cont'd from above

"These unavoidable climate changes are a consequence of positive feedback in the carbon cycle and lag time of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere."

Stephanie do you understand the first thing about intego/differential equations or the technology behind the GCM models which are used to predict climate?

"The gross imbalance in consumption levels and pollution levels across the world ..... means Australians need to expand their sense of global citizenship."

And FINALLY we have the real agenda of climate change! It is not about the climate, it's about implementing social and political change: climate change is the ultimate tool of the socialist revolution!

jon

BigMal:
"the fact that the renewables industry employs more people in Germany than the nuclear, coal and oil industries combined

Please provide your evidence in support of this claim"

http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/london/03560.pdf
page 4.
its not the only document that points this fact out.

your reference to the frazer institute would be laughable if there werent so many gullible people who dont know who the frazer institute is, what it stands for and who's backing it.

Col Rouge:
"Oh and footnote - if all the alternative energy sources were so good, they would not have a problem finding investors to support their development. The problem is more, they too are trying to latch onto the public teat for subsidy."

well lets establish a level playing field and start scrapping the hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies for the australian coal industry or provide similar levels of boosting to the australian renewables sector. watch the costs plummet with uptake to the point of being more competitive. a federal government hostile to renewable energy is going to have a lot to say about the investment environment. nuclear on the other hand will never be cost competitive without billions in government bonds and subsidies, so why is it being discussed as the energy cure-all?

Response to Perseus who asks:

"How does reducing CO2 improve efficiency when every alternative energy source, including nuclear, is more expensive?"
"How does it save money?"
"How does it improve energy security, and for whom, certainly not the poor who cannot afford current energy prices."
"How is it good for (all) farms when some farms will get more rain and some will get less."

The answers are: the free-market; the free-market; the free-market; the free-market.

Economics is about the most efficient allocation of resources. An efficient marketplace considers the true cost of activity. Greenhouse gas emissions are free, even though they come at a price. Economists call this an externality. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality).

Coal is priced based upon the cost of extraction and transport, but not in terms of its waste. This is economically inefficient. When John Howard says he is protecting coalminers, it suggests a type of socialism, where government favours industries above market decisions.

Energy intensive processes are at an advantage to labour intensive processes. For example it often not worth it for a business to look for energy wastage. The wage costs in maintaining such a program may not be recovered by the problems resolved. It’s similar with water, so agriculure is also paying.

Solar is entirely asset driven. The cost of solar is the purification of silicon. Once they are in place, solar assets produce power during daytime for decades. But silicon can be recycled repeatedly. Hence the long-term cost of solar must be less than coal. I use “long-term” the same as we say climate change is a “long-term” problem.

Perseus worries about the price of energy for the poor. A fair point. The poor are taxed for working, taxed for consumption. Social security is set by the government. How the poor are affected entirely depends upon how the government adjusts these levers. Taxes provide a double disadvantage to reducing poverty.

Unlike many environmental sceptics and unlike many environmentalists, I think the free market provides a balanced answer to climate change. I also think government should not tax employment to a greater extent than it taxes externalities.

I expect that different editors have different takes on Global Warming/Climate Change and the IPCC's data.
Here is an extract from one editorial: " The IPCC's efforts are creating a bedrock of scientific certainty, but don't expect this to silence the sceptics. With one or two exceptions, they are masters of spin rather than science. They have no alternative narrative for the state of the climate, and merely hop from one perceived uncertainty to the next --." "Whatever the future direction of the IPCC, we now know enough to make climate change the challenge of the 21st century. One of the most corrosive contributions of climate sceptics has been to promote any uncertainty as an an excuse for inaction. In truth, the remaining uncertainties should be making us redouble our efforts to mitigate climate change. It's a fair bet that much of what we do not yet know for sure will turn out to be scarier than most of us like to imagine."
That was from the weekly news magazine (10 Feb 2007 edition) from Reed Business Information magazine's "New Scientist". Quite possibly what this editor edits might be different from that of OLO's.

Every industry creates pollution.So,pollution check should have to be done in each industry under compulsion by law.Accounting mast show how much money has been spent in control of pollution out of total expenditure.Impact of such accounting by profit thereby.If loss show in accounting,viability should have to be considered by calculation of social loss and profit.Greenhouse gas emission can not be tolerated if it crosses to a limit even taken all measures of safety indicative for non-viability of such industry.Research should have to be encouraged for extraction of greenhouse gases from atmosphere.