Michael Hitchins' claimed 'reality' above would be disputed by many. His misleadingly named organisation actually represents Australia's major carbon emitters. Of course they would argue for abandonment of the ETS targets altogether. It is in their interest to misrepresent Copenhagen as a failed conference.

Copenhagen was a partial success - an early step on the road to global CO2 emissions reductions agreement. I have argued elsewhere (my December 2009 essay on the Copenhagen outcome, in Eureka Street) that the Copenhagen outcome suggests the Rudd government should move to the intermediate 15% ETS bills target, which would clearly distinguish it as having a real policy in contrast with the coalition's illusory no-sacrifice 'direct action' policy.

The Rudd government should also abandon coal CCS, and move to a serious direct public action renewable energy program. Then it would be able to show up the Abbott plan for the sham that it is.

On a 5% ETS and with continued half-hearted pursuit of phoney CCS solutions and no vigorous non-carbon energy direct policy action (where are the promised renewable energy flagship programs now?), the Rudd government will have a real fight on their hands to convince voters that they have better environmental credentials than Abbott.

But maybe they think that voters don't care about the environment any more, after Copenhagen? I think they might be wrong here. They should ignore the siren songs of carbon industry lobbyists like Hitchins. Voters know the truth of what is happening, and what Australia needs to do irrespective of what is happening elsewhere in the world.

By the way, it is a myth that China is not pulling its weight. China's unconditionally pledged 45% reduction in emissions intensity by 2020 is extremely important and to be praised. For a country that produces a major share of the world's traded manufactured goods, it's a major promise.

A visit to the AIGN website reveals that, despite its green-sounding name, this is an association of Australia's main polluters.

No details are given of the Access Economics study, but we can be sure this is a typical example of mainstream economics' bias towards business as usual and of the squealing of special interests. These interests are already receiving huge subsidies and special considerations, which is why the Rudd Government's Continue Polluting Regardless Scheme is such a pathetic failure.

There are many examples and studies showing that Australia's greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced for very modest cost. It is plausible that we can reduce emissions by 20% by 2020 at little or no net cost to the economy. Of course the current big polluters might lose and new clean industries might win. That is something most politicians are too gutless to contemplate.

A more informed and optimistic view is given in my blog post http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/cut-emissions-and-boost-economy/

“Copenhagen demonstrated, as if it were ever needed, that Australia’s pledges have no influence whatsoever on the level of commitment the world’s advanced countries are prepared to offer.”

Australia has little influence on anything globally. It’s all in the mind of Red Rudd, who likes to think he is in there with the big boys; he is not, and never will be. Australia should be minding its own business and doing what is best for Australia and Australians. To hell with the United Nations, which is trying to get any country which isn’t broke to hand money over to tin pot dictatorships which are broke. The idea of China being a ‘developing’ country should also be put to rest.

Australia cannot even protect its borders from illegal immigrants any more; its politicians are foolishly trying to increase the already too high population with unneeded immigrants while infrastructure to handle the increases is falling apart. We are in dire financial straits because of Rudd’s idiotic stimulus package. We are about to face massive increases in taxation following the Henry report.

Moaning about the first baby boomers wanting age pensions has already started in the media, but the morons in Canberra continue to allow in economic migrants (posing as refugees) who will have to be paid pensions because they will never work – they don’t even speak intelligible English.

The good times in Australia have well and truly gone, thanks to the only two political parties Australia’s apathetic voters have allowed to run the country. Many British migrants and others from once civilised countries have come to Australia to escape open slather on inappropriate immigration and over-population, mismanaged economies and increasing totalitarianism from politicians. Now there is nowhere else to escape to because Australia is going the same way.

Of course Australia has no influence globally; it doesn’t have the right to even attempt to tell others what to do

Dominic Lawson, UK Sunday Times - I've changed the focus from UK to Australian government, it's still relevant and apt.

“Hence (the Australian Government’s) long-standing obsession with being the “leader in the battle against climate change” — a presumption that met a devastating rebuff in Copenhagen last month, when it was brought home to the government what a colossal exercise in vanity and hubris this was on its part: surprise! China, India, Brazil, South Africa — make your own list — will not be lectured on their responsibilities to their own generations as yet unborn by affluent, middle-class eco-moralists from (Canberra).”

Those words "a colossal exercise in vanity and hubris" describe our government and their cronies perfectly.

All the threats, all the hyperbole and the rant that PM Rudd came out with, endangering our children's future indeed.

So what now Kev, Penny, that other guy the whale botherer who thinks a hot year proves man is fiddling with the climate, no mate, it's just the climate on it's way ever changing, as it does. There remains no smoking gun, no hotspot no direct link from CO2 contributing to the climate changing, it's just coincidence, unless PROVED otherwise.

I clearly remember Rudd promising that "we" would do no more or less than the other industrialised countries.

