The article I cited for BTU's for Japan and China was

http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/03/energy-efficiency-china-biz-energy_cx_bw_0707efficiency_china.htm

Chris Lewis, absolutely, you can let us know your view on global warming, and we appreciate it.

My point was that having a view on global warming and a CO2 tax is about the assumption that we actually do need to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions. The ambiguity is still in the box.

If we do need to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions, then that assumes it is a problem. If on the other hand you wish to debate whether or not carbon emissions are a problem, then that is an entirely different issue. Which do you wish to discuss?

Chris - this point..
Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland and Britain.. have some form of carbon tax?

Sorry, not right. I think if you go back and look at your material you'll find all those taxes are partial.. Denmark and Finaland might be the closest from your list, but true carbon taxes are quite rare.

As for CO2 intensity, one of the reasons Aus ranks so highly is that we don't have nuclear generation (France, Germany, Britain, although Germany is getting out it says) and very little is hydroelectricity, unlike Norway or Sweden..

Chris Lewis:
<it would be naive to suggest that an authoritarian nation will give the same consideration to environmental issues as Western nations>.

Apart from the fact that this statement needs qualification--since popular democracy has proved itself an abject failure in addressing AGW, and an authoritarian oligarchy is much less likely to prevaricate in the same way--the implicit assertion, that we in the West "have" "ever" given adequate "consideration to environmental issues", is a nonsense.
The modern West since the industrial Revolution, despite many distinguished environmentalists, presents as a dark history of environmental indifference and devastation. We are hardly in a position to wax sanctimonious at China!

Nevertheless I agree with your overall position and I've tried myself to invoke the notion of "world-system", for instance, as a much better model of global capitalism and its effects than "globalisation".
As you imply, it's disingenuous to claim kudos for whatever modest concessions we make, within our borders, while we continue to export coal etc., and import the cheap commodities produced by its polluting combustion off shore.
Whether we like it or not, this is one world, a goldfish bowl, and our national borders are or should be irrelevant to the emissions that we initiate.

"I look at env degrdation all around me..."

Where, exactly, Chris? Apart from regurgitated press releases from environmental activists appearing in the mass media, of course. What 'env degrdation' can you see from your window, say?

'For imajulianutter and spindoc the consensus of experts is that climate change caused by humans is both real and poses a serious risk for the future. It's a nasty unpleasant reality - we just need to accept it and work out what to do about it.'

Now that is typical of you warming alarmists.

Denial.

You have totally ignored my comments on the fact of the coldest northern hemisphere winter for 100 years.

How do your consensus scientists explain it? You can't. You're typically sticking to dogma.

They don't. They, like you are in denial of the facts and refuse to comment on the overwhelmingly obvious extreme weather event we've seen for years simply because it doesn't fit with their science and your assertions.

The rest of us (65% at latest count) are actually taking notice of weather events and everyone(Without exception) laughs when the odd larconic joker tells them to be thankful it's only this cold because it would be much colder without global warming.

The only nasty unpleasantry is that the weather isn't conforming to your ideas or your consensus scientists theories, and no amount of consensual spin will change what is bloody obvious to everyone ... what is obvious, even to you holocaust-like deniers.