Dear everyone,

Good evening.
As we studied today, Australia has been suffering from the long-lasting severe drought.
Actually, I stayed in Brisbene for one month in 2003. I remember that there was the issue of water, but I did not think that the drought continues such a long time!.
So, I was very much concerned about the issue.As my first post, I would like to add some information regarding drought and introduce global concerns to you.

In fact, Australia was one of the few countries which did not ratify “Kyoto protocol” which is an international treaty for a measure against global warming, because the Liberal party of Australia, the ruling party at that time, was skeptical regarding the issue of global warming.
However, the relationship between global warming and drought came to light gradually and people started to place an emphasis on the measure and criticized the administration’s stance to global warming. In Nov 2007, Liberal Party was defeated by Australian Labor Party in the general election. Then, Kevin Rudd of Labor Party became prime minister and immediately ratified the protocol in Dec 2007. Also, he announced that we make best efforts to accomplish the Kyoto Protocol with the objective that reduces the discharge of greenhouse effect gas by 60% by 2050 (The level of the discharge is equivalent to the level in 2000).
I think that this is one of evidences that the discussion of sustainable development became one of the biggest political issues in a country.
In this regard, I think that we need to know about the Kyoto protocol.
I invite you to the website UNFCCC(http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php). Also, you can find the description in Wikipedia.
This is closely connected with sustainability issue and one of the main topics in the discussion at coming G8 Summit.
You can find information on the topics of the G8 Summit on the following website (http://www.g8summit.go.jp/eng/index.html).

I will be happy, if some of you access to the above website and pay attention to the global concerns among developed countries.
We no longer disregard the issue….

Hiroshi

Given Australia actually gets to enjoy an increase in CO2 emmissions to 108%, thought i should find out some more facts to share – as if we are not party to the Kyoto treaty, why have any target?
To confirm, Australia did actually sign the Kyoto treaty, agreeing to the 108% target, however did not ratify as the Govt of the day (still in power), believed a clear path on developing countries, namely China and India needed to be included.
Another interesting fact is the reasons supporting our increase in emissions, which are strong migration, strong economic growth, reliance on coal and also our mining of cleaner (but still non-renewable) energy for developing countries;
“many of the greenhouse emissions arising in Australia help others to lower their emissions. For example, Australia’s recent success in concluding an LNG deal with China will mean that although Australia will emit around 1.5 million extra tonnes of carbon dioxide annually to produce the LNG, China will emit 7 million tonnes less than if it had used coal. The global atmosphere benefits, even though Australia’s emissions increase.”
See, we’re not such bad guys afterall.
In terms of the Al Gore movie – I still think far too much time wasted on Al Gore and not dealing or addressing the issues. The reality is that we are heating the planet – has Europe plans in place for the abscence of the gulf stream? where will food production need to go, and what type of crops should we be growing for the future? The last ice age was 11,000 years ago, we are clearly headed towards another. While the Canadians will be alright, they’re use to the cold , the planet and mother nature is about to shake up the rest of us…..
On another thought, Jeremy made mention of the girl in the last class choosing not to have kids…..while I have a friend that has a similar bleak and pessimistic view on life, I raise (in my defence for having children) that it could be one of our children that invents cold fusion and solves all the problems!!!!! certainly, children that are raised with environmentally aware parents will be best placed and educated to make a difference, (either before or after the ice age).
PS I will respond to many of the postings, but an struggling with the sign in for the moment.
Cheers
Barry

