Five percent.
I don't need to say much beyond what I've already said. There is one thing worth noting, though, which I haven't seen mentioned yet. Traditionally when these figures are discussed one uses 1990 as a baseline, in accordance with the starting date of the Kyoto protocol. The five percent reduction, however, is based on Australia's emissions in 2000.
According to Wikipedia, "Analysis has projected Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions at 109% of the 1990 emissions level over the period 2008–12 ... This is slightly above its 108% Kyoto Protocol limitation."
AIDS, war, famine, and some pretty horrible governments. Looking forward you can add global warming and ethanol-induced rises in the cost of food. That last was probably the dumbest idea the environmental movement has ever advocated (back-to-nature communes didn't result in too many deaths).
There's an interesting critique of this graph
here, which doesn't question the figures - they come from the World Bank - but points out that it isn't a universal picture of Africa. Still - this graph made me feel sick.
Rudd et al have gone from calling climate change the "great moral challenge of our generation" to saying that Australia wouldn't do very much unless developing nations came on board, to now saying that no matter what developing nations agree to, we're still
not going to do very much:
It is expected the Government, in its white paper to be published next Monday, will aim to reduce greenhouse gases by 2020 by between 5 per cent and 15 per cent. The final figure will be set after an international meeting on climate change in Copenhagen late next year, when the intentions of the rest of the world will be better known ... A Chinese adviser in Poznan warned at the weekend that Australia would derail global climate talks if it stayed with a maximum target of 15 per cent for cutting greenhouse emissions.
It was nice that Rudd and Co ratified the Kyoto Protocol, but perhaps they should have read it first. Like this bit:
1. The Parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Accordingly, the developed country Parties should take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof. (my emphasis)
If you still think this government is in any sense green or concerned about climate change, consider this: they are way to the right of
Arnold Schwarzenegger on this issue.
