<< OF ALL THE ROTTEN LUCK ~ MAIN ~ EXCELLENT VISUALS >>
KYOTO KOST
New Zealand’s trustworthy treasury says the government’s Kyoto Kaper will cost the pacifist islands only $303 million, although other estimates put the eventual cost at anywhere between $500 million to $1.2 billion. That’s for a population of just four million. If similar debts were incurred by Australia and the US, we’d be looking—based on relative population size—at these remarkable figures:
NZ: $303 million. Australia: $1.5 billion. US: $22 billion.
NZ: $500 million. Australia: $2.5 billion. US: $37 billion.
NZ: $1.2 billion. Australia: $6 billion. US: $90 billion.
(Most of that cash, by the way, would be sent to Russia, who you might remember from such environmental successes as Chernobyl.) A group of Kiwi industrialists sensibly want the government to ditch its Kyoto policy. An election due later this year, however, may see the government itself ditched.
UPDATE. Richard McEnroe in comments: “The upside of Kyoto is that it lets CS buy spelling credits from more literate nations ...”
UPDATE II. Figures above corrected. Apologies for idiocy.
The upside of Kyoto is that it lets CS buy spelling credits from more literate nations….
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 07 14 at 09:44 AM • permalinkThe Australian letters 14/7
PAUL Kelly’s points on the G8 and Kyoto fail to acknowledge the role the US and Australia openly play to promote Kyoto’s failure [....]
Kyoto is currently the only international agreement with any chance of driving a shift to low-carbon economies. Voluntary approaches simply don’t work[....]
Catherine Fitzpatrick
Greenpeace Energy CampaignAnd Kyoto works?
Boy, they’re gonna have to sell a lot of sheep for this.
Posted by Gary from Jersey on 2005 07 14 at 12:36 PM • permalinkPer-capita, Kyoto is costing NZ about what the war in Iraq is costing the US.
Reform tyrannies, thru example, and promote historic firsts in freedom throughout the most dangerous region in the world ... or satisfy the environmental lobby industry and thereby avoid negative press for day?
Decisions, decisions.
Posted by localharbor on 2005 07 14 at 12:39 PM • permalinkWell, we know where the money’s going now, next question.
WHY?!
Posted by Aging Gamer on 2005 07 14 at 12:44 PM • permalinkTim,
you miscalculated this,
Australia’s population is 20 million,
NZ’s is a bit more than 4 million.
The correct table should be:NZ $303 million AUS $1.5 billion
NZ $500 million AUS $2.5 billion
NZ $1.2 billion AUS $6 billionPosted by Honkie Hammer on 2005 07 14 at 07:39 PM • permalinkThere is also the little matter of the different industry mix and sources of energy to be factored in, which means Tim has underestimated the equivalent impact.
The reason why, as the green groups love to point out, that Australia has the highest per capita production of greenhous gases is because we have processing industries that produce a lot of greenhouse gas. For example, removing our aluminium smelters and transferring them to a kyoto exempt country such as Indonesia, for example, would instantly give us an enormous reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that would make us the biggest heroes in hte world to the enviroweenies (well, maybe after getting rid of JWH as well).Of course, doing so would result in a severe multiplication of Australia’s current account deficit, massive loss in export revenue, and make no difference to global greenhouse gas emissions, which would be merely emitted somewhere else - but hey, we sure would feel morally superior, wouldn’t we?
Sorry Tim — Nobody accepts it when an evil conservative corrects a math error.
TIM LIES! CURRENCY FLIES!
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 07 15 at 12:09 AM • permalinkTim, shame, shame! Where is your Compassionate Head Tilt [TM]?????
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 07 15 at 04:56 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Any government that ratified Kyoto and fails to live up to its commitment should be shot with a ball of their own shit.