Yes it's interesting how quickly nations commit troops to foreign wars but say nothing can be done about climate change. Even when they go through the motions they leave so many loopholes (free carbon permits and overgenerous offsets) so as to render it ineffectual. A new factor is that researchers have independently concluded that all fossil fuels including coal will be in decline by 2025. So apart from saving the climate we also need to think about how future generations will derive energy. Learning to live with less emissions therefore solves two problems.

Despite claims to the contrary I think unilateral action could start a bandwagon effect. Like Sweden in the north, Australia could lead by example in the Asia Pacific region by reducing emissions while remaining economically vibrant. That could be backed up by including coal and LNG exports under a carbon cap or imposing a carbon tariff on imports from greenhouse rogue nations. When all the fossil fuels do run short we will also be a lot further along the learning curve.

The main problem facing the world is not global warming, it is overpopulation, and the fact that the population of the third world is set to double over the next 25 years.

If people worried about global warming don't realise this, they are simply urinating into the breeze.

If the third world population doubles then even at a minimal living standard they will generate two thirds of global warming gases.

Someone fighting for survival isn't going to worry about the gases released when he clears a new area of forest.

The thing that need to be done is for foreign aid to be concentrated on the education of young women. There is a sufficiently close inverse relationship between education and the number of children born to make this the top priority. Countries that refuse this should be denied any trade or foreign aid.

Of course, the one thing that George Bush, the Vatican, and the muslim world agree on is that nothing must be done to limit world population.

Therefore the whole thing is a waste of time.

why should oz lead? the pollies are conservative, the ordinary ozzies dim, ignorant and powerless. swedes are smarter, better educated, and play an active role in their government. don't know why, since they are a parliamentary monarchy, too. apparently, some are more repressive than others.

oz has placed it's sucker squarely on the american bum. the resulting mindset is fatal to innovation. the pollies are place-seekers, the people are cattle. instead of talking about what oz could do if only we weren't ozzians, look at the reality of what we are. not so bad really, champion lucky, remember, and so good at sports. well, good at watching sports.

Demos says, “Oz has placed its sucker squarely on the American bum … the resulting mindset is fatal to innovation.” Have to agree with the former but must challenge the latter (agree with Taswegian that we could lead by example) but your point is taken.

I like it plerdsus, “vir prudens non contra ventum mingit” … literally, it would be prudent not to piss into the wind.

The main problem facing the world is ‘sustainable development’ and it is counter-intuitive for the fundamentalist “right” of politics or “neo-cons” to say otherwise. This is not to say rational Liberal thinkers can’t be environmentalists or the “left” of politics has some kind of monopoly of environmental issues.

Global warming is a serious problem and will impact the global economy in a very serious way, and we can do something about it … the sooner the better.

“The thing that needs to be done is for foreign aid to be concentrated on the education of young women. There is a sufficiently close inverse relationship between education and the number of children born to make this the top priority.” BINGO – at last someone comprehends this initiative of Agenda 21 that is promoted by the UN’s Commission on Sustainable Development.

“Countries that refuse this (education in all its forms but particularly in relation to, and context of, women) should be denied any trade or foreign aid.” I’m with you plerdsus.

It’s easy to be flippant, can be fun … however, for the sake of the planet, it is not a waste of time.

[[[[Global warming is a serious problem and will impact the global economy in a very serious way, and we can do something about it … the sooner the better.]]]]
No it's not: it doesn't exist.
Rather, it is simply a tactic to slow down western nations to allow poorer nations to catch up, resulting in a 'level playing field' which can be more easily governed by a global government. And of course it provides a few university grants for struggling 'scientists' of very average analytical ability.

In the 1960s when there were no pollution controls, and industry was at its dirtiest, and US cities were covered in yellow haze, the supposed global temperature was dropping, giving rise to the then fashionable theory that we were heading toward an ice age.
The guy that headed up the freezing scam was James Hanson of NASA. Guess who headed up the frying campaign in the 1980s? You guessed it, good ol' outspoken charismatic Hansen again.

Short of sticking the earth in a bowl of water with a thermometer in it, measuring the temperature of the world is simply not possible, and it is certain that the puny amount of gasses we put up in the air will not make one iota of difference to global temperatures.

Moreover, the logic behind these pseudo-scientific simpletons is something like their science: they imply that there is some sort of sacrosanct temperature level which is not to be departed from. Who said the temperature should be at any particular level anyway?

The weather is the same as it always has been: nobody would think otherwise were it not for the current scam which utilises the age-old tool of the power of suggestion. Eventually the scare campaign will run out of steam. In fact it began to run out of steam about 5 years ago, owing to the evidence before eveyone's own eyes, so the proponents of the scam changed the terminology from "global warming" to "climate change", thus allowing them to have a bet every way, and causing the unlearned to focus on every oddity of weather.

Liberty says global warming “does not exist”.

My point is this; a vast body of experts in related and affected fields are saying to political, business and cultural leaders that the planet has a problem and we (humanity) can do something about it. Indeed, the international response to global warming (“climate change” as Bush has promoted and is well documented) has been nothing less than staggering – there is no conspiracy.

It is disconcerting that there are far too many non-experts, pseudo-scientists (wanabes) and deniers out there that confuse, obfuscate and misrepresent the science – they obviously can't understand the science themselves. This is not to say there are genuine sceptics (in the scientific sense of the word) out there that believe that 99% of their peers have got it wrong. But you won't find experts saying global warming is not happening.

It is a complex problem (as too is the solution) so it would be prudent to reassess how humanity treats the underlying causes e.g. energy (mis)use, agricultural and manufacturing practices, transport, education, etc.

Herein lays a major stumbling block, politics. Until the fundamentalist left and right of political ideology are willing to respect each other's differences, and adopt a more centrist or convergent position, then nothing will change (in fact it will get worse).

Our leaders are not dumb-nuts ... they are intelligent. But, our (humanity’s) response to climate change has not been wise.

This is the dilemma the world faces. Not that we haven't got intelligent people as leaders to guide us into the future, but that we haven't got wise leaders. So, the problem then becomes; can wisdom be taught (or learned)?

Wise leaders recognise that global warming is real and addressing the issues of sustainable development is a solution. It is the US/OZ response to these issues that perplex the rest of the world.

Bali in December will be a watershed – I just hope we can be at the negotiating table.