No, Andrew - ratifying Kyoto isn't going to automatically cost Australian taxpayers billions

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has ratified the Kyoto Protocol and the Herald Sun's Andrew Bolt is not pleased.

With his typical scaremongering style he trumpets that the Rudd Government has given away Australian taxpayers' money.

"THE instant Kevin Rudd signed the paper on Monday to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, he signed away $150 million of your money.

Or possibly as much as $2.5 billion, if reported leaks from senior government figures are right.

If that's what we lost on just day one of our new Kyoto future, imagine what this will cost us in the years ahead. Apart from our sanity, I mean."

Andrew Bolt's Sun Herald blog last Wednesday:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22870808-25717,00.html

 

Andrew is having a lend of his readers on this issue, because Australia cannot be forced to pay over cash or have money fines imposed for any non-compliance with regard to greenhouse gas emission targets set under the Kyoto Protocol up to 2012.

 

According to compliance provisions of the UN Kyoto Protocol, it will have its targets increased after this if it fails to meet present target commitments.

"In the case of the enforcement branch, each type of non-compliance requires a specific course of action. For instance, where the enforcement branch has determined that the emissions of a Party have exceeded its assigned amount, it must declare that that Party is in non-compliance and require the Party to make up the difference between its emissions and its assigned amount during the second commitment period, plus an additional deduction of 30%.  In addition, it shall require the Party to submit a compliance action plan and suspend the eligibility of the Party to make transfers under emissions trading until the Party is reinstated."

 

If Australia wants to make up the difference in its target shortfall or reduce any penalty target increase for the next commitment period it can of course purchase carbon credits from other member states before 2012.

This would be an entirely voluntary decision.

 

Andrew Bolt may be the most talked about journalist in Australia according to his home newspaper the Herald Sun, but it is for all the wrong reasons. His work belongs in the penny dreadfuls.

 

Kyoto Protocol document:

 http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html

Kyoto Protocol member compliance:

http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/compliance/introduction/items/3024.php

Is there a doctor in the house? This bloke needs one.

There's a little bloke, who's no longer recognised by most Aussies, wearing a name tag that identifies him as 'Johnny Win-some, Lose-a-lot, Rotten-to-the -core, Howard'. This fella, who has emerged on the speakers circuit, is endeavouring to make a name for himself by touting about this, that and other things. The prime 'other things' topic he's on about is how the Liberals can return from their political grave by simply, now get this funny one, behaving themselves.

Johnny Appleseed should stop beating around the bush and start speaking with the lot most responsible for their kamikaze-like performance. For starters, he should take the super dry religious freak David Clarke and his crackpot cronies aside and tell them a few hard facts about life.

Read more about "Behave yourself and you'll win: Howard to Libs" at:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/behave-yourself-and-youll-win-howard/2007/12/08/1196813083754.html

At last. A High Court challenge to NT intervention

A High Court challenge to the Howard Government's Northern Territory 'intervention' is now proceeding.

 

"THE constitutional challenge that former indigenous affairs minister Mal Brough warned could destroy the emergency intervention in the Northern Territory is expected to go before the full bench of the High Court in March.

Traditional owner Reggie Wurridjal and the Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation will challenge the legality of the Commonwealth's five-year acquisition of land under the intervention and question its ability to seize assets of indigenous corporations.

They will also challenge the scrapping of the permit system, which allows indigenous communities to decide who comes in and out."

The Age yesterday:
 http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/high-court-challenge-to-nt-intervention/2007/12/07/1196813026893.html

 

It is noteworthy that this attempt to redress wrongs being done in the name of emergency social intervention is not being undertaken by the new Rudd Government (which has only promised a review of some aspects of the supporting legislation) but by some of the indigenous people most affected.

It is to be hoped that the applicants are able to focus the full attention of the High Court on these matters, for Parliament had certainly lost its wits when these measures were allowed to come into existence.

Pacific solution ends but questions remain

The new Federal Labor Government appears to be moving in the right direction with regard to a more humanitarian stance towards legitimate refugees.

However, I have not heard any mention of changing the status of territories such as Christmas and Cocos Islands which were excised by the Howard Government in its hardline lockout of boat people.

November 24 was about more than WorkChoices, education, health and home affordability. Let's hope that Kevin Rudd remembers this.

Sydney Morning Herald yesterday:
 http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pacific-solution-ends-but-tough-stance-to-remain/2007/12/07/1196813021259.html