The advantage of a carbon cap is that (absent loopholes) it is driven by a target whereas the physical effect of x% carbon tax is hard to predict. If people stay within the current cap the effect should be benign, assuming voluntary cuts are achievable. Revenue from permit auctions could be used to fund low end tax cuts. Sooner or later I think we will head towards some form of carbon rationing i.e. so many litres per week of petrol or kilowatt hours of coal fired electricity. Step pricing could see a basic allowance at a modest price then higher usage penalised, the base rate set so as to help battlers.

Another equity issue is that China is now saying 'our pollution is your cheap goods'. Maybe we should tax or cap coal and LNG exports or alternatively put a carbon tariff on imported finished goods.

The equity argument completely overlooks the fact that individuals are responsible only for a very small fraction of Australia's gross carbon emissions. Directly through household electricity and personal transportation, only about 25% of greenhouse emissions are from Australian individuals. Over 50% goes to production and transportation of goods for export.

The biggest tranche of our carbon emissions comes from an industry which already receives a massive subsidy from "little people", ostensibly in order to improve its export competitiveness. When state governments announce green power targets, they sagely tell us that this will mean electricity prices are going to increase, but that "trade-exposed industry" will get price relief.

There's method behind this apparently iniquitous arrangement: to tax the carbon emissions of the big exporting polluters could drive them out of business, or out of the country. Aluminium is a big employer and earner of foreign exchange, so the gross cost to the community would be high; though arguably the net economic impact to Australia of its departure would be negligible due to the magnitude of the subsidy and the high proportion of the profit that goes to foreign owners.

An influx of carbon tax revenues would tempt government to cut taxes elsewhere to compensate, without redistributing the money for the purpose of actually reducing emissions in a cost-effective way. Markets are known for achieving economically efficient allocations; government is notorious for pork-barrelling.

To tax carbon emissions directly encourages each business or household to make cuts directly in their own operations, or to pay up if this is easier for them. The actual emissions reductions achieved may be very small if the tax is not punitively high; a cap-and-trade scheme (with progressively reducing free allocations to the big exporting polluters in lieu of their present subsidy) would provide stronger assurance that emissions reductions will be realised. A flat tax isn't a cheap way to reduce emissions: the identification and achievement of the most cost-effective emissions reductions is something best tackled on the microeconomic scale.

The positive thing about climate change is how Australians finally in such a short period have began to connect to dots. Infact when Mike Keelty and people like him stand up for what they truely believe on the subject, it gets even more valuable to be part of a nation working to understand it's own future.

I was even impressed with Mr Bob Cater this week which is a score given I normally don't choose to hear him.

I agree Christian Seibert, Good Work and you are completely right; 'equity impacts policy responses to climate change' and,

"There needs to be a comprehensive examination of these methods by government, to ensure that Australia and the world have both a sustainable and an equitable future."

May we each be mindful of Australia's leadership in the world and be productive in the ways we influence our exchange, particurly smaller economies.

http://www.miacat.com
.

This article completely overlooks the fact that the problem of climate change, is the problem of undoing the harm done by the nonsense of the alarmists.

It is increasingly obvious that the claim of emissions from human activity having any adverse effect is extremely tenuous, and even if there were any basis for it, the effect is miniscule.

Breaking through the obfuscation of NASA in relation to the temperature figures in the US, and having the arch alarmist Dr Hansen concede that the hottest year in the US was 1934, is a huge step in the right direction. Hansen, who had set about giving 2005 the distinction of the hottest year, had to back off. He designated this major defeat, of his alarmist stance, as adjustment of "minor errors"

It may be a minor adjustment to acknowledge that the assertions about global warming are nonsense. It does not matter, so long as it is acknowledged that there is no global warming, of any significance.

The asserted .6 degree warming was paltry. It is now half of that, or less.

Let us not move along to the carbon credit schemes which are now baseless.

We must set about re-education of a populace, left too long to suffer the scurrilous nonsense of Al Gore and the IPCC, and the "slight errors" of the likes of Hansen.

Global warming is not a problem, nor is its meaningless replacement mantra of "climate change".

We do not need carbon credits, or any other scam, to place a further burden on our overtaxed citizens.

