Some extraordinary statements concerning global warming have been made in the past couple of days by a key member of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum that could signal the end of the Kyoto Protocol as we know it.
Of course, you likely didn't hear about this, for even though America is part of APEC, our media seemed thoroughly disinterested.
However, as this is indeed quite important news for folks on both sides of the anthropogenic global warming debate, the following was reported by the Associated Press via the International Herald Tribune Friday (emphasis added throughout, h/t Benny Peiser):
APEC member nations will not accept greenhouse gas emission targets to fight global climate change and creating energy-efficient economies is the way forward, Australia's environment minister said Saturday.
The Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum will focus on improving energy efficiency instead of setting specific gas emission reduction targets as the 1997 Kyoto Protocol did, Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull told Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio.
"Most of the fast-growing industrializing economies, China being the classic case ... are not going to agree to binding targets on the basis of the Kyoto model," Turnbull said.
This announcement came shortly after the environmental group Greenpeace obtained a leaked draft of a written statement created by the Australian government to be presented at next month's APEC meeting in Sydney. As reported by Australia's Courier Mail (emphasis added):
The APEC document is likely to be a key component of the next international agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol after 2012.
Greenpeace energy campaigner Ben Pearson said the document shows Prime Minister John Howard is trying to use APEC to undermine the Kyoto Protocol."This is a 'Made in the USA' declaration, covered with Australian coal dust,'' Mr Pearson said in a statement.
[...]
Mr Pearson said if APEC members Japan, Canada and New Zealand, sign up to the declaration they will undermine their own commitments to cut emissions under Kyoto.
If this is the case, NewsBusters was quite prescient in June when it reported how wrong the media were concerning the goings-on in Germany at that month's G-8 summit, especially as it pertained to the formal declaration made by the group regarding global warming (emphasis added):
Unbelievable nonsense. In fact, as no caps were agreed upon, the declaration appeared to draw more from the June 1 proposal by Bush himself. As such, the net result of this compromise was Merkel and the greens throughout the European Union moving towards the White House and away from Kyoto.
The revelations out of Sydney also confirmed Benny Peiser's view regarding what occurred during the G-8 meeting (emphasis added):
On the back of his own climate initiative and the G8 agreement, Mr. Bush has now taken on the role of a suave intermediary between Europe and Asia. To the dismay of European diplomats, Mr. Bush has recast the United States as a "green" bridge-builder between Europe on the one hand and developing countries like India and China on the other.
This news makes the American Thinker's Marc Sheppard look darned prescient as well as the marvelous conclusion of his February 23, 2007, "As Went the Dodo so Will Kyoto" presaged (emphasis added):
The Mauritius Dodo Bird (Raphus cucullatus) has been extinct for over 300 years. As with most unfortunate outcomes on the planet, its demise as a species has been widely attributed to the actions of mankind (Homo sapiens). Be that as it may, the same forces which demanded adaptation from the doomed flightless bird will ultimately and rightly demand it of all obstacles to human survival and advancement.
Be they unyielding treaties (Kyoto accordis) or stridently foolish alarmists (Skyis fallinonus), those that cannot respond to changes around them shall not endure on this Earth (Terra firma).
Adding it all up, various international meetings and statements this year make it quite clear that the Kyoto Protocol will have a very hard time making it past 2012 when it is up for re-ratification.
One would think this would be huge news in America where global warming has been such a hot topic since Hurricane Katrina made landfall, and Al Gore's schlockumentary was released.
Yet, although the Associated Press and a variety of wire services reported these recent goings-on in Australia, I could identify no American press outlet besides the International Herald Tribune (which is owned by the New York Times) that covered this story.
Why might that be?
Do you think if the leaked draft from the Australian government indicated that it would seek a carbon emissions agreement from all APEC nations at next month's meeting that would have been reported?
Yeah, I do, too.
