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The Victorian Government saw recent AGL's wind farm proposal withdrawn due to its own weak, flawed state planning guidelines and politicians pandering to neighbouring landowner objections based on 'perceived loss of property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.