A lot I agree with. But I think the idea of an economic nexus between emissions and population size is fundamentally flawed. One of the major causes of environmental problems is population size and population growth. To configure any kind of system on a per capita base is thus fundamentally inimical to the objective of emission control and reduction. If absolute limits to emissions were set and enforced, nations might strive to reduce populations as a way of reaching their goals, if the limits are set per capita this could be an incentive to expand populations.

Now let's see.The industrial revolution began in the West and poor countries benefited from better food technology and medicines so their populations exploded.They are still growing expodentially!

How is it our problem that they have not taken responsibility for their own pop excesses when we have negative pop growth?We could have chosen not to share any of our new technologies with poor countries and let disease and wars curtail their pop growth.

There has to be a population factor introduced into agreements like Kyoto because it will be in the interests of poor countries to encourage the growth of a poor underclass,so they can gain economic advantage by having lower energy to pop ratios.India and china will continue to pollute at will and we devolve into poverty.The left would be very happy with this outcome.

Nicholas is also assuming that the present consensus about CO2 being the main culprit is correct.I do not.

Col Rouge: assuming that if one is not an unqualified fan of the existing Capitilist system, one must therefore be a Socialist, is about as intelligent as the cow in the movie "Babe".
"The way things are, is the way things are".
I freely concede there are many things the free market system does well. But not everything.
Mega huge companies with billions of dollars tied up in existing -and outdated- technologies are resistant to change. There is no mystery here.
In a democracy, if the people don't like something, they should not have to put up with it. All they need is the will, and the understanding of their own power.
The looming crisis will supply the will, and education and the internet (and sites such as this) will provide the understanding.
viva the revolution.
grim@thecomensality.com

Grim,
A clarification please–you say:
“Just as the UN should be structured on the principle of 1 person 1 vote”
Did you mean one nation one vote – or did you really mean one person one vote?

And how about funding for the UN, shouldn’t we democratize that as well?

We now know with melting of our polar regions that rapid global warming is not just a cyclic change.

So rather than stuffing around with carbon trading helping to still keep our corporate hawks still making billions - using military terms, it is vital that we should be now going into defence mode against rising water tables, etc.

Here in Mandurah we have canals still being constructed only giving housing precincts less than a metre free-board.

From an academic point of view it is so interesting that left-wing loonies as too many of Onliners are still wont to call them, gave warning nearly twenty years ago to the canal construction companies about canal residences being half under water in years to come.

It is also so interesting philosophically that people who were against the original Parry canals in Halls Head were mostly females, making one wonder whether with such worrying climate times ahead we should have more of the feminine gender running society, especially with out present Aussie continuing reliance on quarry economics.

Interesting article. I'm a bit with Fencepost re population growth, but nevertheless it seems a point of argument for developing nations to continue in raising living standards.

Col Rouge, don't you think it a bit hypocritical to damn 'socialism' when obviously you and yours have greatly benefited from 'socialist' policies in this country over the last 50 years or so? Your level of education, health and level of social standing is purely the result of socialist policies.

Once it may have been simple to choose between an extreme. What about a 'middle way' as is shown in countries like Norway or the Netherlands? Growth has always been seen as the hallmark of success. Let's coin some new words, like maintenance and efficiency to mark success.

It is extraordinary don't you think, that a powerful Mercedes Benz car has lower emissions and is more fuel efficient than many small 4 cylinder cars. Citroen is even better.

Technology and the environment are the winners with the proposed 'tax' on fuel inefficient cars in Europe. The Europeans don't care whether climate change is man made or a 'natural' occurrence. They see the effects humans have on the environment by looking at the horizon and at the health of their trees.