http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/03/12/1868939.htm
The effect of bush fires on any society is often quite severe, and could definately be seen as a contributor to pollution and greenhouse gas production
I thought I would pass on a couple of interesting observation on bush fire from Australia.
Victoria, one of the smaller states “ suffered 273 fires in a single day in September, and more than 600 in three days in October“.
This increase in reasent times in the number of fires is quite obviously linked to the El Niño effect and climate change
This lovely little link shows quite effectively how bush fires occur and travel.
It is important to note that bushfires are quite natural in Australia, and are required as part of the ongoing regenerative mechanisn for a large amount of Australias biodeversity. So much so that it is only recently that Australia has started deliberatly burning off large areas of bushland, to faciltate this regenerative process. This link gives a great feel for the effort put into fire management in Australia.
It must be said though that Australia has made many mistakes with management of our natural resources, and in particular how we manage our bushland. One mistake that lead to a much greater understanding of fires occured in 1983.This particule fire claimed 75 lives and over 2000 homes, and burnt over & & million acrest. Not surprising, because it occured on a wednesday Australian`s call 16th Feb 1983 `Ash Wednesday`. Imaginative bunch don`t you think.
So with the added risk of a continent drying out, it is reasobly fortunate that Australia has started managing it`s fire needs. In fact some recent research has found that carbon dioxide emissions are significantly lower with burnback activity because the fire is not as intense, and some materials get to decompose. There is an added risk that the spores will be consumed by the much more intense fires

Leading on from class, and the exchange between myself and Rene, i thought i should share the story of the Tuna Industry in Australia and just how much better off they are with the introduction of a quota system that factors into account the size of the breeding pool/bio-mass.
Firstly, while Japan is often times guilty of doing the wrong thing – the International body established to protect the Southern Bluefin Tuna (SBT), only works because they drove it initially and still purchase some 95% of world supply. As Japan buy the end product, they are able to obatin buy-in from all member nations (including many undeveloped/developing nations). (NB while Japan took initiative, they are guilty of overfishing their agreed to quota)
The article link I have provided is an excellent example of comparing two coins of the same industry – where one is actually increasing the bio-mass and looking to protect the future of the industry, the other is harvesting unsustainably. Happy to discuss further, as I am well acquainted with the industry down south, but it shows very clearly how by increasing the regulation in an industry, it can produce optimal ‘economic’ outcomes.
PS apologies for any typos – its a french keyboard
Cheers, Barry

We have been talking about recycling as an efficient and quite easy way of solving the environmental problem and specially the waste problem. By recycling, our waste is being reused again, so it could be said that “no waste” is generated which will go to dumps, etc. However, recycling is not the only way to solve the waste problem. Other initiatives like litter prevention programs have the same consequence as they do not generate any waste at all. Before I have never heard about this type of programs and it really pick my attention. I think that this kind of programs could be really useful because not only solves part of the waste problem, but also helps people to be aware of the ecological problems that we have, not only waste problem.

More in deep, this litter prevention program aims to reduce littering by: 1) influencing people’s littering behaviour; 2) supporting the expanded and stronger litter laws; and 3) encouraging key stakeholders to be active in litter prevention through an integrated approach of education, enforcement and infrastructure provision. However, I do not know if this program has been successful in New South Wales community where it was implanted. In any case, theoretically and at first sight it seems a good measure of the local government.

To conclude, I just wanted to show a recycling guide I have founded which it could be useful to guide our new ecological behaviour.

While we where doing our study case about «Droughts in Australia », I founded some information that said that Australia along with the United States refuses to sign Kyoto’s Protocol, and it fills me with a big curiosity of “why?”.
The Kyoto Protocol is an agreement made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Countries that ratify this protocol commit to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases, or engage in emissions trading if they maintain or increase emissions of these gases.

The objective is the “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”

Australia is the world’s largest exporter of coal. Burning coal produces more carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas restricted under the protocol, than any other major fuel. Prime minister, John Howard argued: “Signing the protocol would cause a flight of jobs from this country and damage in our industry.”" due to countries with booming economies and massive populations such as China and India not having any reduction obligations. Also, the Government takes the view that Australia is already doing enough to cut emissions they recently compromised $300 million over the next three years to reduce Greenhouse gas emissions.

The United States is the 2005 largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treatment for ratification, not because he does not support the Kyoto principles, but because of the exemption granted to China, the world’s second largest emitter of carbon dioxide. Bush also opposes the treatment because he believes it would put the US economy in risk.

Knowing more information about this countries, made me understand their positions. And before today, my impression was that they were wrong.

Source: http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn2369

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol