A thought provoking thread on climate change and maybe a good time for a lot of people to stop and think about their actions and reactions.

This author is obviously a nut please file under "N".

Two simple points that need to be kept in mind when talking about climate change:

1. The first and most important point is POPULATION. If nothing is done to rein in world population, no other measures will work. The population of the first world has stabilised, but that of the third world is set to double in the next 25 years. This increase of 4 billion people is unsupportable if sustainability is to be achieved.

2. What we do in Australia DOES NOT MATTER. Our contribution of global warming gases per cubic kilometre of atmosphere is trivial, and our contribution rate per person is of academic interest only. Moralists will talk about moral pressure, but in the big bad world outside that is of little importance.

The other thing that amazes me is that for some reason the global warming debate has been connected with third world poverty. There is no connection. Unless the population of the third world is stabilised, there will be no improvement in their condition, and the stabilisation must happen first. How many people realise that the foundation of the improvement in China's position is their one child policy? I am sure that a lot of this sort of propaganda serves simply to create moral guilt in the first world, to no real benefit to anyone.

Unfortunately, as one who is very cynical about human affairs, I believe that many countries, particularly China, will do nothing to limit gas emissions, and that the problem of world overpoulation will be solved by the four horsemen of the apocalypse. Hang on for a rocky ride.

Stern's report has been shown to be a complete bucket of rubbish. Anyone taking it seriously has to be a bit short of a quid.

This bloke is so far short, he should be on a disability pension.

(1 of 2)

plerdsus, you've bought the Greenhouse Mafia story lock stock and barrel. This pack of lies has only hurt Australia and most sectors of the Australian economy.

Australian inaction matters very much indeed. Our government negotiated concessions at Kyoto in 1997 which stripped that treaty of much of its potential effectiveness by first insisting on "differentiated" emissions targets (Europe wanted a uniform target for all developed nations), obtaining large concessions for Australia on the grounds of land use and our trade relationship with the developing world.

Multilateral action is required for effective global emissions control, but Australia has made itself something of a "pariah nation" by undermining multilateralism at Kyoto, first by demanding greater rights to pollute than any other developed nation and then by refusing to ratify the treaty with a hypocritical attack on "intrasigent" developing nations when they have so far contributed only a tiny fraction of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere. Having benefited from high-carbon technology, is is only logical that rich countries should lead development and adoption of low-carbon alternatives.

Captains of Australian industry believe that refusing to reduce emissions in Australia is to the advantage of the Australian economy. It is not.

Our position as the country with the highest per-capita CO2 emissions in the world and very inefficient energy use means we can reduce our emissions faster and more cheaply than anyone else, just by adopting the efficient technology the rest of the developed world already uses. If we were party to an international emissions trading scheme, we could then sell excess emission permits to other countries whose reductions must otherwise come from more expensive techniques.

The truth of the matter is that action to reduce emissions *elsewhere* hurts Australian coal exports, while our own refusal to join Kyoto and reduce domestic emissions means we are excluded from the potentially very lucrative emissions trading market. It also prevents Australian investors from taking full advantage of "clean developent mechanism" projects which allow developing countries to adopt low-emissions technology without a long and dirty detour through fossil fuels.

What a pointless argument this all is. Junkscience.com has $100,000 (U.S.) on offer to anyone able to prove that ACC (if it exists) is caused by human activity. So far not a taker for thia easiest of "money for jam". That ends the hopes of the believers right there.
Pity they aren't offerring a similar prize to prove that Santa or the Tooth Fairy or The Easter bunny exist, eh Xoddam? You'd have about 350,000 Aussie Dollars by now! Cheers.

(2 of 2, waited 3 hours to post!)

Australia missed a golden opportunity to invest in locally-developed low-emissions technology. Australian technologists have moved abroad in recent years to join booming renewables industries in Europe, China and the USA.

Energy-intensive industries will benefit from adopting more efficient and/or low-emissions technology. Even oil and gas suppliers will benefit first from the switch from high- to low-carbon fuels, then from efficiency measures that eke out resources as they decline.

The only Australian industry that will suffer from domestic CO2 emission cuts is coal mining. Exports will decline regardless, unless China inexplicably decides to rely entirely on energy imports as its own supply runs out instead of reducing consumption.

