Well there is actually an economic theory on all this, called
the tragedy of the commons. It predicts that everyone will
act in their own short term self interest. Thats much what
humanity has done in the past and probably will do again.

So hang on to your seats and mother nature will have to sort
it all out the hard way.

Stop eating chocolate Forrest Gumpp; you seem to become worse than Hypo, verging into the psychosis of Schizophrenia.
I could substantiate everything I wrote, even just by preserving your response as a reference. Or your language ( Spam)
You have not read anything on the subject, you have not read the report, nor have you read anything about “The Kyoto Protocols”, and it is needless to respond to your comprehension on scientific models, out side of your Lego building block world, you just rave and rant like a good little Post-Modern Automaton; that is your subconscious job and what your mentors have programmed you to do.

“Ryechus”
Declaring violent outrage and retribution at computer generated text to wards an entity that is unknown to you, well, how long have you had this problem?
So get to work and stop being lazy and find out for your self what is happening around you.
Then report back with something that sounds like informed opinion.

We should not sign the Kyoto Protocol unless it includes all nations under the same conditions?For every Australian rainer,there are 3200 others who pollute.Australia accounts for less than 1% of the world's pollution.Yes per head of pop we do rank highly,however,China is building one coal fired power station a month.Their pollution will continue to accelerate as we beome the sacrifical lambs leading by example,as world pollution continues to worsen.

The US and Aust can do a lot in terms of smaller more fuel efficient cars,insulating buildings,and finding natural ways of heating & cooling our dwellings.These things can be done without damaging economic growth.If we weaken ourselves economically then teachers and public servants will have to suffer drastic pay cuts.

Poverty does not create a smart country that can come up with environmental solutions.The smart people will simply leave Aust and donate their expertise to a country with resources.John Howard was right about Kyoto,however wrong in not moving sooner on finding practical solutions to our dilemmas.

NB. Just a small point rainer;people immigrate to Australia,but we emigrate to America.

ALL-

You claim that you are: "absolute (sic) sick to death of these pig headed ignoramisis (sic)".

I too am not entirely in favour of ratifying the Kyoto agreement, however, whether climate change is anthropological or natural, we can not bury our heads in the sand (or is that the cracked earth?).

Nor can we continue to sook on about third world countries' carbon emissions. The subject is also a moral issue and greedy westernised governments should indeed be setting an example.

I have only perused excerpts of the Stern Report and so far I believe it makes sense and should indeed be heeded.

I have seen dozens of emissions reports from pollutant industries and it is clear that we are out of control. You should engage in the same exercise to better understand the damaging impact of chemical emissions.

Mr Downer claimed at a recent energy seminar that we have reduced our carbon emissions from 1990 which is simple rhetoric to appease Jo Citizen since emissions (carbon and non-carbon) have increased over the past four year period where I have taken an interest.

Perhaps you would like to access www.npi.gov.au to peruse the 2004 and 2005 national substance emissions for the coal industry. You may then realise that we are being duped.

2003/2004 (kgs)
CO.............. 18,000,000
Fluoride ...........120,000
NOX's....... ....36,000,000
PM......... ....130,000,000
SO2.......... ....1,900,000
VOC's............ 4,100,000
Benzene.............. 3,500
Chr III.............. 6,200
Chr VI............... 8,800

2004/2005 (kgs)

CO...............25,000,000
Fluoride............160,000
Nox's............49,000,000
PM..............170,000,000
SO2...............1,900,000
Voc's.............4,100,000
Benzene...............6,000
Chr III...............9,600
ChrVI.................9,400

The above figures I believe are conservative and are guesstimates only of submissions from industry and there are many other chemicals not listed above.

Don't forget to peruse other pollutant industries while you are at it, to obtain an overall picture of how irresponsible our governments are in their quest for revenue. These emissions could be reduced NOW with little fiscal damage to stakeholders!

Should you continue to deny that the above chemicals (and others)do not damage human health or the environment, then perhaps you should reconsider as to whom you are directing your description of "pig headed ignoramisis (sic)."

thanks dickie!

A lot has been said about securing alternative ‘sources’ for energy but very little attention is given to addressing this problem by approaching the other side of the equation, ie by minimizing energy usage in the first place.

Notwithstanding some progress in ‘Energy Efficient Air Conditioners’, this seems to be one area that is particularly neglected. Since most jobs in cities only involve manipulating information – the employees do not have to be present physically in their office to do their jobs. Yet for most people, they, and a tonne or more of metric steel travels for 90mins a day to do just this. Not only is this a huge usage of energy and producer of CO2 – it generates enormous amounts of soot, CO, rubber dust, etc.

We could move information-manipulation jobs (which most city jobs are anyway) to small office buildings local to each area – even close enough to be walking distance for most people. Work practices need to be developed to make this practical but if things like call centres and so on can move to India would it really be that hard for all office-work move to work-centres in the suburbs?

It would be quite different to working from home and all the problems that brings up for many people. There would be the camaraderie of work mates, formal start and finish times and there would be the structure of an actual building to go to and work in to keep it psychologically and physically separate from Home.

This structure would also serve a vital social function. Most people get to know people ‘through work’ this would combine the contact through work with residential proximity and help build residential communities. No faceless neighbors and friends at work who we can never see outside work hours because they live in the opposite direction. This strategy would not bring about a sudden change since these stations would be added one at a time, cities would adapt gradually and it seems to be a low-cost, comparatively simple solution to a number of problems.