Copenhagen Treaty

[Guest]

Will eliminate the Middle Class and make 90% poor by 2030 imho. Whilst the politicians who have been bought by the real Powers that Be will retain and even enhance there own standard of living at our expense.

The draft Copenhagen Treaty

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/conten...gen-treaty.pdf

An article with quotes from the Copenhagen Treaty in bold

Did Lord Monckton Spin the Facts Regarding the Copenhagen Treaty?
by Doug on October 22, 2009 · 1 comment

in Global Warming, UNFCCC Copenhagen Treaty, United Nations

Of course he did. But it does not change the basic facts.

The erudite, articulate British lord has an ax to grind. He is a high profile spokesman for those who believe that mankind flatters itself by taking credit or blame for climate change. The facts were obviously “spun” to make the points he wanted to emphasize, but that does not change the facts. Lord Monckton got the facts right even if his opinions are subject to debate.


I believe, as Lord Monckton apparently does, that the science being cited and manipulated to establish the urgency of “global warming” is flawed. It is being used to further agendas that have nothing to do with global climate concerns. But that is not the point either.

The point is simply this. The basic tenants of the treaty are clear in the limited documentation that exists at this writing. This actual treaty is a work in progress and we will not know the final proposed language until the negotiations are finished, probably just prior to the actual meeting in Copenhagen in December of this year. The existing documents make clear these foundational points:

Developed countries such as the USA bear the responsibility for climate change and owe a “climate debt”, “environmental debt” and an “emissions debt” to the developing countries of the world. We are responsible for paying in full for these countries to develop economically, technologically, environmentally and to do so in an environmentally friendly way. This will result in a vast shifting of wealth from the developed nations to the developing nations, many of which are considered “developing” due to corrupt governments.
The USA and other participating countries will be required to cede some portion of their sovereignty to a newly established world governing body under the auspices of the United Nations, that has the power to make financial demands, levy taxes on our citizens and will have the power of enforcement behind their demands and assessments. It is not certain how far this goes initially, but any ceding of our sovereignty is too much. Conceivably this world governing body would have the power to demand huge reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to the extent it would dramatically affect our quality of life and standard of living, and then to impose severe penalties should we fail to do so.
The treaty will establish something akin to a global “cap and trade” scheme in which initial carbon emissions caps will be established for each participating country, to be ratcheted down over time. Countries can purchase the right to exceed these “carbon budgets” by purchasing the rights of other countries that are not using them. The deck is stacked in favor of developing countries who will have excess carbon budget to sell, thus raising additional funds for their development, mitigation and adaptation.

[Guest]

Continued from above

The first document is ”A Copenhagen Climate Treaty Version 1.0 A proposal for an amended Kyoto Protocol and a new Copenhagen Protocol by members of the NGO community” (Non-governmental organizations associated with the United Nations). Here are some quotes from that document:

Recognizing that the wealthiest and most capable countries should substantially contribute to the financial and technological support required to enable developing countries to pursue a low-carbon development path, stop deforestation and adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate change,

~~~~~

Developed countries and other countries with the capacity to do so shall support the building of adaptive capacity and climate resilience in developing countries, particularly the most vulnerable.

~~~~~

The carbon budget and emissions reduction targets shall be reviewed at regular intervals and in a timely manner, continually strengthened and revised in light of the best available science. Should new and emerging science suggest that more stringent budgets and targets are required to avoid dangerous climate change and ensure the right of all peoples, cultures and nations to survive, these budgets and targets shall be adjusted immediately.

(who determines this? The world governing body, of course.)

~~~~~

A massive scaling up of financial resources, from both the public and private sources, is required in order to adequately, sufficiently and swiftly reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions, ~~~These financial resources should primarily be raised through the auctioning of assigned amount units in a predictable and timely manner.

(This means the US will have to pay the newly established global authority for permission to exceed the carbon budget unilaterally established for them by this global authority thus transferring wealth to the developing nations.)

~~~~~

All institutions, instruments, mechanisms and policies and actions developed
pursuant to this Protocol shall be governed in an open, transparent, fair and effective system under the ultimate authority of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties.

