Bazz,

It's about going after the easier targets as much as about any moral imperative. The rich nations have more advanced technology and more capital available to them to drive efficiency increases and new low carbon energy systems, so it seems reasonable that they should be expected to lead the world in those areas. Australia is one of those countries, and although the self-dubbed "realists" say we're just 2% of global emissions, then what about the good-ol USA?

Al Gore has recently been pointing out that reducing carbon fuel dependency in the US makes geopolitical sense as much as it may be necessary for the survival of our civilization.

Examinator: Carbon emissions were about Global Warming not climate change. Why your change of emphasis?

MVS: In relation to Gore here is some advice from Sams

'Either leave the scientific analysis to climate scientists, or become one yourself and publish in an appropriate journal. That is how you "address the science", not by throwing up a smoke screen of pretty graphics and bland assertions and expecting non-scientific people to believe its all nice and scientific.

I was going to respond with a lucid, intelligent post discussing the science, economics and ethics of climate change, but with closer examination I realise that a lot of the people posting to this forum are living in a fantasy land.

Honestly I did not think there were climate deniers who could write left in the world? Tobacco companies still find scientists who will refute the link between smoking and premature death. Do you really think the majority of the world's scientists have changed their minds? How plausible is it that the tiny minority still refuting human induced climate change are right?

I saw a climate scientist from the IPCC speak days ago about how terrifying the science is, how close we are to huge climatic catastrophe and how every time the figures are examined we are at the worst end of the projections. Healthy debate is good, but a handful of scientists are yet to convince me that thousands of others are wrong. Just tell me how losing the Arctic Ice sheet is explained without human induced climate change and I'll consider changing my mind.

And I am sorry but when did the desire for preservation of the environment become cause for vilification? How naive are you people? Buying into right wing spin doctoring that portrays environmentalists to be unreasonable, morally degenerate (that is particularly hilarious!) is quite sad, really wanting to preserve biodiversity and protect our earth is good economics.

Don't you get it? The cost of ignoring climate change is everything, our way of life, our beach side homes, our luxury, our rain, our climate, our biodiversity. It is up to the government to defend us, whether from external threats, other countries or our own lifestyles it does not matter. If it costs people money to reduce carbon, too bad, market forces got us into this mess, it will take legislation to get us out of it. The Government is elected to protect us, its time they showed some bravery and lived up their rhetoric, we need them to lead, not to bend.

Good to see you are here and resilient, Christine.

People of goodwill must make sure that Penny Wong's scheme gains a backbone, rather than flipflopping and pandering to the polluters on such a make or break issue.

Like "HELLO"! you can't lose weight unless you stop overeating!! I find all these 'softener' subsidies gross- there is a problem with our carbon gluttony. It's disgusting that those polluters get away with this.

Side note: It must be embarrassing for 'Online Opinion' that all those climate deniers vent here!

I have heard of at least one writer who doesn't publish here any longer due to frustrations at the gwd spammers.

Potentialism,

hope you include yourself as a disgusting polluter. That is if you use any electricity, you use any metal object, buy any product from any shop, do not walk everywhere (yes, using a metal bicycle also comes from those disgusting polluters).

Also it is hard to see how you reconcile your use of the internet (which is thought to require over 5% of the world's electricity) with not being a disgusting polluter.

Pollution is required for modern life.

There are easy solutions to the responses people are giving here:

1) If you believe that human-made climate change is a hoax and that the science is changing, let scientists create the emissions trading scheme, not politicians. Given that no peer-reviewed journal has published a climate skeptic article in the past ten years, this solution should produce responsible targets towards zero-emissions, rather than the weak targets proposed by the government and fossil fuels lobby. If you believe that the science is changing on climate change, then you should find this solution acceptable too.

2) If you believe we should find some compromise between the science and the economics, try calculating the cost of not doing enough about climate change. Try to find a universe where you can negotiate with the laws of physics and chemistry and win.

A little bit of logic works well here:
* We are already seeing the results of 1980 emissions today (multiplication of extreme weather events, submerged islands, rapid melting of the Arctic, desertification, food crisis etc.)
* Even with our current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we risk runaway climate change and a mass extinction event (a low risk according to the IPCC, but a risk nonetheless)
* The scientific community considers the targets pursued by the Australian government (450ppm and 550ppm) to have an extremely high risk of runaway climate change

Therefore: There is too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere! It is not a question of how much we need to reduce CO2 emissions, but how to stop polluting and get CO2 and other GHG out of the atmosphere (I've heard old-growth forests work well).

If you are still unconvinced about climate change, consider what effect cutting out our emissions will do, given that production is infinitely increasing on a finite planet: less resource exploitation, cleaner airs and rivers, better health, more time, simpler and happier lives. God help us!