Considering that nearly all these countries are intending to deliver much less than our ETS, and even then with ramped up nuclear generation, the question is whether Rudd will again convieniently classify this as a "non core" promise and try again to ram through the ETS legislation.

The problem today is that we do a lot of talking about politics rather than reality.

This industry influenced pap is no exception.

What is missing is a meaningful discussion on what to do..By implication he want to do nothing. Why? because industry wants to keep their cash cows and power intact.
Business is an artificial, amoral, inanimate entity and as such issues like the word progressively becoming uninhabitable it not it's concern, but it is people's.
Logically when all is said and done business is a tool to man. Would you sacrifice your life and that of future generation for a hammer? or simply find another way.
Business' are adept at using human emotions against us with such nonsense like "jobs will go we'll all be living in the 1700 again".

Some businesses will close( like wig powder manufacturers) and more will open. Show me where in modern history has business in general has permanently gone backwards. Take for example there is more paper sold today than before the paperless office. There are more jobs in textile related industries than before the spinning Jenny mechanization.

What we see is specific selfish business/industries interests fearful of losing their privileged position(s) at the expense of people.
Likewise with political parties that trade a reality for opportunity of power Visa vie Liberals, where is their basic science and scientifically measurable observation and factors? they're non existent.

In its place is the nonsense argument that science can provide a hypothesis that is so *absolute* that any error/difference in interpretation renders the whole a 'con' job.

Politics is like milking a fibreglass cow and demanding a wage for it. All show and no useful result other than for the 'milker'.

Odo, you don't understand the basic science. The theories of global warming do not start with a set of correlations between quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere and measured temperatures, but with well-established science about how the sun warms the earth.

The sun's rays pass through the atmosphere having little effect. They do, however, warm the earth. The earth in its turn emits heat at a different range of wavelengths; and that heat warms the air. Much of it escapes into space. However, CO2 and other gases reflect some of the heat back, to warm the air further, making the atmosphere warmer than it otherwise would be. This process, called the greenhouse effect, has been known for more than a century. The reflective properties of the greenhouse gases at different concentrations can be tested at ground level in partial vacuum--so they are not in doubt.

Accordingly, as CO2 increases in the atmosphere, there MUST be an effect. The only issues is whether there are compensating effects big enough to counter the warming, or other processes causing cooling independently. One compensation--growth of forests, we are busy counteracting by cutting them down.

So which of the above points do you reject?

Here's some reasons why Australia is very much in the drivers seat with respect to climate change
- we may have the world's highest per capita emissions
- our water supply, tourism and agriculture are under threat
- our coal exports produce more CO2 than the domestic economy
- people from low lying islands are likely to flock here
- developing countries look to us for leadership
- we'll look weak if we don't match words with action.

Saying that Australia has a minor role is a bit pathetic, like helping cause an accident then hurriedly leaving the scene.

ozbib, whoops, let me fix that from:

There remains no smoking gun, no hotspot no direct link from CO2 contributing to the climate changing

to

There remains no smoking gun, no hotspot, no direct link from CO2, contributing to the climate changing

there you go, fixed.

So how does the errant behaviour of the Northen Hemisphere eg; semi Global Colding fit into all the Global warming theories .
Perhaps we all should calm down a bit and wait for the Ice Age Oracles to begin their Primordal Wailing .

<< So how does the errant behaviour of the Northen Hemisphere eg; semi Global Colding fit into all the Global warming theories? >>

Put more energy into a system (e.g. GHG's or Solar Irradiance), the system heats up, water evaporates, and falls out as rain or snow - the system is trying to maintain equilibrium.

Some people think Global Warming means higher temperatures everywhere and every year - they are wrong.

A symptom of global warming is an increase in (and extent of) extreme weather events.

Odo, science does not PROVE (your emphasis) anything. Theories are supported by their joint consequences. If a theory is confirmed in different kinds of circumstances, it is better established than one which merely applies to a more limited set. Hence the significance of my assertion about the reflective qualities of CO2 being testable at ground level.

The basic science I quote is very well established, and is not new. The causal link between CO2 concentration and global warming is as well-established as any causal claim can be. It does not depend on recent variations in temperature. The only issues concern other influences on climate. That is, is the increased effect of the greenhouse gases being offset by other changes? Assertions that it is require a basis in testable theory also.

Ozbib,

The point you left out is why is the atmosphere not warming.

Any year eleven chemistry student who has performed calorimetry on melting ice can answer that question and make global warming deniers (anthropomorphic or not) hide in shame.

Any scientist or engineer with access to their CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics could probably tell you very intersting things about what happens prior to the ice melting.

Please note that Russia is hotly contesting rights to previously impassable arctic regions.

Rusty

The key issue in all of this is the polls. It was the poll results (at the time) that caused John Howard and Kevin Rudd (and Malcolm Turnbull) to pursue the ill-fated ETS.

