Probably the toughest concept to grasp for some reason:

>>both those giant developing countries well know that the West became rich because of cheap energy. Now it's their turn<<

Looking at the problem from their point of view means that we have to let go of the concept that America's interests (and ours, and most of Europe's, by association) are paramount.

From Beijing or Mumbai, our attitude looks far more like "dog-in-the-manger" than "save the planet". Our assumption that others should shoulder the cost of our continued prosperity looks just a little self-absorbed, does it not, when faced with the quite natural objectives of governments keen to improve the lot of their own people?

One thing is for sure. There is no simple solution.

I noticed this idiotic piece in The Australian a few days ago. What has Prof Allan got against people who drive Toyotas? Shouldn't they have opinions or is it just that they shouldn't express them in public? I've never owned a Toyota, but I had a Datsun for a few years, and I oppose the whale slaughter. More here http://aginflow.blogspot.com/2008/01/rants-in-their-pants.html

Yes to the sentiment on bumper sticker displays, and yes to the comments on the UN, a useless, corrupt organisation run by Third World despots.

As for Kyoto, well it is silly in the extreme for our Government to sign up to something which they have had several years to see has not made a bit of difference. Like the bumpers sticker addicts, the Government is naively and gutlessly trying to keep in the good books of foreign countries who don’t give two hoots about Australia.

A big no to the nuclear option, though

Strangely, yeah, I'm going to have to agree with Leigh and the author for the most part, but there's a big fat caveat.

Things like a united international organisation such as the UN, or international agreements regarding something as difficult as climate change, have to start somewhere.

Put simply, the way nations are, if you put up a prescriptive kyoto protocol that would actually do a signficant amount of good... nobody would sign it. Look how reticent Howard was on signing Kyoto, even though we'd have met the targets anyway.

So my view is that you've got to start somewhere, even though the author is right insofar as they're not particularly effective - yet.
We do have the opportunity to progress and make headway with a new Kyoto agreement now that we have basic foundations... though I suspect we're only going to make real achievements when we're really pressed against the wall.

Similar situation for the UN. Yes, it's pretty ineffective as it stands, but c'mon. What hope have we got for a united world, if we don't even try with the UN? The only alternative is to give up altogether, but I'd rather keep the UN even if it is a bickering organisation.
Besides, whilst the failures have been spectacular, the UN does have its moments. They're generally more modest successes, but there have been peacekeeping operations that have made a genuine difference in people's lives, not to mention the aid assistance.

"…if you approached the problem in terms of taxing carbon dioxide, it would become too obvious just how high the costs would be of achieving a 70 per cent reduction "

Dozens, if not hundreds of studies have been done by various economists all around the world, and the result seems to be pretty universal - the cost of reducing emissions is in the order of 1-2% of GDP. Bugger all compared to the cost of, say, Iraq.

To claim that "2 to 3 degrees global warming" is a "defensible position" for India/China to take is absurd, unless you choose to ignore the scientists who have dedicated their time, effort and expertise to determine the likely ecological and human costs that this much warming entails.

Actually I don't believe it's the position they're taking at all - it's more like "we think we can ignore the problem a bit longer... someone will come along with an easy solution soon enough".

Regarding the effectiveness of Kyoto, the group most committed to Kyoto, the EU-15, is on track for an 11% cut on 1990 levels by 2012, well over the agreed target of an 8% cut (http://reports.eea.europa.eu/eea_report_2007_5/en). No doubt some of this is due to offshoring manufacturing to China & India, but other Western nations have had this “benefit” too, without the same reductions.

The only other countries set to achieve actual reductions from 1990 levels are those that have suffered significant economic decline.

Further, surely the main reason Kyoto hasn't "worked" as a global solution is because the U.S. hasn't agreed to it. By far the most overriding concern regarding a workable solution is achieving something that the U.S. will agree to. Hopefully after November, that should be somewhat easier to accomplish.

Re Darfur, either the author is wilfully ignorant of the actual situation there, and in particular, the various pressures that are driving the continuing conflict, or he seriously believes that human life there is somehow less valuable, and wiping it out and starting again is the only way forward.

(And P.S. - I have no bumper stickers).

Given his dismissive attitude to others, I would be interested to hear how James Allan is contributing to this issue - living in a tent perhaps?

What do you expect from someone who writes for that Murdoch propaganda rag, The Australian?

Leigh. The UN is not run by Third World despots. People like Suharto and Mugabe don't run the UN. It is stuffed up by the veto system that allows the USA, China, Britain, France and Russia to wreck any good that it may bring about. The UN runs some exellent development programmes and at least is a place in which folk like Chavez can tell the truth about folk like George Bush.

What bumper sticker do you have?
Are you clairvoyant that you an speak about the whole set of opinions a particular group of citizens are thing and doing in the rest of their lives?

Henry V111,

I suppose that your alias could mean you know all about despots. If ever there was a despot, old Henry was one.

I stand by what I say. We have had three third worlders "in charge" of the UN in a row; but I'm talking about staffing. The Third World has no hope of solving its problems, without or without our help, so these people (perhaps despots was not the right word) are beavering away moving as many 'refugees' around the world and into nice, safe Western billets. This is their way of 'solving' the problem, and the West has been suckered by it. It won't be too many more decades before the world is well out of kilter and totally unmanageable.

Seeing you mentioned China, I will say: definitely despotic. As for the US, Britain, France and Russia - well I have to say that your political bias might be showing a litle.

On the othere hand, we might have different ideas of despotsim, althuogh we agree on Suharto and Mugabe.

While sharing some of the ideas that this writer propounds, I didn't read the article with any particular feelings of empathy. In fact, I concluded that he was somewhat arrogant in what could only be his generalised assumptions of the motivations of others.

I don't think any means of raising consciousness about any issue is a waste of time. Anyone ever stuck in traffic with kids in the car will know that bumper stickers often lead to their introduction to issues of the day. I'm only too pleased when my own kids or their friends would read a sticker and ask, for example "What's Darfur?".

In fact I myself often learn things too. The issue of the proposed Woolies store in Maleny which caused such a furore some time ago was originally brought to my attention by a bumper sticker. Not to mention the fact that I gained new respect for my rather wimpy next-door neighbour when I learned, via the same medium, that in fact he was able to "do it" underwater!

it's an imperfect world, innit?

bumper stickers aren't quite useless, but a people without the fundamental tools of democracy can't do any more, for they have no power to do more. californians can lead the usa in global warming, because they are citizens with initiative power.

ozzies can't do anthing, as a nation, because they are subjects, not citizens. bumper stickers are the limit of their political power.

so don't laugh at bumper stickers, unless they're meant to be funny.

Good article, James.
Your knockers should read a publication called "Conspicuous Compassion" by Patrick West. It's an excellent account of how people overcome the need to actually do anything to correct the many problems facing the world by telling everyone how committed they are via a bumper sticker or a lapel ribbon, etc. In fact, of course, these people do absolutely Fanny Adams about these problems because that would actually take some effort and time on their part!

The assumption that people with bumber stickers dont actually do anything to assist their chosen cause has more to do with a significant problem associated with generalising information, in this case, in order to create an article. There are many people who do what they can to diminish injustices in this world. In addition, critics often try to belittle others by looking at inconsistencies in their approach, such as pointing out that an animal welfarist has a leather belt or shoes etc, or an anti-whaler drives a Toyota. It is almost impossible to be totally consistent in this world without being a complete renunciant so perhaps a more balanced article needs to look at the noble intentions of individuals whilst recognising how difficult it is to be perfect. This article isnt really one of clear and balanced insight as it is hampered by the the authors desire to express his intellectual capacity.