Peter some of us have been onboard since the 70's Howard has only just realised that it's an election issue or he would not be pretending to act now. Howard's government serves the big end of town, it seems big business [the worst polluters] come first, even before the deteration of the planet, shame Howard shame.

Another pathetic statement that is supposed to end any intelligent debate 'finally everyone is getting on board'. In actual fact the opposite is happening as more and more start to question the Global Warming High Priests and their unscientific conclusions. More and more are waking up to to fact that the climate has always changed and goes through patterns. Problem is we are only ever smart after the event. Another Bush/Howard basher who must envy the success of these two men.

Ah, good ol' runner. Another "expert" who privileges his uninformed opinion over that of the majority of scientists on the planet. Even those scientists who reject the evidence of man-made climate change that the majority of their peers point to in supporting their views do not come out with the sort of categorical statements-of-fact that runner has just offered. What's the scientific BASIS for your opinion, runner? Your child-like swollen ego that deludes you into assuming you are right does not count - sorry. Soo...evidence, mate?

Suggestion: where there APPEARS to be a trend in place that - if allowed to continue unchecked - may have disastrous consequences for millions, does it not make sense to acknowledge the presence of risk and take appropriate preventative measures? Or do you advocate playing Russian roulette when you are not 100% sure whether there is a bullet in the chamber?

This article suggests that global warming is an inarguable scientific truth, citing everyone's favourite oxymoron, "consensus evidence," as reasoning. Unfortunately, the more the reasoning behind it shifts towards "it's happening because everybody says it is," the more that once-marginalised, fanciful ideas become completely reasonable because they are spoken about by believers as self-evident truth, and the more global warming seems to shift from "environmental fad" towards "religion," the more likely it is that the skeptics and rationals of the world will begin to embrace "environmental atheism."

The thing that always interests me about the science supporting global warming is that, if our greenhouse gas emissions are the root cause of climate change, and the figures they cite for the effect they are having are correct, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING we can do to prevent environmental apocalypse. So either way, the Greenies of the world are fighting a losing battle.

Good ol' Rolan trots out that old chestnut, the precautionary principle.

"does it not make sense to acknowledge the presence of risk and take appropriate preventative measures?"

The precautionary principle only can apply only if there is an absence of a scientific standard. The demand for scientific proof of hypothesis means acceptance according to the rules of science. "Fully established scientifically" or "scientific consensus" implies direct measure of a causal hypothesis at the statistical level of a 95% confidence interval, 19 times out of 20. So far the IPCC is only 90% certain. Using this accepted logic we would not proceed. It also means there isn't even a scientific consensus.

Emotive language has no place in scientific or informed debate eg. "disastrous consequences for millions", "Russian roulette", "bullet in the chamber"

Yes it is a great momentum Peter. The world is becoming greener. Now that the worst of the anti-green word leaders, Bush and Howard, have shown some real green leanings (or been dragged kicking and screaming into developing some sort of green agenda), a big curve in the road away from sustainability has been turned.

But there is a hell of a long way to go yet.

“Dealing with global warming is the biggest challenge faced by civilisation since at least the long war from 1914 to 1945…”

Only if you overlook the elephant in the living room that is population growth, or the imperative to become sustainable at a global level and all levels below it.

These are the things we need to concentrate on, not climate change! All this new-found energy for addressing climate change had better damn well be just an interim step on the path towards a total approach to sustainability, or else we’re not going to achieve much at all.

Peter, your sense of balance sits right at the core of your environmental passion and has done from an early age, just as it has for me.

Well, I don’t see any sense of balance in attempts to address climate change while not addressing population growth and the continuously increasing number of fossil fuel consumers. It does not compute.

In fact, until I see a genuine willingness from Howard, Bush, big industry and whole national populations to address the issue of balance and hence sustainability head-on, I think the whole climate change / environmental effort is ‘pseudogreen’ at best and a total distraction from what really matters at worst.

