The problem with gathering political action behind doing something about climate change is that the danger of inaction is not immediate and people are reluctant to make changes unless they are forced to or see it as in their own interest. The changes required in this case are so dramatic that the public is unlikely to take them on willingly (if they even fully understand the need). The other problems are that our elected representatives will do nothing that adversely affects the economy in the short term and that energy supplies are now starting to fail to meet demand (hence the increase in the price of oil). The moment economic growth falters, all talk of doing something about climate change will go out the window. You will hear, "Yes, we need to do something about climate change BUT we have more immediate pressing problems that require action now".

The "good" news (for this planet - not necessarily western civilization or its oversized human population) is that accessible/useable fossil fuel reserves apprear to be more limited than previously believed. We already saw Prof. Kjell Aleklett's article on Online Opinion, "Severe climate change unlikely before we run out of fossil fuel" ( http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5933 ) and there is now an excellent lecture online by Prof. David Rutledge of Caltech (Chair of the Division of Engineering and Applied Science) predicting the same thing and showing lots of data to support it. You can access the lecture materials/see the lecture here:

http://rutledge.caltech.edu/

So it's "Mother Nature to the rescue!" - only we will not enjoy her methods.

The two perspectives on global warming are not all that different from each other. The end result is that global warming is happening, and does need to be addressed.
Murray Hogarth cites nuclear power as one solution. But this is not only no solution to global warming, but something that creates new and bigger problems. Have we all forgotten Edward de Bono’s lesson on “Problem multiplying solutions”. Nuclear power is one of those: as a “solution” to global warming, it creates nuclear weapons proliferation, risk of massive accidents, terrorism risks, intractable toxic waste, astronomic financial costs to the present and future generations, and long-term environmental and health ill-effects. All this will be within a social climate of fear, high security, secrecy, and repression of dissidents.
Perhaps this wouldn’t be so bad, if in fact, nuclear power did combat global warming. But it doesn’t. Sure, the actual production of electricity from the nuclear reactor might be, (only might) greenhouse gas free. But what about the greenhouse gases released in uranium mining, milling, enrichment, transport, building of reactors, building of waste-storage, decommissioning of reactors, waste transport, digging and management of underground waste dumps….

What we need are “Solution-multiplying solutions” – energy efficiency, renewable energy technologies – safe, truly clean, and providing so many job opportunities. I guess that everyone has forgotten that Margaret Thatcher wanted nuclear power, rather than coal – her reason was that there would be a much smaller workforce – so reducing the power of unions!

An excellent and informative review which makes me determined to go out and buy both books ASAP.

Defamation law will not be a problem if everything the authors are saying is (a)verifiably true or on a balance of probabilities likely to be true and (b)in the public interest that it be publicly discussed. I am sure that the publishers and the authors would have made sure that everything in these two books meets those tests. We can safely read them in that knowledge.

Roy Williams (and the authors/books he has reviewed) has clearly defined the problems we in Australia, and humanity in general, have insofar as our attitude to climate change.

We must come up with solutions. It would be great if contributors to OLO could do so in a constructive fashion, with reasoned and logical discussion as Michael and Christina have shown. It would be much better than the ridicule and vitriol that one often sees from so called deniers.

We expect our political leaders to act not only in the national interest, but at the highest levels of society. The evidence portrayed in these two books suggests otherwise.

Whether you believe in human induced climate change or not, there should not be an argument about just doing the right thing by the environment – all else will follow.

Thanks for the link Michael.

Christina, you raise good points about nuclear power albeit there are over 600 plants worldwide and increasing. I agree we don’t need them in Australia; we could go geothermal now if our current government were really serious

I agree global warming is happening. Can it be addressed ie. controlled? I doubt it. Both of these authors seem to be of the mistaken belief that humans can control climate by controlling greenhouse gases. Sure we should look at minimising our output of these gases using technological advances but surely not by creating unnecessary hardship for people. I particularly liked some of the ridiculous notions in this article like:

"the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere will rise by 2C this century because of greenhouse gas emissions in the past. Nothing can stop it."

