Peter Singer - Time For Australia, Howard To Step Up On Climate - SMH

[hatrack]

EDIT

Climate change will be an ecological disaster for Australia. To mention only two of the headline items: the Great Barrier Reef is likely to die, bleached by warmer water; and our unique alpine and sub-alpine plants and animals will disappear as warmer weather and receding snowlines change their habitat. Unlike species in countries with higher mountains, they will be unable to move further up the mountainside. The Labor blueprint calls for Australia to aim for a level of emissions, in 2050, that is 60 per cent below 2000 levels. That is an ambitious, but achievable and laudable, goal. Where the blueprint goes wrong, however, is in suggesting that achieving this target "would mean a good chance of limiting average temperature increases to two degrees, which would prevent the worst effects of dangerous climate change". That ignores the fact that climate change has to be dealt with globally, not nationally.

Despite our very high per-capita level of emissions, Australia's small population means we are responsible for only 1.5 per cent of the planet's total greenhouse gas emissions. So unless the other major emitters of greenhouse gases also make deep cuts in emissions, the situation will continue to worsen. What Australia needs to do, therefore, is the reverse of what the Howard Government has been doing. It needs to stand up and play a constructive role in encouraging the other major greenhouse gas-emitting nations to do something serious about the problem. In particular, Australia needs to make it clear to its long-term ally, the US, that its stance over the past five years has been immoral.

The US, with less than 5 per cent of the world's population, emits about 25 per cent of the world's greenhouse gases. In ethical terms, this means the US is using far more than its fair share of the capacity of the atmosphere to absorb our waste gases. That statement holds true on any plausible criterion of fairness.

When a corporation pollutes a river, we expect the corporation to pay to clean it up, and compensate those affected. If that is a fair principle, then the US should be paying a big slice of the costs of global warming, as it is not only the biggest polluter now, but has been for the past century or more, and most of the gases it has emitted over that period are still in the atmosphere. Or does fairness consist of everyone having an equal share, the rule we use for slicing up a cake if everyone wants as much cake as they can get? By that rule, the US takes about five times as much cake as the world average.

EDIT

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/people-in-greenhouses-should-turn-up-the-heat/2006/04/27/1145861487396.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

[Catamount]

1. As an expat...I agree with everything you're saying,....but getting

Howard to criticize the shrub, is a big laugh.
We need another Whitlam or Bob Hawke don't you think?
Someone who's not afraid to speak up to the big brother USA.
After 17 years away, I hope to live there again one day, I hope to god that a descent opposition party will be in place...if not in power.
Of course I read reports years ago, stating that Australia will be unlivable by 2050.
What do you think?