No, the best solution is to admit that the whole scam has now unravelled and round up Jones,Briffa,the rest of the Hadley Centre gang and Michael Mann, et al for very thorough interrogation.

Even Tim "all the dams will run dry" Flannery is now admitting the evidence doesn't stack up - and on that basis we're going to destroy the economy?

Puh-lease.

Stephen Jones has not provided any biographical information or back ground for his proposal. I can only assume that his inspiration was induced with some recreational herbs.

His proposal has the teensiest flaw in that it assumes that all the citizens of earth have equal rights over the planet's resources.

Australia with 1.5% of the world's emmissions and 0.3% of the worlds population would need to reduce emmissions by 80% just to reach the average.

A cut of 20% by 2020 would still require a chunk of cash to be paid to despots such as Mugabe etc.

So while your socialist nirvana is full of happy people and frollicking animals it bears no resemblence to reality.

Again, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It supports all life on earth and enriches plant growth.
Why is it that seemingly well educated people are taken in by the IPCC garbage.
Have you not heard of the Hadley Climate Research Unit and their blatant manipulations?
Yes, the University of Essex is and was a hot bed of Marxism and they will not be content until we are all poverty stricken.
Stop wasting time and energy on CO2. It isn't a problem. Garner your resources to find out what is causing the climate to change. It goes up and it goes down. Why?

I watched a documentary on BBC TV over the weekend, called "Hot Cities".

This episode was about the city of Dakar in Senegal. They breed
like rabbits in Senegal, so more and more people are the real problem.

They interviewed a bloke who had 2 wives and 8 children. He was
battling to feed them all as a farmer, as ever more people have
been cutting down ever more trees, so there is less rainfall.

Given that I haven't created 8 children, all cutting down trees
and overloading the planet even more, how is the author going to
allow for this? Do I get a credit? Do people who have too many
children pay extra tax?

The author seemingly is intent on paying countries who have even
more children, wanted or unwanted, even more money!

That hardly sounds like common sense to me.

Stephen, you have just posted a “Lead Balloon”. Must try harder.

Yabby makes a good point. Stephen Jones' proposal lets a country gain a larger share of a resource, the Earth's capacity to safely deal with wastes, by simply having lots and lots of babies. A really fair method might be to work out a country's emissions entitlement from the share of global population that the country could sustainably support at a reference standard of living.