Nick, if 0.6 of a degree of warming were all we expected, we would not be shaking in our boots. But it is not a "paltry" warming, taken in context. It marks a sudden and undeniable departure (dating from the 1970s when sulfur dioxide emissions from coal furnaces were mostly eliminated) from the historical norm of terrestrial temperatures closely tracking variations in solar radiation.

The observed warming is mild and unalarming. But it is absolute confirmation of the theory (never seriosuly doubted) that adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere would cause temperatures to rise. Atmospheric and radiation physics situation indicate that, even if we were to stabilise greenhouse gas levels *now*, warming would continue for several years before the anthropocentric temperature anomaly stabilised.

The real cause for alarm is *not* the current temperature, but the knowledge that (a) direct anthropic greenhouse emissions continue to rise, and (b) after a couple of degrees' warming greenhouse emissions from the "wild" biosphere, and a decline in the ability of the surface layers of the ocean to dissolve carbon dioxide, can be expected. These will lead to "runaway" greenhouse emissions and abrupt climate change, making the present warming trend look like a sunny midmorning stroll in the park.

I challenge you to describe, with credible evidence, what "harm" has been caused by calling attention to this seriously alarming state of affairs.

Your shrill screeching of "scurrilous nonsense" does nothing for your credibility.

EVEN IF the science were completely wrong, the urgent call to reduce greenhouse emissions amounts to little more than a call for investment in technologies and practices which are inherently more sustainable than our present reliance on ever-increasing combustion of ever-declining resources of fossil fuels.

But the science is not wrong; the error is in your interpretation (which sounds to me more like wilful misinterpretation than an honest mistake on your part) and that of other preachers of complacency.

The onus to restrict greenhouse pollution is as urgent as ever.

What a bureaucratic nightmare !
Who is going to check on each companies carbon emissions ?
Aside from the electricity bill it will be near impossible.
Someone will have to examine what each company buys in and how much
emissions is tied up in each product.
Also it will generate many oversea trips for bureaucrats while they
examine the plants of where imports are made.

I know, I know, you are going to tell me they don't have to do that.
They will take them at their word.
I wonder why the European carbon credit system has collapsed ?
They are worth about as much as Bias Finance shares.

In any case it is all a waste of time as there is not enough
hydrocarbon fuels to reach the IPCC projections, except perhaps
the most optimistic projection.ie the lowest temperature rise.

No, Bazz, you are wrong on several counts. We had this discussion already, I'm not sure why you're falling back on claims you already accepted (or seemed to accept) as unfounded.

The most recent IPCC report was doctored under political pressure to remove mention of potential catastrophic positive feedbacks from anthropogenic warming. The report's "projections" represent the probable warmings due *directly* to hypothetical fossil fuel emissions scenarios, but fail to account for greenhouse gas sources that are not directly anthropogenic.

Two degrees of global warming is enough to thaw the Siberian permafrost and trigger the release of huge quantities of methane from decaying peat.

*Some* recent analyses indicate that fossil fuels are likely to become uneconomical to extract in the volumes once presumed possible. This is not a foregone conclusion -- it isn't the case that the fossil fuels will *run out*, just that it is expected that economics (including competition from nuclear and renewable energy sources) will prevent the higher-extraction scenarios from playing out.

But not even the lowest of the IPCC scenarios was low enough to avoid that crucial two degrees of warming.

The European carbon credit trading system has not "collapsed". The market, being immature, has been quite unstable and the *price* of carbon collapsed at one point -- indicating that too many emissions permits had been handed out to "grandfathered" polluters at no charge. The system is still up and running, and capable of doing the job correctly if not continually undermined by lenient public policy.

And the accounting difficulties are significantly less than those for eg. a GST -- an emissions cost is an *extra* input, but no harder to incorporate into production costs and pricing than material inputs or business overheads.

You do not seem to understand Xoddam, that the predictions upon which you rely are discredited.

The arch alarmist James Hansen of NASA, probably your favourite scientist, has a credibility problem.

In 1988 he produced some graphs. One was to show what would result from global warming, if no measures were taken to reduce emissions.

During 1998 Patrick Michaels, a respected scientist, gave evidence to the US Senate using Hansen's graph to show that his alarmist predictions were wrong. The global warming predicted, had not happened.

Hansen had produced 3 graphs. The first 2 were wrong. The third depicted minimal warming which would occur provided that emissions were lowered, by drastic restrictions to be imposed by government. No such restrictions were imposed, and the minimal warming in the graph resulted anyway.

