<< …the government's global warming challenge is not how it can fashion a more effective policy or even walk away from it. It is about how to change its substance and appearance. >>

Yes Graham. And that shouldn’t be hard. Many of the same things need to be done in order to address peak oil, land-clearing and the sustainability of our society as for anthropogenic global warming. These goals are more tangible than AGW. Well, peak oil and land-clearing certainly are. Sustainability is a little less tangible, but still moreso than AGW.

I think that Krudd’s… er I mean… our good PM, Kevin’s …great problem is his glaringly obvious contradiction between pushing for a big Australia while at the same time pushing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He just can’t be taken seriously with this almightily schizophrenic policy clash. If he could just see the merit in espousing the winding back of population growth rather than continuing with our highest ever growth rate, then he could make huge headway.

He’s apparently distanced himself somewhat from the target population of 35 million by 2050. Now if he could just see fit to knock the baby bonus on the head and reduce next year’s immigration intake by 20% or something, then he’d be on the right track.

He also needs to impress on the populace the significance of peak oil or rising oil prices and the urgent need to wean ourselves off of our utter dependence on oil for transport and the distribution of food, commodities, services, etc.

And he needs to talk up the need to prevent land-clearing and to recover some natural environment by way of letting regrowth re-establish. But he absolutely has to implement a compensation package here for those whose livelihoods are affected by this sort of thing.

So yes, with the right approach, he could sidestep the whole global warming thing and both better direct our national efforts towards protecting our future on a wider front than just climate change and much more effectively address climate change at the same time.

It doesn't matter if the CPRS gets up or not.It is ineffective and intended to be so.

Whether it is currently unfashionable to be concerned about climate change or other environmental issues is irrelevant.

Soon enough the slumbering monkeys are going to be slapped very hard in the face by the consequences of their complacency.

It will make no difference to the climate change issue and many others whether Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum get up at the next election.
What is certain is that the Tweedle Dumbers in the electorate will get what they deserve.

Too bad about the rest of us who can actually string 2 or more thoughts together to reach some sort of realistic conclusion.

People have short attention spans...they are bored with hearing about climate change. The pace of change is not an immediate threat, like economic downturns, employment etc, so it gets put on the backburner. That is human nature.

One look at the current sea-surface temperatures shows that while the USA and Europe have experienced colder than normal winters, the sea temperatures further north are up to 2.5 degrees above normal and the ice pack is tracking at equal to its low point of 2007. Given that the ice is predominantly one-year ice, it will be interesting to see what happens this summer. It is the sea temperatures and currents that drive warming and they continue to do so.

The issue is still there whether voters want to hear about it or not. Such is life.

Like many others, I feel that if the rest of the world is doing close to b*gger all, why should we tax everything to make 0.1% difference to the world.

The waste of resources caused by politicians advocating climate change is unbelievable. Over 46,000 politicians, spin doctors, lobbyists and other parasites would have run up a combined bill of many billions of dollars at Copenhagen, once the luxury hotel bills and other expenses are included. Far more would have been achieved for the third world if they had just been given the money.

I have been convinced for some time that the whole global warming wank was just a con to frighten western voters into giving enormous sums of money to the third world. Fortunately we have been saved at the last minute and it now looks as if the voters are waking up. Pity the people of poor Denmark, who are now paying for a massive network of windfarms by paying over four times what we pay for electricity.

In times like this, with a massive drop in the standard of living being required by all, people are demanding that governments be frugal. I am a staunch monarchist, but I would much prefer for the Queen, when she next visits, to walk out of the tourist section of the aircraft that brings her. As for ordinary politicians, I see no reason for them to be paid, or at the most no more than the dole.

Great moral challenges are for prosperous times. In times like this balancing the budget is more important.

Its amazing how all but the most determined alarmists have departed the OLO scene. Few remain to wave the dreary Global Warming flag. But they'll return with a new parade after the David Suzukis and Al Gores of this world dream up a new "issue" to bring the world to its knees.

But where did the catastrophe go? Why isn't the tipping point tipping anymore? Because false claims can only work when people believe it and they no longer care.

Gore et al must be smarting though, considering the billions invested in what is destined to become the ill fated Carbon Trading Schemes. There will be a backlash and it will be interesting to see where it comes from.

We won't get fooled again? Oh, yes we will.