Ybgirp,whatever we decide or do about AGW needs to be based on evidence and understanding. I challenged Andrew on two points; on the first, I have direct, first-hand knowledge which contradicts his assertion. On the second, I know that he is talking nonsense from my years of professional expertise in what drives economic growth. Making points, as he does, which are completely false or fatuous helps nobody. And we are not just talking about coalminers. As Keith De Lacy (one of the few decent ministers in Queensland in recent decades) notes in The Australian today, our exports are dominated by coal, oil, gas and energy-intensive materials such as aluminium, totalling over $65 billion in 2005-06. Our largest non-energy export is beef at $4 billion, which also accounts for large output of the greenhouse gas methane. Without these exports, our economy would be devastated, many people would be out of work.

As for alternative employment: jobs depend on investment, and in Australia much of that investment is from overseas. Investors look for the highest risk-adjusted returns they can get. Few opportunities in Australia which are not currently viable would be made viable by measures which put up energy costs, even with former energy and process workers thrown on the market and a much lower-valued dollar (with consequential high inflation and higher interest rates).

No matter how convinced anyone is that AGW will bring drastic consequences, policies to deal with it must be based on reality. For the record, I’ve been arguing since I first became well-informed on greenhouse issues, around 1989-90, that if we wanted support for anti-warming measures, we should concentrate on the most cost-effective measures, maximising the benefits and minimising the cost; and in my own life I seek to conserve energy with measures such as a modest-sized well-insulated house, a low-consumption car and walking a lot. Currently many anti-warming activists are demanding very costly measures – far worse than a major depression – with little evidence as to the benefits, if any.

PS I meant to add that State and Federal governments have rarely adopted the most cost-effective measures for reducing emissions, they've almost always gone for ill-informed "sound-good" measures, e.g. subsidising ethanol, mandating "green" electricity etc. No sign of much advance there.

A lot of wind bagging, but how much action?
I'd like to know how much each of you are doing to combat climate change/greenhouse gas emissions. I'm definately not perfect. I use a ot of electricity, hey I'm on a computer now, I own a car...and use it. But I do try to turn off lights, and I do ride my bike to my daily commitment, I DON'T SMOKE!
I hear a lot of attacks on John Howard and his efforts in Government, or lak there of, but the fact is, he's there, and someone had to elect him there. Maybe his chopping and changing in regard to his policies is a result of pressure and condemnation. I think there are a lot of things he's done well, not that I'm a supporting voter, and I do support the decisions he has made. For the main reason that he wouldn't have made them hap-hazardly.
Howard would have been put under a lot of pressure from coal industry stakeholders, and yes, they do have a great deal of power. The problem is that this world is run by greed and lust for money, with very little concern for the environment and even human welfare.
I am a windbagger as well, but I do like to hear constructive talk, rather than extremist oppinions.
Charles52