Undeterred at being shown to be wrong, Hansen complained of the unauthorised use of his graph by Michaels.

Of course, now that Stephen McIntyre has gained acknowledgement from Hansen that his figures on warming are wrong, the graph is now wrong, so Hansen cannot get anything right. This is OK because no reputable scientist will represent that it is possible to predict climate. Hansen could admit this, were he so inclined, and seek credibility.

Contrary to your assertion, there has always been great doubt about the effect of human activity on global warming. The theory is likely to be abandoned soon, as it becomes more and more tenuous.

The greenhouse theory itself is problematic, but even as it stands, it is obvious that human emissions are insignificant.

You appear to believe, Xoddam, that bluster will somehow compensate for abysmal ignorance, and abuse will elevate your standing in the debate. It simply emphasises your lack of clear thought. Take this extract from your post above:

"EVEN IF the science were completely wrong, the urgent call to reduce greenhouse emissions amounts to little more than a call for investment in technologies and practices which are inherently more sustainable"

When you realise how stupid that is, you might do some research.

You might even discover the unsustainability of the IPCC Summary assertions.

Nick,
Hansen's figures were wrong, but by only a small amount I believe.
Xoddam;
Well maybe, but the trend seems to be that there will be less
available than expected fuel rather than more than expected.

I notice also that the local carbon credit scheme price has fallen so
that one company changing bulbs for free has shut up shop.
There is another still going I believe, but on what financial basis
I am unaware.

As you say the accreditation of the cost of the amount of emmission is
straightforward, but that was what they did in Europe and no one checked
if the companies statements were true so the valuation was up the spout from the start.
That is why the price collapsed.

The solution to that is more checking and accounting and bureaucrats.
The whole global warming thing has become a religious mess when it
becomes sacrilege to question anything to do with it.

Dear Nick,

I do not for one moment believe that bluster will compensate for ignorance. You've started naming names and mocking me with fandom, as though climate science was somehow not the body of work of thousands of well-informed people over many decades. I don't have a favourite scientist, I do not bluster and I am not ignorant.

I have followed McIntyre's climate audit project closely for years. He has been on the lookout for errors in official climate statistics for a long time, and is entirely in the right to point them out. McIntyre is a good mathematician and his criticisms are mostly valid, but he does not claim to have discredited or falsified the basics of climate science or the bulk of the evidence for global warming, nor does he refer to the people whose work he studies -- and *improves* -- as "arch alarmists".

McIntyre's corrections do not for a moment falsify the basic physics of greenhouse gases. Nor do any other debates on statistics, predictions or past temperature time series. You ought to be well aware that the chaotic behaviour of the Earth's climate system makes any "predictive" extrapolations tentative at best.

What can't be disputed is that if you trap more radiative energy within the atmosphere by adding greenhouse gases to it, surface temperatures will rise.

You say "Contrary to your assertion, there has always been great doubt about the effect of human activity on global warming." My actual assertion was that there has never been serious doubt "that adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere would cause temperatures to rise". If you think I'm wrong, please demonstrate why.

I also repeat my challenge that you explain how action to reduce greenhouse emissions is in any way "harmful".

Could I inject some practical comments into this thread before it deteriorates into a slanging match? Despite my four year science degree and fifteen years work experience in natural resource management, I have no hope of following the scientific debate about climate change. Instead I use my understanding of scientific uncertainties and some basic ethical principles to decide my response to this challenging issue.

To the average Australian it doesn’t matter which scientist can prove or disprove the current global warming theories. What matters is that we may be looking down the barrel of a very big gun – and we simply can’t be sure if or when the trigger will go off. Scientific evidence appears to be mounting by the day to demonstrate our natural ecosystems are deteriorating at an alarming rate. Natural or human-induced climate change will accelerate that process.

There will never be total certainty or agreement about global warming, so I try to respond logically and ethically to this potential threat. Using the same reasoning behind buying insurance, I do everything I can to reduce my own ecological footprint in whatever ways are within my meagre financial means (and because of my ethical principles, even some that are beyond it). Of course others may have a different response to risk. But then, they’re the ones standing in front of their burnt house wondering how they’re going to put their lives back together and/or seeking a taxpayer-funded handout.

