Tor Hundloe calling for sensible debate on climate change? Now I've heard everything. Does he mean the kind of "debate" that the old windbag subjected Bjorn Blomberg's audience to at UQ? We came to hear a noted climate sceptic but got 20 minutes of cynical "perceptual pre-positioning" by some sort of tenured old fart. But the green rent-a-crowd lapped it up anyway.

Why should Kevin Rudd work with John Howard on the issue of climate change? The only possible result of that would be 1. a more conservative approach to the issue than Rudd is offering, which is already too conservative; and 2. squandering a key political advantage Rudd has over Howard.

Incidentally, did anybody else detect the cynicism of Turnbull announcing the Federal Government's proposal to dam the Northern Rivers and pipeline the water to SE Queensland the night before the PM meets with the Premiers? Given Beattie's water problems it is hard to imagine a more cynical ploy to divide and conquer the unity of the Labor premiers.

I agree that putting a price on carbon emissions is an essential first step, hopefully in a way that makes avoidance difficult. An example of the latter is paying the Indonesians a piddling amount to conserve their forests. Despite the rhetoric it seems clear neither major party is fair dinkum on climate change. For example Costello wants faster coal loaders to make it easier for other countries to pollute our shared atmosphere. Rudd claims clean coal technology is the answer despite the absence anywhere of a viable power station operating under normal conditions. It's all talk and no action. If this is one of the gravest problems we face then perhaps politicians are no longer up to the challenge.

Taswegian wrote "....perhaps politicians are no longer up to the challenge."
Politicians will never be up to the challenge. All they ever think about is staying in power for another term and sucking up to big business.
Perhaps what we need is a political body for administration purposes and a totally seperate Worldwide NGO who has the sole task of making sure that every living organism on the face of the planet has a future.
But of course, that will never happen simply because people are too tied to their wasteful and Earth destroying petty little lives. Humanity is pre-programmed to desire more and more. Big business has so far been up to the challenge in providing more and more. More toys such as DVD's digital and pay TV, bigger vehicles with every mod con and huge McMansions that the average family really doesn't need.
There is and can only ever be one solution to the mess humanity has created and nature will show us how to clean up our mess in due course.
Mother Earth has given us so much, seen that we are incapably of using it wisely and will take it away in dramatic fashion. It's unfortunate that we'll all suffer because of political inactivity, but that's simply the nature of the beast. Best start preparing for a World very different to the one we've come to love.
Wildcat.

Can they work together? The answer is already known. No, they wont, not can't, won't.

As to debate, what is there to debate? Nothing. We should instead simply be preparing for the already changed climate as well as the coming changes.

Turnbull's pipeline from NSW to QLD is one of the few good ideas we've yet heard. Something practical, Australian and will work. So everyone opposes it of course.

Can they work together. NO.

Why? They don't have anything but their own political short term interests at heart. Nothing else. Both sides.

Do yourself a favour and put the big 2 last and second last on your ballot paper. Think instead of barracking.

“The other thing Rudd’s inquiry could do is to tackle two issues that are germane to the amount of greenhouse gases we emit. Population, obviously at a global level, but also in Australia, will eventually need to be limited”.

Well of course. But the most attention that population stabilisation in Australia ever gets in relation to climate change is a brief mention.

It is far more important than this. In fact it is just completely ludicrous to be striving to reduce per-capita GHG emissions while at the same time accepting a rapid increase in the number of ‘capitas’.

But even more important than this, Rudd’s inquiry should not just be based on climate change, it should be based on the development a sustainability strategy.

Nationally or globally, I don’t think we’ve got a hope in hell of really dealing with climate change. The most we will ever be able to achieve is a bit of slow-down in the rate of emissions, which may well ultimately worsen the situation. A rapid peak and crash in emissions may well be much less damaging in the long term.

Real action won’t happen in Australia until we are forced into it by peak oil price rises…. and even then it will only go so far as we will still be burning and exporting coal for decades longer at least.

But we can develop a sustainability strategy in Australia. This is vastly more important battling to do our bit towards climate change.

Aaargh, that $#*%^ missing word syndrome strikes again, as it does in at least 50% of my posts! ):>(

But we can develop a sustainability strategy in Australia. This is vastly more important THAN battling to do our bit towards climate change.

And population stabilisation is an essential component of it.

Can our two leaders work together?I doubt it, seeing the latest idiot ad by Labor showing the "prime minister's" car speed by a group of waiting children. Here's some more moronic ideas for the imbecile department:
A group of geriatrics being runover by the "PM's" car.
A group of infants in in prams being run over by the "PM's" car.
A lost kitten[always appealing] being run over by the "PM's" car.
Peter Garret and Maxine singing a duet of ,"Labor'How Great Thou Art"
both being splatted by the "PM's" car.
Then find some common sense and apply it instead of using moronic melodrama.