The fear of other resource-exporting industries that they will also suffer from reductions (by losing out to competitors in developing nations without emissions targets) is unfounded. A price on emissions might hurt them if they paid it themselves, but shielding "trade exposed" industries these costs is easy: a grant of tradeable emissions permits would allow those businesses to *profit* from any improvements they can make in their energy efficiency and direct carbon emissions. The potential for profitable technical improvement here is actually enormous, thanks to the profligate way the resource industry has exploited Australia's cheap electricity and coal.

plerdsus, how can you claim that both

(a) Australia's high per-capita emissions are of academic interest only, and

(b) a third-world population increase will cause disaster?

High emissions result from profligate burning of high-carbon fuels and have nothing to do with the size of the population. Economic growth in the third world can proceed with dirty high-carbon fuels as ours did, or use clean and efficient low-emission technology instead.

Stable population does indeed go hand-in-hand with prosperity. In "free" countries, prosperity has come first and low fertility rates followed. Surely the same will be true of the developing world? A clean, green and rich developing world is less frightening than a coal-burning one -- rich or poor -- so invest in third-world prosperity and clean tech today!

Xoddam, much of what you say is correct, have no doubt.

I would only challenge you in terms of your statement: “Stable population does indeed go hand-in-hand with prosperity. In "free" countries, prosperity has come first and low fertility rates followed. Surely the same will be true of the developing world? A clean, green and rich developing world is less frightening than a coal-burning one -- rich or poor -- so invest in third-world prosperity and clean tech today!”

World population is obviously an issue (from varying perspectives) but it is wrong to link it specifically to prosperity. Educated women and societies, of their own volition, stabilise population growth, for a number of reasons (and it has got nothing to do with fertility rates).

The starving and poverty stricken do not need dollars per-se; they need help and education – to grow in a more environmentally sustainable way. The developed world has set a poor example, it’s about time we led the way.

Punter57, you obviously haven’t got clue what science is – stick to your own gambling, you would only hurt yourself and those close to you. Leave the planet to others that care.

Funnily enough Q&A most of the reports regarding climate change revolve around "the chance" of it being human-caused. Since it is generally understood that this is rather low (you may have read that the head of the IPCC has commended John Howard' cautious approach an just these grounds) then anyone choosing to support it is actually betting the longshot.

While I can understand the excitement of putting billions on the rank outsider of the field, I'd prefer to send the dough where it will do someone some good. Like to Kevin Rudd's wife for instance, to get the ALP over the line. Go the millionairess exploiter of the working class. Go you good thing. You'll be First Lady yet! Cheers.

xoddam,

in reply to your questions:

the kyoto protocol is a massive fraud. As an example:

if australia mines and burns a kilo of coal we get the blame. Fair enough.

if instead we export the kilo to Japan, and they burn it, we STILL get the blame.

if instead Japan imports the kilo from south africa, NO-ONE gets the blame.

Is it any surprise that a method of calculation like this would produce the result that we generate more CO2 than the US? (I believe the reason is that we are the only major energy exporter in Annex I of the protocol.)

If you really want to get our emission figure down, all you have to do is close down our coal industry, and tell Japan to import theirs from South Africa. This would not result in one molecule less of CO2 from being generated, but it would improve our figures considerably.

The reason that I believe a doubling of the third world population will cause disaster is that through forest burning etc. their emissions will greatly exceed those of the west, making reduction policies there futile. Many on the left seem obsessed with increasing the third world living standard. If the third world population were to double, and their living standard were to rise to half that of the west, their daily oil consumption would be around 500 million barrels per day. This oil does not exist. If it did exist and were burned, the pollution would be unbearable. As a result, the underdeveloped nations should be referred to as the never-to-be developed nations. The only way out, as China has done, is to limit their population.

Those concerned at reducing the gap between us and the third world would be better occupied in getting our standard down.

A few other facts of interest:

1. 89% of the world's population live in the northern hemisphere.

2. 96% of the world's pollution is generated in the northern hemisphere.

Consequently, as in so many other things, what we do doesn't matter.

"A few other facts of interest:

1. 89% of the world's population live in the northern hemisphere.

2. 96% of the world's pollution is generated in the northern hemisphere."

3. Most of the "global" warming has occurred in the northern hemisphere (aerosols anyone?).

Punter57, when 99% of bookies say there is a 90-95% chance of a horse winning; most people would think that is pretty much odds-on, not a long-shot.

I did read what the head of the IPCC said, very diplomatic of him. Indeed, Howard should be congratulated for taking a measured approach, albeit some would say he has closed the gate after the horse has bolted and he should be the one put out to pasture.