(how is that for the name of the supreme world governing body?)

~~~~~

All industrialized country Parties shall commit to emission pathways that are in
line with limiting global temperature rise to as far below 2° C above pre-industrial levels
as necessary, peaking global GHG emissions in the 2013-2017 commitment period
and staying within the global carbon budget, and to deliver finance and technology
according to their responsibilities and respective capabilities and the needs of
developing country Parties pursuant to the principles and provisions of Article 2.

(Shared Vision). (Hmmm, that sounds familiar “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program.

~~~~~

Any lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason to postpone or scale down action on adaptation.

(yes, let’s ignore the science that fails to support the plan that gives us power)

~~~~~

If the 10% auctioning of AAUs and the levies on international transport prove insufficient
to raise the level of financing required, industrialized countries would be required
to make up the difference in order to ensure that developing countries receive the stable, consistent and predictable financial resources they need.

(blank check!)

The second document is from the UNFGGG entitled: “Reordering and Consolidation of Text in the Revised Negotiating Text” Some pertinent quotes from that document:

Recognizing that current and potential climate change impacts require a shift in the global investment patterns and that criteria for financing allocation shall clearly respond to the priorities identified by the international community, with climate change stabilization being one of these priorities.

(does “shift in global investment patterns” mean a transfer of wealth?)

~~~~~

Acknowledging that current atmospheric concentrations are principally the result of
historical emissions of greenhouse gases, the most significant share of which has originated in developed countries.

(Must be true, Al Gore says the science is settled)

The guiding principles of the Convention should support items b) and c) of the previous paragraph, in terms of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities; historical responsibilities in greenhouse gas emissions and the related historical ecological debt generated by the cumulative greenhouse gas emissions since 1750 and the most recent scientific information.

(Ahh a debt to be paid)

~~~~~

Further acknowledging that developed countries have a historical responsibility for their disproportionate contribution to the causes and consequences of climate change, reflecting their disproportionate historical use of a shared global carbon space since 1850 as well as their proposed continuing disproportionate use of the remaining global carbon space.

As assessed by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report Warming of the climate system, as a consequence of human activity, is unequivocal. [Global atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased significantly because of human activities since 1750.]

(you tens of thousands of lunatic scientists who disagree, shut up and get out of here!)

Current atmospheric concentrations are principally the result of historical emissions of
greenhouse gases, [the largest share of which has originated in] [originating from] developed countries [Parties].

Early and urgent action by all countries on the basis of equity and according to their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities is necessary. [A] [Further] delay by Parties [in implementing their commitments to reduce] [reducing] emissions will increase their climate debt to the developing countries and significantly constrain opportunities to achieve lower stabilization levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and increase the risk of more severe climate change impacts.

(Sounds like a credit scam where the debt never gets paid because it keeps increasing the more you pay)

[Those Parties] whose national circumstances reflect greater [responsibility] and [capability] (USA) [should make a greater contribution to the global effort] to address climate change.

(that pesky Marx again!)

~~~~~

[Recalling Article 3, paragraphs 1 and 5, and Article 4, paragraphs 3 and 7 of the Convention, developed country Parties shall not resort to any form of unilateral measures, including countervailing border measures, against goods and services imported from developing countries on the grounds of protection and stabilization of climate.]

(hey, I thought your new world governing body had authority only to meddle in emissions!)

~~~~~

[Mandatory contributions from developed country Parties (USA) and other developed Parties included in Annex II should form the core revenue stream for meeting the cost of adaptation.

(You mean no choice for the "sovereign" nations who sign?)

~~~~~

The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:

(a) The GOVERNMENT will be RULED by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.

(GOVERNMENT? RULED? DOES THAT INCLUDE ENFORCEMENT BY CHANCE?)