It's true that there are more politicians that start being concerned of environmental issues, or at least the pretend it to be, but I'm afraid that it's more a strategy to keep the population contented. I hope I'm wrong and in the end we are going to do something to save the planet before it's too late. http://saveourbushland.blogspot.com/

“Dealing with global warming is the biggest challenge faced by civilisation since –."
Maybe not. Homo sapiens brought on its greatest challenge after 1945, when it reduced death rates from disease and starvation while not, in parallel, investing in minimization of fertility rates.
Microbiology at that time provided such gifts as Penicillin, DDT, and elimination of the scourge of Smallpox. Yet the earthly self-proclaimed custodians of Gods’ words seized mendacious opportunity: “more for my tribe – go forth and multiply”.
“God helps those who help themselves”; but opportunistic humanity, with papal and fundamentalist economists’ blessings, did indeed help themselves - to an opportunity for a lemming-like orgy of increase in numbers. From a population of about 2.4 billion in 1945, rodent-like, humans increased to a 2007 total of 6.6 billion. Since I was a teenager.
Global warming is but a symptom of the fundamental problem of incessant growth. It is simply the rubbish we have thrown out coming back to haunt us: carbon which nature has banked, underground. Millions of years worth of it. Its heat extracted, and waste thrown up the chimney into the atmosphere. Do those who have no worry about such quantities and rapidity believe in the tooth fairy?
“There will still be some fighting over the tiller, and just which direction to head in, but we are finally under way.” Those who are doing such fighting – the ones able to get their fingers onto the tiller – all want to continue a lemming-like course: growth forever. Gathering around those leaders, pleading and praying for them to alter the deck chairs here or there rather than to change their ultimate course, we sail towards a fierce and desiccated sunset.
The real estate industry, the property council – how wonderful those increased house values. Retail industry – spend, or we'll be ruined. Media – advertising to persuade higher consumption must prevail or we will be bankrupt. Fundamentalist economists – growth is the backbone upon which civilization is structured - resources are but an appendage. All reap (profits) but till without fertility; nor tiller a proper course.

"Dealing with global warming is the biggest challenge faced by civilisation since at least the long war from 1914o 1945, or perhaps the Black Death that wiped out as much as a third of Europe’s population in late medieval times, or maybe ever."
The death toll of WWI is estimated between 15M and 66M and WWII, 60M to 77M.
The total deaths due to Bubonic Plague between 1300 and 1700 was 300M.
I cannot recall reading of one human death directly attributed to AGW.

Also (a quibble perhaps) but Peter forgot to include the Leader of the Opposition, Kevin Rudd, as one of his AGW slowpokes. It was only recently that Kevin traded in his gas guzzling 4WD for a purer than pure Prius (only after he was outed) and has yet to install solar hot water at home.

An article right on the dot, Peter. Of course, the problems about all going green, is that we have businesses as well as people doing so good now through China's hunger for our quarry stocks, as well as our satisfaction through stupendous cheap Chinese wares in our stores. Thus Big Biz, whom most people rely on, will not get off the glory train, nor think any other way while making a tidy profit.

We have smart-arse members even of our own group still calling greenies left-wing loonies, when actually these greenies are typical of an Avant Guarde through history, who unfortunately like Socrates and even the younger Jesus mixed with the so-called wrong crowd, and letting themselves even personally be looked after by the few whom were adorers, and the few at the time who could see the true light.

What is going to happen, and typical of history as some of us have already mentioned. The smart ones, whom Adam Smith termed the necessary greedy capitalistic competitive ones, will come in and steal the agenda, what fairer-going Aussies call jumping in on the grouter.

Looking back through history, that's usually the way of progress, and unfortunately most religions have yet been unable to change it.

The real challenge of the next few decades is not global warming, it is the increase in world population. This increase will not take place in the first world, where populations have largely stabilised, but in the third world, where the population is expected to double over the next 30 years. Global warming is only one of the consequences of population increase. When third world governments realise that without minimising this there is no prospect of improvement in the living standards in their countries, the problem may be addressed, but there is no sign of this now. The only possible example of how a country can pull itself out of poverty is China, which is now reaping the benefit of its one child policy.

Unfortunately the only issue that unites both the Vatican and the muslim world is that nothing must be done to stop the increase in population.

A principal fallacy about global warming forecasts is that they assume that the rate of emissions will be maintained, when the fact is that we are running out of oil. Surely the biggest public policy problem that we will face is that there will have to be a substantial fall in the standard of living in the west, particularly among lower income workers (because they use so much oil). Achieving this and remaining in office will be a major challenge for governments. As for the third world, their problems will be addressed by the four horsemen of the apocalypse.

Wishful thinking, Mr McMahon. Relatively green, probably. Superficially green, sure, already are. Really green, in the sense of no longer dangerously altering the biosphere, consuming renewable resources (fish, timber) at nonrenewable rates, nor burning thru our endowment of nonrenewable natural resources (fossil fuels, mineral concentrations) at all-ours rates, i don't see it. Its conceivable in our lifetimes, but only just, and our prospects grow daily worse (business as usual). We are maybe halfway thru trying everything else before we are forced to what will actually work: cultural change, reskilling and retooling, monetary and taxation reform, humility and generousity. Neither major party has yet half the required cojones or smarts to lead that change. Maybe they'll whip into shape, maybe less moribund parties will take their place (as used to happen in Australian politics).