However, what hasn't been recognised is that the polls were flawed, because they asked the wrong questions. Ask the Australian public if they want the government to do something about AGW, and they will of course say yes. However, if you ask them if they want the government to do something about AGW if it is going to cost them $1100 per year per family (through higher electricity prices etc) and I think that you will find that you get a very different poll result.

And if the truth be told, that is, there is a risk that the cost per family per year could indeed by higher than $1100 per year (as it very well could be) it is obvious that the support will decline further.

Taswegian,

You have posted several porkies:

"our coal exports produce more CO2 than the domestic economy"
Not even close, local consumption of coal is orders of magnitude higher than exports.

"developing countries look to us for leadership"
Really? I regularily read news from the developing world and in all the many pages of coverage on Copenhagen, the US, China, etc, I found only a few brief comments on Australia. There is barely any interest in what we are doing, far from seeking leadership.

"we'll look weak if we don't match words with action."
So when we say we'll do no more or less than the industrialised world, what should we do?

Examinator, I guess that economics is not your strong suit.

Business provides goods and services and jobs. Additional expenses have either to be passed on to the consumer (where the consumer can switch to cheaper imported, non ETS taxed goods) or have to be made up by reducing costs such as wages or jobs.

New business that open seldom offer the wages of the ones that closed.

"A symptom of global warming is an increase in (and extent of) extreme weather events."

And since there has been no increase in extreme weather events, that proves...?

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/faqs-and-myths#1

Silly me, I should have referred to ICECAP – the mob that has stories by renowned “experts” and climate change sceptics:

Joseph D’Aleo

Sallie Baliunas

Bob Carter

Chris De Freitas

Vincent Gray

Idso & family

'Ziggy' Jaworowski

et al

Indeed, the heart and souls behind that other think tank – the Heartland Institute.

Most people that research weather would link to sources that actually monitor the weather, not to 'denialosphere' blog-sites that inject their own spin for their own agenda.

SM,

Perhaps not, however, I still defy you to show me how, given the accepted theory of Capitalism, that business en toto will permanently decrease. Given it never has in the past.

The, whole point of entrepreneurialship is based on new opportunities etc. I gave clear historical evidence of the nature of business in that it's based on endless growth.

Our difference appears that current models assume a specific business beyond a certain size has an elevated right to life of its own and simply gets bigger.

The bigger an organization/business the less efficient/productive it becomes. Economies of scale tend to have finite limits beyond which administration negates benefits.

Mega businesses' and their greater power,selfishly/negatively (to big to fail, GM, or stifles public interest, patent abuse) government policy and inhibits/distorts competition. Through unfair advantage it monopolizes/dominates whole industry/sectors i.e. Shopping centre retail, digital entertainment. Arguably it also stifles development.

I contend that as circumstances change so will the employers some "die" other's will naturally fill any unfilled holes in the market (supply and demand).

This process is currently perverted by mega players. Given that most employees work for small and medium size businesses I maintain that business and employment would be better served if businesses remained at the control of the people (elected Governments).

I further suggest that Supply and demand would then begin to reflect the "real" (triple bottom line) value of resources and by this process reduce unnecessary consumption etc.

The implication would potentially offer offer more real benefits to humans and the world in general.

Another voice calling for Australia to do the least it can get away with rather than the most it's capable of. This is a weak attempt to justify doing next to nothing about an issue that will impact Australia for long into the future and much harder than most.

Only by disregarding - or disbelieving - the future costs and consequences of failure to deal with AGW can the Author possibly think that future generations will benefit from this race-to-be-last approach.

This is how to face the greatest challenge of our times? Pathetic.

Examinator,

Why do you paint such targets on your back?

"given the accepted theory of Capitalism" Capitalism is at best loosely defined, and while there are economic theories, there is as yet no accepted theory of capitalism.

"I gave clear historical evidence of the nature of business in that it's based on endless growth." Where? Some are many are not, and focus on niche markets etc.

"The bigger an organization/business the less efficient/productive it becomes. Economies of scale tend to have finite limits beyond which administration negates benefits." -- Absolute Rubbish. While this may be true for small service industies, for most industries the administration costs can be spread amongst more employees and cost savings from efficiencies of scale and the ability to negotiate down the input costs are enourmous. E.g, BHP, Rio, paper and other industries simply cannot exist on a minature scale.

The ACCC is to see that there is no unfair competition.

"I contend that as circumstances change so will the employers some "die" other's will naturally fill any unfilled holes in the market" - When disposable income drops, markets shrink. When the businesses die, there is no hole to fill. Business reacts to the market not vica versa, The ETS sucks billions from the markets, and disposeable income, the end result is inevitable.

For the past century growth has been in lock step with energy consumption. While the older economies are more efficient, and some further savings can made, growth is dependent on power. To reduce CO2 this must either come from expensive unreliable renewables or nuclear.