Lyn,
I have difficulty understanding the attitude of all the climate change deniers on this (and other) sites.
There is any amount of good conservative scientific evidence available to confirm the causes of global warming.
Even the most elementary observations such as melting ice caps, glaciers, ocean acidification and comparison of ancient ice cores should cause alarm.
I don't think carbon trading or carbon taxes go anywhere near solving this problem.
We should stop all immigration and get our population down as well as measures such as taxing road transport and diverting resources to railways.
I would have to share your despair at achieving any action with commentators such as we have here.

Give me a break! Climate change is not the problem future generations need to worry about, its population expansion. We can all survive a few extra degrees heat easier than we would if the climate change was going cold. The problem our children face is third world countries, many of which are Islamic, over breeding and looking south for new lands to take over.

The author can see by the replies as to why. Then we have jaw dropping stuff like this:

"We can all survive a few extra degrees heat easier"

Were even if people do have a sense of the issue, they think a "couple degrees" warmer is easy to handle. 2 degrees is what, possibly 15 warmer in New York, changes in the oceans currents seeing a UK more like Russia, several meters increase in Sea Level etc. The debate is in the sensitivity (how long it takes) not the cause, these sorts of changes are already virtually locked in.

Not to take away the significance of over population but being anti immigrant is as nonsensical to that debate as denying AGW is an issue , they're both global issues. We can do our bit to reduce population by leading with policy change eg removal of tax subsidies for having children add tax penalties for having more than 2, free vasectomies, free condoms, free over the counter access to the pill.

From there you move to those that understand the Science and the consequences and do nothing themselves, aside from shouting loudly for others to do something. These people will always put the "economy first" but often use nonsense like a "green economy"

On to the small minority that understand the consequences and have reduced their footprint considerably for the very same reasons your metaphor of Canada/Aus in WWII applies to them individually, as it does our nation in the climate debate.

Politics follows, people lead, that parts simple. Look more closely, the issue can't be easily solved or it would have. Try and halt your own C02 output (be mindful of your C02 inputs as well as outputs, how far away did your eggs come from, even if you cycled to the store to get them) for a week, then you will understand why politicians will never go down that path, unless the public lead.

We're on that reduction journey but it takes a quantum shift in lifestyle. We try and be more like H.D Thoreau then A. Gore :)

Valley Guy,

The latest IPCC estimates for the projected temperature rise over the next 100 years are on a par with the known figures for the global temperature rise over the last 100 years. Once you can explain all the terrible catastrophes and disasters that didn't happen as a result of climate change since 1913, you can go on to tell us why they ARE going to happen by 2113, given exactly the same process.

Nothin' to see here, the gravy train has moved on. All you unproductive rent seekers will have to find some other host, how about "social licence"?

We are still here. We are still talking about climate change. You must not be looking in the right places.

If you want your kids to grow up with the same opportunities you had, the time for solving climate change is now. http://clmtr.lt/cb/wep0bJd