Rudd is a disgusting hypocrite. All his grovelling to Hu Jin Tao will not mask the fact that Rudd made no request for the Chinese to limit their emissions when he met them at APEC. So if it is OK for the worlds biggest emitter to ignore Kyoto Ugly then why is it not OK for Australia to do the same?

A lot of posts on this forum go on about John Howard grovelling to George Bush but the simple facts are that our values are very similar. Behind the veneer there is no such common ground with a country that sells the body parts of soon to be executed prisoners and then sends the bill for the bullet to the grieving family.

And as for grovelling, you ain't seen nothin yet if Kevie gets his nose up uncle Hu's backside.

Rather than leading from behind Australia as Don Henry is postulating, Australia is actually trying to lead from the front and showing that it is prepared to stand up to the Euro Shonks and some of their half baked ideas.

But the way our forests are being exported as wood chip with bugger all value add and leaving us with the carbon debt, would not change one tot if the timber was turned into something more permanent, such as timber frames and floors where it would last for nearly a hundred years as locked up carbon.

Oh no that wont do, the carbon accounting rules dont allow for that.
It has to be converted into chip and exported in bulk to Japan where they release the carbon, but to our detriment.

All that Henry and his ilk are showing is that the clowns are in charge of the circus anyway.

The Kyoto protocol was, is and forever will be a failed and unsuccessful agreement. As soon as people like Don Henry and the other green activists who are more anti-development than pro-environment agree to abandon Kyoto in exchange for a global agreement that will achieve 50% or more cuts in GHG emissions, then we have a chance at saving the planet. Until this happens, the accusation that Henry, his organisation and others like them are simply playing local politics will remain valid and indefensible.

The APEC outcome was far from perfect but at least it included the USA and China: a significant achievement from which we can start to build a global agreement that has greater likelihood of working.

Bernie Masters,

"The APEC outcome was far from perfect but at least it included the USA and China: a significant achievement from which we can start to build a global agreement that has greater likelihood of working."

Well put Bernie.

Assuming of course that the problem, as yet quite inadequately defined, is actually worth the cost, and those put in charge of the program have more than two neurones to rub together.

It is as sure as hell already too bit much to ask from cretin central, the IPCC, where the lowest common denominator is the standard