The Lima conference also left some difficult questions unanswered, in particular how to expand climate finance. The 2009 Copenhagen Accord promised to provide $100 billion a year to help developing countries cope with climate change. There is still no indication as to if and how the world will get there. This is worrying, especially for the poorest countries. The U.S. commitment to 2025 is not a sufficient contribution to a global outcome to keep warming below 2°C, and there are strong reasons for Australia to make a contribution consistent with strong global climate action. The Climate Change Authority sees a proportional contribution to a 2C result as a reduction of 30-40% in 2025 compared to 2000 (about 35-45% compared to 2005). I have known about the Lima Accord since Whitlam`s election. And every government since Whitlam has slowly and gently undermined our rights.

The fact is that they almost have to have a permit to breathe. It is no longer a free country. The DLP believes that the original target of a 30% reduction in Australian production was far too high and that there were better ways to help developing countries. What emerged in the years marked by the signing of the Lima Declaration by the PLA is that the 30% target has actually exploded, with current estimates above 90%. The Lima conference also left a number of difficult questions unanswered, including how to improve climate finance. The 2009 Copenhagen Accord promised to provide $100 billion a year to help developing countries cope with climate change. There is still no idea if and how the world will get there. This is worrying, especially for the poorest countries. Foreign Minister Julie Bishop announced the change and insisted on going to Lima despite instructions from the Prime Minister`s Office. Bishop would be particularly aware of the effects of an undisciplined stance on climate change and is obviously not in the mood to further tarnish Australia`s international position on the climate issue.

In 1975, the countries of the United Nations met in Lima, Peru. They signed a document that turned out to be an economic death sentence that had a dramatic impact on the developed world, including Australia. Since then, governments have implemented it. Since the signing of the Lima Agreement, Australia`s domestic car industry has evaporated, steel production has suffered and our oil industry is at serious risk of being relocated overseas. Australia today lacks technology, tools and jobs for the modern world and has laid the foundation for the rapid decline of our country`s major industries. Either way, the US target will be a crucial reference point for Australia`s post-2020 target. Australia is richer, has higher per capita emissions and is more vulnerable to climate change than the United States. It is clear that Australian workers are only the victims of the shift from economic rationalism to the bizarre cult of globalisation.

It is recommended that all those at risk take the time to investigate the GATS and other international trade agreements – before it is too late. You must be logged in to to post a comment. (b) «Adoption of Trade Measures to Increase Exports of Industrial and Semi-Finished Products, including Processed Agricultural Products from Developing Countries» In 1975, the ALP Government of Gough Whitlam Australia signed, without public consultation, the United Nations-inspired Lima Declaration, which committed Australia to reduce its production capacity by about 30% and to commit to reducing this amount from other countries. Privileged. We, the Australian people, demand that our elected government «not» enter into contracts with other countries, entities or governing bodies beyond the control of the Commonwealth without the explicit mandate of the majority of Australian citizens in a general election. Therefore, we demand that our Prime Minister, the Honourable Malcolm Turnbull and all other members of the government «DO NOT sign any treaty or agreement with the EU» until they have been approved by the Australian people after proper debate in the next general election. (35) «Particular attention should be paid to the least developed countries, which should benefit from a net transfer of resources from developed countries in the form of technical and financial resources and capital goods, in order to enable the least developed countries to accelerate their industrialization in accordance with development policies and plans.» All countries are now expected to provide details on their «Nationally Determined Contribution» (nDDI) to global climate action, as agreed at the Warsaw Conference a year ago. But the Lima text states that the iNDC`s quantitative emissions targets «may contain,» not that they must. This is being done at the insistence of developing countries. Third, Australia`s call for next year`s Paris Agreement to set legally binding emission targets. Curiously, Australia is repeating the European position on this issue, which is widely regarded as an area of application. There is no realistic prospect of legally binding targets because the US Congress would not ratify such a treaty, and China will not do so without the US.

In any event, legally binding at the international level is not necessary to achieve national measures. This is a 90% reduction in Australian production capacity and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, all signed by the PLA with the continued support of liberals and nationals. Now the prime minister has changed his position, saying, «We are all doing what we can, Australia too, and we need a strong and effective Paris Agreement next year.» Australia has pledged A$200 million to the Green Climate Fund. A working group is to be set up within the Prime Minister`s Office and cabinet to work on Australia`s emissions promises and give the issue more prominence in Canberra`s political machine. For this reason, the principle of «shared but differentiated responsibilities» is a pillar of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Traditionally, countries have been divided into two groups, with only developed countries having to reduce their emissions. (d) «To review the policies of developed countries with regard to processed and semi-processed raw materials, taking fully into account the interests of developing countries in increasing their capacity and industrial potential for processing the raw materials they export.» The Fraser government picked up where Whitlam left off, Hawke and Keating picked up the pace of the program, with Hawke, Keating, Button and other high-ranking ministers telling unsuspecting Australians that they were working to «internationalize» the Australian economy. The truth is that they sowed the seeds that nearly decimated Australian manufacturing and industry and saw Australian jobs disappear overseas. So why should Australia demand binding targets? Given the generally hesitant position on climate policy, the most plausible explanation is that the government wants to be able to reject the Paris Agreement because the targets are not binding. The Lima Declaration is just one of hundreds of international agreements and treaties signed on behalf of all Australians without direct consultation with the people. Many of these international treaties, signed by governments on our behalf, are promoted by the United Nations.

It is an organisation that no Australian has endorsed by voting in a referendum to give them a say in how we are governed or how we manage our national affairs. .

Abrir chat