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.

Regarding solar power, the company 'Nanosolar' in the US is putting $100 million into a factory that will produce up to 430MW per year of solar cells. They have developed a cost effective roll-to-roll printing style technique that will allow unprecendented production rates. A customised 'ink' created using nanotechnology is printed onto a polymer surface, with little or no silicon used. Their website:

http://www.nanosolar.com/

Regarding 'global warming', I am very skeptical. Climate change is a natural pattern of cycles of heat and cold, etc. I have downloaded the IPCC report and will sit down and read it sometime.

Perseus I agree regarding how 'standard of living' is measured re Chinese and Indian increases and comparing it to high-energy use American/Australian/European lifestyles.

I reckon you get too worked up over 'Greenies' though. I get the impression many people who call themselves 'Anti-Green' throw out the baby with the bath water. Of course you can expect the Greens political party and Greenpeace to jump on any new 'clean' technology developments with great fervour, but that doesn't make the technologies redundant! The Howard Government for example seems to reject 'clean' technologies for fear of giving political ammo to their opponents in the Greens party.

Sorry Ev, you may have misread the tone of my posts. It is far more derision than anger. It is based on 15 years of observed incompetence, dishonesty and outright betrayal of our most contributive grass-roots ecolgists, in far too many policy committees and forums. I would sooner trust Daffy Duck with my children's future than that grandiose, moralising rabble who are never there when there is serious work to be done.

I see no reason to ruin my own health by hating them. And they provide such abundant scope for mirth.

Ev, 10 to 1 says that Nanosolar is already being targeted by greedy corporations in an attempt to suppress the technology, or to at least prevent it from becoming main stream. Big business doesn't want a population whereby people can actually "buy" anything that will reduce their dependance on the mulitnationals, so it's my bet we'll never get the opportunity to obtain this solar product at a resonable price until big business can figure some way of turning it into a cash cow. Were everyone to go solar, you'd soon see a situation similar to water supply whereby if water is simply piped past your property (doesn't matter that it's an empty block) you still pay a service charge. In the case of solar panels, electricity companies would force our gutless Government to enforce a levy on all households who disconnected from the grid or who produced more electricity via solar than they used from the grid. Until energy and greenhouse emmisions become an obvious life and death situation, the Government will continue to pander to the "big end of town."

Wildcat, building a $100 million production facility IS big business. Have a look at the list of those who have invested in that company:

http://www.nanosolar.com/investors.htm

Something is happening now the likes of which the world has never seen before ie. nanotechnology - designing materials to your requirements at the molecular level. In only ten years the internet has begun to transform humankind. This is simply follows on. In the same way that Google made billions of dollars, so too will these mass-produced solar cells, simply by economies of scale with a product that everyone can use.

I think a lot of people really don't realise what is going on at the moment, apart from in the daily war-show on TV and their entrenched daily routines.

Ok Ev. I'll admit that a $100 million facility IS big enough to be called big business, but I'm still sceptical that anything will ever be done to assist little people like myself to become more independant of big business. Every time the average person finds a way to live in such a manner as to deprive big business and Government of a few dollars, the two evils combine to extract more from you in some other form. I'll be more than glad to invest in these new solar cells and I have checked out the company. All I'm saying is that if everyone goes down the solar path and the utility companies are missing out financially, they'll soon begin howling to the Government to find a way to replace their lost revenue and the Government will happily oblige.

Wildcat

While Ev has made some good points, I agree with your post. A case in point is the entire 'nuclear debate' - there is nothing in it for the average person. Power is controlled by monopolies and nuclear reactors (unlike solar cells) cannot be installed into the average home (for which I am thankful!).

The 'international coming together' has to be of world citizens as opposed to global corporations. Only when governments realise that there are votes in sustainable policies will they follow the lead of the people, until then they will side with the corporations.

Talk fests are pleasant, especially as a way of relieving the anxiety we all feel about the dire trouble we are in. But their effect is usually to increase the resource consumption of everyone who goes, which is the precise opposite of the only cure for our ills. We're still going backwards, only faster.

Wildcat, you said: 'I'll be more than glad to invest in these new solar cells..'

But the thing is you can't, and nor can I. You'll notice that on their website it says:

'Nanosolar is a privately held company with financial backing from an elite group of private technology investors..'
and
'Nanosolar is presently not accepting new capital.'
http://www.nanosolar.com/investors.htm
So, for now at least, they are making sure they can't be bought out.
By the way, allow me to correct myself for saying 'a $100 million' facility. That amount is of course the total of the investment capital rather than the amount spent on the facility. Either way though, it's still big business.

Regarding a 10-year 'Clean Energy' forecast:

http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=15976&hed=Clean+Energy+Boom+Forecast