Towards the end of the 90s environmentalism and climate change awareness was rising fast. The "War on Terror" and the war in Iraq, as well as providing 'cover' for the oil men to plunder the Middle East also provided them with a useful 'distraction' from the environmental cause as they peddled more and more fear.

The neo-cons are not only ruthless in achieving their self-serving ambitions, they are also repsonsible for knocking cliamte change into the long grass for the last 6 years - and still they are not being held to account for their deception and abusive treatment of us all.

Clearly the momentum behind Global Warming (GW) hysteria is growing to unmanageable size. Microsoft is cashing in on the nonsense by introducing a new Xbox game designed to foster an uncritical acceptance of GW in the minds of children. Some Industrialists, which should no better, are exploiting GW fear for commercial advantage - to prove themselves greener then green. Other Industrialists may plan to join the GW crusade with the object of neutralising the nonsense, as inside members of the club.

Are there any remaining politicians with the intestinal fortitude to challenge the force of poll driven opinion? But there is hope, countries and political parties will never agree on targets and objectives. Many more national priorities will prove in the long run to be more pressing then the GW fictional scenarios. Press reports are slowly appearing of the uselessness of carbon trading and carbon credits. Who wants a waste product, unless of course it can be used in a further manufacturing process? As far as I know CO2 has no manufacturing use. Again there are early press reports of fraud in the so called carbon market.

Suppose I am wrong and GW is for real. Well a few obvious precautionary moves can be performed. For instance Australia is way behind the rest of the world in furthering a nuclear energy industry. Now nuclear power generation [NPG] would be a well worthwhile response to the GW hysteria. What is more NPG can de justified and argued for other reasons, such as the health and safety record of the industry?

"What is more NPG can de justified and argued for other reasons, such as the health and safety record of the industry?"

....so no problems with Iran developing NPG then anti-green?

Fertility rates wordwide have fallen below replacement.
Generally, there is a strong correlation between the fertility of a country and its degree of economic development - the higher the GDP per head, the lower the fertility.
For instance, the birth rate in Singapore fell from 3.4% in 1957 to 1% in 1975.
If AGW is a serious problem (I don't know if it is and I don't think anyone else does) then the solution lies in halting the natural population growth in economically underdeveloped countries and the only ethical way of doing so, is to encourage their economic development through unrestricted trade.

I'll believe we are really green when I see all the lefties riding pedal bikes and living in solar homes and eating sprouts. Until then it's a scam to poach income from the oil moguls. I see the God of global warming Al Gore flies in a private jet that is in no way green and rides in cars that spew greenhouse gases like a Chinese factory powered by coal to pedal his books rather than pedal his ass to hawk his books.
Al Gores about as green as a leprechaun. If you believe in leprechauns.

I agree aqvarivs the hypocrisy and tokenism of most in the green movement is staggering.

With increasing proof of Global Warming, most of you anti-greens by now should have disappeared into your plastic ersatz caves. You who refuse to take lessons from history about an Avant Guarde in touch with an Almighty who cares for nature even more than humankind.
You so much like the neo-cons whom before the mess in Iraq sought for regime change for not only the Middle-East, but for any Islamic nation that did not conform to the neo-con/Israeli backed American Way.
The only lessons from history the above combination can truly take is the worn-out one of the Promised Land, which the Israelis backed by oil hungry imperialist America still have an inborn belief in.

However, such religious faithfulness has become so clouded with unjust reasoning - that a coming attack on Iran, followed by the occupation of Iraq, could see not only the rest of the ME involved but all the world.

As a still active farm company director, much of his retirement spent in the social sciences, part of it overseas gaining Honours in Third World Problems, reckon one has become a bit like a sporting umpire looking for global fair play. And possibly as one expects you anti-Greens to say, a true left-wing loonie fruitcake.

Now a story of how a little bush town was saved by a few early wheatbelt greenies. In the steam-train days, low-lying Buntine was an important railway water stop with 1300 hundred acres of sloping timbered terrain acting as a catchment for a large covered railway dam. But when diesel power came to replace steam on the rail, there came the natural urge for the railway catchment to be sold and cleared for agriculture.

Farmers all ready to pay deposits on the future farmland became angry when two farming family daughters and three other sons attending the new Dalwallinu high school, protested to the government that clearing the dam catchment would turn the low-lying Buntine town area into a saltlake. The protest proved successful but with much disgust from farmers. No need to tell the end of story.