Howard and Rudd working together? Duh! Have you never heard of brand differentiation? About as likely as Pepsi and Coke working together on the ultimate cola, and about as useful.

Emissions trading? great way to ensure that the poorest party in the transaction carries the can (eg. Indonesians losing access to their forests). Without a rocksolid and DECLINING cap in emissions its just another way for merchant bankers to gouge cash from gov and the rest of us. Funny, Malcolm Turnbull was former heard of Goldman Sachs (merchant bankers to the uber rich) in Australia, just another one of those happy accidents of the plutocracy i guess.

Well done Tor Hundloe using fisheries as an example of successful cap and trade, not enough comedy on OLO (orange roughy the latest fishery closed due to collapsing stocks).

The highly inbred economic fundamentalists think they're being daring, dabbling in ecojargon, but Einstein had their measure decades ago - you can't fix a suicide cult by giving the high priests a new dictionary.

since bill hicks is being channeled elswhere on this site...

'i'll give you politics in america...sorry australia:

"i think the puppet on the left represents my belifes"
"i think the puppet on the right shares my opinion."

"hold on, isnt it the same guy holding up both puppets?"

'go abck to bed australia, your government is in control. here's big brother, watch this and get fat and stupid'.

right on the money, ludwig. population control is the elephant in the ballroom. the failure to discuss this is a visible sign of social insanity. the insanity begins in leaving the national destiny in the hands of politicians, politicians can not deal with this change in our relationship to nature, the dynamics of parliamentary rule make it impossible.

i believe only true democracy can mobilize the people of australia to the actions needed for survival. i have also been forced to the conclusion that australians are incapable of democracy. consequently, many will be forced into poverty by the erratic and unfair response to the crisis that politician rule will generate.

let's hope it's only poverty, not death. i console myself with the fundamental law of political science: "you get the government you deserve".

What exists in bipartisan form is an acceptance that climate change is a problem which must be tackled.

It is commonly said that nothing has been done in 10 years, however until recently the Howard Govt has had a foot in both camps. Internally the federal govt has achieved a number of important steps, however it created a perception that climate change is a soft issue and action on it is pandering to environmentalists.

This has turned around and with the economic dimension included, climate change is no longer considered a soft issue.

It is good in a democracy that we have political parties which offer different solutions. Howard is on the way out, but is obviously trying to bridge the gap to a future Costello government who will probably put in place the necessary economic mechanisms to deal with climate change.

Labor already holds the left so its trying to appeal to the centre and some conservatives. If anything, they are trying to differentiate themselves from the Greens.

Ultimately, even though the marketing is different, both Labor and Liberal will soon be implementing a carbon trading scheme involving a price on carbon. They'll then let business do the hard yards. And interestingly, most businesses are looking forward to meeting this challenge.

Our political leaders have a fettish for debating a very small issue for hours, such as how to deal with one prisoner in care,or a very big issue; climate change.
Any leader who drives a vehicle with more than 1500cc capacity or has not installed a water tank to store water for use in their toilet,cannot be considered to be serious enough to debate climate change.
Most politicians consider they are teachers ;"do as I say not do as I do."
Having listened to Sir Nicolas Stern,I am convinced we need our leaders to lead and not to teach as is happening in the current debate.

There is no surity that CO2 is the main culprit in global warming.Go to www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
There is no connection between the warming of the earth and the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere.Look at the evidence that Christopher Scotese presents and you will be a skeptic too.

They have recently discovered that Mars is heating up at the same rate as Earth and this can be explained by Sun spot activity.

Water vapour accounts for 96% of greenhouse gases while CO2 is less than 1%.We had better get our facts right before ruining millions of lives with fear mongering and unnessary poverty.

People are beginning to realise that climate change is a serious issue which, without a ‘magic technological bullet’, can only be solved by political actions.

However the issue is of such magnitude that I think it is beyond the capabilities of our current political parties.



People with concerns for environment/climate change range over the whole political spectrum. i.e.’ you don’t have to be left to be green’

Because political parties have environment/climate change as just one policy in their raft of policies, a voter must accept possibly unacceptable policies along with a chosen climate change policy, something they are loath to do. As an example, the Greens may have a climate change policy acceptable to the mainstream voter but their other policies appear to far left progressive for about 90% of the electorate.



This means that the environmental/climate change vote has been and is fragmented. This lack of a unified vote has meant, over the years, that the environment has suffered through lack of representation



Our political system described above has sort of worked to decide political issues but this climate change issue is different. It is much more important than issues of the past and cannot be left to the politicians to sort out, to trade with their own interest groups, to use as their ‘loss-leader’at election time …. playing politics as normal.



We must have a unified enviromental vote to force the issue.



What the environment and climate change needs is a political party dedicated to it alone, attracting support across the whole political spectrum.

Such a party would not have to run the country but would need to have the critical mass to force the climate change issue beholden only to the environment.