Err lots of things could stop it. The sun, a volcano, an asteroid...and thats just the big ones. There are lots of little unknowns that could easily reduce the dreaded 2C rise.

“Between 2 degrees and 3 degrees is where humanity has to make our stand”
This is an absolute joke...isn't it?

As for Clive Hamilton, I think he his trying to oust Flannery as Most Hysterical Australian of the Year. Now there's a contest.

"But what about the greenhouse gases released in uranium mining, milling, enrichment, transport, building of reactors, building of waste-storage, decommissioning of reactors, waste transport, digging and management of underground waste dumps…."
I'm sure if we restricted fossil fuels just to mining vehicles it would not be a factor in global warming. Or even used biodiesel in them. This argument doesn't float. The renewables crowd have a lot more work to do if they are going to provide enough power to maintan even a semblance of modern lifestyle.

"We expect our political leaders to act not only in the national interest, but at the highest levels of society. "
Yes but only if the national interest is to act. I hear a lot of people talking about the need for action. When it comes time to "give up" something for the cause we will see political will melt away like icebergs in the arctic.

"So it's "Mother Nature to the rescue!" - only we will not enjoy her methods."
Oh I will...I've always enjoyed her methods.

Fed up with dirty politics? Tired of greasy PR flaks? Had it up to here with stubborn baked-on compromised scientists? Then try new powerful deep-acting Scorcher. Featuring patented GBA (guilt by association) technology and circular reasoning motion, fast-acting Scorcher is guaranteed to kill 99% of right-wing germs from any household think tank. Scorcher is the new handy and versatile way to eliminate even the toughest key diplomats. Just half a page added to your wash will remove the shocks from your jocks, while leaving any left-wing lobby groups squeaky clean. Here's what one customer had to say: "[I'm] determined to go out and buy both books ASAP...I am sure that the publishers and the authors would have made sure that everything in these two books meets those tests. We can safely read them in that knowledge." New Scorcher! Just $29.95. Look for the ominous cover jacket photo in your Borders Supermarket aisle today.

"Climate change is looming as the issue of the next generation." Maybe, but in a couple of years it will be peak oil in which case recessing economies will act as the automatic lever to the reduction of the major greenhouse gasses.

Yes, we should reduce our footprints but let's also remember that although some changes have been recorded 'future changes' are still just models and as a 'model sceptic' from the CSIRO (I think) pointed out a few weeks ago on the ABC it is near impossible to get funding for any research that might lead to a model that shows less dire environmental consequences.

We *can* keep pointing the finger and apportioning blame in order to sell books to those who want to spend hours being scared, not that we are blameless as individuals---I'm happy just to absorb the general drum beat and save a few trees by not buying these books---but as Lovelock suggests let's just get on with learning to adjust to the possibilities of the future.

By the way and off topic, as we ponder the opening statement let's remember that while we all spent the time to read and maybe wring our hands over the article and the forum, in Africa many people died, today, now, from preventable diseases and starvation. And we think we might have problems and need someone to blame.

Even if the future changes in climate are less destructive or problematic than the IPCC asserts, there remain undeniable opportunities for technological innovation and commercial benefit in developing renewable energy sources. People are not willingly going to give up the freedom of personal vehicles and travel, nor the comforts of labour saving appliances. China and India will not opt out of Western standards of living. Therefore, the demand for solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, hydrogen, hydroponics and aquaculture, vertical farms and grass roofs, building design, vehicle design is going to soar. 4,000 new renewable energy start ups in the first year of California’s commitment to targets. Australia is content, apparently, to let other nations exploit our original technologies. That may be Howard’s most reprehensible inaction.

The dirty politics in this article is the authors hate of Mr Howard. He writes ' We weaseled ourselves a very cushy deal at Kyoto in 1997, and then reneged on ratification of the protocol.' He fails to mention that even those who signed up never met their targets and probably knew along they would not.

What a terrible crime that we export coal and allow other countries to develop! Horror horror. Maybe we should enjoy the great standard of living that we and our ex lawyer friend has and allow those rotten importers to stay undeveloped

We have the technology to both adapt to climate change and mitigate GHG, and the technology is improving all the time.