Did you read what Rajendra Pachauri also said that day,

“The largest responsibility for the increase in concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere lies with the developed countries, but the worst impacts and the highest vulnerability applies to several developing countries …

The world has provided hardly any resources for adaptation measures in the most vulnerable countries, such as the small island developing states where the very survival of human beings is at stake …

May I also say that the world and posterity demand that Australia also seize this opportunity for reassessing its position and act resolutely on the basis of the scientific evidence and actual observations to chart out a new path of development. Indeed, Australia can be a major example for other developed countries …”

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/lead-by-example-on-climate-change/2007/08/09/1186530529171.html

The fact is punter57, people with more expertise than you or I think the risk is too great. Even Howard is putting his money on climate change; he might even try to nobble the UN at the APEC race next month. I’m going to put my money on the UN at the big race in December – a much bigger field.

BTW, VP Chaney said if there was a 1% chance of WMD (weapons) hurting the planet, the USA would spend as much as required to prevent it. Well, there is a 90% chance of WMD (weather) doing the same thing – so where is Dick now? Answer, his money’s on fossil fuel!

Plerdsus, GW is a global problem requiring global solutions (CO2 has only one boundary).

Australia's Climate Policy needs teeth and urgency. Neither of the major parties have achievable policies to meet the 3C target let alone the 2C target that we should be striving for with our best endevours.

Decisions about energy infrastructure and mass green energy up-take accross the nation needs a national strategy under the control of an independent expert body with sufficent delegated authority to make the necessary tough decisions in pursuit of the 2C target.

The states should be stripped of all strategic decision-making on energy matters as they have consistently shown lack of leadership. They are beholden to coal mining interests(new coal mining concessions in the Hunter region of NSW), and new logging for a new pulp mill (Tasmania).

The renewable energy policies of state governments are tokenistic whilst their emission targets have no hope of being realised.

The Victorian Government saw recent AGL's wind farm proposal withdrawn due to its own weak, flawed state planning guidelines and politicians pandering to neighbouring landowner objections based on 'perceived loss of property values', noise and danger to birds. These are the same old objections that prevent wind farms making a significant contribution accross most of Australia.

Governments need to put minor local issues into perspective against the very real risks of catestrophic global warming down the road.

Fortunately our renewable energy companies with wind farm and solar expertise are making a much bigger mark in China and elsewhere overseas. These contries have central governments that are keen to demonstrate what can be achieved on the ground.

Their investment decisions in green energy projects are showing the requisite resolve to tackle massive new energy needs in a way that will not compound their current extreme levels of atmospheric and water pollution from burning carbon for energy.

Our system of government in Australia is broken. Only the Greens and Democrats have the correct strategic vision to fix the mess we are in.

Punter57, Milloy's US$100000 is safe, read the fine print. This guy is more your style:

http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2007/04/new-global-warming-bet-for-7-10.html

I'll even offer you similar terms myself. Put up or shut up.

Q&A: I agree 100% on enlightened societies, educated women and population stability. But education and birth control aren't free: a prosperous country need not be very rich, but prosperity precedes enlightenment.

I neglected plerdsus' most pertinent question, regarding climate and poverty. The third world is poor partly because of tropical agriculture's vulnerability to climatic variation (and associated colonial opportunism). Instead of a 350-word essay I'll point you at Mike Davis' excellent Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World:

http://www.versobooks.com/books/cdef/d-titles/davis_m_late_victorian.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/d/davis-victorian.html

The poorest *always* suffer worst in an economic/agricultural crisis; global warming may become one, and if so it would be *precisely* the rich who benefited and the poor who suffer from the fossil-fuel-based energy revolution.

The premise behind the UNFCCC agreed at Rio was that developed nations must take responsibility for developing the means for reduced greenhouse emissions and accept the first mandatory reductions targets (the Kyoto Protocol), and that developing nations should follow within at most a decade or so.

The malingering of the USA (world's most powerful country and No. 1 greenhouse emitter) and Australia (world's most eager lapdog, No. 36 emitter overall and No. 1 per capita emitter) weakened Kyoto, delayed it coming into effect by 7 years (until Russia signed), and consequently delayed any binding commitment by developing countries by at least the same amount. Still think Australian policy is irrelevant?

Australia isn't responsible for others' emissions from exported coal, it just stands to lose revenue as importers buy less.

Perhaps you think it unlikely that China will reduce emissions, but Chinese energy technology is dirty and very inefficient (making improvements cheap), it suffers appalling smog, and it's running short of domestic fuel. Domestically it is already being forced to clean up and rely less on coal; international pressures like currency revaluation will also curb its economic boom. If it doesn't crash, China will be able to afford the necessary low-carbon transition.

