“The science is clear: even if global emissions are cut rapidly from today, the impacts of climate change will continue to worsen until at least 2030 and these impacts will be borne most heavily by the world’s poorest countries.”
If the science is so clear, perhaps Oxfam Australia could clear up a number of points for me (in lay terms).
1. How is the mean global temperature measured? Can you list the uncertainties and errors in such global estimates? Is the highest alleged year for maximum heating in North America 1998 or the revised NASA estimate of 1934?
2. Can you describe the sampling methods used to determine global atmospheric CO2 levels?
3. Do the climate models assume a linear or a logarithmic relationship between temperature and CO2?
4. Since neither the logarithmic and/or linear curves have an upper bound; do you envisage temperature increasing beyond bounds? Do you discard the possibility of “earth cooling mechanisms” and/or negative feed back mechanisms leading to an equilibrium position for global temperature? Have you considered the possibility of an oscillating temperature around a global mean

"If the science is so clear, perhaps Oxfam Australia could clear up a number of points for me (in lay terms)."

I'd like to hear those answers too, but you won't get them because the science is CLEAR!

even if you agree with the writer about what should be done as a matter of moral obligation, i hope you understand that the government has only one imperative, which is 'stay in power'. using 'must' about some one else is a certain signal of fuzzy thinking and/or weak argument.

parliaments are very bad at delivering 'good' to the majority, since their survival depends on bleeding the majority to reward their supporters. still, if survival depends on it, they will respond. the trouble is, political survival depends on winning the next election, while racial survival will be someone else's problem, several elections down the road. the chance of politicians taking adequate measures in time, is slight.

that's why i have been pressing the case for democratizing australia. a nation with direct elections and citizen initiative can mobilize quickly and act for the common good, since the majority will be directly involved in setting policy.

it's not too late to save the planet, but if we leave management in the hands of people who created the problem, it soon will be.

Sigh. I swear there are some people that would happily sit there in front of a thermometer watching the temperature gradually rise, all the time doubting the result, until they ultimately keeled over from extreme hyperthermia.

Point being, there will never be 100% rock-solid proof that current climate change predictions will come to pass. In fact, I'm 100% confident they won't, because humanity, while occasionally slow off the mark, just ain't that stupid. Sadly, we'll probably let it get to the point that hundreds of millions are regularly suffering the effects of C.C. before we actually do anything serious, and having left it that late, may be left with little choice but for such radical and expensive solutions that our standards of living will be negatively affected. But at least there will be a planet that our descendants can again prosper on.

Alternatively, we could simply start adopting inexpensive, gradual solutions now, that, on the rather unlikely chance that thousands of climate scientists around the world have collectively got it completely wrong, would have no truly significant downsides.

Doesn't seem like a particularly difficult decision, does it?

Labor has committed to ratify the Kyoto protocol with its CO2 emmission targets, has committed not to use nuclear energy, and committing to maintain economic growth.

There is a porker in there somewhere.

I agree not even allowing nuclear as an option is a bit silly, but the reality is that Australians as a whole aren't likely to accept it any time soon, and further, there are economical reasons why it's unlikely to be competitive with renewables long term - if nothing else, the fact that Australia is a very large, sunny, sparsely populated country. Nuclear makes far more sense for most densely populated northern European and American environments.

As far as the extent to which economic growth is dependent upon fossil fuel usage - yes, I'm very much concerned by this, especially in regard to a likely oil supply squeeze in the next decade. But, while the technologies are not fully mature, there are so many options with renewables that there's no reason that a suite of them can't eventually provide all our energy needs (which themselves can be dramatically slashed with some basic efficiency improvements).
Further, the coal industry isn't going to commit suicide in a hurry, so it will be doing everything it can to reduce the carbon intensity of coal-fired power (including solar preheaters, IGCC generators, biological carbon filters, CCS etc.).

If you told someone in 1970 that in 30 years time there would be twice as many vehicles on the road and a fraction of the pollution, I doubt anyone would have believed you. So there is good reason to be confident we can simultanenously increase energy generation and reduce carbon emissions.