bloomberg.com – Oct. 31, 2006:

Australian Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane said the nation wouldn’t sign the Kyoto Protocol, following a report from U.K. Treasury economist Nicholas Stern about emissions-trading.

Emission-trading systems from around the world could be linked using a pool of credits created under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, creating a global carbon price, the report said.

“Kyoto is a scheme that will fail dismally to reach the targets,” Macfarlane told Nine Network television today. “Australia will be the only country in the world without nuclear energy that will reach the Kyoto target.”

Treasurer Peter Costello said there was “no point” in Australia, which accounts for one percent of global emissions, signing an agreement that did not include “major emitters”, like India and China.

“The biggest issue here is to get countries like China and India and other countries, which have huge impacts on the globe, into these international arrangements,” Costello told Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio. “The most significant thing internationally which I think we have to do is we have to bring all of the countries into emissions targeting.”



  1. tallwookie says:

    good for them

  2. tallwookie says:

    “good for them” – detected as spam
    try it again – “youve already said that”

    John, yer blog is brizoken

  3. I thought Bush was evil for not signing this? Was it not during Clintons time too.

    I remember see many articals before bashing Bush for not signing this, and now I see this as a good story? hum

  4. AB CD says:

    No no Clinton signed the treaty on his way out the door. Bush then withdrew the signature. All the bashing was over the withdrawal, or for not following along. Somehow these people think countries should follow treaties that they haven’t signed too.

  5. tallwookie says:

    lol sorry for spam there

  6. MG says:

    I truly feel shame for my country sometimes. A big reason for this is so that the US doesn’t get all the bad press for not signing. Little Johnie Howard sucking up to Bush again!! All for an FTA!

  7. WokTiny says:

    eh… when the leaders lead the followers will follow

  8. OhForTheLoveOf says:

    Clinton did not sign the treaty “on the way out the door” and Bush dis not withdraw the signature. Al Gore “symbolically” signed the treaty, but niether Clinton nor Bush submitted the treay to Congress for ratifacation.

    I am not certain why Clinton never signed or submitted, not do I particularly care to be totally honest. Bush will not submit the treaty to Congress because China and India are exempted from the provisions, and from the “will wonders never cease” department, he’s right.

    Kyoto or not… A nation is a leader in the world by setting the right example. The United States should be leading the world in environmental managment and conseravtion and preservation. We are not, and we set a miserable example. We don’t need this treaty to take care of our own house, but for the treaty to be effective it needs to include China and India. Then Bush can invent another reason not to sign it.

  9. 888 says:

    Finally there is some smart western government looking after the interest of their own nation first 🙂

  10. Jägermeister says:

    USA and Australia… number one and number two…

  11. Rich says:

    Sounds like Macfarlane has remarkable common sense.

  12. Smith says:

    And the reason Clinton never submitted the treaty to the Senate for ratification is because it didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of passing (nor did he want it to pass). It really doesn’t matter if a Democrat is in the White House or which party controls the Senate, ratifying the Kyoto treaty would be political suicide for whichever party was in power at the time.

    The Democrats like to use this issue to thump Bush about the head, but should they take the Senate, you won’t see Reid demanding the treaty be submitted for ratification. For starters, Reid would have to abandon Nevada and allow nuclear waste to be stored at Yucca Mountain.

  13. #4 the bashing was well deserved as that was one of his campaign promises that year.

    When he got into power and did the math seeing how much it would hurt big business he took it back.

    Thats one of the very few times I’ll agree with the environmentalists, if you commit to something if we give you power you should stick by your promise.

  14. AB CD says:

    >that was one of his campaign promises that year.

    No it wasn’t. He specifically said the opposite, that he wouldn’t support Kyoto if China and India weren’t involved. This was in one of the debates, and even Al Gore wouldn’t defend the treaty then.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 5604 access attempts in the last 7 days.