“Q&A: I agree 100% on enlightened societies, educated women and population stability. But education and birth control aren't free: a prosperous country need not be very rich, but prosperity precedes enlightenment.”

Mmmm … I would be very interested in your understanding of Agenda 21 and Australia’s (or the ‘developed nations’) response to it in terms of education, poverty reduction and sustainable development. This has major implications for post-Kyoto – and Australia is not even at the negotiating table!

I still have to disagree, I think enlightenment precedes prosperity – but maybe this is only philosophical if not academic. Your opinions are reasoned and rational, a breath of fresh air, cheers.

Xoddam & Co,
Kyoto was flawed from day-one. “Multilateral action is required” but it needs to include ALL polluters, not just those it’s politically opportune to coerce.

Thanks to Kyoto & its associated global warming liturgy :
Overcrowded Bangladeshi cities can sprawl across flood plains & deltas & blame the developed world each time they’re flooded.
African farmers can clear all trees & overstock the land and accept no responsibility for desertification
[ Aid has effectively been rebranded ‘ reparations’ -- the cost the west must pay for past 'crimes'!]

Kyoto is also discredited by its fair-weather signatories. Russia has already openly announced it will adhere to Kyoto now because it doesn’t adversely affect it–but will review things if this changes…

“High emission…has nothing to do with population size” (?)
Ignoring for the moment the prospect that most babies born in China & India will eventually aspire to own a car & have access to all the material possessions associated with western lifestyles.
Consider this paradox: [according to Kyoto reckoning]IF Aust. maintained current CO2 levels & added one million MORE people, it would move DOWN the scale of greenhouse polluters . If it had the same output but one million LESS people –it would move UP the scale of greenhouse polluters.

And while I always bemoan opportunities missed to make industry & energy usage more efficient & reduce pollution . I bemoan more the opportunities we forfeit within Aust (green or otherwise), each time we distribute $billions in aid to third world countries–especially when the ‘needy’ countries can apparently afford to maintain large standing armies …

The dinosaurs flourished with average temps 13 deg c higher than now.The poles have average temps of -60 deg c.An increase of 3 deg c will not change much.We are not even sure that CO2 is the culprit.

The panic merchants are peddling their nonsense for noteriety and profit.

Every day another flaw is found in either the data upon which claims of "Global Warming" are based, or else in the science trying to link the dubious GW (now Climate Change) to human activity. Every day another eminent scientist becomes a skeptic and advises against rash reactions. But this doesn't wash with lefties at all. It would be far too conservative to actually think a little before hasty actions. It would be too "sensible". What would the head of the IPCC know about it when recommending just such an approach?

These lefties are rash and hysterical by nature. Witness the hollering, footstamping, speaking in tongues and general swooning over Mr Rudd ("I'm compassionate"), whom no-one had heard of a year ago! Witness the earlier outpourings of hysteria when Mr Latham ("I'm a hater") trod the same path from similar obscurity to announce that HE could smell......victory! These lefties are what is known as "reactionaries" or "chicken littles", running from one scary scenario to the next, flapping their terrified (sorry; caring, compassionate, progressive) wings, trembling for the arrival of their next saviour; their next messiah. If it isn't Mr Rudd then maybe Bill Shorten next time, or Greg Combet in 2013, or even Anthony Mundine in 2016 to deliver the knockout blow. If none of these then what about Kim Beazley again, again,again,again, in 12 years time? Ho ho ho.

OK. This is how it is. There is no Global Warming. There is no ACC. There are no shortcomings in Labor's Policy only an OVERreaction. But I've already explained why that is, haven't I? Cheers.

Hello everyone!

Punter57: Do you like a flutter or not? I offered you a bet on the terms agreed between Brian Schmidt and David Evans (link above). Your only response has been incoherent bluster: "chicken little ... Latham ... Combet ... I already explained". Well no, you explained nothing.

Since global warming is slow, it's obviously a long-term bet. If you wish to offer different terms, feel free -- we'll swap emails and discuss in detail once you've declared yourself willing to put your money where your mouth is.

Q&A re Agenda21: Sustainable Development, like Western Civilisation, would be a good idea. I have no doubt it's technically possible, but as you say Australia doesn't seem to be interested.

