Category: Kyoto Protocol

Twenty three years ago, on this day, February 17th, 2003,

Even though the Kyoto Protocol “does not offer a global solution to climate change,” an Australian government advisory group wants the country to ratify the international climate change agreement anyway.

Why? Because the treaty is a “step towards a global climate change response,” according to a report released Feb. 18 by the Kyoto Protocol Ratification Advisory Group.

Additionally, the cost of meeting the treaty’s first commitment period would be low, with or without Australia’s inclusion, the report noted. However, if Australia ratifies Kyoto, “economic costs associated with meeting the target are estimated to be less than half of the costs that would be incurred if Australia takes action to meet the target from outside the treaty framework,” the report concluded.

The report was prepared in response to a request from the premiers of New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria.

While Australia’s ratification would certainly improve the protocol’s chances of entering into force, the treaty still relies heavily on a pending commitment from Russia, which is responsible for 17.4% of the world’s total emissions. The Russian government had hinted it would ratify the treaty by the end of last year, but that still has not happened.

http://elibrary.cenn.org/Report/Report%20of%20the%20Kyoto%20Protocol%20Ratification.pdf

 AUSTRALIAN GOV’T ADVISORY GROUP WANTS COUNTRY TO RATIFY KYOTO Oxy-Fuel News

Vol. 15, Issue: 9 [Copyright 2003 Chemical Week Associates. All rights reserved.]

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 376ppm. As of 2025 it is 427ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was there seems to have been a concerted push by various entities(stat governments especially)  to make it possible for Australia to ratify the  Kyoto Protocol, even though Howard had ruled it out six months previously. Decisions can be overturned, U turns can be forced. And they’ll have known that. These people will have known that an emissions trading scheme proposal was planned to come forward to a Howard cabinet again (one had been defeated in 2000.)

What I think we can learn from this is that business was severely split, because Kyoto was going to make some of them some money in terms of consultancy fees and all the rest of it for carbon trading. And this is a case where business interests are trying to exert pressure on politicians. Politicians are running for their own show as well. And there’s also the geo-politics with Howard wanting to be absolutely in lockstep with George W Bush. (I mean, essentially, Australia is a US colony, frankly, let’s not kid ourselves.)

What happened next?  The Business Council of Australia had to say they had no position on Kyoto ratification. Howard scuppered an ETS with his own personal veto. And eventually, in ,Australia did ratify Kyoto – for what that was worth. I.e. not much. See also, the academic article “The Veil of Kyoto.” 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Twenty-five years ago, on this day, December 22nd, 1999 the economics editor for the Fin, Alan Mitchell, came out with some truth bombs.

It is unfortunate that political considerations probably mean market-based policies will never play their full role, because the Productivity Commission was right.

Instead of mucking around with regulation and “education and awareness”, or fiddling at the edges with immigration, we should be slapping on a carbon tax.

Notwithstanding the claims of the Australian Industry Group, just jacking up the price of generating greenhouse gases is exactly what we should be doing.

Mitchell, A. 1999. Migrants, Kyoto don’t gel. The Australian Financial Review, December 22, p.16.

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 369ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Australian Institute then run by Clive Hamilton had weighed in on the question of Australia setting very high ambition net immigration targets as potentially a bad thing. There’s been an historical quandary over this for environmentalists. Because if they oppose lots of immigration, they can be accused of being racist and selfish. And if they point out that the main boosters for a big Australia are businesses who want to depress wages and at the same time, increase the market for their products they can be accused of being Marxists, or conspiracy theorists. So they’re in a bit of a cleft stick. 

What we learn – Anyway, what’s interesting here is that the Financial Review’s economics editor pointed out that business was bullshit on this and that a carbon tax was precisely the sort of thing be required if you were going to deal with climate change 

Twenty-five years ago, today, the sin was talking a certain amount of sense on the climate issue. 

What happened next? Mitchell is now at the Sydney Morning Herald.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

December 22, 1759 – “What have ye done?”

December 22, 1975 – “Scientist Warns of Great Floods if Earth’s Heat Rises” (surely “when”?)

December 22, 1978 – UK Energy Department chief scientist worries about CO2 levels and pressure to reduce them…