Establishing systems of accountability such as institutional checks and balances and
open administrative systems. Establishing the rule of law through means and processes for enforcement;

(Ahh there it is I know it had to be here somewhere, ENFORCEMENT)

~~~~~


In the light of a shared vision based on historic responsibility/emissions, debt/per-capita emissions convergence/an equitable allocation of a shared atmospheric resource, [and in accordance with the provisions of the Convention,] Annex I Parties shall provide new and additional financial resources to meet the full costs incurred by developing country Parties.

(Another blank check!)

The bottom line is that this treaty is intended to require the signing “Developed Countries” to cede an initial portion of their sovereignty to a global government and confess a debt to the world for all their carbon emissions since 1750. It will require the US to commit to a blank check for whatever it costs to bring the developing nations out of poverty and into developed status. As I mentioned, most of these nations are considered “developing” because of their corrupt governments. We are expected to fund these governments with no way to see that the corrupt governments don’t appropriate this great wealth transfer unto the corrupt souls in power.

We don’t yet know what rules will govern extracting ourselves from the treaty once it is ratified. I imagine it will be next to impossible and there will be large sanctions attached to the exit, if exit is indeed possible.

We must not sign this treaty

[Guest]

Penny Wong already working on this as we speak

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-11949,00.html

Public-private fund for climate change
Michael Sainsbury, China correspondent | October 16, 2009
Article from: The Australian
AUSTRALIANS will help fund developing nations via a mix of public and private "climate finance" for the massive $45 trillion global investment needed to overhaul the world economy to one reliant on low carbon emissions, says Climate Change Minister Penny Wong.

She made the admission following two days of intensive talks with senior Chinese policy-makers in Beijing.

The talks were aimed at a better understanding of China's position and at helping to bridge the gap between China-led developing nations that are still in the process of industrialisation and urbanisation, and rich, developed countries.

Climate finance - which developing nations including China are insisting on - has emerged as a possible deal-breaker at December's Copenhagen climate summit, which will set the framework for the next phase of greenhouse gas reductions.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has suggested joint public-private funding of $US100billion ($109.6bn) per annum would be needed by 2020, while the EU has put forward a figure of E100billion ($163bn) by 2020.

"We understand that financing is part of what will have to be agreed at Copenhagen," Senator Wong said. "We will keep working through the issues with other nations - there is a lot that has to be discussed."

She would not say exactly what form such financing would take, although she stressed that private investment via carbon markets would play a significant role.

"They are issues that would need to be considered after we get further through these multi-lateral negotiations," Senator Wong said. "We do see a very big role for private finance, as in the carbon market.

"This means Australian firms having an incentive to invest in mitigation actions in developing countries. We need to expand those market mechanisms to get the flows of finance moving."

Senator Wong spent yesterday in lengthy meetings with China's main climate tsar, Xie Zhenhua, the vice-minister at the National Development and Reform Commission. She briefed Mr Xie in detail on the Australian government's "schedules" approach.

While developing countries have no commitments, Australia has suggested that developed and developing countries have different schedules of commitments, which may include such things as carbon reduction targets, renewable energy targets and energy efficiency targets.

While she made it clear this is all up for negotiation, Senator Wong said it was important China and other developing nations "internationalise" their domestic actions.

[Guest]

and Kevin Rudd as well

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-16953,00.html

Kevin Rudd's vision for Asia-Pacific community evolves
Patrick Walters, National security editor | October 26, 2009
Article from: The Australian

KEVIN Rudd's concept of an Asia-Pacific community by 2020 has been canvassed at the weekend's East Asia summit in Thailand together with a rival vision from new Japanese leader Yukio Hatoyama.

East Asian leaders meeting in Hua Hin yesterday discussed the broad regional architecture, with the Prime Minister promoting his plan both at the formal leaders' meeting and in a series on bilateral discussions.

"What I detect across the region is an openness to a discussion about how we evolve our regional architecture into the future," Mr Rudd said yesterday.

"It's important that we are in a conscious discussion and a conscious process to evolve options for regional institutions in the future rather than just sitting back and waiting for big problems to emerge."

Mr Hatoyama's plan is for the creation of an East Asian Community based firmly on the existing ASEAN regional institutions, which could exclude the US.

"You might ask Mr Rudd if his idea is more of an institutional approach than a functional approach," Japanese government spokesman Kazuo Kodama told journalists at the summit.

Mr Rudd also took the opportunity to lobby regional leaders on his plan in a series of bilateral talks with heads of government from South Korea, Japan, New Zealand and The Philippines.

Mr Rudd also announced Australia would provide $50 million to help deploy civilian experts into disaster and conflict zones in the Asian region.

"The government will create a register of up to 500 Australian specialists who will be able to be deployed overseas at rapid notice.

"They will be drawn from both the public and private sectors," he said.

Mr Rudd also confirmed the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand free trade agreement, signed this year, will formally come into force on January 1.

The agreement between the 10 ASEAN economies and Australia and New Zealand brings closer together 12 regional economies, with more than 600 million people and a combined GDP of $3.1 trillion.

Mr Rudd said the agreement would cover 20 per cent of Australia's two-way trade, worth $112 billion, and eliminate tariffs on 96 per cent of our exports to ASEAN nations by 2020.

The FTA covers tradable goods as well as services, investment, intellectual property and e-commerce.

The nations covered by the AANZFTA are the 10 ASEAN member states: Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Burma, The Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam, as well as Australia and New Zealand.

On Saturday, Mr Rudd met Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao to discuss the proposed Asia-Pacific community as well as the upcoming Copenhagen climate summit and bilateral issues, including the case of Stern Hu, the senior Rio Tinto executive held in detention by Chinese authorities since early July.

Mr Rudd said the Hu case was the subject of "intense and continuing discussion between the foreign ministries of China and Australia".

"My purpose in raising these matters today was simply to highlight the fact that this was a continuing matter of concern to Australia, and I will continue to do so in the future," he said.

Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said yesterday that bilateral relations with Beijing were getting back to "business as usual" in the wake of the Hu case.

"Whilst we've had some significant tensions in the relationship, we believe very much in the last month or so things are getting back to business as usual, and that's a very good thing with a very important relationship," Mr Smith said.

"We continue to urge the Chinese authorities to bring this matter to a conclusion as quickly as possible, to expedite it."

[Guest]

And the ratcheting of the fear campaign just before copenhagen begins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDn5Xq-hVEo

Above ad made by the British Government

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-11949,00.html

British PM Gordon Brown ramping up the scare campaign

No plan B for planet, Gordon Brown to warn nations
Print Jack Malvern | October 19, 2009
Article from: The Times
BRITAIN faces a catastrophic future of deadly heatwaves, floods and droughts if efforts to secure a new global climate change deal fail, Gordon Brown will warn today.

In a bleak message to representatives of 17 leading nations, who have gathered in London in advance of the UN-sponsored climate summit in Copenhagen in December, Mr Brown will say that there is "no plan B" if negotiators fail to reach a deal.

With fewer than 50 days to go until the summit, concerns remain that international wrangles over emission cuts' targets will end in deadlock.

Mr Brown, who has pledged to attend the summit in person, will renew his call to fellow world leaders to speed up efforts to iron out their differences.

"If we do not reach a deal at this time, let us be in no doubt: once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement, in some future period, can undo that choice," he will tell the Major Economies Forum.

The Prime Minister will say that by 2080 an extra 1.8 billion people - a quarter of the world's current population - could lack sufficient water. Making reference to the summer heatwave of 2003 in Europe, which led to more than 35,000 extra deaths, he will say: "Such an event could become quite routine in Britain in just a few decades' time".

Agreement at Copenhagen "is possible", he will add. "But we must frankly face the plain fact that our negotiators are not getting to agreement quickly enough. So I believe that leaders must engage directly to break the impasse.

"If we falter, the Earth itself will be at risk ... For the planet there is no plan

[Guest]

Arctic to be ice-free in summer in 20 years


Print Ben Webster | October 16, 2009
Article from: The Australian
SHIPS will be able to sail in open water to the North Pole in the summer of 2020, according to a study that found a rapid acceleration in the loss of sea ice.

The Arctic will be ice-free in summer within 20 years, the study found, while Earth will lose its white cap that can be seen from space.

The Polar Ocean Physics Group from Cambridge University compared measurements of ice thickness recorded by a British Royal Navy nuclear submarine with those taken two years later by explorer Pen Hadow.

The sets of measurements were consistent, revealing the findings by HMS Tireless in 2007 were not an aberration caused by a particularly warm year.

Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at Cambridge, said cargo ships would no longer need to rely on special ice-breaking vessels to cross from the Pacific to the Atlantic via the Northwest Passage. The route would be ice-free for months every year, cutting more than 4800km from the normal journey from East Asia to Europe via the Suez canal.

"The North Pole will be exposed in 10 years. You would be able to sail a Japanese car carrier across the North Pole and out into the Atlantic," Professor Wadhams said. "The ice will retreat to a zone north of Greenland and Ellesmere Island by 2020 and that area will be less than half the present summer area. The change in the Arctic summer sea ice is the biggest impact global warming is having on the physical appearance of the planet."

This month, the National Snow and Ice Data Centre, which is part of the University of Colorado, said Arctic ice coverage was the third-lowest since satellite records began in 1979. The coverage was greater than in 2007 and last year largely because of cloudy skies during late summer. Each of the past five years has been one of the five lowest years.

Professor Wadhams, who was on board the submarine supervising sonar measurements of the ice, said Mr Hadow's findings confirmed the underlying trend was towards increasingly thin and patchy ice cover.

Mr Hadow and his two team members spent 73 days between March 1 and May 7 this year walking 450km across the Arctic while taking measurements. They drilled 1500 holes and found the average thickness of ice floes was 1.8m. This was too thin to have survived the previous year's summer melting and indicated the ice had been formed in open sea during the winter.

Mr Hadow said future expeditions to the Arctic in summer would need to change their techniques and equipment to cope with more frequent stretches of open water. "A hundred years ago, explorers used dogs to haul sledges and then we went through the stage of people hauling sledges," he said. "Now we have people wearing immersion suits and needing to swim, with the sledge floating. I foresee a time when the sledge will become more of a canoe."

Martin Summerkorn, climate change adviser to the WWF Arctic Program, said the loss of sea ice predicted by the study would have profound consequences beyond the polar region.

Without ice to reflect sunlight, the Arctic Ocean would warm faster, resulting in the release of greenhouse gases stored in the Arctic permafrost soils. These soils contain twice as much carbon as is in the atmosphere.

Mr Summerkorn said the warming of the Arctic surface waters would accelerate the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, speeding up the sea-level rise.

"This could lead to flooding affecting one quarter of the world's population and extreme global weather changes," he said.

The Times

Ice Caps Melting or

[Guest]

or increasing

World News
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574...57-401,00.html

News

Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away
By Greg Roberts
The Australian
April 18, 2009 11:52am

ice is expanding in much of the Antarctic, experts say / Reuters
Ice expanding in much of Antarctica
Eastern coast getting colder
Western section remains a concern
ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast.

Antarctica has 90 per cent of the Earth's ice and 80 per cent of its fresh water, The Australian reports. Extensive melting of Antarctic ice sheets would be required to raise sea levels substantially, and ice is melting in parts of west Antarctica. The destabilisation of the Wilkins ice shelf generated international headlines this month.

However, the picture is very different in east Antarctica, which includes the territory claimed by Australia.

East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades".


Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.

"Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Dr Allison said.

The melting of sea ice - fast ice and pack ice - does not cause sea levels to rise because the ice is in the water. Sea levels may rise with losses from freshwater ice sheets on the polar caps. In Antarctica, these losses are in the form of icebergs calved from ice shelves formed by glacial movements on the mainland.

Last week, federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett said experts predicted sea level rises of up to 6m from Antarctic melting by 2100, but the worst case scenario foreshadowed by the SCAR report was a 1.25m rise.

Mr Garrett insisted global warming was causing ice losses throughout Antarctica. "I don't think there's any doubt it is contributing to what we've seen both on the Wilkins shelf and more generally in Antarctica," he said.

