Col Rouge,
Yes nuclear can drive cars. Hydrogen to fuel cells to cars has
a very poor EROEI (Energy returned on energy invested, you will see
these initials a lot soon). Electricity to battery is better and can be topped up with solar cells.
I went to the electric car ralley on Sunday
and while there was only about eight cars there it was very educational,
to me anyway. There was a commercially availble conversion on display.

"you don't strengthen the weak by weakening the strong". Amen to that .

In my casual search for potentially more owner friendly pastures I came across a line in a NZ natural resource management document that stated something to the effect of , ‘This fulfills our commitments to agenda 21 of the 1992 Rio earth summit .’ A bit of googling of agenda 21 & I found where our BS water management & land clearing brainwaves may have originated .

Why can’t our government be so honest ?

The above may not seem connected to the current global warming / Kyoto non debate , However parallels exist in regard to who is asked to give something up / pay & who is not . Some interesting reading may be found from agenda 21 & millennium development project .

We should be very careful laying down good intentions , Lest we end up with a good intention paved road .

Remember only a couple of months ago we were doomed to return to the dark ages by peak oil , Now all of a sudden we’re all doomed to fry or drown or something from global warming . A bit rich .

I do seem to remember Howard returning from a UN feel good session saying its time now to deal with global poverty .

Of course efforts to reduce pollution for the sake of reducing pollution are great but I see no reason for committing ourselves to targets for particular types of pollution , If the issue is cleaning up our act we can do that by ourselves , Our own way .

To end , Regardless of what government & the media seem to portray Australia is a signatory to Kyoto.

Latest news: "Fifteen of the world's largest financial institutions are warning that extreme weather linked to climate change could cost more than $1 trillion a year by the year 2040."

Yeah, we wouldn't want to hurt our economic bottom line by reducing emission now would we.

Plerdsus et al.

I would like to add to your observations about coal because there is the same idiotic routine in regard to timber.

If we chop down all our forests and send the pulp to Japan we cop the penalty, they dont, because it is he who cuts the tree down who pays.

So what do the Japanese do,they create credits for themselves by using the profits from the pulp to buy up land in Oz upon which they grow vast areas of blue gum, which when cut down we become the losers, yet again. But because they planted the Greenhouse absorbing forest, they get credits.

The whole coal timber credits/debits scheme under Kyoto is truely bizarre, yet almost daily we have to put up with that hypocrite Henry from the XYZ fund urging us to sign up to Kyoto, be cop further penalties, and by the way make a donation to our coffers.

Coming on top of a bevy of academics telling us that AGW will as likely worse, (based upon the flimsiest of evidence), the whole thing is truely bizarre

Plerdsus

Are your comments about coal correct, in that is it the case that if Japan burns our coal, in Japan, we still get the blame.

Do you have a reference for this please.

Plerdsus.

In the event that you do check back in to this article, and the question I asked of you above,I have found the answer myself from the AGO.

You are not correct with your comments, because the coal we export to Japan which is burnt over there, is to their account, not ours.

There are however, measures called fugitive emissions which flow from the mining operation itself, ie exposing the coal seam to air.

The thing is still dopey in that for coal it is he who burns it, cops the flack, but if it is timber it is he who chops it down in the first place, cops it. Given that we know exactly the tonnages of wood chip exported each year, letting the recipient off in this is way, is a pathetic piece of public policy. Not very bright at all.Poor dears.