US, Australia Pimp New Double Secret Probation Climate Treaty

THE world’s biggest air polluters announced a new partnership to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the use of technology yesterday, but it was greeted with suspicion and scepticism by supporters of the Kyoto Protocol. The United States and Australia, the two biggest opponents of the Kyoto Treaty, announced the initiative at a gathering of Asia-Pacific ministers in Laos. The other members of the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate are China, the world’s biggest polluter after the US, as well as India, Japan and South Korea.


They account for almost half of the world’s population, and half of greenhouse gas emissions. The US and Australia are the only major industrial countries to have refused to sign up to Kyoto, but the partnership’s sponsors insisted yesterday that it was intended to complement, not challenge, the treaty. Robert Zoellick, the US Deputy Secretary of State, said: “We are not detracting from Kyoto in any way at all. We are complementing it.”

But John Howard, the Australian Prime Minister, said: “The fairness and effectiveness of this proposal will be superior to the Kyoto Protocol. “It demonstrates the very strong commitment of Australia to reducing greenhouse gas emissions according to an understanding that it’s fair in Australia and not something that will destroy Australian jobs and unfairly penalise Australian industries.”

The partnership was greeted with caution by countries signed up to Kyoto and denounced by environmental groups as a cynical ploy. Catherine Fitzpatrick of Greenpeace said: “No doubt the (Australian) Government has been cooking this scheme up for a while to cover up for their failure to ratify Kyoto, and to try to prove that developing countries are abandoning Kyoto — this is not the case. Unlike Australia, China, India and South Korea have all ratified Kyoto and are moving forward to implement their commitments. The suggested scheme is, unlike Kyoto, a voluntary scheme and all evidence shows that voluntary schemes do not work.”

EDIT

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1712864,00.html