Dr Allison said there was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting. "The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west," he said. And he cautioned that calvings of the magnitude seen recently in west Antarctica might not be unusual.

"Ice shelves in general have episodic carvings and there can be large icebergs breaking off - I'm talking 100km or 200km long - every 10 or 20 or 50 years."

Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.

A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.

[Guest]

Rudd deadset keen to see the Copenhagen Treaty signed and ratified. I think he sees himself as a future Supreme Leader of the Asian Community.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-11949,00.html

Australia to act as deal broker at Copenhagen climate talks
Print Samantha Maiden, Online Political Editor | October 27, 2009
Article from: The Australian
KEVIN Rudd has declared the road ahead to a deal at the Copenhagen climate change talks will be "rough" and revealed Australia will play a key role.

The Prime Minister has told Labor MPs at a caucus briefing today that Denmark has proposed Australia play a leadership role at the conference, acting as a “friend of the chair” for the purposes of negotiating agreement at the meeting.

Mr Rudd has also revealed “difficult” negotiations are playing out at officials levels and that the deadlock over a carbon pollution reduction scheme remained the most significant debate looming over the final three weeks of Parliament.

The government is pressing the Coalition to cut a deal on an emissions trading scheme ahead of talks in Copenhagen, arguing it would assist Australia's negotiating position if Mr Rudd and Climate Change Minister Penny Wong arrived at the meeting with an ETS agreement for Australia in place.

Australia will join Mexico and the UN secretary-general as a friend of the chair in helping to build consensus over greenhouse gas emissions targets at the meeting.

Mr Rudd told Parliament the decision for Australia to act as a “friend of the chair” followed a request from the Danish Prime Minister.

“Prime Minister Rasmussen - as chair of the Conference of Parties - has asked a number of leaders to work closely with him in the lead up to Copenhagen,’’ he said.

“The leaders engaged by Prime Minister Rasmussen will conduct regular discussions in the lead up to Copenhagen focused on delivering effective action on climate change.

“Leaders' engagement is critical to increase political momentum towards Copenhagen; to capture commitments already made in an ambitious and comprehensive political agreement at Copenhagen; and to guide ongoing negotiations towards a rapid completion of a global treaty.”

Mr Rudd has also used today's party room meeting to accuse the Coalition of playing “dog whistle” politics over claims asylum-seekers are diseased or potential terrorists, stressing Labor will continue to take a hard line on people-smugglers but offer a “humane” response to asylum-seekers.

In a call to action on climate change ahead of the Copenhagen talks, Mr Rudd also raised a parliamentary report that today warned rising sea levels threatened thousands of kilometres of coastline as more evidence Australia needed to act.

But the Coalition has argued that Parliament should not decide on targets for an emissions trading scheme until it is clear from the Copenhagen talks what action the world plans to take.

Opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull has however offered to negotiate in good faith with the government if it chooses to reintroduce legislation on an ETS before the December talks.

Earlier today, Climate Change Minister Penny Wong conceded an emissions trading scheme won't stop sea levels rising in Australia without global action.

“This is one of the consequences of climate change and we simply can't ignore it,” she told Radio 2UE.

“It confirms the sorts of impacts that we risk. (But) It has to be part of a global solution, we've always said that.

“It is the case that scientists vary in terms of the extent of sea level rise.”

Asked if the government would move to block future coastal developments, Senator Wong said “we need to take a cooperative and coordinated approach”.

“Obviously what governments need to do at all levels is to act on this risk. These are scientific assessments of potential risks and we would be I think irresponsible as politicians to pretend these risks don't exist. That's why we've got to act now. Because of course we know the impacts will worsen if we don't act.”

Nationals Senate leader Barnaby Joyce, a climate change sceptic, dismissed suggestions the report is evidence the Senate should support an emissions trading scheme.

“If we end up with an ETS the sea levels will still rise, you will just have a massive tax when you try and rebuild,” Senator Barnaby Joyce said.

[melon....]

Remember teh days when Greenies and Leftists marched and protested against Globalisation? The only way a New World Order Big Brother could be formed was to win teh gullable Greens and Leftists over. They are doing this by Lying about the environment. They have won the foolish over. They will get their World Order in.

One big government watching your every move and taxing the very air you breath.

Welcome to George Orwell's world.

Welcome to 1984.