Back to the equity issue raised by Seibert, the onus is on every individual and organisation to share the burden of reducing this global risk, according to both their financial means and their practical ability to contribute to solutions. Governments seem to be too willing to subsidise those who have both the means and the ability, i.e. large corporations, while placing an unfair burden on those who can least afford it. Those consumers who are already reducing their environmental impact should be rewarded for their efforts, not penalised with indiscriminate economic measures that provide little incentive for profligate consumers to reduce the impacts of their current lifestyle.

wollsue,

I expect you're selling yourself short with the expectation that you can't follow the debate of climate science. Getting numbers right on such a large scale is obviously a challenge, and most of the work people have put in is developing data-collection methods which are halfway reliable, and developing computer models which halfway mimic the chaotic behaviour of the real globe.

But the basics are actually surprisingly straightforward. An excellent historical overview of discoveries and developments is here:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

When it comes to debating it, in addition to the staid to and fro of "experts" in the relevant journals adjusting the consensus, there is of course a lot of politically motivated guff going about on both sides in "the blogosphere". Some of this -- on either side -- is surprisingly serious and scholarly, but all of it is couched in lay language and fairly comprehensible for someone who knows what isotopes, photons, wavelengths and proxy series are. A chief clearinghouse for online dissemination of climate science orthodxy (including unconfirmed results and speculation) is

http://www.realclimate.org/

and some of the more credible locations for critics to hang out are Steve McIntyre's site

http://www.climateaudit.org/

which is devoted to poking small holes in data recording, statistical methods, computer modelling and the presentation of paleoclimatic data, with a sideline in accusing people of academic fraud, of which some of them may indeed be a little bit guilty.

and, of course

http://www.junkscience.com/

which has devoted more considerable efforts to denying the whole basis of climate science by calling into question the physics of greenhouse gas radiation absorbtion and by saying outright that the earth has been much hotter in human history than it can possibly get in coming decades. Much of the data it presents is sound; some isn't. It's run by one Steven Milloy; to save myself from arguing ad hominem and sounding like a conspiracy theorist I'll simply recommend you google him by name.

Thanks for the links! A quick glance at them only confirms what I suspected. For every scientific "fact" published there will always be an avalanche of online "facts"/opinion both confirming and discrediting it. It's not that I can't understand the science, it's more that I don't have the time to keep up with, let alone analyse and think about, the vast amount of information and debate (nothing like 4 kids to keep your time and brainpower otherwise occupied).

What increasingly concerns me is that while we're busy debating the scientific "facts" the real issues are being ignored. We simply can't continue to base our whole economy on the mining of finite resources and the ongoing destruction of the environment which has sustained our species for millenia. I no longer have any doubt about the reality of global warming and other issues such as peak oil - it's simply a matter of when and how much it will affect us. I don't want my children (and their children's children) to be paying the price for our current inaction.

As you rightly pointed out, what harm is there in responding positively to the challenges we face (other than upsetting those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo)? There are many reasons to change our current lifestyles, not just for fear of global warming. Unfortunately it seems even in the face of potential global catastrophe we can't see beyond our own hip pocket. So, let's have some REAL economic incentives to move towards a more sustainable lifestyle - and cross our fingers it's not too late!

Wollsue, you are advocating the precautionary principle, a flawed notion put forward by a global warming gathering of ratbags in Rio some years ago.

There are so many possibilities, of what might happen,that virtually any type of action could be advocated, based on someone thinking it might happen.

People might base action on nonsense like the IPCC Summary, a document prepared by politicians, without scientific approval, which makes nonsensical predictions. When one set is proven wrong, they produce another set, subsequently proven just as wrong.

They are yet to be right, but action is urged based on their predictions.

This type of action is a waste of time and money, which could be allocated to useful projects.

Thanks for that, Leo. Next time I cross the street I won't bother looking both ways, because I've never been hit by a car before and I've recently been more concerned about terrorist attacks.

I've never, ever heard anyone argue against the precautionary principle until now. You are truly an original thinker. Go Leo!

Leo,
Likewise, I've never heard such a vehement criticism of the precautionary principle. If the harm potentially caused by doing nothing is greater than the harm potentially caused by taking a particular action then obviously it would be foolish to do nothing. Of course that involves all sorts of value judgments (e.g. who or what is it OK to harm?), as well as a reasonable understanding of the science. There is always room to critique the scientific evidence, but I don't believe sweeping (and unreferenced) criticisms of the science help the debate.