Horus re Kyoto: The Kyoto Protocol was the *initial* set of binding emissions restrictions under the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and it applied to all countries who can afford technology to reduce carbon emissions. The UNFCCC provides for progressively more stringent commitments, with developing nations following rich countries' lead. Kyoto was the *first step*.

When Australia, which everyone knows could cut emissions more cheaply than anyone else (indeed profitably, up to a point) fought the first baby-step all the way, it undermined any further agreement also.

Arjay re dinosaurs: Of course the climate has changed before, and will change again. That's not a problem. It's just that as a result of human activity (which we have the power to change) temperatures may increase so fast over the next 100-200 years that civilisation won't be able to adapt.

I am not in the least concerned that the biosphere as a whole, or the human race itself, won't survive in the long term, though I will be sad to see the last of the polar bears and various other species whose habitat could disappear.

It's the potential huge decline in the agriculture 6 billion humans depend on in the 21st century I'd like to avoid, followed by total economic collapse, and having to start again from scratch. It's not the end-of-the-world that concerns me but the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it.

Sorry XODDAM. Only an idiot would bet on an event in 10-20 years time, unless the odds were ultra attractive. The person who is CERTAIN that the world is warming should be offerring at least 100-1 against it cooling instead. Perhaps 1000-1. Remember that certain means almost 100% Anyhow, the odds are not correct. Bear in mind that the stake (say $1000) would have to be held for 10-20 years in "Trust", instead of earning at least 7% pa in a govt bond, so that at even money, you would stand to win $1000 while foregoing $1400 interest (and much more if invested in stocks). What kind of lunacy is that? Anyway, thanks but no thanks. Besides, what will a rise or fall prove about THE CAUSE. That's what this is about, isn't it?

Interesting that you don't get the connection between A) People who are nervous nellies by temperament (lefties) B) The search for "safety" in dangerous times (the sky is falling; cluck, cluck,cluck) by these nervous nellies C) The offerring of "safety" by politicians who have noticed these nervous nellies looking for someone to pander to their fearfulness and D) the hysterical search for another provider of "safety" by these nervous nellies when THAT pollie (was Latham; is Rudd; will be Shorten/Combet or whoever) let's them down. Got the connection yet? Think about.. A leads to B leads to C leads to D. Not so hard is it matey? Cheers

...tapped fingers until 6:14pm to post again, then server was down...

(FWIW I never looked to a party for solutions or salvation and don't care to be patronised)

A pretty clear NO to the bet, very disappointing.

I'll address your misgivings, however stupid you think I am. Fancy having to assure someone who prattles on about odds and "rank outsiders" in the context of climate policy, that the climate is a betting matter!

What's an insurance policy if not an open-ended long-range bet? The stake is paid in instalments and redeemable for present value. Have a good think about insurers' take on ACC by the way.

I have no intention of foregoing a decade's worth of interest on the stake! A gentlemen's agreement on a stake measured in 2017 or 2027 dollars would be acceptable to me, or we could arrange for the stakes to be held in an interest-bearing trust if you insist.

As to the odds, bookmakers and insurers might offer 1000-1 but I'm no bookmaker. Surely the person who is CERTAIN that there is NO global warming should be just as prepared to offer 100-1 against as the person who's CERTAIN there IS? Make a counter-offer.

In Schmidt and Evans' case they seem to agree that the world *is* warming, so their bet is over whether the warming will accelerate or decelerate over the next 10, 15 and 20 years, and they've agreed on 2:1 odds in favour of acceleration. Of course the actual temperature is only a proxy for the cause, but the point is that Evans (and you) disagree with the basic science that studies the causes, so Evans is prepared to take a punt against the scientific consensus on the effect. Why aren't you?

Let's determine exactly what we disagree about (in such a way as it can be independently verified) and then talk about the odds, shall we?

If you won't agree in principle to a bet on climate change, don't bother posting on the subject again.

XODDAM. Say I'm flipping a coin. After 1000 tosses it's Heads 550 and tails 450. At this point we suspect something is causing more Heads, as we believe that "naturally" it should be closer to 50/50 (not necessarily exactly). Several people are suggesting what this cause might be. Some say it's just a normal fluctuation, while others suggest all manner of explanations (maybe one side of the coin is heavier; maybe one side is rougher; maybe maybe maybe). At this point someone reckons it's the spirit of their dear departed Aunt Sally. They are convinced; we are not. This person suggests a challenge; a bet that in the next 1000 tosses it will still be in favour of Heads. Let's say we accept the bet at even-money.

