- It allows Australia to participate in carbon credits trading.
Wake up call - producing more CO2 and giving money to other nations can be
done regardless of whether Australia ratifies
Kyoto or not. When was the last time
you saw a corrupt third-world dictatorship refuse money?
- It puts more onus on the richer people in the world.
Getting indirect subsidies from the
hard-working democracies isn't
really going to get the poorer nations face up to the fundamental issue of
why they are poor is it?
- It will help the developing world by preventing the developed world from
expanding their greenhouse emitting industries.
Is the point of Kyoto to lower greenhouse emissions, or encourage the
third-world to produce more of them? Restricting the developed world is
going to move the greenhouse polluting industries to the developing
world. A nice little hidden subsidy for corrupt third-world dictatorships,
but hardly a win for the earth.
- It has become international law, so Australia has to sign.
Rubbish. It will simply be a treaty between those who choose to ratify
it. There is no such thing as International
Law. The only way that Australia could become
obligated to it is if Australia ratified it, in which case it would (by
definition) become Australian law. If Australia doesn't
ratify it, it doesn't become Australian law.
- Refusal will make Australia an international pariah.
That's what they said about a strong border protection policy.
That argument is wearing a little thin, isn't it?
- It's been ratified by the UK.
The US is 50 times the
area of the UK, but only
produces 10 times as much greenhouse emissions. The UK have a formula
that suits them, haven't they? The same applies for most of the European nations.
- It's been ratified by Beijing.
If a corrupt communist dictatorship is in
favor of it, that's a good reason to be suspicious. China has realized that
they have to address the problem with the Asian Haze over their
continent. They think they have found a way to make the developed world
pay for it.
- It will reduce the temperature of the earth.
Maybe it will reduce the earth's temperature by one degree by the year
2100. Hardly a good reason for a century of rationing, is it?
- Even if it is not perfect, at least it's a good start to addressing
global pollution problems.
So let's introduce bad legislation because it gives
us the opportunity to pass good legislation later? Well, why not
just pass good legislation instead?
- Well, it might be useless, but it feels so good.
There are many things which fit into this category. Make a list and choose
those which only involve yourself, or consensual partners.
