Issues Addressed In APEC Summit (1 Viewer)

[ur_inner_child]

This thread encompasses issues that are discussed by leaders during the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) summit. I hope that it will be updated regularly by forum participants. Any discussion regarding APEC security/protests etc ought to be made in a seperate thread.

$70 million in climate change funds

Prime Minister John Howard has announced $70 million in international climate change initiatives on the first day of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation summit in Sydney.

Mr Howard said Australia will contribute $50 million to the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate.

The funding will be used to develop cleaner, more efficient technologies.

The $50 million is on top of $100 million announced in January last year, which has already been committed to 63 regional projects.

Some of it will help our neighbours improve the ability of their forests to capture and store carbon dioxide and to improve links between researchers in the region working on low-emissions energy and energy-efficient technologies.

Mr Howard said he had put climate change on the APEC agenda and, while it wouldn't be the only item, it would be an important part of discussions.

Climate change discussions at APEC come ahead of two international meetings on the issue - one between major economies in Washington at the end of this month and a UN meeting in Bali in December.

Mr Howard said Australia had to be realistic on what would be achieved on climate change during APEC.

"We won't reach agreement nor do we imagine for a moment that we could reach agreement on binding targets amongst the member countries of APEC," he said.

"The developing countries have made that clear and for very understandable reasons.

"But we can reach a framework agreement, if we work hard enough, on the shape of a post-Kyoto approach to the international response to climate change.

"That is also a recognition that different countries come to their contributions to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in different ways."

Mr Howard said it was absurd to try to impose a top-down approach to climate change on countries which have such diverse needs as China, which is a developing nation but a powerful economy, and the economies of Europe, the US and Australia.

He said it needed to be recognised that APEC economies had different needs and different interests.

Developing countries accounted for around half of global emissions and would account for three quarters of the projected increase in emissions up to 2030, he said.

"We do not believe that continuing down the Kyoto path is going to provide a solution to the problem," he said....

Cleaner technologies cut emission: ABARE

A new ABARE report says the widespread adoption of cleaner, more advanced and energy efficient technologies can greatly reduce the growth in greenhouse gas emissions in APEC economies.

ABARE, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, said investment in cleaner, more advanced and energy efficient technologies could reduce emissions in the APEC region by about 49 per cent relative to what would otherwise be the case at 2050.

The report also backs investment in forest carbon sinks to achieve further reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

ABARE executive director Phillip Glyde said that, with energy consumption in APEC economies projected to increase by 140 per cent, investment in technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions was crucial.

"APEC economies account for over half of the world's energy use, economic output and greenhouse gas emissions and over a third of the world's population," Mr Glyde said in a statement.

"Under current policy settings, energy consumption in APEC economies is projected to increase by about 140 per cent between 2004 and 2050.

"By 2050, greenhouse gas emissions are projected to be about 130 per cent higher in APEC economies relative to 2004 levels."

He said that in order to achieve further reductions in emissions, governments might also choose to increase terrestrial sinks in forestry areas by fostering sustainable forest management and lowering the rate of deforestation.

"APEC economies in particular have a role to play here as they account for around 54 per cent of the global managed and natural forest area," Mr Glyde said.

"If APEC were able to halve current deforestation rates in tropical Asian member economies over the period 2009-50 this would lead to an estimated 70 per cent fall in forestry related emissions in these economies at 2050 compared with what otherwise would be the case, according to the scenarios analysed in the report."

He said the weight of global economic activity had shifted to the APEC region in recent years.

"Access to affordable and reliable energy supplies and open markets for trade and investment will allow the economic success of APEC to continue," Mr Glyde said.

 

[Jarsh89]

Yeh but 2% for a country of 20 million people is quite high, not that I am a hippy or anything. I think we should start to change because a dependance on petrol and oil isn't good as supply decreases and demand keeps rising, the earlier we start the change the better.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

I will say one thing, for anyone that says Australia adds only 2% to the output of Greenhouse gas globally and that reducing it would have a minimal outcome. However, thinking quite logically, it would be in our best interest to invest into a RANGE of technologies that tend towards producing significantly less output (Again not an issue of global warming or whatever, just a decent practice issue to try and develop technology that has less of a waste output because obviously it's a far more efficient use of resources), because then that technology would be useable in the other areas of the world where it wasn't developed?

Efficiency increases aren't a zero sum game.

Only if we can sell them for profit...

OH WAIT our government massively undermines science (and all research) in this country so we'll fail hard at that anyway

 

[Starcraftmazter]

That's complete bullshit.

Every year, the howard government subsidises the fossil fuels industry for $10Bn+
Over $10Bn to fossil fuels. EVERY YEAR.

Let's see the fascist bastard make anywhere near such a contribution to renewable energy.

 

[kazan]

That's complete bullshit.

Every year, the howard government subsidises the fossil fuels industry for $10Bn+
Over $10Bn to fossil fuels. EVERY YEAR.

Let's see the fascist bastard make anywhere near such a contribution to renewable energy.

source?

 

[Starcraftmazter]

source?

http://www.greenpeace.org/australia...climate-change/billions-of-taxpayer-dollars-c
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1910116.htm

 

[jimmayyy]

yes, because greenpeace are an absolutely neutral, unbiased and reliable source re: the howard government and climate change issues

*rolls eyes*

anyway, back on thread; is it selfish of me not to care what happens to the climate and if we use renewable energy as i won't be alive for it all?

 

[Snaykew]

I will say one thing, for anyone that says Australia adds only 2% to the output of Greenhouse gas globally and that reducing it would have a minimal outcome. However, thinking quite logically, it would be in our best interest to invest into a RANGE of technologies that tend towards producing significantly less output (Again not an issue of global warming or whatever, just a decent practice issue to try and develop technology that has less of a waste output because obviously it's a far more efficient use of resources), because then that technology would be useable in the other areas of the world where it wasn't developed?

Efficiency increases aren't a zero sum game.

Only 2%? Our population is 0.35% of the world. But as you've said, refining the production process would also benefit the climate along with research into cleaner sources of energy.

 

[jimmayyy]

^yeah but 2% is pretty good comparatively. in relation to other countries in the world, Australia really isn't high on the list of climate-fuck upers.

and anyway, no one seems to be talking about ways of stopping dozens of volcanoes giving off the gases they emit which fuck up our ozone, or ways of stopping all the cows all over the world farting out methane. why don't we try fixing that instead of putting on live earth concerts alll over the globe that probably used more electricitiy and created more carbon monoxide (everyone watching on tv, all the electrical eqiupment, all the people at the stadium who probably drove there in cars etc etc etc) than anything else

 

[williamc]

fuck climate change we should be worrying about more pressing issues such as free trade between APEC economies

I agree. It's all about economic growth NOW! Eg. China, in their last decade of strong eco growth (averaging 10% ish), people are starting to cry about environmental degregation. STFU! Only so happens now that people living in extreme poverty (< $1US a day) has halved in last decade.

 

[williams180]

man he makes sense but as more money gives the people greater access to health, food and education thus improving their quality of life. Can't have everything and u gots to sacrifice something in this case the environment

 

[ur_inner_child]

You crazy new members and your content-free posts (which have been deleted).

Please read the Forum Rules.