Alzo is right; we should not create unnecessary hardship for people. This presumably includes all people, not just those in countries like Australia and the US.

Climate change is a global issue that of necessity requires a global response – that is why the UNFCCC wants to move on to the next stage (that after Kyoto 2012) and why the G8 + 5 recently met in Germany to delineate.

A major step in this process (though APEC is important) is the UN meeting in Bali this coming December (after our federal election) where all players will be represented.

Some people still want to cherry-pick or debate the numbers, the risks or indeed the evidence. The fact remains, countries and businesses are taking climate change seriously and are acting, contrary to what some may think. Even our own PM is belatedly trying to play catch-up.

Yes, politics muddies the water, but where a global threat like Global Warming is concerned (as is perceived by the UN Security Council) then the member states of the globe must act.

It is not good enough for some players (like Oz and US) to take the ball home if they don’t like how the rest of the team plays the game.

So PeterJH has a point and it is not off topic. The United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development undoubtedly is concerned about climate change and its impact on developing countries.

As a signatory to Agenda 21 (under the UNCSD) we have certain obligations to these people as well. It appears we are only paying lip-service to our responsibilities, driven by our own greed in a consumer driven society.

Contrary to what has been said, we don’t have to live in the dark ages to fight the weather of mass destruction, there are alternatives and there are opportunities.

As individuals we might have the will to act, but so too must our political leaders. We can have a say though, at election time.

The federal government's single-minded pursuit for economic growth, resulting from the resources boom, has elevated pollution where we are now witnessing the short-term impacts - contamination of our waterways, crops, soil, in fact the entire food chain with an elevation of specific diseases in human and animal populations.

Our children and their children will have to deal with the long-term impacts - or at least those who survive the ramifications of unwittingly ingesting the hazardous pollutants permeating communities and the resultant hazards affecting climate.

Companies from western countries have been enjoying themselves in China also and at least 33 of those companies have irresponsibly violated the water pollution regulations in China - all getting in for their chop of the profits. It matters not to them that millions of Chinese a day are forced to drink the water they have contaminated.

Uncontrolled resources growth and the environment make poor bedfellows. Elevated carbon based and non-carbon based pollution is now at a critical stage and Murray Hogarth's recommendation that climate solutions must come before retribution is optimistic indeed.

The likes of Messrs Howard and Turnbull have not and will not heed Hogarth's wisdom. Persuasion hasn't worked and even a fool would realise that our leaders are secretly contemptous of the IPCC's conclusions!

Globally, citizens' class actions against the big polluters (including Australian companies), desecrating their ecologies and exploiting their resources, have been occurring for years and governments of all persuasions have continued to defend the polluters.

The implementation of a Climate War Crimes' Commission is indeed, overdue.

Climate War Crimes'...??...haha...you can't try people for something that hasn't happened yet dickie. Besides you consume the manufactured resources, you must be guilty by association. You're also carbon based you dirty polluntant.

I say 10 years hard behind bars for dickie!

James Hansen is cranking up the hysteria again. Some alarmism to start your day dickie.
http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2675747.ece

Climate change HAS already happened Alzo, you think hoWARd would be mumbling green if there was absolutely any doubt? -25% arctic sea ice cover, melting glaciers, warming and more acidic oceans, hurricanes where there've never been seen before, whales and dolphins from the Mediterranean now found off the north of Scotland, extreme weather putting insurance industry permanantly in the red..

Back to the book, bought it last week only half read and its excellent, hair raising .. corruption in Australian politics? "don't you worry about that young girly" (as Joh Bjelke told Jana Vendt more than a decade ago, but not much has changed).

"you think hoWARd would be mumbling green if there was absolutely any doubt?"
I think Howard has no doubt that its a complete crock. He is only mumbling green because the electorate wants to see something being done.

0.6 degrees centigrade over more than a century hardly calls for war crimes you galahs.

"hurricanes where there've never been seen before"...examples?
"extreme weather putting insurance industry permanantly in the red"...a company name?