"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