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