Legislation

Home

Legislation

Copenhagen has given us a greater understanding

Monday, 21 December 2009 21:40 By Chris Innis

Copenhagen was a disappointment but to those that have taken a practical view of climate change and climate politics it came as no surprise. In the hands of the UN, climate change politics has always been about aid, not climate. National positions have always been taken and targets set against the demands for compensation or if you like aid. The assumptions that put Kyoto in place, no longer apply, simply because the world has changed since Kyoto. The population and immigration have increased, pollution has increased and the balance of power has moved away from the developed world. The real threat to the environment is in the developing world, not the developed world because it is there that there is the pressure of populltion, corruption (yes a big intangible contributor) and lack of measurement and infrastruture to commit to clean energy projects. As the climate knows no boundaries, so any international agreement should show no lnational boundaries and this idea that one nation has a right to pollute and the other a greater right to pollute because of its past is a nonsense.

Climategate and all that

Monday, 30 November 2009 21:14 By Chris Innis

Climategate is a very good illustration of the morality of our times. The reaction to it across the community illustrates how partisan the debate has become and how as we progress facts and science are being distorted. The debate about climate change is not a debate at all. The climate has always changed, always will change and there is nothing a clever human being can do to stop that. Nothing.

The debate is what is mankind's contribution to climate change, if any, and what is its impact, if any? Further, if there is an impact, does it really matter? If it does, what do we do to mitigate it and how do we as a world mitigate it fairly?

Time for a grand emissions, population bargain at Copenhagen

Thursday, 15 October 2009 00:12 By Chris Innis

We are coming into interesting times. A new climate change deal might be signed by the end of this year and most Governments in the developed world are reconciling themselves to mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases, (it is not just about carbon dioxide), while the environmental lobby continues to say it is not enough. Interestingly, countries like China are saying that they will take a lead on greenhouse emissions and it is looking to rapidly develop renewable technology. China is positioning itself as a leader but the reality is very different, emissions reductions for China are not about climate change, they are about a political and economic imperative. China's development is poisoning its people.

Speaking with many commentators and the growing fleets of experts in the climate sector, there is more talk of population growth

Cash for.....

Wednesday, 26 August 2009 02:46 By Chris Innis

The "cash for clunkers" programme has been an outstanding success and has exceeded the Obama Administration's expectations. Owners of old and generally fuel inefficient cars have been ablle to trade their cars for a new car and receive up to $4,500 in cash. Often the cars had a market value which was much, much less.

The success of the programme has kicked started car sales in the US and created a market where there wasn't one. If this programme worked for cars, might there be other programmes that could be introduced for products that energy inefficient and emit too much carbon dioxide in their use. For example in the residental sector certain types of white goods (fridges and washing machines) and heating systems

A dangerous precedent

Monday, 24 August 2009 00:34 By Chris Innis

Australia has just signed its biggest single deal in resources sector. It is with the Chinese and it will allow the Gorgan Gas Project in Western Australia to go ahead. The size of the deal took the headlines but as the detail emerges, the West Australian and Australian Federal Governments have agreed to underwite the environmental liabilities and specifically around carbon storage. This might be a sign of things to come. It is a dangerous precedent.

Environmental liabilities, if we are serious, should become part of life. An exemption culture or special status culture is not really in anyone's interest. The environment has a cost and it should be applied equally. What Australia has done in its excitement is set a precedent that gives priority to new projects. It might well intended but it is unwise.

More Articles...