(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).