Archive for December 2nd, 2009

Australia’s Senate voted against the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) as a step toward rejecting U.N. climate change legislation. They are obviously concerned about the implications of complying with the U.N. mandates when its citizens are split on the issue. There’s a huge concern over the cost of such a plan that will tax Australians to fund a cap and trade scheme. However, Australia’s government will seek to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions through a Land Management proposal that will not involve cap and trade.

Well, the Labor Party (liberals) seems to believe that insanity is not defined as “doing the same thing over and over again hoping for a different result”. They are gonna keep throwing this thing against the wall until it sticks or falls apart. Here’s how they put it:

Despite the Senate’s rejection of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme establishing a double-dissolution trigger, Julia Gillard said the government would give the Coalition “one more chance” to change its mind. The Acting Prime Minister said Labor would introduce a new CPRS bill, including amendments agreed to by the Coalition under ousted leader Malcolm Turnbull, to parliament in February in the hope that “calmer heads” within the Coalition would shift their positions.

The Senate’s opposition leader made a great point:

Mr Abbott greeted yesterday’s Senate vote by declaring it had saved Australia from “a great big, new tax” by rejecting the CPRS…he said the Opposition remained committed to an unconditional target of reducing emissions by 5 per cent by 2020

Yesterday, Abbott ousted Malcolm Turnbull and scrapped pro-CPRS policy. However, just like the progressives in the U.S. Federal Government, Labor will not give up as stated by a Labor Party member:

Labor would reintroduce the bill when parliament returned in February, complete with the amendments agreed to by Mr Turnbull before he was dumped by his colleagues.”We are doing this to give the Liberal Party one chance to work through and deal with this legislation in the national interest…”

Well, the legislation will be brought up and voted on in 2010, but the Opposition said it will defeat it. Of course, the Labor Party states they’ll keep bringing it up for a vote until it passes (or falls apart) just to prove they are insane, as aforementioned. Maybe this will affect the U.S.’s position on the U.N. treaty. However, I would vote that insanity prevails.

India re-iterated it’s intention of not signing any binding agreement to cut greenhouse gasses as proposed in the U.N. climate treaty. India and China, two of the largest emitters of greenhouse gas said the effort would stifle their economic prosperity. They would only agree that they will be more receptive to the U.N. goals if the majority cost of the scheme be shouldered by rich countries, like the U.S.  As reported:

In an interview on the CNN-IBN news channel, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said the draft proposal “clearly is unacceptable to us”.

India has said any cap on emissions growth would hamper its rapid economic expansion, which relies on heavily polluting fuels like coal.

India has yet to announce any figures for limiting its carbon output ahead of Copenhagen, but insists it will never accept legally binding emissions targets.

Ramesh said Chinese climate change envoy Xie Zhenhua would soon hand over a more acceptable negotiating draft to Denmark, adding that India stood firm with China, South Africa and Brazil “as far as negotiations are concerned”.

Climate envoys from the four developing countries met in Beijing over the weekend, reiterating their position that developed countries must shoulder most carbon emissions cuts.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said last week that India would “sign on to an ambitious global target for emissions reductions” if rich countries paid more to fund mitigation efforts in the poorer world.

Hopefully, they will continue to reject ad infinitum.

Lou Dobbs, in an interview with Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), discusses Obama’s intentions of making commitments for the U.S. without American’s approval.