"It means everyone will need to pay more attention to their daily lives. Health, domestic activity, work, play, socialising and political participation will all be transformed by the new rules. Everyone will need to become more responsible in how they do things, how they relate to each other and how they spend their money."

Wow, can hardly wait for the mass collective exercise sessions and party broadcasts from Al Gore on how I must relate to people and spend my money. And Tippy's compulsory videos on domestic activity and healthy organised play. Picture North Korea run by Martha Stewart.

1. If Howard had come forward 10 years ago and announced that he was taking action on climate change, resulting in big increases in fuel and electricity prices, he would not have been returned at the next election. Governments that lead in advance of public opinion run huge risks that the public will reject them through ignorance, so I personally have no problem that Howard is only now acting on GHG emissions and climate change.
2. It has taken 200 years of fossil fuel burning to get us to the precarious position we find ourselves in right now. Why does anyone think that we must have the solutions worked out and presented to us before the next election? And where is the evidence from other global problems such as ozone depleting substances that problems that are decades in the making can be solved overnight?
3. Peter says "There just isn’t time to let markets work this out". In fact, markets are the only mechanisms that have a chance to work out the solutions to our GHG emission problem, assuming that the world's governments do what Thatcher and Regan did, namely, provide a set of rules within which the markets must operate.
Bernie Masters

A good article Peter,

However, as with all good intentions, being green, reducing consumption, putting in tanks or driving super economical cars will all mean absolutely nothing unless the Australian and world population falls rapidly.

No amount of scrimping and saving or good intentions will make one iota of difference in the long run. We cannot save enough or reduce consumption enough to maintain our quality of life and make way for the increase in population.

With all our knowledge and scientific endeavour our dumb government (of either persuasion) still has an immigration policy set to increase the population. Our children's quality of life will continue to fall unless we all realize this fact.

If this is the case how can we expect to help raise other countries quality of life to what they, or we, consider to be acceptable

“In fact, markets are the only mechanisms that have a chance to work out the solutions to our GHG emission problem, assuming that the world's governments do what Thatcher and Regan did, namely, provide a set of rules within which the markets must operate.”

Bernie, isn’t this the same as saying that governments have to work it out? And that they specifically have to control markets and the business sector in order to do it?

Markets can’t work it out, for one simple reason – the profit motive, which demands ever-bigger market shares…which works strongly towards encouraging continuous population growth…. which works directly against overall GHG emission reductions.

Any business that is wise enough to see that the protection of a healthy future market is more important than growing that market now, will be out-competed by more aggressive short-sighted companies.

No, it just cannot be left to market forces. Strong government regulation is essential.

Ludwig: history has shown that complex issues which have their solutions determined by market forces need to have rules set via a partnership between government and industry/business. The rules need to be strict and enforced, but they also have to make economic, practical and effective sense or else they will ultimately fail. The USA created a sulphur dioxide trading scheme which worked well and achieved the desired reduction in SO2 emissions (although Europe went down the regulatory path which worked just as well). The world solved the ozone layer depletion problem by developing a partnership between government and industry/business. Now we have to solve the GHG emissions problem, knowing that there is no such thing as a world government and that the huge future emitters like China and India will need to be brought in voluntarily, not forcibly, to whatever scheme is created.
The reasons why markets have been shown to work (with governments setting the basic rules and enforcing them) is precisely because the profit motive is what drives 99% of people to do what they do. When push comes to shove, the really important and long-lasting decisions are made for economic reasons more than for altruistic ones.
Population growth may be something that industry/business wants to happen but it's simply not happening in most of the developed countries of the world and, on present trends, global population will stabilise somewhere between 2030 and 2050, with the planet's population declining thereafter.

Bernie I totally agree that the solution to climate change and sustainability issues has to be a marriage “between government and industry/business”.

But it is a matter for governments to see that the necessary regulations apply…and to implement them often in opposition to the wishes of big business, which holds very powerful influence over government decisions. Therein lies a very large part of the dilemma – working with the profit motive, but mitigating its downside.

“Population growth may be something that industry/business wants to happen but it's simply not happening in most of the developed countries…”

It sure is happening in Australia and USA, and in China with an increase of nearly 7 million last year.

In Australia at least, it is being pushed along by the business lobby, via their promotion of high immigration, with the assistance of a government that should be implementing regulations that specifically counter this factor and bring immigration down to net zero.

Bernie, You are probably correct, the market forces will do just as you say and the world population will decline post 2030......but the whole planet will look like the Middle East by then.

