I believe in Australia and the Worlds Knowledge Capital Base.

I believe that if politics was more concerned with good governance instead of timid economic tactics that resist change then business, the science community and us, as creative civilians would together be unleashed as problem solvers - determined as a nations mind - body and soul ... together, as innovators for change.

Given the energy already shown by business groups, many science people and communities in Australia and overseas, I have no fear about meeting these 60% - 2050 targets.

I have faith in our human intelligence, and I believe with good governance, progressive business groups would be far better rewarded to do something constructive on this issues than not.

I believe everyone wants climate change... it is not the core arguement.

I agree therefore;

"Australia’s political and business leaders shouldn’t be debating about whether we can “afford” to cut emissions by 60 per cent.

They should be discussing how best to achieve the target."

.

Reasonable article with implications - if Labour's 60% target is on the appeasement side of realistic and it still isn't within cooee of being acceptable to Liberal Coalition or BCA, that tells us how objective and useful the Right is going to be in getting this sorted.

I'll grin & bear 60%, if Labour quickly gets down to the job. Carbon trading needn't be their first effort, Major education and incentive programs for energy Conservation and Efficiency would prob be better investments in short & long term. Any C market must have an emissions cap that falls each and every year, and i've yet to see any good argument why carbon market shouldn't extend to all citizens via Tradeable Energy Quotas. Should also go all practicable renewables projs ASAP via local manufacturing in preferance, keep old coal stations running instead on solar thermal and sit on our coal till it triples in price and can be burnt safely.

Any one of these alone will be useless - we've got to take eg. at least 5 of Socolow & Pacala's wedges. A suite of measures is whats required, as understood by Gov. of US state of Virginia
http://www.energybulletin.net/29189.html

Liam, That's an interesting thread you recommended. I particularly like the paragraph which stated:

"The current American system of legislating is monitored by legions of lobbyists all dedicated to maintain or enhance their clients piece of the great economic pie. Except for non-profits, there rarely is a thought about the common good."

I could have sworn I was reading about the Australian legislators and their buddies in the pollutant industries.

The Environmental Protection Act WA (1986 - current) in section 49 (2) states:

"A person who causes pollution or allows pollution to be caused commits and offence."

The one describing "Environmental Harm" is interesting:

s.3A (b): "Alteration of the environment to its detriment or degradation or potential detriment or degradation."

Some joke, I'm sure you'd agree. Successive governments' impotence in enforcing the Acts reveals an irresponsible obsession with economic growth.

Whether climate change is anthropogenic or not, the fact remains that industrial pollution has desecrated our eco systems on a global scale. One need not be specific in describing the appalling state of our own waterways, soil, air, wildlife and human health, a result of anthropogenic activity resulting from pollutant industries.

The majority of citizens who live in state capitals have little idea of the pollution (much is transboundary in nature) wreaked on communities and the environment in the heavily industrialised areas. Nor, probably, have they ever read an emissions' report from these industries. Those documents would give them cause for alarm.

Only when the business community and the greedy industrial barons voluntarily offer to implement already available pollution control for their operations will we see a mitigation of atmospheric pollution. We won't hold our breaths.

The Precautionary Principle has never been recognised by governments and its regulators. Mr Howard has no intention of recognising it and the ALP's previous record gives me no optimism for any hope for a sustainable future for the children of tomorrow.

Mandatory capping (not trading) of toxic emissions from the big emitters, could commence tomorrow without too much of a dent in profits. It won't happen because in this country, polluters don't pay!

A good article Mr. Macintosh.

The target of 80% will be difficult. But we can go a long way towards this on simple, cost effective measured. Primarily the easy option are found in reduction of energy consumption and the improvement of energy efficiency.

Increasing the use of dual cycle turbines in electricity generation, increase in fule economy standards, decentralisation of grid electricity generation in rural areas, larger rebates for the purchase of solar power systems (and especially solar hot water), improvements in public transport and the introduction of measures to encourage commuters to walk, cycle or take public transport to work could all go a long way.

In his book "The End of Oil" Paul Roberts spells out the numerous gains that can be made from increases in efficiency, not only for CO2 emission reduction, but also for the reduction of oil use.

Personally, I don't think the ALP is up to it. To wrought with internal war, and without a definate plan for meeting the emission targets they propose. At least the Greens are attacking the heart of the issue. And so far, the only Australian politican I've seen talk about peak oil is Christine Milne, the Tasweigan Greens senator. However, will they put enough pressure on the major parties to act