The Heads win again (maybe it's still 550 vs 450; maybe 501 vs 499). Has this proven that the predominance of Heads has been caused by Aunt Sally? Has it even proven that Heads will be dominant next time? Now don't start with "But I'm talking about the weather". You get the drift.

Also. The insurance analogy is a good one. A salesman announces that you can get extra cover on your house for the special circumstance that a Cruise Missile goes off course into the building. This seems unlikely but it's possible. Should you laugh it off (Boy won't you regret it when that US warship on manouevres let's one fly into your street!). OK, you're interested, just in case; what's the premium to protect your $300,000 house? If it's 50 cents a year,why not? But, in fact it's a paltry $60,000 per year for the next 10 years...it's a bargain!! I'm not sure whether you would sign the contract immediately (Mr Rudd would) or give it a little more thought XODDAM. In this latter case you will appear superficially similar to the procrastinating Mr Howard, which might prompt you to sign. Or would it? Cheers.

Punter57,

So you think the climate is completely random, and if it appears not to be then investigating it is pointless.

This is a pusillanimous cop-out. People's lives and livelihoods depend on the climate, and the quest to understand it is a noble "part of the Enlightenment project" (to quote our gracious host).

The heat-trapping properties of the atmosphere are undisputed; climate science studies the details and, in particular, has found that adding certain gases to the atmosphere enhances its ability to trap heat and increases the surface temperature. That is not seriously disputed either; the devil is hiding in the details.

If you wish to assert against a large body of evidence that anthropogenic climate change isn't happening (or that it's "a rank outsider"), you should explain why.

Or just put your money where your mouth is, if you think your ignorance trumps science!

You seem to think that reducing greenhouse emissions is expensive. Again, evidence indicates the opposite. Most Australian fuel consumption is for industries which would benefit dramatically from a realistic valuation of energy, making the first tranche of emissions reductions entirely "no regrets". Business is presently unattracted to efficiency investments because "trade-exposed" industries get subsidised energy.

For instance alumunium smelting gets huge ongoing subsidies from smaller electricity users in the form of underpriced electric power (typically they pay 3c/KWh, where domestic users pay 10-15c/KWh). The subsidy could be converted from cheap power to free emissions credits, and the industry made instead to pay full price for its energy: smelters would make the efficiency improvements in response to the energy-price hit, and could then profitably sell their emissions permits to other sectors, or abroad.

While closing down coal power stations in favour of renewable electricity would cost money, it's much less than Howard's conga-line of "environment ministers" has implied. Fuel-free generation will prove cheaper than all alternatives in the long term.

I don't have space here to pontificate on how cheap diverse renewable and low-carbon electric generators can be. Suitable investments can generate low-emissions power for less than any new central power station. Read

http://www.smallisprofitable.org/

for details.

Horus, “Kyoto was flawed from day-one. ‘Multilateral action is required’ but it needs to include ALL polluters, not just those it’s politically opportune to coerce.” Absolutely, but you misunderstand what Xoddam has been saying.

Kyoto was only ever going to be a first step, and the flaws are obvious. Many countries, businesses and groups want to move to the next change, some even want to hijack it, but post-Kyoto will eventuate in one form or another, with or without OZ.

It is very important, and very difficult, for universal and multilateral action to be negotiated, let alone implemented. At least we should try.

Some of your comments show a very basic or simplistic understanding of a very complex process, but you are not alone.

Arjay, yes there are panic merchants, but there are also dinosaurs – we need a measured response not premised on denial.

Punter57, insurance companies are peeing in their pants, their insurance companies (the re-insurance companies like Swiss-Re) are not only peeing, they’re friggin pooping too – about the impacts of climate change! Study the form; see what they said at Davos this year.

If there is a chance humanity has had something to do with this latest round of global warming (and a wide body of experts, national leaders and business chiefs think it has) then we should at least have a bet. I think the odds are very good, odds-on in fact.

It is strange that people like Nobel Prize winning economists Kenneth Arrow and Thomas Schelling (in The Economists Voice for June 2007), like many people recognised for their ability to analyse issues, can state clearly that cost benefit analysis points towards the necessity of taking action to reduce CO2 emissions and people who have difficulty understanding the concept of doubt in science and the nature of probability can still rabbit on about anthropogenic climate change being unproven. It resembles those extraordinary claims that hundreds of scientists are pushing this line about climate change and human influence only so they can get grant money, that global temperatures have not risen since 1988 (despite the recent article about improved forecasting in Nature).

