Despite Warning On Reef Death, Australia Will Not Sign Kyoto

[hatrack]

SYDNEY, Australia (AP) -- Australia will not sign the Kyoto pact on global warming, despite a new report that warns rising ocean temperatures will kill most of the coral on the Great Barrier Reef by 2050, an official said Sunday.

In the report, Queensland University's Center for Marine Studies said the Pacific Ocean is getting too warm too fast for the world's largest chain of living coral to survive. The Worldwide Fund for Nature and Queensland state's main tourism body commissioned the report, which was partly funded by the government.

EDIT

Coral cover will decrease to less than 5 percent on most reefs by the middle of the century, under even the most favorable assumptions," said the study, excerpts of which were published in the weekend edition of The Sydney Morning Herald. "There is little to no evidence that corals can adapt fast enough to match even the lower projected temperature rise," it said.

EDIT

A spokesman for the Environment Ministry said Sunday that the report was "a good contribution to debate about the reef from a constructive organization." However, speaking on condition of anonymity, he said it did not change the government's view that it should not sign the Kyoto pact because it is not a global treaty. The United States and Russia have not yet ratified the treaty."

EDIT

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/02/22/australia.reef.ap/

[Renew Deal]

1. This is Bush's fault

The fucking prick won't sign the treaty. That's partly why all those scientists blasted him this weekend.

[grab bag]

2. Bush is KILLING the Great Barrier Reef on purpose!!

Because he gets no support from down under.

[foreigncorrespondent]

4. Get your facts right, mate.

Howard happens to be a staunch supporter of Bush* even when their is strong opposition from the people of this country. You better get your facts right before spouting off dribble like that. Sheesh!

[Muddleoftheroad]

8. Kyoto is a disaster

The Senate would never approve it. Clinton's support was politics, not policy.

[dudeness]

12. ummm...how is it a disaster muddle?

1. The Parties included in Annex I shall, individually or jointly, ensure that their aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the greenhouse gases listed in Annex A do not exceed their assigned amounts, calculated pursuant to their quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments inscribed in Annex B and in accordance with the provisions of this Article, with a view to reducing their overall emissions of such gases by at least 5 per cent below 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008 to 2012.

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

I hope i read your post incorrectly and misunderstood it..

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. It is not equal to all nations

China, India and third world nations don't face the same constraints. First world nations like the U.S. would be devastated by this.

Note the line you quote (thanks, btw): "reducing their overall emissions of such gases by at least 5 per cent below 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008 to 2012."

Considering U.S. emissions have INCREASED during that time a fair amount, this would be a huge rollback. I am pro-environment, but a bad treaty that would devastate our economy is still a bad treaty.

Seems to me that our economy is already bad enough without this. Thankfully, ALL of the Senate agreed on this. I think the last vote was 97-0 against Kyoto.

[Violet_Crumble]

17. It would mean the US being involved in a multilateral agreement...

And that would be a disaster to those who live by the creed that the US, because of its power, shouldn't have to play by the same rules as every other state, and that unilateralism is shit hot. Cooperating with other states?? No way!! Who is that damned international community to try to tell the US what to do?? (Of course these words must be uttered with head firmly implanted in closest sandpit so the utterer can stay totally oblivious that the nature of international agreements isn't 'telling the US what to do' but cooperation amongst responsible states that are trying to avert environmental catastophes such as that of the vanishing Barrier Reef)...

It doesn't surprise me in the least that the US is a notable holdout on the Kyoto Protocol. After all, it took the US many, many, many years to ratify the Genocide Convention, and even then they watered it down so much it's virtually worthless...


Violet...

[dudeness]

18. took the words right out of my mouth

thanks violet..

[Wickerman]

3. I was thinking about Kyoto

today when I was sweepign out our garage (unrelated). And I wondered - hell we don't actually make anything in the US anymore - why won't Bush sign the damn treaty?

Then others could sign on and that would make it more expensive for them to build stuff and we could compete with the two or three factories we have left.

[foreigncorrespondent]

5. Hoard won't sign...

...because he is Bush*s lap dog, but come next election Howard will be out. He has done far too much damage.

[FDRrocks]

6. Is this the same guy

That told Iraq War protestors in Australia to shut up? What a piece of shit.

[foreigncorrespondent]

7. It most certainly is.

He is a washed up piece of shit as far as I am concerned. And many of my country folk the same way as I do.

Howard signed his political death warrant the moment he sold Australia out to Bush* and his evil regime.

[thefencehurts]

9. Awww..

Howard isn't that bad really. Yes, he's Bush's lapdog, and yes his attitude to Medicare is shocking, but in general, he isn't too bad. I hope that Latham gets in later this year though.

[Eureka]

11. Hi thefencehurts

Welcome to DU (from Qld, but you get the idea :-). Usually folks are welcoming me, and I haven't welcomed anyone yet, but I'm feeling brave because of my newly aquired star.

[dudeness]

13. welcome to DU

:)

[Eureka]

10. country folk.....

Hi foreigncorrespondent

What I find interesting is that if you change your sentence from

"And many of my country folk the same way as I do."

to

"And many of THE country folk the same way as I do."

it still holds true, and not wishing any offence, but once the rural (typically Lib/Nat ) voters turn against them they are in a fair bit of trouble.

And, in case you have a tinfoil hat, do you think they have agreed to this dirty little "free" trade thing as a great way to ensure the Nats disappear at the next election? Surely the Nats will be punished in the rural seats not the Libs in the city, and if the libs are out anyway, it would be much easier for the libs to retake the seats from the left than from the right at the next election. Lucky it's too hot for foil in Qld :-)

[thefencehurts]

14. Thanks for the Welcome

I don't think the NAt's are of enough importance on a national level for the libs to be willing to do that.

[foreigncorrespondent]

15. I wouldn't put anything...

...past the Howard government. But then again, I didn't get very much sleep last night, and my mind isn't ticking over so quick this evening. LOL I am leaving typos all over the place. LOL

Yes I hear it is way too hot for tin foil in QLD at the minute. Send some my way will ya? LOL Although it wasn't really cold today, and by the end of the week Melbourne will be a lot warmer again.

Great name BTW!