I disagree that Australia is powerless. We are the world's largest exporter of coal and have the largest uranium reserves. Presumably the use of those weapons constitute 'radical activism'. However first of all there is the psychological weapon of moral leadership. If we try hard to cut our emissions it makes others look like slackers. We won't need to preach, just raise our eyebrows and let others feel guilty.

If that fails then cut their coal imports. If they get their coal from somewhere else (which is getting harder) then put a carbon tariff on their manufactured goods. Give them yellowcake if A) they've signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and B) they can prove they have cut carbon emissions by a corresponding amount, not just added to their total energy.

To those who say we are powerless let me ask what use you are in an emergency. Go join the problem deniers. Sssh..I hear them coming.

The last paragragh of this article says it all. The nonsense of little old Austalia showing the lead to the main culprits in the emissions business by merely reducing our own piddling little bit is laughable.

The tone of the article sounds a bit too negative to me. I agree with Taswegian. If we do nothing, we stand little chance of convincing anyone else to do anything. The final result is equal to the sum of the parts, so that if all the small contributors are added up, quite a significant result will be obtained. A head in the sand outlook will result in pain for us all.

David

Just boring little me here again, to point out again that unless something is done to contain the population explosion in the third world any action on global warming is just urinating into the breeze.

Absolutely.

David

It seems Arthur Thomas worships the monumental foolishness of giving jokers like Garnaut a platform as if there is automatically, out of the blue a degree of credibility, wisdom and intelligence to be inferred. Frankly, this Garnaut is either a complete stoooopid or as I believe a nasty piece of work. There is no moral purpose here because all we see is this particular individual, Garnaut, who is filled with the self-righteousness that facts can be bent or ignored to fit an hypothesis and who has a mission to pronounce guilt on everyone in order to extract money from their supposed carbon sinfulness. i.e. a new swindle to make money out of thin air.

Now that Labour has formed government then we need to vigorously take it up to Rudd with his dishonest belief in junk climate science and that this is where we start making changes to build a knowledge economy.

If Kevvy honestly believes in education and seeks to be known as the education prime minister then he needs to fully explain how he approaches this desire for the true achievement of human potential when he obviously promotes more a belief in climate superstition that effectively thwarts the normal scientific method. His education revolution in Australia should start by depoliticising science and opening it up to greater scrutiny and debate.

Kieran, I know Garnaut, he's neither stupid nor a nasty piece of work - quite the contrary. But I agree with AT - Australia's actions to reduce emissions are irrelevant unless the major polluters take similar action. (Not that I'm accepting on present knowledge that there is a problem which can and should be addressed.) And I totally disagree with Tassie's approach, that we should impoverish ourselves in the vain hope that this will shame others into self-impoverishment. And cutting off our exports, besides impoverishing ourselves, would raise the world price and the incentive for other suppliers.

Faustino, I suppose I expect much higher standards of behaviour from supposedly educated individuals especially when you understand that the human being is nine times more susceptible to rumour than to fact. Garnaut obviously doesn't want the facts to get in the way of an opportunity to profit from the hysteria and reduce honest science to theology.

Garnaut's website says "The Australian economy must adapt to the impacts of climate change, and the existence of a price on greenhouse gas emissions." In effect he has been bought with remunerations coming from somebody's (taxpayer?) money to manufacture support for the faith and how best to fund this religion by projecting carbon sin and guilt on everyone ... punctuated with plenty of "the end is near" talk of course. Oh the horror of it.

As far as his "review" is concerned he makes some smarmy pretense at it being open and public, but in reality the non infected from little ol me to our giant ball of plasma, sunnyboy, will be deemed heretics, marginalized and punished. The Papal decree is that CO2 is a very dangerous pollutant and therein we have one of the most fraudulent concepts ever perpetrated by people.

I particularly don’t want a colder world because of the hardship it will bring to humanity and nature but I must confess my growing desire to flush these charlatans down the dunny.

The interim report of the Garnaut Climate Change Review highlights the importance of addressing the problem of deforestation to curb global emissions. (Refer pages 32-44). The Stern Review made this point back in October 2006. Curbing deforestation is one of the most efficient ways to reduce greenhouse emissions.

The Australian Department of Climate Change website notes that emissions from deforestation in developing countries represent about 20% of annual global greenhouse gas emissions.

The Kyoto Protocol actually excluded a mechanism to protect old growth forests. As a result, rainforest destruction is rampant in countries such as Indonesia and Papua New Guinea due to clearance for logging and oil palm plantations. Indonesia is now the world's third worst greenhouse gas emitter due to deforestation, peatland degradation and forest fires. And of course, as a developing country, Indonesia is currently not bound to meet emission targets under Kyoto.

One of the most important achievements of the recent UN Climate Change meeting in Bali was that delegates agreed to include forest protection mechanisms in future discussions about a new post-2012 climate change agreement. But how much more rainforest might be lost in the intervening period until 2012?

The post-2012 climate change agreement is scheduled to be finalised at the UN Climate Change meeting in Copenhagen in 2009. Deforestation is bound to be a major issue on the agenda at this meeting. Professor Garnaut suggests that between now and 2012 there is a “window of opportunity to adopt a variety of unilateral, regional and multilateral initiatives to help instil greater ambition into a post-Kyoto international framework”. (p.44). He also states that Australia can promote agreements with developing countries, such as our APEC neighbours Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, to reduce global emissions.

The Australian government should take immediate steps to significantly increase and build upon Australia’s Global Initiative on Forests and Climate, launched by the previous government in March last year. And given the push towards bipartisanship on major issues, the government should also take up the Liberals' suggestion for a “Global Rainforest Recovery Plan" for the period 2008-2012 as a matter of urgency.

3 March, 2008
To David.
Firstly, we do not live in an ideal world. Secondly read my final paragraph carefully. I agree on the mathematical solution. But let us look at those parts. Take China for instance. China passed the USA as the world's major greenhouse gas emitter in 2007 and is directly responsible for more than >25% of total emissions. Energy demand is growing at a faster rate than economic growth indicating a massive energy shortfall right now. China's energy programme in the 10th and 11th 5-Year plans include in part, construction of 550 coal fired power stations by 2010. Current official statistics do not include the "illegal" power stations in operation. Alternative energy input by 2020 will be no more than 8% and that includes hydro and the Three Gorges Dam input. Add to that the target of 67% urbanization of China's 1.5B population by 2030 and the increase in energy that will require. Add to that China's intention to maintain a high rate of growth. The answer to the mathematical equation may give you very good reason for concern about the net effect of the minor parties contribution.

3 March, 2008
To Taswegian.
I did not say that we were powerless. Read my final paragraph carefully and my response to David. China signed the NPT in March 1992. Maybe you should research more thoroughly and put Australia in perspective where it really stands in world coal and uranium reserves and markets, not just how we perceive Australia. We can do something, but it needs careful thought and coordinated action, not knee jerk reactions or emotion. I fail to see how expending your reserves of energy raising eyebrows will create any impact on today's global community. Expend your efforts into researching the effect and practicality of your several suggestions. At least the article got you thinking.

That is the very point we are trying to make. If we don't show some leadership, how can we expect China et al to take any notice of us at all. Our contribution may be small, but from small acorns, large oak trees grow.

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water, Garnaut has not finished yet.

David