I don't know or care what the IPCC specifically said on the precautionary principle - my own common sense tells me that we can't seriously expect to keep growing our industrial economies based on mining finite resources and pumping greenhouse gases and other pollution into the atmosphere without serious negative consequences. Any scientist will tell you we are mining the environmental capital of this planet - and surely even the economists would agree that's a bad strategy.

I live in an area where the negative impacts of global warming (whether human-induced or natural) are already becoming obvious in relation to the natural vegetation, with possible dire consequences for biodiversity and bushfire frequency and intensity. If there is even the smallest chance of reducing or slowing those impacts by changing the worst of our current wasteful practices, then I for one am willing to take action. It's important to me that future generations (including my own children) have a liveable planet - only the greedy or ignorant believe there is no room for sacrifice on the part of the current generation to achieve that. Replacing our current energy sources with renewable energy (even if it costs more) seems like a pretty small sacrifice to me.

For all your representations xoddam, you really do not appear to have done much investigation of the topic.

Your comparison of crossing the road without looking, shows you have no idea.

The precautionary principle is constantly held up to ridicule. You and wollsue seem to be equally deprived of enlightenment in this area.

In the next few paragraphs I will set out extracts of what Professor Robert Carter says about this aberration of the alarmists.

The question: “Surely because there is a risk of damage from human-caused climate change, we must apply the precautionary principle to try to prevent the change.”

The question is an acknowledgement that the audience, or at least the questioner, has run out of scientific arguments

Sensibly managing environmental issues is not about combating every single threat that can be dreamed up in the vivid imaginations of environmentally concerned citizens.

You might wish to read the whole article. He is a lucid thinker, something to which you seem to have gained little exposure.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/IPA%20precautionary%20principle%20-3z.rtf

Bazz, your comment “Hansen's figures were wrong, but by only a small amount I believe” is correct, but the alleged global warming is only a small amount, .6 of a degree in 106 years, so .15 of a degree, while a small amount makes a big difference.

It should not trouble Dr. Hansen, since 30 years ago he was warning of the coming ice age, so when the global warming scam fails, he can go back to the ice age nonsense, and still blame carbon emissions.

They have not been shown to cause warming, and were nevertheless blamed, so why not blame them for cooling.

Nick,

Bob Carter does not argue cogently against the precautionary principle, merely against the habit of not considering the costs of proposed precautions, which he believes (mistakenly, and without evidence) are very high. He also believes that the likelihood of global warming is the same as that of global cooling -- again, mistakenly and contrary to a large body of evidence.

I believe -- with justification, see http://www.oilendgame.com/ -- that the net cost of rearranging the energy economy is very low, if it is done cautiously and promptly. Certainly some commercial interests -- coal producers, owners of existing coal-fired power stations, and aluminium smelters in particular -- stand to lose somewhat if they are not protected, subsidised or bought out; but other economic interests stand to gain by comparable amounts.

On the other hand if the energy economy is *not* rearranged promptly, the economy as a whole stands to collapse, first from soaring oil prices and later -- very probably, though not certainly -- from the consequences of global warming.

Carter gives a few reasonable-sounding arguments for believing what he does, but his main premise (that all "warming believers" are alarmist frauds and none of their scientific work is credible, therefore there is no credible evidence of a warming climate) is severely flawed.

I challenge you again -- and Bob Carter, if he's listening or if he ever provided evidence -- to demonstrate why you think improving energy efficiency and adopting zero- and low-carbon energy supply technology will have unavoidably negative consequences.

Efficient technology by-and-large pays for itself over a few years of operation, and saves money for nothing thereafter. Much the same applies to fuel-free electricity generation. Subsitution of biofuels for petroleum serves to mitigate the very high cost of Peak Oil. Fossil fuels (especially petroleum) are strictly limited, and weaning ourselves off them a little earlier than high prices force us to will only save consumers from exorbitant costs later.

Please, Nick, tell us what makes you think consumption efficiency and renewable energy are such an expensive proposition.

xoddam, the proposition I put was that there is no basis for the carbon credit schemes, because there is no significant global warming.

There is no basis for believing that carbon emissions, from human activity, have any effect on global warming even if there was appreciable warming.

There has been no warming in the southern hemisphere since 1979.

