UN scrutinises Direct Action plan

Australia and other countries to be quizzed on carbon emission policies.

In the lead-up to the United Nations climate change meetings, Australia has thrown its weight behind the Abbott government's Direct Action plan as the policy that will help bolster its international climate change credibility.

The UN meetings, which commenced in Germany this week, will run for 10 days. Australia, among other developed countries, will be quizzed on its carbon emission reduction policies. Via a new assessment process, countries will have the right to question each other about their climate change policies.

In April, Australia was put under particular scrutiny by China, Brazil and the US over its ambitious $2 billion Direct Action plan, which works by setting levels of emissions for specific business facilities that cannot be exceeded without penalty.

The US and China have already put forward questions for the UN meetings, challenging the effectiveness of the Direct Action plan and whether Australia can meet its five per cent emissions reduction target by 2020.

The Australian government has been accused of unfairly expecting other developed nations to set goals that are more ambitious than its own, with China directly asking the government to “clarify the fairness of such requirements”.

Climate change policy adviser for Oxfam Australia, Simon Bradshaw, says it will be an important test of Australia's international credibility on climate change, and that “Australia is under increasing pressure to up its game”.

The Direct Action plan has faced criticism, both domestically and internationally, for setting unrealistic targets that cannot be achieved, but the Abbott government insists the policy is the nation’s key climate change effort. However, the government says it would be “premature” to detail what emissions cuts the Direct Action plan is likely to generate at this stage.

The questions from the UN meetings will be put to Australia on Thursday. A number of other countries, such as the US, have also put forward ambitious targets.

The meetings are part of a series of international negotiations to prepare for the climate change conference in Paris this December, where it is hoped that all countries will sign an international agreement to reduce carbon pollution.

Read more at SMH.





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Tombo
    3rd Jun 2015
    11:47am
    "In reading the history of nations, we find that, like individuals, they have their whims and their peculiarities; their seasons of excitement and recklessness, when they care not what they do. We find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one object, and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become simultaneously impressed with one delusion, and run after it, till their attention is caught by some new folly more captivating than the first. Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one." "Extraordinary Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" by Charles Mackay,1841
    gilstamp
    3rd Jun 2015
    12:04pm
    This is hardly a mass obsession. It has been a gradually realised necessity, based on objective observation and science. The majority have been, until recently, reluctant to admit that this might be true until the idea and the action has gathered momentum. This is more of a paradigm change and, as such, will not be reversed when it becomes the norm.
    wally
    3rd Jun 2015
    12:29pm
    I agree that everyone world wide should minimise pollution, reduce waste and husband the world's resources.

    What I do not agree with is how people on a UN committee, (from God knows where and with what sort of qualifications) think they have the right to tell everyone else how to live with no correspondence being entered into.

    Is this a case of UN delegates from so called "developing" nations telling us that we need to tax the poor people in the developed countries so that the tax money thus raised can be sent to be "divvied up" amongst the fat cats in the aforesaid poor, developing countries? Will our Carbon Taxes be financing Robert Mugabe's purchase of a new Mercedes, for example? Will the UN be overseeing how the monies collected are spent to benefit the poor in the developing countries? For example, water purification schemes in remote areas?

    Until I see concrete answers to the questions I raise, I feel that we in Australia (and other developed countries) are being played for mugs by people like Al Gore and President Obama in their non stop carping about man made Climate Change..
    Anonymous
    3rd Jun 2015
    4:16pm
    Some good points wally and don"t forget Al Gore made Millions of dollars out of the crapp he was flogging
    Adrianus
    3rd Jun 2015
    4:58pm
    Good post wally. Al Gore showed what is possible when he flew to Australia to smooch with Clive Palmer for a slice of the "$10b Green Fund."
    Gore and Blood, the former chief of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM), co-founded London-based GIM in 2004. Between 2008 and 2011 the company had raised profits of nearly $218 million from institutions and wealthy investors. By 2008 Gore was able to put $35 million into hedge funds and private partnerships through the Capricorn Investment Group, a Palo Alto company founded by his Canadian billionaire buddy Jeffrey Skoll, the first president of EBay Inc.
    Master sales skills are enhanced by having a higher purpose. Who could resist someone who is trying to save the world?
    Young
    3rd Jun 2015
    12:45pm
    I endorse your thoughts Wally and I believe it is nearly a mass obsession.
    Tombo
    3rd Jun 2015
    1:49pm
    The only 'objective observation' that I am aware of is that, contrary to the predictions of computer climate models, there has been no increase in average global temperatures for the last sixteen years. In proper science, rather than junk science, that empirical observation would be enough to both invalidate the theory and convince sensible people not to put their faith in long range climate models.
    wondering
    3rd Jun 2015
    9:54pm
    thank you Tombo, Wally and Frank etc, it's such a relief to read intelligent contributions to a discussion.
    As usual, the photo used above by Amelia is of steam.
    there has never been one convincing argument for the 'for' case of global warming/climate change other than a slight increase in carbon dioxide, which may well be a good thing,
    yet the 'herd' has been convinced to throw billions of dollars into what as 'Wally' suggests is a social experiment.
    and thanks Frank for pointing out the disgraceful contributions of Gore, Gillard et al.
    I still at times think back to Michael Crichton's 'State of Fear' as a brilliant contribution to this and many other debates.
    Fred
    4th Jun 2015
    5:49pm
    Wally what I fail to understand is why these so called third world countries are not well off by now with what various countries put into them and the money that NGO's receive from donations from around the world Billions and Billions must have been poured into these countries and yet they seem no better off. If as is said certain people in governments rip off a lot of the money then any future donations to such countries should be stopped or at least closely watched.
    Fred
    4th Jun 2015
    5:49pm
    Wally what I fail to understand is why these so called third world countries are not well off by now with what various countries put into them and the money that NGO's receive from donations from around the world Billions and Billions must have been poured into these countries and yet they seem no better off. If as is said certain people in governments rip off a lot of the money then any future donations to such countries should be stopped or at least closely watched.


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

    • Receive our daily enewsletter
    • Enter competitions
    • Comment on articles