Howard on Kyoto

Garrett clarifies Labor climate stance | The Australian

People like symbolism, there's no doubt about it. This "leading by example" argument for ratifying Kyoto plays well to the public, but surely it only makes some sense if the treaty process is actually working. Do people think China won't notice that the nations signed up to it are achieving nothing?

It would seem that Malcolm Turnbull thinks along the lines of "why should the Liberals (and me in particular) suffer the loss of the electorate's brownie points for the symbolism, even if the thing doesn't work." It makes political sense in a way, but is also quite cynical.

John Howard made the keys points on AM this morning, not that anyone will pay attention:

"Even if all of the countries that signed up to Kyoto had met their targets - which virtually none of them have - the fall in the world emissions on 1990 levels would be 41 versus 42 which is a difference of one per cent,'' he said.

"That is a meaningless outcome because the Kyoto Protocol for all its symbolism has not in practice been effective.

"That is the reason why Australia has not been willing to ratify it, although unlike most of the countries that have ratified it, we are probably going to meet our Kyoto target of 108 (per cent emissions reduction) over 1990 levels.''

Of course, everyone (including Turnbull) should also read the recent Nature article about the failure of Kyoto as well.

In fact, if he hasn't already done so, I don't see why Howard would not be citing this article as supporting what he has long been saying. (And the other thing that needs constant reinforcing is that the government has not ignored making reductions in greenhouse gases even though it did not ratify Kyoto.)