timing.
The ALP can say whatever it likes. It makes no difference to anything.
The liberation of being in opposition is to be able to follow and exploit any little protest it likes.
As you are aware from your profession, it’s surprising how often you win from that position.
Actually Matthew, the same applies to our current Government. They can and do say things like a 30% reduction on 1990 emissions by 2030. But it is a “dynamic” situation and priorities change they would say.
For one thing, the current “dynamic PM” and mates will be long gone and could not be held to anything.
Yes, that’s true too.
The most significant reduction in ghg emissions is in the reduction of ods.
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/environmental-reporting/atmosphere/levels-stratospheric-ozone-indicator/figure-2.gif
The reduction in ODS has provided a climate benefit of a factor of 5 greater then the first commitment period of the Kyoto protocol.
It will be fascinating to see how they propose to achieve this target – I wonder if it will take into account Australian coal exports ?
Under global CC rules, coal is counted where it is burned not where it is mined.
This is the opposite of trees, which are counted where they are cut down (and assumed to immediately turn into a gas) not where they are turned into furniture, paper etc or burned.
So a country that exports lots of coal is seen, under Kyoto rules anyway, as cleaner than one that exports lots of wooden furniture.
Somewhat of a farce then ?
1) What if the furniture exporting country imports the raw materials?
“So a country that exports lots of coal is seen, under Kyoto rules anyway, as cleaner than one that exports lots of wooden furniture.”
How does this follow given 1 above?
Careful – this is Mr Hooton.
No citation means he’s probably lying.
Citation provided, he might still be lying.
He started this thread with a lie.
Motivation? To ridicule the Kyoto protocol and whatever might replace it.
If you believe him, his pay goes up.
If enough of us respond with raspberries, he might just get put on a zero hour contract. đ