TrashcanMan

'The problem in China is corporate corruption undermining official government policy.'

My point exactly. So why should we get our knickers in a knot? Our contribution to carbon usage is next two nothing assuming this version of 'science' is right.

Well may we ask, are we just voting for our lifestyle for 3 years? Or will some voters at least consider the looming environmental disaster facing Earth? Only the Greens have given the electorate an inspirational vision or any inkling of what we can achieve by stretching ourselves.

If the Greens achieve a balance of power in the Senate in 2010 as seems likely, then it's game on.

Gillard's true environmental credentials will become apparent when she's faced with the prospect of engaging the Greens in a progressive, strategic dialogue about pricing carbon, or will we see her capitulate yet again, perhaps in collaboration with Abbott or rebel Liberals to dish up a more lavish menu of financial rewards to satisfy the hunger of our greedy, gross polluters.

On the PM's form to date, my bet is that she will hold out the prospect of a deal with the Greens in order to clinch a deal with the Liberals.

Actually, China's environmental policy is more progressive than ours.
Trashcanman,
I sincerely hope so. After all there's about 1200000 million more people than here ! have you asked them how they're ever going to produce less pollution than Australia ? Australia, Austria, Switzerland & many other small countries could throw away their emission policies altogether & still don't produce as much pollution as one big industrial city in China.

"a less carbon-satiated atmosphere?"

I don't think that word means what you think it means. But even if it did mean what you thought it meant, do you really think a rise from 300 to 450 parts per million -- in other words, from .0035% to .0045% -- is going to 'satiate' anything?

There are lots of good reasons to cut down on our use of fossil fuels. Being held to ransom by the unhinged rulers of theocratic states is one of them. Climate change is not. And the problem with endorsing good causes for bad reasons is that when the badness of the bad reasons is exposed, it damages the reputation of all the good reasons as well.

People who realise they have been fooled are not in a mood to make fine distinctions.

Just thought I'd alert those who believe the Science is settled. Seven prominent physicists including Nobel Prize Winners state they disagree with the AGW hypothesis.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/07/eminent-physicists-skeptical-of-agw.html

Runner <" The same science was taught to me in the 1970's. The only difference is that if we did not act we would have an ice age. The warnings were just as serious."

I too was taught science in the 70s Runner, but was never taught we were going to have an ice age any time soon. Maybe that was because my science teacher happened to be a Catholic nun who spent most of our science lessons trying to make us believe the earth was only 5000 years old 'coz the bible tells us so'!

I don't necessarily believe in global warming as such- it has just been announced that the area I live in has had the coldest winter on record so far