Plerdsus says “What we do in Australia DOES NOT MATTER” and believes “that many countries, particularly China, will do nothing to limit gas emissions”.

On the contrary, how Australia reacts to the challenges the world is facing does matter and China is doing far more than Australia in limiting its GHG emissions. Australia per capita is the largest emitters of GHG in the world.

It is worth repeating, global warming is a global problem requiring global solutions. Australia should play a part but our response and actions over the last decade has not only made it harder, but has embarrassed us in the eyes of the global community.

Robert McClelland in this article

http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/five-pillars-climate-change-policy-proves-shaky/2007/08/19/1187462083517.html

Says,
“It does appear the Government is willing to play catch-up on the international climate change debate. Australian businesses welcome this because they want clear price signals to underpin their future investment planning. But achieving the best climate change outcomes requires a strong track record, solid policy and creative diplomatic effort. The clock for Bali is ticking but the Government's pillars really aren't as supportive as they could be.”

I would not be surprised if APEC next month will be Howard’s ‘swan song’ in his efforts to give the illusion he is a global citizen in addressing global warming.

I don’t misunderstand Xoddam –I just don’t agree with him:

Kyoto has hyped-up the need for urgent action. Yet, it has targeted first & foremost many moderate (in volume), western polluters - while effectively putting off till tomorrow the need to rope-in some of the worst (in volume) , developing nation polluters

As Plerdsus pointed out in an earlier post,it shows a red light to coal production in Australia ( a relatively clean operation ) but effectively gives a green light to coal production in Indonesia & Sth Africa-(less clean, less safe operations).

Kyoto doesn’t address the issue of population control-an important input into climate change. Forget the glib answer that "big western companies force" Third-World to over-fish, over-farm, deforest & under-mine the land. If the Third-World didn’t have large families they could better avoid the dollar inducements of the big companies ( foreign or otherwise) . Over-population forces them to prostitute themselves & their land . And the whole world will face the after shock when these over populated Third-world countries develop first world tastes, or when many of their excess populations migrate to First-World countries.

Kyoto merely relocates the problems. When the West, mindful of Kyoto imposes pollution controls. The factory moves offshore to a Third world country not constrained by Kyoto -result:
- Pollution goes on unchecked -only the locality has changed.
- Western countries experience a trade deficit
- Long term -more blame accrues to the west for FOISTERING unhealthy industries on third world countries
[ A clear case of heads you win, tails I loose]

Kyoto type thinking is effectively dead - let's seek alternatives …

Global warming (or climate change as the Bush Administration inculcated into the IPCC vernacular) is serious. The Kyoto Protocol as far back as 1997 was going to be ratified by Australia, even the USA – then political ideology raised its ugly head.

The USA up till now has been the worst by volume GHG emitter – how do people propose we “rope them in?”

Australia’s (lignite) coal is relatively clean, not the “operation” itself. Victoria’s brown coal is very dirty, and China’s operations are said to be the worst in the world. Having said that, ‘Kyoto’ does NOT advocate a “red light to coal production in Australia.”

Global population is definitely an issue, BUT it is more properly addressed under the United Nations Development Program, its Commission on Sustainable Development and Agenda 21 – I endorse Q&A’s opinions on “education, poverty reduction and sustainable development” in this respect, and Australia is indeed a signatory to these conventions.

Horus makes a good point about ‘consumerism’ driven societies. However, we could ask the same question from a different perspective and “forget the glib answer that ‘big western companies force’ Third-World to over-fish, over-farm, deforest & under-mine the land.” Do people think we (ostensibly the “developed” world) are living in a sustainable way?

Of course ‘Kyoto’ is flawed and “let’s seek alternatives” – but it’s not just about ‘Kyoto’ as some would have us believe.

Just a clarification: Kyoto establishes emissions caps for Annex I nations, and emissions accounting and Clean Development Mechanism participation for all signatories, including South Africa, Indonesia and China which, unlike Australia, have ratified. Kyoto endorsed, but did not establish, emissions trading programs.

It bears repeating: *all* parties to Kyoto have established emissions accounting, including those countries which are not in Annex I. Emissions from fuel which is traded across borders are accounted to the country where the fuel is *burned*, not to the country of origin.

Nowhere does the Kyoto protocol or any other treaty impose a penalty on fossil-fuel exports from Annex I nations as opposed to anywhere else. Coal buyers are free to buy from the most competitive source as before. Emissions from energy consumption during *mining* are attributed to the nation of origin, but this is exactly where Australia stands to benefit most from improved energy efficiency. So too do South African and Indonesian mining operations, and since those countries are beneficiaries of CDM we may find that they adopt energy-efficient technology before us if we continue to drag our feet!

