I agree that Howard and even the Premiers are fobbing off meaningful action for fear of alienating key sectors. Unfortunately by the time such action is no longer political suicide the problems could be a lot harder to solve. We have convinced ourselves that using and exporting vast amounts of fossil fuel are disconnected from water issues, or that technological salvation is at hand when things get a bit tricky. In reality we should be changing energy use patterns and actively discouraging greenhouse gas emissions now. If I am not mistaken these emissions are steadily increasing despite the daily media blitz.

I'd urge governments at all levels to publish greenhouse reduction targets and give themselves a 'must do better' report card each year to be tabled at the Premiers Conference

Yet another article which is nothing more than worry-bead fingering.
Yes, it states the obvious - that climate change is going to impact severely, will increasingly disrupt adversely upon society, and that only the most deluded have not yet come to accept that reality.
What it does not say is far more important.
It does a Nelson - puts a blind eye to the telescope - and obscures the fundamentals writ large for all to see: there are more humans, making whoopee with limited resources and indiscriminately tossing aside their ever-accumulating waste, than this continent - and this planet - can bear.
If ever there was "an issue of the future" it neglect by politicians of all persuasions to attempt genuine sustainability, and get off that treadmill of impossibility - an economic and social system dependent upon everlasting growth. Only "yesterday's men" (and women) would shy away from moves to stabilise human numbers and economy-driven consumption. Yet they are the ones we are lumbered with, the only ones to choose from.
Any moves to address climate change will fail unless accompanied by such stabilisation.

Straight after I had read this article I had a fully formulated post in my mind. But Colinsett beat me to it, so I’ll just put it in different words:

We need to concentrate on GENUINE SUSTAINABILITY, which necessitates balancing the demand on our resource base and environment with the ability for that resource base and environment to cope without suffering degradation.

First and foremost, we need to stabilize population, which would we could easily do in Australia.

Anyone who expresses concern about greenhouse gas emissions or any one of a hundred other environmental/economic/social issues and who condones or ignores the rapid rate of population growth is just talking through their backside.

Howard falls directly into this category. Unfortunately it seems that Rudd does to, which is a real shame because he really (still) does have the most excellent opportunity to embrace sustainability.

If he did this, he would set himself and his party up as a distinctly different political entity from the incumbents, and one that would be sure to gain a great deal of support from most people in the community, who with a very little bit of expression from a prominent political leader, would fully sympathize with sustainability initiatives.

Forget the climate change initiatives. Let’s go for the whole caboodle – sustainability. And in doing so we will be addressing climate change issues in this country more effectively than if we try to do it while still embracing the absurdity of continuous unending population and economic growth.

It is a real pity that Christian Downey hasn’t included this fundamentally necessary aspect in his thinking. I would have thought that the Australia Institute and everyone who works there would be right on top of the sustainability imperative, as its executive director Dr Clive Hamilton seems to be, and would include it in any articles on environmental and economic matters.

The Australia Institute is nothing more than an ACF front. Ask Clive Hamilton where he gets his funding. And surprise, surprise, we get some doofus claiming the Stern Report exposed myths. Stern was pure myth. The worst kind of cost accounting with not the slightest attempt at measuring any beneficial outcomes and no assessment of productivity or technological issues that would impact on those costs.

A large portion of the public think it is an issue because some of the worst shonks on the planet keep telling them blatant porkies.

Rudd is big on global warming for the same reasons Swan is. You see they held very important positions of influence back in the days when Goss, Burns et al decided SEQ didn't need the Wolfdene Dam. So these days the water shortage that Rudd and Swan had a big part in causing is being blamed on, you guessed it, Global Warming.

And as a million hectares of Victorian wildlife habitat, and untold millions of native fauna, go up in a broadscale clearfire that is directly attributable to Green mismanagement of fuel loads, it is all being blamed on, you guessed it, Global warming.

they used to blame this sort of stuff on witches and the devil. Same gonzo thought processes, new terminology.

I'm not arguing that the ACF's policies on climate change are enough, but they're a start. I agree completely with those commentators who identify population growth and the goal of “endless” growth and consumption as the core problems.

However, does anyone really believe that John Howard, George W. Bush and their corporate puppeteers give a hoot about climate change?
Howard as PM has shown himself to be extraordinariuly cunning and clever - but that doesn't mean intelligent or imaginative. I don't think that Howard even tries to understand the issue.

Bush and Howard were sudden converts to belief in climate change when their puppeteers needed to promote nuclear energy. Any other federal government initiatives (solar, water policy) etc have been inadequate, and pretty much mere window dressing, while promoting nuclear as “the solution”.
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com