The top four polluting nation states in the world add to over 50% of the total words contribution. If something is going to be done, it must happen there. Australia contributes less than 1.5 of the total world population.It may be said that this is high per capita but my response is that like all developed economies, Australia must produce a certain level of emissions to remain a competitive economic power; especially with a lot of Australian industry being based on the production of resources meaning further loss of jobs as an inevitable consequence of the new carbon tax introduced through deception.
Nation states must reduce their emissions, yes. However, if Australia was to cut its emissions by 10% it would only decrease by 0.13%. China however would decrease by 2.23%. This reduction alone is almost twice the original emissions by Australia. Let others lead the way, otherwise Australia is going to go so far ahead, it will end up behind!

The solution to the world's problems is ...(drum roll) ... Broadband!

If only we could get some.

I'm not so sure Paul that I'd place too much hope in Governments fixing things up. For all I know, they might be a part of the problem.

"Second rule of debate (which comes after be excellent to one another) is:

Check your Source when making claims.

http://tinyurl.com/kn4nno"

OK, let's check. WattsUpWithThat - voted Best Science Blog of 2011, just recorded 75 million hits. Winner of the 2008 Weblog award and the 5th-ranked science blog on Wikio.

RealClimate...? 17th science blogs (and going down), and hasn't got an award since 2005.

Who's winning, I wonder?

"Transitioning to clean renewable energy is just common sense. "

Transitioning to wind power which is at least three times as expensive as, and to solar power which is at least ten times as expensive as, coal-fired power generation, does not qualify as common sense, given that there is no scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause dangerous global warming.

Yet the Government, the Coalition and the Greens agree to this ridiculous policy, implementation of which will force retrograde structural change -- scary indeed.

But the "reality" is that coal is still a non-renewable resource.

Whether or not AGW is real or not is irrelevant - we are still, at some stage in the future, going to need to adapt...

Why not do it now and suffer some short term economic pain, on the assumption that perhaps, just maybe, there is something to this whole AGW business, or even if there's not, just on the basis that we are doing a good thing for future generations...

"Why not do it now and suffer some short term economic pain, on the assumption that perhaps, just maybe, there is something to this whole AGW business, or even if there's not, just on the basis that we are doing a good thing for future generations..."

Because it will cost vast sums of money which could be better spent on things which are actually needed: malaria control and nutritional supplements for people in developing nations, for instance.

Imagine someone 150 years ago saying: "We'd better start breeding stronger horses NOW, because they will be vital in the industrial age to come!" That's the level of naivety shown by the so-called Precautionary Principle -- 'Do ANYTHING, whether it is useful or not!' -- or as I prefer to think of it:

"When in danger, or in doubt,
Run in circles, scream and shout."