Labor's position on climate change not extreme: Rudd

Federal Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd has rejected Government claims that Labor has an extreme position on climate change.

Both sides agree on the need for a carbon trading system, but the Federal Government has not revealed what its greenhouse reduction target is and will not until after the election.

Mr Rudd says the delay exposes the Government as not being serious on the topic.

"We have someone who is still a climate change sceptic pretending to be part of the climate change solution, and evidence of that pretence is the absence of a clear-cut carbon target," he said.

--------------------

Gus: all the rest of this ABC article on what the government has said is simply just lies... LIES! For example: "Prime Minister John Howard says Labor environment spokesman Peter Garrett supports a 20 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020." but Peter Garrett never did say that.... So John Howard is again at his lying best — telling fibs, porkies, tall tales at every street corners and getting his team to do the same and tarnish Rudd with things that are untrue. The same about the economy. Rudd's team can do and will do a finer job than the Liberal potato scrooges. At least getting rid of Johnnee will be a step in the right direction.

And I must say I have been deeply disappointed, actually deeply disgusted by Malcolm, the spinning wind-vane Minister for Dripping Taps, Deforestation and Whaling. I expected a bit better from him but he caught the Johnnee bug of talking crap.

"On Macquarie Radio, federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull attacked Labor for promising to cut its emissions by 60 per cent by 2050.

"It is fanatically motivated," he said.

"They are obsessed. It has become a new religion for them."

Mr Rudd says his plan to cut emissions is scientifically-based and similar goals are set elsewhere in the world."

Gus: If this pretty-boy Minister for the ENVIRONMENT CAN'T SEE that global warming is a SERIOUS issue, then he should go. Global warming is even more of a big problem than our most extreme scientists can even think of. In fact if the temperature this year goes above 0.1 of average since 1860, we are in deep deep trouble. So far, the temperature average is most likely to be 0.5 above average and already the month of may has been 2.5 degrees above average. Winter in Europe has been 2.5 degrees above average... This is a GLOBAL PHENOMENOM. Some climatologist will fudge an El Nino-La Nina trend away from global warming to justify their existence and some people may not see this as a trend but it is global warming, despite El Nino-La Nina... and a swiftly deadly trend at that. In ten years' time the temperature could be as high as 5 degrees above average under such trend... (Am I nuts?... No!) Imagine a summer with a few more days at 45 degrees in Sydney and may be a few edging 50 in the shade. Unthinkable? Think again... All the talks amongst governments around the globe at the moment are geared to stop global warming at 3 degrees above average by 2100. The leaders think that this can be achieved by reducing CO2 emissions by at least 60 per cent of 1990s levels by 2050. Rudd IS ON THE MONEY...

Between you, me and a lamp-post, this will never be achieved and the target is TOO CONSERVATIVE. But the Liberals still want to frolic in the sun until it's too hot to play cricket...

Imagine for a second that the global temperatures are only rising 0.1 degree per year... By 2100, temperatures would be in the vicinity of 10 degrees higher than they are now. This is no fantasy, this is the horrible reality we are facing. The global temperatures are presently conservatively rising three times as fast as the best computer model could predict at the beginning of the decade.

So let me beg... Please oh please!, (I am on my knees) let's get rid of Johnnee!!! Then we can move in earnest to save the planet and ourselves as much as possible, in the shortest of time... Not by nuclear energy — a source that will create much bigger problems down the track — but by renewable, geothermic and reduction in consumption of energy.. FULL STOP. Am I angry enough? Sure...

Until Howard and his bedfellow Bushit are removed from the levers of humanity — hogging the doona of "who can you trust to blah blah... economy blah blah" — spruiking porkies like con artists, we are in trouble. They lied to go to war, they lied about refugees, they lied about Medicare, they lied about most things and they are lying about their global warming understanding. THEY HAVE NO BLOODY CLUE.

They have to be thrown out. OUT! O-U-T! schnell!!!..

Switkowski backs Labor's emissions target

The head of the Federal Government's inquiry into nuclear energy, Ziggy Switkowski, has backed the Opposition's target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Labor has committed to a 60 per cent reduction from 1990 emission levels by the year 2050.

The Government says it will commit to a target, but not until after the election.

The Government has also criticised Labor's approach, saying it threatens the economy.

Dr Switkowski has told ABC TV's Lateline that Labor's target is appropriate provided it is done as part of a global framework.

"If the world, the community of high emitting nations in particular, achieve that target then we will collectively benefit from a stabilisation of global warming and leave the global climate in reasonable circumstance," he said.

Dr Switkowski says Labor's target is backed by science, but it is no use unless the rest of the world joins in.

----------------------

Gus: that's the problem... All the people with the power to do something do nothing because of the caveat that some one else has to do it as well (and the economy, you know...). That's crummy leadership from the hindsight. And we can't count on the USA for an ounce of adequate policy. By the time, our moronic leaders agree to do something relevant, they'll be old bleached bones in the sun, after the usual worming. We old folks will be too, but we know that... but so could our kids be as well...

"Without oil, at least four billion people would starve. This spiral of trouble would make the oil infrastructure utterly useless - unless their bodies could be turned into fuel.”

That was the satirical message delivered by two corporate ethics activists to the Gas and Oil Exposition 2007 in Calgary, Alberta. The activists, part of political trickster collective the Yes Men, used the Exposition to stage their latest theatre of corporate absurdity, with Exxon/Mobil and the Natural Petroleum Council playing the fools.

The prank, intended as a critique of the fossil fuel industry's influence on energy policy, caused confusion and consternation on the final day of the Exposition, one of the industry's largest gatherings.

The NPC, which is led by former Exxon-Mobil CEO Lee Raymond, advises the White House on gas and oil issues. They were expected to announce the findings of a Raymond-chaired study, commissioned by the Department of Energy, on joint US-Canadian energy policy.’

Yes Men Strike Oil

From the BBC
Ten-year climate model unveiled

Scientists say they have developed a model to predict how ocean currents, as well as human activities, will affect temperatures over the next decade.

By including short-term natural events, such as El Nino, a UK team says it is able to offer 10-year projections.