UN climate trackers: monitoring for real action

Add a Comment

Comment by Judith Ann Hodgkinson on December 15, 2009 at 15:32

I think Greg Dingle's questions for Louise Hand are so apt!,. He argues the point very well. Louise Hand seems to have her blinkers on when it comes to coal. Or perhaps it's just the coal industry has far too much sway over the Government.

Comment by Greg Dingle on December 15, 2009 at 14:25

Questions for Louise Hand, Australian Climate Negotiator

1. When do global GHG emissions have to peak and begin declining by if the world is to avoid "dangerous climate change"?

2. If carbon capture & storage (CCS) is part of a "suite" of measures for Australia to combat climate change, when will it available on the scale necessary to substantially reduce our GHG emissions?

3. If CCS will not be deployed on the scale necessary to substantially reduce our GHG emissions by the time at which the world's GHG emissions must begin declining, why are we investing in this form of technology above renewable energy technologies that can be deployed today? (e.g. solar thermal)

4. Why is Australia pursuing an agreement to limit global warming to 2 degrees celsius above the global average temperature? Why not 1.5 degrees?

5. Does the Rudd government acknowledge that 2 degrees celsius above the global average temperature is nearly three times the amount of warming we have had to date? (0.6 degress celsius)

Comment by YakShiDeva on December 12, 2009 at 16:09

In the Latrobe Valley (Vic, Australia) the climate skeptics constantly jam the local papers with their cynicism. However, there can be a green solution for the coal industry, why should the coal industry be bailed out by the Rudd government when alternative investment in Green jobs could create a vibrant valley full of potential. We need a strong transition policy to get us away from coal and into renewables, just like Germany did in the Ruhr Valley. Switching off coal and moving to a low carbon economy will take transforming the way we do business in Australia. But given our indulgent lifestyle compared to India, China, Africa etc, we have lots of fat to cut and we can afford to do it. Currently State and Federal support for coal exports undermines the case for climate action at home. Rudd's plans for the doubling of black coal exports and Brumby's recent announcement about brown coal exports to India is something we have to comment on. It's not just about power stations.

Comment by Mike Collins on November 5, 2009 at 9:02

Hey guys.. looks like you're all having fun commenting here!

make sure you check out the latest blog on barcelona and comment there too!
the negotiating team are reading our comments!

Mike

Comment by Dr Chris James on November 5, 2009 at 8:52

It concerns me that climate change is being turned into a debate about nationalism versus one world government. We don't need nationalism, the last two world wars should have taught us that. We don't need one world government either because if globalisation includes respect for others, recipriocity and cooperation then we can beat this pending catastrophe together.

Comment by Caroline Nute on November 4, 2009 at 20:25

I agree, keep politics out of it please. We are talking about reputable scientists that do not have to list their credentials, the world knows their provenance. Tthere will always be skeptics, it is not productive to waste personal energy trying to convine those who will not look at the science and refuse to see the disaster that is already happening in front of their very eyes, ie. glaciers melting, permafrost thawing, ocean acidification, coral bleaching. Not to mention miriad of species becoming extinct and so-called "freak" weather event becoming ever-more frequent so that they are now considered 'normal'. Don't waste your time, or ours, arguing about what we know already. Climate change is already here. What we are trying to avert now is a global catastrophe in our own lifetime.

Comment by Gordon Proudfoot on November 4, 2009 at 19:20

Ron & Pierre,

I think enough has been sid by you both and you are now getting into political arguement.

This site is about climate change etc and not politics.

Gordon

Comment by Ronnie Wright on November 4, 2009 at 18:53

Pierre, there is nothing to debate or to address. The speaker in the video you posted is a right wing extremist, climate change denier, spouting off a bunch of right wing extremist and climate change denier rubbish. His speech is so preposterous that it does not warrant argument.

I’m a 54 year old American that has been in this game for many, many, years so let me fill you in on a few things about US politics. Even the party of the right wing, the Republicans, are now deeply divided as a result of the extremist that have taken over their party. How soon we forget George W. Bush. They are fighting to regain their old party and to rid their ranks of these extremist. And the sooner they do that the better off the entire world will be.

You may not feel that ideology should be involved in this but it was you that posted a speech based on right wing extremist ideology. And, if you were experienced enough with US politics you would have recognized it right away for what it is.

I could go on and on about the extreme right wing talk shows he has appeared on, or how the organizations sponsoring him are all extreme right wing organizations, and how even the language he used is so typical of the extreme right wing. I could point out so many things about him like when he argued that "there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently." but that would just distract me from using my time for what I feel is far more important than arguing about such rubbish.

Ronnie Wright
World Change Cafe

Comment by pierre leblanc on November 4, 2009 at 17:33

you are still calling names. very sad. try to stick to the facts.
as i said before i care not what political commentators think of this speech. it matters to me what i think of it. i don't think you really read my last post thoroughly. you have not addressed my points or my question.

Comment by Ronnie Wright on November 4, 2009 at 8:09

I find it very interesting to see that the entire section on the Christopher Monckton Wikipedia page that describes this speech, which I quoted below, has suddenly been removed from the Wikipedia page by someone last night.

I’ll provide another link that goes into much more detail about the stupid claims of this Right Wing Extremist and Climate Change Denier Christopher Monckton:

PolitiFactCheckCom

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• …
• 14
• Next ›
• Page