Without such parties we will waste precious years, courtesy of the current parties, with point scoring, flawed emission trading schemes or low and ineffective carbon taxes and lack of funding for the very sector that will solve the problem of climate change, the sciences.

Nothing will change until these dictatorships have been kicked out of politics and the real people get back in to take control of everyday life.

www.tapp.org.au

bless you, tapp, you're arguing for real democracy.

goeff, so are you, although you don't realize it. like most ozzies, you literally can't conceive of real democracy here, since you've never experienced it. but in a real democracy, environment action could be pressed by the people through referenda without the need for some impossible fantasy-party.

democracy may seem unattainable here, but it only needs the electorate to want it, and it will happen. your 'superparty' would need the character of politicians to change into philosopher-kings, and that isn't going to happen.

DEMOS you are dead right, it is up to the people to want it, that is what i am fighting for and as i see it the impossible is possible.

Candidates and members wanted

www.tapp.org.au

I agree with you DEMOS that a 'climate change' Party is not on.

My main point was that our current political parties are not addressing and cannot address the climate change problem because of the fragmented climate change vote.

Your suggested referendum would unify this vote and then maybe we can do something constructive for sake of our grandchildren.

Can you flesh out this referenda idea?

Not long ago lost my wife of 63 years and me turning 86 in June and getting sick of being called Old Pap and a left-wing Loonie by my OLO comrades, reckon it might be a good time to say Au Revoir.

Trouble is I've got ten grandkids just deciding to ask granpa for advice and 13 great grandkids coming on and a 14th one nearly due, guess it might be best to hang around, warning them to be thankful for the past and be prepared to face a protective global future rather than a throwaway one.

George you are still fighting the fight and that is important.There has to be a bit of left and right in our lives for us to survive.There are no absolutes in this unfair game of life.You do not write like a geriatric,so why feel like one?

Diamond Jim died recently and his famous saying was, "Just keep moving,it does matter in which direction."

Where God fits into the equation,unfortunately I have no idea.Perhaps you could enlighten me.

George, the world is in desperate need of left-wing loonies like you and me. Some day we’ll get it through the thick skulls of our detractors that what is currently deemed to be left wing is in fact straight-down-the-line common sense.

Hang in there.

What irks me as an occasional developer of small lots of land is that for years we have been levied large sums for water provision which was to include dam, pumping stations and pipelines. For Brisbane to take an example, the extension to the Wivenhoe dam was supposed to have been done many years ago.

Similarly, the Hinze dam supplying water to the Gold Coast was supposed to have been extended years ago and like the Wivenhoe dam, taxes were collected for the purpose. For interest, the Hinze dam has overflowed three times in the four years and one event was quite recent.

Engineers planned for 50 yr and 100 yr dry events and the money to provide the dams was collected but what has happened to it? I wonder if it has it been squandered by bureaucrats on the many other 'initaitives' such as twin city visits that have grown like topsy. Why not have Councils return to their more traditional roles and plug the wastage of taxes that is occurring?

George Bushbred - hang around for a while, old mate. As Ludwig intimated, we other left wing loony grandpappies enjoy the wisdom in your comments, and the young whippersnappers obviously need it!

I love the way everyone has become so convinced about this whole climate change thing. I mean the same people who don't have faith in meteorologists predicting the weather tomorrow, believe the same people when they predict the weather in 10 years time!!

Does anyone know if the earth has even reached its stable temperature after the last ice age? Maybe the earth is supposed to get hotter. Has the mass/diameter/strength of the sun increased? Has the earth's orbit moved any closer to the sun? There are so many things that are not known, I find it hard to believe the conclusions that some people come to.

No matter my thoughts on global warming, I can see why a reduction in the use of fossil fuels will benefit. Why then, does everyone reject the one idea that will provide the required energy, provide the drastic reductions of CO2 that are being demanded, and can be implemented in a short amount of time? We also have ample space to store the waste products. A nuclear solution would buy a longer time frame to develop renewable technology until it becomes efficient enough to provide our power needs.

Also, why are people worried about rising sea levels when we have Premier Dillema's desalination plant taking the water back out of the sea? Sucks to the sea life around the plant, but at least it means Morris wont have to drink recycled water like they do in most major cities around the world.

Deryck asks a number of questions:

Changes in the sun, the orbit of the earth and the amount of solar activity are constantly monitored. Global warming cannot be explained by the sun according those scientists working on these problems.
Scientists are looking into every aspect of the climate record.

The only explanation which fits with all the evidence is that the overall increase in the Earth's temperature is due to increased greenhouse gasses such as CO2. There is no identified causes for these increases other than their creation in the various activities of people.

The whole point of science is to come to conclusions that rely on evidence and experimentation but not belief. The way in which science works is not perfect, but when it comes to the natural world, it is far superior to other methods.