Yes, let's round up the usual suspects and see how much we can squeeze them for. Climate change? Not so good this year. What else can we harp on? Male oppression? That should be good for a few billion. Guilt over first-world affluence? We can extort a fair bit there. Forests? Forests are always good for extracting conscience money.

All funds -- less a healthy commission -- to be remitted to male theocrats and robber warlords in South-East Asia, the Middle East and Africa... unmarked bills in plain brown envelopes please.

And there would be worldwide applause if the eminemtly representitive UN committee for Human Rights was appointed to oversee the distribution of all funds ... hang on agriculture would really thrive if pigs could fly.

It astonishes me given the Human Rights Committee's record that anyone puts any faith in any UN committee activity.

<< It’s the height of hypocrisy for PM Kevin Rudd to call for world leaders to show political courage at the climate change talks in Copenhagen. >>

Ain’t that the truth!!

What’s the biggest factor in reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions? Or, I should say, in not being able to reduce our GHG emissions?

Our massively high immigration rate and the consequent rapidly increasing number of carbon emitters, which is set to completely overwhelm any per-capita reductions!!

Do you think that there is a hope in hell of Rudd addressing this factor, given that he is totally hung up on a ‘big Australia’?

It is hypocrisy in the extreme for Rudd to wank on about climate change at Copenhagen, er Carbonhagen, ahm Hopenhagen, oh no I mean Hopelesshagen!!

The Author is forgetting that Kev needs to be able to get any plans through the parliament. I'm sure he would be bolder if he had control of the upper house or the greens had the balance of power and were in touch with reality.
BTW I notice the Author didn't realy talk about what women can do, only what us mere males won't let them, but that then again that Global warming is mens fault away eh!

You are so right, Ludwig. The Big Australia policy is completely incompatible with reducing emissions, which leads to the conclusion that the ETS is only intended to create an illusion among the public and the international community that something is being done.

From ABS figures, we now have a 2.1% population growth rate, which implies a 33 year population doubling time if it continues. 63% of this is due to immigration, a result of deliberate policy by the Rudd government. A migrant doesn't increase greenhouse gas emissions as much as a new baby over his or her lifetime, but in general, people emigrate to consume at the level of the host society. According to the Australia Institute, the average migrants doubles his or her emissions, and, of course, their children emit as much as any other Australian babies. The multiple is likely to become larger as we get more migrants from poorer countries. Average migrants quadruple their emissions in the US

http://www.cis.org/GreenhouseGasEmissions

Natural increase, which accounts for the rest of the population growth, is still only a temporary phenomenon, as fertility rates are still below replacement level, as they have been since 1976, but Rudd has been doing his best to increase that component as well, with baby bribes and other incentives.

It ought to be very clear that increased population will more than wipe out any per capita cuts that are politically possible. In fact, emissions per person may even go up if we have to burn coal to fuel desalination plants to provide water for the larger population. The politicians show their insincerity on this issue in other ways as well, such as a lack of willingness to look at nuclear power plants as a source of baseload power so that coal fired power plants can be phased out.

Divergence, yes Rudd’s position has got to be one of the most obvious and absolute pieces of governmental hypocrisy of all time.

This presents Abbott and the Libs with the most glowing golden opportunity to hound Rudd into the dirt and to put up simple policies that would be in strong opposition, that would create a strong Opposition party and that would be supported by a very large portion, probably the big majority, the Australian public.

Not only is our immigration rate the biggest single factor in the climate change issue (and the sustainabiity issue), it is also BY FAR the easiest one to address. If Abbott could just appreciate this and start advocating a winding back of immigration, to net zero in about five years time, then the people that count - the voters - might start to take him seriously.

But then he and the Libnats are really only a pretend Opposition, aren’t they!