A strip of grass, a few goats and millions of starving people fighting each other for what is left.

I would like to stop it now while we still have a measure of control over the situation. I would like to see every African, Asian and central European have the same standard of living I enjoy if they wish, and why shouldn't they? The trouble is it can never happen with the population as it is, let alone if it keeps rising.

Pie in the sky?..maybe, but that is what I am working towards, a better future for everyone.

Bernie, population growth is happening – not only in the developing world, but also in the developed. For instance, in Europe, the total fertility rates may be low, but with the age cohort of women in their fertile years the numbers increase. Above that is the increase due to immigration. Predictions are that populations will decrease substantially in the future. Almost certainly correct if there is no great inflow from a flood of migrants.

Yes, predictions are for world population stabilisation – but that it will occur when total numbers have increased by about 50 per cent from the present. How “green” are those clamoring for action against human-induced global warming if they do not factor this increase into their equations? How blinkered, when they side-step around the Australian Governments’ (both Keating and Howard) freezing the $130 million that Australia used to spend, prior to 1993, on family planning programs for the under-developed nations?

It is time for us to get back to assisting the dis-empowered women in developing countries – empower them to limit their fertility. Population increase is the great multiplier of all the issues around growth of consumption and waste, and consequent de-greening of the planet.

Way too many of you, just the right amount of me.

Bernie

Your comment "Governments that lead in advance of public opinion run huge risks that the public will reject them through ignorance, so I personally have no problem that Howard is only now acting on GHG emissions and climate change." implies a belief that the ONLY role of national leaders is to 'set policy'. Another thing that they can do is to 'lead'. And knowing that they cannot (as you rightly point out) lead us into change ahead of public opinion, then their responsibility is to lead us by shifting public opinion. By providing information, facilitating open dialogue and assisting the public opinion to catch up with the better researched scientific opinion.

So where is this fundamental thought leadership coming from within Australia? Certainly not from our elected leaders. They are too concerned with the retention of personal power to focus on the needs of society. So thought leadership must come from outside of politics until it builds up sufficient momentum and volume for the politicians to catch up.

Its a different level, a higher order of thinking. The type that Clare Graves and Beck & Cowan have introduced us to, if we want to listen. But we should not expect politicians, trapped in their narrow world view (economics and power reigning supreme) to have a concern for the true sustainers of humanity: society and the natural environment.

Greenlight: thanks for those comments which make a lot of sense. I must confess that I'm a former politician, 8 years in the WA parliament. The Liberal Party dumped me in 2004 for a number of reasons but one of them was because they didn't like my leadership on environmental issues (I was the shadow environment minister at the time). In summary, I spend many years prior to getting into parliament trying to influence policy, then 8 years as an MP trying to provide the type of thought leadership you are talking about. It didn't work too well for me, hence my statement that governments which lead ahead of public opinion run enormous electoral risks.

Way too many of you, just the right amount of me.
Posted by Richard Castles

There is a primal logic behind that sentiment that is as honest as it is old.

Our re-emergent Corporate Culture

John Howard’s prolific use of ‘I’ rather than ‘we’ a sign of a re-emerging political and business autocracy.

Watching the recent Four Corner’s series was shocked by the harsh old military style authoritative rigidness adapted by Telstra.

Wartime gives reminder personally of an outlying anti-aircraft unit, the men skilled operators who maybe had become too acquainted with their popular C O who had been promoted to a higher command. Next day a launch pulled into the beach unloading who looked not much more than a boy, yet the number of shoulder pips proving he was a captain. But instead of greeting the gun crew shaking hands etc, he had them all lined up soon telling them what he expected of them.

As belonging to an artillery survey crew at leisure we gave a cheer when a bombardier refused to stay at attention, the rest of the gun crew sniggering and pointing fingers towards the mainland telling the officer boy to get back to school and learn a bit more.

It is interesting that the launch crew quickly advised the young officer to get back aboard, bringing another but older commander back next day in a much different frame of mind.

Especially in modern business areas requiring skilled operatives, the above should give reminder that such skills should also entail sensible/sensitive mentalities for those in total charge of these operatives, which certainly includes Mr John Howard

You are right about uranuim mining.
It is not about abuse of children it is all about potential nuclear waste sites and uranium mining exploration in the Northern Territory. If you believe in Uranium Mining, Uranium Exports, Nuclear Power Stations, Nuclear Bombs, Depleted Uranium and Nuclear Waste Dumping then you do not care a damm about people, least of all children.
You do care about promoting Uranium because it is lucrative for the mining companies.