It is now established that the hottest year in the US was 1934,

If there is warming somewhere else on the globe, it is local not global, which is why the whole concept of "global" is now questionable.

When it was raised that the Medieval warm period was warmer than any current warming, and that this was a most prosperous period, the alarmists argued that it was only local warming.

We only have local warming now, but the same people argue that it is global. Hardly straight thinking.

Dr. Wang, who supplied figures for China, has now confessed to fraud in his figures, so do not expect any warming in China.

You lost the plot somewhere early in the piece, and now have moved even further away from the topic.

Nick,

what you said was "the problem of climate change, is the problem of undoing the harm done by the nonsense of the alarmists."

I have asked you to justify the claim that harm has been caused, and your imputation ("a further burden on our overtaxed citizens") that acting to reduce greenhouse emissions will be excessively costly.

Bald assertion of historical local temperature extremes doesn't prove that the Earth is not warming up, any more than bald assertion of recent local temperature extremes (though someone's "favourite scientist" often did so) proves it is.

But the physics of the earth's radiation balance are not in dispute. As greenhouse gases are added to the atmosphere, temperatures will rise -- lagging emissions by some years. Moreover, as temperatures rise, "natural" causes can be expected to add to the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in a positive feedback, causing potentially catastrophic abrupt changes in climate across the globe.

Bob Carter has not demonstrated that the physics is wrong, or that the globe is as likely to cool as it is to warm. Nor have you.

But I didn't ask you to do that. I accept that you don't believe it. You probably also don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster; that's your issue, not mine.

What I have asked you to do is to demonstrate why you think taking steps to reduce greenhouse emissions would be harmful, when the primary economic consequence of energy efficiency and renewable energy supplies is to save and/or delay other escalating costs.

I repeat my challenge. Explain your concern.

Thankyou xoddam! You've saved me from having to write a lengthy reply. Maybe tomorrow when I've had more time to think about it. In the meantime...

Nick, I think it's healthy to be a skeptic but to totally deny even the possibility of global warming seems more like 'head in the sand', given that research is ongoing and at least some of the most recent evidence seems to be confirming the predicted warming trend.

It's the nature of research that some other scientist (or skeptic) will always pick holes in it, but the true scientist will maintain an open mind (at least until the evidence either way is totally overwhelming). It doesn't automatically follow that the rest of society should sit around fiddling while we wait for scientific certainty - by then our options could be severely reduced. Why not act now while we have a range of options to choose from?

I'm not suggesting we should turn our economy on its head overnight - but we do need to start looking seriously at alternatives to our current dependence on fossil fuels. Given that oil is about to hit $US100/barrel, I'd much rather see my transport dollars go towards a fuel source that is less politically volatile, less likely to run out and less likely to cause irreversible damage to our atmosphere.

Nick,
You seem determined to refute any claims for evidence of “global warming”, despite an overwhelming body of scientific research which increasingly confirms a significant warming trend over the past century or so. What are your references to substantiate your claim that “there has been no warming in the southern hemisphere since 1979”? Is this based on current or outdated scientific evidence? And even if true, is this irrefutable proof that the documented warming trend on the Australian continent is simply a local or regional aberration?

The U.K.’s Royal Society this year refuted a number of misleading climate change arguments in ‘Climate Change Controversies: A Simple Guide’. Have you read it?
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=6229

Although the IPCC, Royal Society and similar scientific fellowships are not beyond criticism, the fact that these bodies are largely in agreement on the general premise of human-induced global warming must carry some weight in decision-making processes.

At the risk of repeating myself, policies and actions should not be based on any one scientific study which may or may not confirm previous scientific studies. Nor should it be based on the pronouncements of any particular alarmist or the denials of any particular skeptic (such as yourself).

In the real world, decision-makers have to weigh up environmental, social and economic factors based on the best available information and assessments of risk. Unfortunately, short-term political imperatives tend to dominate over reasoned decision-making (as seen in the current Federal election campaign), so it is up to individuals to hold politicians and bureaucrats to account to ensure they act with intelligence and integrity, especially when it is our future at stake.

I too challenge you to produce evidence of significant overall harm likely to result from action to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

First you might like to listen to a podcast from this morning’s Radio National program ‘Life Matters’ which discusses a new sustainable paradigm for the future of the planet:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lifematters/stories/2007/2062104.htm