I request that the denialists on this thread emerge from their darkened burrows and have a good look at what industrial pollution has done to our ecology, community and occupational health, wildlife and the air we breathe. And that's scientific - the majority of these catastrophes are officially documented!

Environmental vandals are disguised as "gentlemen" conducting board meetings and colluding with compliant, irresponsible governments to see how better to dupe the masses whilst they continue their destructive rampage on the environment in their zest for maximum profits.

Federal and state EPA Acts were legislated decades ago. Offences under the Act in the section: "Environmental Harm" include but are not limited to:

"Alteration of the environment to its detriment or degradation or potential detriment or degradation." Or:

"Alteration of the environment of a prescribed kind."

As well: "The Polluter Pays Principle - those who generate pollution and waste should bear the cost of containment, avoidance or abatement."

Under "Objects and Principles of the Act" is the Precautionary Principle:"

"Where there are threats or serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation."

I shall excuse the sceptics on this thread due to their ignorance.

However, I am unable to excuse the industrial barons, the "regulators" and successive governments. They have failed to enforce the EPA Act, despite constant pleas for years, from the "ranting greenies."

The current government, in denial, are criminals. They are wilfully and knowingly breaching the EPA Act.

When we drive a smoky car, we are put off the road. It is an offence under the EPA Act.

This disgraceful culture within houses of parliament, do not preclude state governments, however, criminals, Mr Howard and his buddies in the pollutant industries, who are fully aware of the current global environmental dilemmas, have no intention of mitigating industrial pollution and should be put off the road immediately.

Clive.

In the interest of keeping things factual the Qld Govt does not subsidise petrol as you said "Qld Government is still subsidising petrol"

Queensland was the only state that did not have an excise on petrol.

The ACT Government tried to put a tax (excise) on X Rated video sales, this was opposed by the Smut industry and wound up in the High Court.

The High Court ruled that under the constitution the States do not have the right to collect excise. So all those excises on petrol,tobacco,alcohol that had been paid to the states were illegal overnight. The Federal Govt. in its wisdom decided it would collect the excise and give it back to the states.

Because Qld never had a tax on petrol and that now the Federal Govt was collecting excise it decided to give the money it never collected before back.

QLD does not subsidise petrol.

Leigh

Your funny. Global Warming changed to Climate Change because of a few cold spells.

Frank Luntz is a Republican Party pollster and political consultant. He's crafted many of the Republican Party's messages, using focus groups to test words and phrases that evoke a strong emotional response. A memo on the environment he wrote for the Party back in the late 1990s had a series of suggestions for how to play down the science of 'global warming' and he in fact advised politicians not to use that frightening term at all because it sounded permanent. Rather, they should use the more benign phrase 'climate change'.

So you see it was people like you who invented the term climate change.

But thanks for the laugh.

Mr Hamilton, I too think you rejoice too soon. Public opinion has shifted, but I think real understanding and knowledge, never mind commitment, has gone not very far at all. I fear we’ll have to see a lot more of the GW pointy end before middle Australia gets off its arse.

Realist’ & others, “..what we do has NO BEARING on the future of the world..”
What a convenient copout. No need for you to practise any restraint then is there.
Do you not know that Australia is the biggest coal exporter in the world, or do you not know that coal is a big contributor to global warming?

Ruawake, thanks for calling Leigh out for parroting Luntz nonsense, saved me the trouble.

Its still amazing to me how the biggest collaborative science project in human history is rubbished in its entirety by people who claim to be in favour of progress

What we do does have a bearing on the future of the world. It is true that Australia only emits about 1% of global GHG’s, but GHG’s don’t recognise country’s borders.

Over 170 countries have ratified, approved or acceded to the United Nations Kyoto Protocol, except most notably the US and OZ.

It would send a very strong message to the rest of the world if we were to take our global responsibilities seriously and ratify Kyoto.

Kyoto does have issues, but they are being addressed to move to that beyond 2008 – 2012. Australia should involve itself and have serious input into that process.

We see politicians play politics – that is unfortunate but a fact of life. However, this is too important an issue to let them play games for the sake of the polls.

I was disappointed last week-end when our PM did not even mention geothermal as an option as an alternative base-load energy supply. He seems only focussed on Nuclear. We neither have the money nor the time.

Individuals can make changes at the grassroots level, but we need our political and business leaders to make changes at the highest levels of society.

Individuals can drive that change, particularly when politicians see that it is in their own survival interests.

Most other countries now see the war on the “weather of mass destruction” as having a bigger global impact than the now discredited “weapons of mass destruction” – Australia needs to recognise that.

Australia would get more kudos from the global community if we act in an environmentally sustainable way. Without the environment, we have nothing.

Whilst we're on the subject, it was comforting to hear Mr Turnbull advise that there has been no increase in emissions during the period 2003-2005.

The latest National Pollutant Inventory (www.npi.gov.au) figures on the metal ore MINING industry reveals that SO2, PM's, NOx, and CO released the largest emissions from a myriad of toxic, eco-destructive chemicals. An annual combination of just four chemicals follow:

2003-2004...........566,000,000 kgs
2004-2005...........508,000,000 kgs
2005-2006...........556,000,000 kgs Period total = 1,630,000,000 kg

The NPI advises the largest chemical emitters from the COAL industry were PM's,NOx,CO,VOC's and SO2. The annual combinations of those five chemicals follow:

2003-2004............73,000,000 kgs
2004-2005...........250,000,000 kgs
2005-2006...........252,000,000 kgs Period total = 575,400,000 kgs

No overall increase, Mr Turnbull? Please advise which pollutant industries have reduced their emissions to counteract the above figures in the coal industry. And can you be more specific in the future? And why aren't you more forthcoming about the mining industry's massive emissions? What about the EPA Act? You are employed to protect the environment - not your friends in the pollutant industries!

So, this is what happens when you give the environment portfolios to bankers, lawyers and candlestick makers who don't know the difference between a VOC and a sock? In addition, industry aligned senior bureaucrats (answerable to no-one)are extremely adept at feeding bucket loads of crock to their Ministers and subsequently, the media!