If we excuse carbon dioxide polluters on the grounds that they will add any extra anti-pollution costs to the end price of their products and then we'll all pay, then we may as well not have any anti-pollution measures at all.

A while ago, I lived in a part of urban Western Australia which was in the process of changing from a mix of mainly cheap residential and assorted commercial and industrial to mid-range/expensive residential, with compatible commercial uses. Near the beach, near the Swan River, what would anyone with even half a brain expect?

When I moved there, the polluting excesses of some of the industries were obvious, so I got a copy of the WA EPA Act and some more useful official literature. I found that, not only were many businesses operating outside the guidelines, some of them were operating from inappropriate premises and/or without the knowledge and approval of the local council.

I wasn't out to change my part of the world, I really didn't care who was doing what, if it didn't unreasonably affect anyone else. But, living in my 1901 house, built before any of the local industry, I felt that I should not have to put up with excess noise, particularly through the night. But instead of getting support from the council health dept and the EPA, I found that they were far more inclined to cover for industry, even when the industrial activities were illegal and demonstrably environmentally harmful.

cont

I became president of our community association and had the ear of the local media. A local developer tried to buy my goodwill. If he'd try to buy me, a person with no real influence, then what would he do for councillors, council officers, EPA officers, well placed bureaucrats, MPs and other persons who could be useful to him? In an unrelated situation, a succession of developers, lobbyists, regulators, councillors and past and present state MPs are currently being investigated by the WA Crime and Corruption Commission in regard to a proposed development at Smiths Beach. It's all on Google!

The present unwillingness to pull CO2 polluters into line is just an extension of the long standing practice of letting environmental polluters get away with it, with perhaps monetary and/or political gain for those who are prepared to turn a blind eye.

“Huh, tides wiping out 1/2 the worlds population? Well that will at least make the anti-growth, anti-immigrationists happy. They may well increase their emissions to try to hurry it up!”

oh please Country Gal, this is terrible!

I am fairly and squarely one those that you would brand anti-growth and anti-immigration. But I am in this camp with the express purpose of stabilising the size of our impact on this planet (and on this continent) so that we may have a chance of addressing climate change and a few other almighty issues!

How on earth are we ever going to be able to do it if the same population growth and continuous economic growth regimes remain entrenched?

I saw ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ last might. Powerful. Stunning. And absolutely bloody awful in its message.

But while Al Gore talked about the impact of population size, he completely neglected to say that it was one of the factors that we have to address. This was the big flaw in the movie.

And indeed it is the big flaw in just about everyone else’s argument.

Oh Ludwig, please grow a sense of humour! I went fishing for a bite and I certainly got it.

If we are indeed such a world force in coal, then perhaps we could levy additional taxes on coal export/production. Given the minerals boom I am sure that the industry could soak up some additional costs. Whilst it may not have a large effect on the lowering of worldwide emissions, the money collected from the levy/tax could be directed straight to environmental works.

However, I think by far the most effective method of controlling and/or reducing carbon emissions is for regulation to play a role. yes there will also be those that break the rules, and there are plenty of people out there that will cry "big brother", but imposing additional costs will only help so much, particularly in an industry such as coal, which is sky-rocketing. Costs and market forces cannot hope to contain this situation.

Well, I’m pleased that you agree with my sentiments then CG (presumably you do?!).

But you’ve got to admit; you made a statement as though you heartily believed it. There was no humour in it. It was by all impressions just a straightforward dig.

“please grow a sense of humour!” is not very nice. Please give us some indication that humour is intended with things like this (tides wiping out half the world’s population was somehow humorous, or supposed to engender a humorous response?!)

Anyway, I agree that we should be doing some hard bargaining to raise the imbursement from our coal exports. This in conjunction with measures to stabilise our population would hopefully raise the average standard of living, and help get us off this terrible continuous economic growth spiral and steer us towards sustainability.

So to this end, yes, exporting coal can actually help us reach sustainability, which is at least as important as dealing with climate change.

What we should worry about is what is australia doing not anyone else.
if we keep our end up and create better technologies other than just talk as someone has said this has been going on since the 70s.

Its time for action not talk and its up to you all.
remember econics are an important issue as well so instead of saying no find the balance.

Australian peoples Party

email:swulrich@bigpond.net.au

Its up to you

You can take a horse to water but you cannot make him drink