The real problem for the environment is too many people.

If Gorby thinks Kyoto has not been discredited he must have had his head in a paper bag for the past decade. This is classic green beat-upski. Or is that wankestroika?

It is no small irony that the closest immitation to old Soviet style institutional self delusion is the IPCC mafia and their climate models. Need we mention the "hockey stick" graph that doesn't even include the Medieval Warming? The supposed collapse of the atlantic conveyor that simple doesn't fit the volumes of water in circulation? The Vostok Ice Cores that had every historical CO2 reading above 190ppm "smoothed" ie, eliminated on the assumption that it was a contaminant? The emission scenarios that assumed that Indian and Chinese cities would develop under the north american urban sprawl model rather than the Japanese or singapore model?

Old Mickey has more in common with Mr Mouse. But when the greens need a beat up then any high profile name will do. Never mind the bollocks.

Thank you, Judy Cannon, on your summary of the Green Cross conference, and especially on the opinions of Mikhail Gorbachev. Kyoto is by no means the full answer, but it is a credible start to international action on climate change.
In particular, I'm impressed by Green Cross's proposal for the solar fund, for developing photovoltaic sytems, and bringing down the costs of solar systems.
Gorbachev has a telling argument against nuclear power. Not only is it intrinsically uneconomic (for a variety of reasons waste disposal, security measures), but Gorbachev points out the problem caused by world leaders focussing on nuclear power. This simply diverts attention, funding and research away from renewable energy systems.
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com

This appears to be an excellent summary of the main issues discussed at the conference, which few will have been able to attend in person. Some interesting initiatives were suggested. However, the core problem, how to get political leaders in the developed countries to put these issues anywhere near the top of their agendas, remains. Though it is true that, compared with, say, three years ago, many politicians now pay lip service to the reality of climate change and a range of associated environmental consequences, their policies devote little attention and less money to doing anything about it. They continue to think and act in the short (electoral) term. How are we to make any impact on that?

“Organised by Green Cross, the Queensland Government and Brisbane City Council”

Good……So when are Beatty, Newman and others really going to set the example? Yeah Ok, they are doing a bit, but they are still firmly entrenched in the worship-continuous-economic-growth and the oh-you-can’t-do-anything-about-our-massive-population-growth-except-pander-to-it mindsets.

I hope to goodness that Green Cross will see fit to develop a fertility reduction policy, to be implemented worldwide, with a vengeance. There was no mention by Gorby of anything to do with trying to limit population, apparently. Most unfortunate, in an otherwise very good overview of the issues

So, Judy, you must be delighted that John Howard has already engaged the leaders of the most polluting nations – now and prospectively – to cooperatively address the issues of climate change and energy.

I’m sorry that space prevented you from detailed explanation and analysis of the proposal to spend $US50 billion on solar systems etc, no doubt in your next post you will spell out the cost-benefit aspects of past, existing and proposed solar R&D, the proportion of the world’s energy needs which can be reliably and cost-effectively supplied by such means, the timetable for introduction of these new technologies and their impact on growth of atmospheric CO2 concentrations? Obviously, you wouldn’t be so supportive unless you had this data, please share it with us.