High priests like Obama and Rudd must be opposed if not stopped. The Opposition here is weak. They want a part of the New World Order. Personally I would fight it. If it steam rolled over me then fine...I cant live under a dictatorship, under communism. I value my freedom too much.

Oh and one other thing. Wong needs to be removed. Seas dont rise because of melting ice. Seas rise because of seismic activity and tectonic movement. Im absolutely agasp at how Australia has allowed someone like Wong who hasnt got a clue, to set the scene. I hope the Opposition shut her plans down in the Senate. This madness she sells must be stopped.

[Guest]

The thing is Turnbull is as much a part of this as Rudd imho. He is a chardonnay socialist, he drafted the initial ETS when he was environment minister in the Howard government. He recently said we should wait until America had voted there Cap and Trade system through, the one that was crafted and endorsed by Goldman Sachs Bank, the one that will allow them and other big banks to make obscene profits through Carbon Trading. Money which will indirectly come from all our pockets. Funnily enough Turnbull worked for Goldman Sachs. The same Goldman Sachs that has previous employees in various important government positions around the world.

As a long time Liberal voter I will not be voting for them at the next election with Malcolm Turnbull as leader or whilst they have there current climate change policy.

[Guest]

The British Government is full of these progressive idiots

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...39-601,00.html

Drop meat for vegetarian diet to fight climate warming: Lord Stern
Robin Pagnamenta | October 27, 2009
Article from: The Times

PEOPLE will need to turn vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change, according to a leading authority on global warming.

Lord Stern said: "Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world's resources. A vegetarian diet is better."

Direct emissions of methane from cows and pigs is a significant source of greenhouse gases. Methane is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas.

Lord Stern, the author of the influential 2006 Stern Review on the cost of tackling global warming, said that a successful deal at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December would lead to soaring costs for meat and other foods that generate large quantities of greenhouse gases.

He predicted that people's attitudes would evolve until meat eating became unacceptable.

"I think it's important that people think about what they are doing and that includes what they are eating," he said. "I am 61 now and attitudes towards drinking and driving have changed radically since I was a student. People change their notion of what is responsible. They will increasingly ask about the carbon content of their food."

Lord Stern, a former chief economist of the World Bank and now I. G. Patel Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics, warned that British taxpayers would need to contribute about pounds 3 billion a year by 2015 to help poor countries to cope with the inevitable impact of climate change.

He also issued a clear message to President Obama that he must attend the meeting in Copenhagen in person in order for an effective deal to be reached. US leadership, he said, was "desperately needed" to secure a deal.

He said that he was deeply concerned that popular opinion had so far failed to grasp the scale of the changes needed to address climate change, or of the importance of the UN meeting in Copenhagen from December 7 to December 18.

"I am not sure that people fully understand what we are talking about or the kind of changes that will be necessary," he added.

Up to 20,000 delegates from 192 countries are due to attend the UN conference in the Danish capital. Its aim is to forge a deal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to prevent an increase in global temperatures of more than 2C. Any increase above this level is expected to trigger runaway climate change, threatening the lives of hundreds of millions of people.

Lord Stern said that Copenhagen presented a unique opportunity for the world to break free from its catastrophic current trajectory. He said that the world needed to agree to halve global greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 to 25 gigatonnes a year from the current level of 50 gigatonnes.

UN figures suggest that meat production is responsible for about 18 per cent of global carbon emissions, including the destruction of forest land for cattle ranching and the production of animal feeds such as soy.

Lord Stern, who said that he was not a strict vegetarian himself, was speaking on the eve of an all-parliamentary debate on climate change. His remarks provoked anger from the meat industry.

Jonathan Scurlock, of the National Farmers Union, said: "Going vegetarian is not a worldwide solution. It's not a view shared by the NFU. Farmers in this country are interested in evidence-based policymaking. We don't have a methane-free cow or pig available to us."

On average, a British person eats 50g of protein derived from meat each day - the equivalent of a chicken breast or a lamb chop. This is a relatively low level for a wealthy country but between 25 per cent and 50 per cent higher than the amount recommended by the World Health Organisation.

