- It won't solve fundamental problems of pollution.
The Asian Haze which has hovered over most of China for the last few years
was not caused by the developed nations, but mostly by the Chinese. China
must reduce their level of pollution to improve their own country.
- The system is fundamentally unfair.
It sets punitive restrictions on hard-working democracies ('developed
countries') while exempting corrupt dictatorships
('undeveloped countries'). Corrupt dictatorships can pollute as much as
they like, as long as they keep their citizens poor. Hardly a great
motivator for change is it?
- The system is fundamentally unfair.
India is less than half
the area of Australia, yet produces over 2.5 times the amount of
greenhouse emissions. China is about 25% larger
than Australia and produces nine times as much greenhouse emissions. Yet
Kyoto restricts Australia and not India
or China. Punitive restrictions are placed on Australia for maintaining a
small population, while China and India are rewarded for the idiocy of
creating over a billion people in each of theirs. Hardly a great motivator
for environmentally friendly population policies is it?
- The system is fundamentally unfair.
Even if the emissions levels were population based, the formula for
Australia would be wrong. Australia, being spread out, needs greater
transportation to achieve the same standard of living than higher density
nations. People in rural areas have to travel distances to get food and
fuel which Europeans would never dream of. Punitive restrictions are
placed of Australia because Australians have to travel further.
- The system is fundamentally unfair.
Greenhouse caps are related to 1990 emissions levels. Punitive
restrictions exist against countries who were actively controlling
emissions before 1990, while rewarding those who did nothing until after
the 1990 deadline. Hardly a great motivator for countries to control
pollution of their own volition is it?
- It won't stop global warming.
Estimates are that it will only lower the earth's temperature by one degree
by 2100. Hardly Earth-non-shattering is it?
- It will cost the OECD $AUD1.7 Trillion annually
That much money could be used to save many lives, and feed a lot of hungry
people. Letting that many people die to lower the temperature by one
degree is hardly humanitarian.
- The danger from global warming is based on misconceptions.
The media reports that rising sea levels are already swamping many pacific
islands. Sea levels around hard-working democracies (like Australia) rose
between 3mm and 30mm last century. The same sea could hardly have risen
several meters around Tuvalu, but yet this is
taken as gospel by the media.
- The danger from global warming is based on bad Science.
Rising sea levels are a natural phenomena, and have been rising for
millennia. The Aborigines came to
Australia via a land bridge from PNG. The massive sea-level
rise since then was not caused by motor cars or factories.
- It draws attention away from the real issues.
Global warming has become a convenient scapegoat for the corrupt
third-world countries to blame the developed world for their problems.
They will only solve their poverty problems when they address their own
faults. Corruption,
lawlessness, and lack of
secure private
property rights.
