Today, the Prime Minister changed his attitude, saying, “We are all doing what we can, including Australia, and we need a strong and effective agreement from Paris next year.” Australia has pledged AUD 200 million to the Green Climate Fund. A task force will be set up within the Prime Minister`s department and cabinet, which will work on Australia`s emissions pledges, giving more weight to the issue in Canberra`s political machine. More than 40 years ago, United Nations countries came together in Peru to sign an economic death order that had an unprecedented lasting effect on Australia and the rest of the developed world. A call for amendment was launched in March 1975, when the Second General Conference of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNUDI), meeting in Lima, issued a declaration and a global action plan. Under what authority was Australia obliged to declare Lima? To enter into an agreement or contract, companies must be authorized by law. The “government” of the day did not act on behalf of or for the good of the Australians and was not authorized. This action is due to a company registered in the United States, not to our government, not to the true Australian constitution. The U.S. commitment for 2025 is not a sufficient contribution to an overall result of keeping warming below 2 degrees Celsius, and there is a strong case for Australia`s contribution that is consistent with strong global action on climate change.
The climate change agency considers that a contribution proportional to a 2C result is a reduction of 30 to 40% compared to the year 2000 (about 35 to 45% compared to 2005). (2) (3) and (4) As explained above, Australia did not sign the Lima Declaration. First, Australia`s commitment of AUD 200 million for the Climate Fund. Compared to the U.S. commitment of AU$3 billion (AUD$3.65 billion) and Canada`s $300 million (AUD 315 million) and the fact that Australia is now one of the richest countries in the world and the highest emitter per capita, this is an important sign of faith. This is a 90% drop in Australia`s production capacity and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, all signed by the ALP with the continued support of liberals and nationals. So why would Australia demand binding targets? Given the overall reserved attitude on climate policy, the most plausible statement is that the government wants to abolish the Paris Agreement because the targets are not binding. At that time and thereafter, a tougher economic environment and increasing competition, particularly from developing countries in the region, highlighted serious deficiencies in Australia`s manufacturing industry. This has led to a significant change in the government`s approach to manufacturing policy. All countries should now provide details of their “planned national contribution” (INDC) to the global fight against climate change, as agreed a year ago at the Warsaw conference. But Lima`s text states that iNDCs “may” contain quantitative emission targets, not that they must.
This is done at the request of developing countries. “However, all governments, ALP and LIBS, have increased the financial burden on us, the people of the Commonwealth, without our agreement in the referendums. For example, the introduction of a GST, when Prime Minister John Howard promised before the election not to introduce a GST tax. Do you remember that? It was the same John Howard who boasted that he had saved the Australian economy. But he failed to tell us that he sold our gold reserves to do so. So who signed the Lima agreement on our behalf without our permission? Just two months ago, Prime Minister Tony Abbott said coal was “good for humanity” while refusing to contribute to the Green Climate Fund. It was unclear whether Australia would commit to significantly reducing emissions beyond 2020. China`s promise not to increase its emissions beyond 2030 is important.