My response to Alex’s post is – why wouldn’t Kevin Rudd take Australia back into Kyoto? The country is already tracking its Kyoto target and is quite capable of meeting it:
The Tracking to the Kyoto Target report projects the levels of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2008-2012. It forecasts Australia’s emissions to be 109 per cent of 1990 levels by 2008-2012.
Australia is committed to achieving an emissions target of 108 percent of 1990 levels by 2008-2012 and the report shows we are within 1 percent of meeting that target.
Rudd, it seems, will bear little political cost if he triumphantly returns his country to the fold. New Zealand, however, is in a a more difficult position. It’s in Kyoto, but will miss it will miss its target by 12% on current projections. According to the New Zealand Institute, a leading think tank:
With the benefit of hindsight, a previous commitment on climate change, in the form of New Zealand’s obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, was negotiated and ratified without a full understanding of the New Zealand position. The official view at the time of New Zealand’s ratification in December 2002 was that New Zealand would receive a significant national benefit.
As it has turned out, however, New Zealand has incurred a financial liability currently estimated to be in excess of $500 million.
The Institute concludes that New Zealand should still aim to meet its Kyoto targets – but by 2020, not 2012.