Australian coal exports suffer only as importers reduce their reliance on coal. In all proability our two main present markets, Japan and South Korea, will very gradually reduce imports. At the same time, China will likely experience shortages of domestic coal in the near future and begin to import large quantities. Australia does not stand to lose in this scenario at all, until China too has converted most of its energy supply to other sources. This could take many decades -- long enough that "clean coal" might even have become a reality before imports fall.

Australia's fossil-fuel resources stand to remain lucrative for a long time to come, no matter how our domestic emissions are reduced by international treaties and in any likely emissions scenario for China. Our greenhouse mafia is its own worst enemy.

Clear enough xoddam; issues would be more easily understood (and contribution to discussion would be more valued) if people actually read the 'Kyoto'.

A contribution to the Kyoto reading circle:

WHAT XODDAM SAID [ the soft-sell!]
"Kyoto establishes emissions caps for Annex I nations, and emissions accounting and Clean
Development Mechanism participation for all signatories, including South Africa, Indonesia and China"

WHAT XODDAM OMMITTED [ the hard-facts!]
Annex I nations (the developed nations) "are COMMITED…to ensuring … emissions of greenhouse gases do not exceed amounts assigned to each country in Annex B to the Protocol."
And if any Annex I country…"fails to meet its Kyoto obligation it will be penalized
by having to submit 1.3 emission allowances in a second commitment period for
every ton of greenhouse gas emissions they exceed their cap in the first."

The Non-Annex I nations ( the rest of the world) are ENCOURAGED, BUT NOT COMPELLED, to participate -in The Development Mechanism

"India and China, which have ratified the protocol, are not
required to reduce carbon emissions under the present agreement"

If the USA was to ratify the present agreement the economic impact on the United States would be at least 4 times greater than on Europe. And 100 times greater than most fair-weather signatories.
Some sources predict a resultant 4% decline in USA GDP( An interesting side question:
would they still expect the USA to pay its current disproportionate % of foreign aid?)

Both the Clinton Democrats & the current Republican Administrations have been critical of the lack of compulsion on developing nations [ Shucks! that undercuts the scope to beat about the Bush with Michael Moore scenarios of big Corp Govt intransigence]

And though some flourish the list of Kyoto signatories, as if it's a Roll of Honour: It's hardly a list of the environmentally committed, most undertake little to nothing . It has more in common with the roll of diners at a Salvation Army soup kitchen.

I got a distinct sense of déjà vu while watching the Kyoto roadshow…
I had seen it all somewhere before - then it struck me!
It's that a long running cabaret production better known as "Let's shaft the USA" -only the stage-set has been changed!

Horus, you said “Kyoto has hyped-up the need for urgent action. Yet, it has targeted first & foremost many moderate (in volume), western polluters - while effectively putting off till tomorrow the need to rope-in some of the worst (in volume) , developing nation polluters.”

I think this is a fair question to put to you - The USA up till now has been the worst by volume GHG emitter – how do you think we should “rope them in?” And please, don’t get paranoid about someone wanting to “shaft the USA.”

Horus, do you think the “developed” world is living in a sustainable way?

Again, Kyoto’ is flawed and “let’s seek alternatives” (as you say) – but it’s not just about ‘Kyoto’ as some would have us believe – what bit do you think needs clarification?

APEC is next month, what do you think should happen given that Howard has put ‘climate change’ at the top of the agenda?

What do you think should happen at the UNFCCC meeting in December in moving on from ‘Kyoto’?

What do you think the US should do? Seriously>

And Horus – IT IS NOT ABOUT “SHAFTING THE USA”, they are YOUR words.

[My line,DavSab — your dots!]

The US position has been unequivocal.
I don’t recall them saying no to emission controls.
Only no to controls that exempted some of the worst polluters.


Treating China, India & Brazil on a par with the USA would make a nice start.
OR…
You could wait till some 'new age' minded Democrat(or Laborite) wins the next election & ratifies Kyoto, but then, all the yankophobes would have to find a new bandwagon- but that shouldn’t be too difficult!

Have a nice weekend

Some people obfuscate by not answering direct questions. OK, maybe we all should leave these issues to our elected leaders to act on our behalf, just like they did in Iraq.

We are going to see all the spin leading up to and emanating from APEC next week.