Su Taylor, a spokeswoman for the Vegetarian Society, welcomed Lord Stern's remarks. "What we choose to eat is one of the biggest factors in our personal impact on the environment," she said. "Meat uses up a lot of resources and a vegetarian diet consumes a lot less land and water. One of the best things you can do about climate change is reduce the amount of meat in your diet."

The UN has warned that meat consumption is on course to double by the middle of the century.

[Kingbilly]

Remember teh days when Greenies and Leftists marched and protested against Globalisation? The only way a New World Order Big Brother could be formed was to win teh gullable Greens and Leftists over. They are doing this by Lying about the environment. They have won the foolish over. They will get their World Order in.

There in lies the truth.
It is vitally important that we treat the earth and environment with respect and anything we can do towards this must be based on truth and being sensible.

Copenhagen is showing that the "global warming" is a lie and a smokescreen for economic despots. Its actually quite clever they have indoctrinated schools and the media and half the world believed the ravings of that complete lunatic Al Gore, the self confessed inventor of the internet

Then you have someone trying to outdo Gore in the lunacy stakes in Lord Stern.

I will finish with a quote from one of the great minds of our time, never more should it become a catch cry of the common man fighting against imbreds and tyrants.

"You don't win friends with salad" - Homer Simpson

[Guest]

Seas dont rise because of melting ice. Seas rise because of seismic activity and tectonic movement.

Melon and others, let me just say that I am no scientist or profess to know anything better than what you might point out to me, but I think it is an interesting debate.

What study have you done to come to the conclusion on the statement above? It seems to me that most people have their mind made up on the subject and of course they can find, quote, submit all types of evidence to show that the other side is wrong.

I am still undecided on the whole issue but I do wonder that if we do nothing and they those that have warned us are right, what then? Do the sceptics have the right to complain the governments did not do enough? Do we complain when we have erratic weather and it affects the way we live and the food we produce (or lack of it)?

Dr Karl says that when getting the facts that you should listen to the experts. If you wanted a plumber to do some work, would you get a builder in? Although a builder would probably be able to get the job done, he is no plumbing expert.

The same is with getting the info on climate change. Meteroligsts, viroligists, botanists, metallurgists, geoligists and physicists are all scientists but they are not experts in the fielf of climatology. The only true experts in this field are climatologists.

I am sure there are a HEAP of examples of climatologists that state that climate change is a myth but they would be in the minority?

So if the burning of fossil fuel is not a factor, fossil fuel will run out eventually. What happens then? We bitch and moan when the petrol prices go up now. When it hit $1.50 we were crying blue mrder. Eventually it will get so expensive that only the wealthy will be able to afford it. With a shortage of fuel, the economy crashes. They are talking about "peak oil" now or in near future.

I think that even if they are wrong on climate change that by taxing those that create it, will cause companies to devise better ways to live. This then reduces our dependance on fossil fuel. The only way to get people to change their ways to hit them in the hip pocket and then they do things smarter or look for an alternative.

I am not saying I will be happy with energy costs going up but if we do nothing, that is what will happen. I would like my kids and their kids to live in a world that is better and cleaner than the one we live in today.

A mate of mine that works within mining industry sent me this. It is pretty interesting. It is not to convince you either way...

It is titled: Global warming might be solved with a helium balloon and a few miles of garden hose

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...59234318.html#

[Guest]

Funny thing is that when it was found that the Earth has cooled over the past decade and that their modeling failed they changed from using Global Warming term to Climate Change. That should be a huge RED FLAG to anyone of common sense.

JohnL

I think this is in part due to dwindling natural resources and an effort by the mega rich to retain there standard of living by lowering everybody elses and controlling us by using the politicians that have been bought and sold.

Thanks for the article that shows that when a solution is proposed for the so called problem Al Gore and his ilk call it nuts. The reason Al Gore does not want a solution is because he has setup a Carbon Trading company with 3 former Goldman Sachs bankers that will make him a billionaire.

[TheLoneRooster]

Nice to see others with their eyes wide open - it gives me hope.

See my signature ...