I think the public is concerned about the possible effect of CO2 on climate it's just they don't want to pay for it. I agree that wind and solar should not get generous subsidies. They not only add to electricity costs but have so far failed to close a coal fired power station anywhere in the world. Ideally it should be possible to set an annual CO2 limit and let the market decide what percentages of coal, gas, nuclear, wind and solar it wants. That ideal is severely compromised by renewables subsidies, the prohibition on nuclear and huge copouts in CO2 reduction such as the use of questionable offsets.

Therefore if CO2 cuts are slow arriving it must be partly blamed on the government's weakness and blind spots as an umpire. Another huge blind spot is the export of coal and LNG meaning that Australia is complicit in more emissions that the large amount we already own up to. If genuine CO2 cuts will hurt the hip pocket then tax and welfare should be adjusted, so long as the money is not spent on more carbon intensive services. The public must be prepared to make some sacrifices without punishing any government that implements them.

The carbon trading is a scheme that takes the easy way out for governments by passing the problem on to others, so they do not have to raises issues them selves and be voted out.

There are other ways to reduce carbon/pollution that have to be done anyway (peak oil).

Ensuring that car manufactures make fuel efficient cars (not hybrids), take trucks of the road, but big business will not allow that.

Reducing population, but big business will not allow that.

We could all come up with a list of things that could be done but fighting big business is the issue.

"Why should people worry about a theoretical doomsday scenario in 100 years’ time...?" - Because it's based on sound science that after two decades of concerted and well funded efforts by the fossil fuel industry, has not to be shown to be wrong in any of it's fundamentals? Because it's going to change our world beyond recognition and be effectively irreversible? Because the costs and consequences will be enormous and all the bigger for failing to rein in emissions?

Schemes to reduce atmospheric CO2 have failed because of people like the author - who deliberately passes over the state of real understanding of climate - argue to prevent schemes that would work. In place of effective action we get compromised, ineffective and counterproductive policies that opponents such as the author promptly use as 'evidence' that that is what proponents wanted - and that costly, ineffective policies are the fault of those who take our understanding of climate seriously and want real effective action.

1. Would people pay for their rubbish to be collected if they could just chuck it in the street and let the wind blow it away? Would gargage collection services then go broke? Could we then eliminate the tax on garbage we now pay (through our rates)? We could spend the money we would save on other environmental problems! Which ones would you nominate?
2. How successful is the cap and trade system for SO2 in the US? Has acid rain been reduced? Has the system been economically efficient?
2. Why has the head of BHP called for a price on carbon?

PeterA, if you actually succeeded in taking the trucks off the road, how long do you think you would live?

With the horrible cities, where most of Oz people choose to live, it would take less than 5 days for the food riots to start. No city, & very rural centers, could survive without the trucks that take the food from farm to market, & redistribute it to the suburbs.

Give me 25 years lead time, & I could probably bread enough horses to pull the carts to deliver the milk. You wouldn't need vegetables, you could grow them in the manure in the gutters.

I do find it painful that there is so much rubbish put out by greenies.

Hasbeen.....said..."I do find it painful that there is so much rubbish put out by greenies. You really don't like greenies...do you:) What happened...did one verbally attack you for bad farming practices?

...and what rubbish is that?

That for land clearing by farmers that caused salt to rise, Murry/Darling water piggery, and what about the Franklin....I guess that was a bad idea as well.....what did you do before becoming such a bitter old man? I would say merry xmas to you, but Hum-bug is all I would get. Mate, humans are changing the world. I still stand by saying......Haft human causes and Haft natural cycles.......however the bottom line is .............. will still have a huge problem on our hands in so many directions......it would take me all night just explain the variables.

BLU