Exaaaaammmmmmy!

I didn't even mention Fred Singer (mostly because you get suspended indefinitely for that). So I could've been even naughtier. Damn, now I have mentioned Fred Singer, ooops I did it again.

OK, I'll go to the naughty corner with my splendiferous box of Conte, just after I make a sincere attempt to answer your question.

Just off the top of my head:

Stopping pollution and transitioning to renewables; simply means REWARDING for not polluting or even reducing polluting, such as rewarding business for installing their own water tanks, solar power etc.

INVEST in sustainable technology.

CEASE rebates for dirty industries like coal. This means the economy will still tick over, but instead of great big business-as-usual monopolies making all the dosh, smaller sustainable businesses will benefit. Oh and the business-as-usual may even realise that they can still make a buck by.....

CHANGING (scary) their technologies across to sustainable. For example, GMH could 'unscrap' their electric car that they created - how long ago? In the 1980's. Would the complete mess we (the coalition of the witless) made in the Middle East even have happened, if we had started reducing oil dependency back in the 1980's?

Would South-East Australia have the issues with water if we had been subsidised (and permitted) to install residential water tanks 30 years ago? Oh the pain of it all.

But it is not too late. Industry has had to change its methodology before (steam to combustion engine) now combustion engine to electric.

All that is preventing us from transitioning is a bunch of greedy bastards and some rather nutty fringe Christians.

Oh and we may have to cooperate with others we never thought of cooperating with before... I'll leave the last word to Arnie...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOgEiuNYEqs

Ah'll be bahk.

After all the shenanigans by the financial people over recent years
here we go again giving them another mallet to beat us over the head.

Futures, derivatives, credit defaults, OH dear Oh dear,
They already have their computer systems setup and running and with
volunteer farmers and others buying and selling credits.

Just wait until the Russian oligarchs jump into it to clean out the
pockets of the gullible, like they did the Europeans.
The screen jockeys will take their skim as it all goes past.

I mean you couldn't make it up.

Fraccy, Rstuart,
Thank you for your responses, you're right of course.

I would like everyone to actually think about how pointless either POLITICAL never gonna be solution are.

Instead of arguing over is Labor better than Libs ?

I want to know, is how are we going to FIX the problems we face. SIMPLY reducing the CO2 won't make the make AGW go away nor will it fix the biosphere.

As I understand it, the biosphere comprises of a multitude of elements in sync(balanced within tolerances.). What we have today is the whole system of progressively malfunctioning components.

I surmise the reason why the irrefutable proof of the CO2 process (the fetish of the deniers) is difficult to pin down is that it is effectively the tip of the iceberg.

It is illogical to expect a CO2 imbalance alone to be the magic bullet.

Consider this if the GBR were to die off then the whole system and structure will decay creating new (unseen before) consequences to the whole coast line. species will disappear as will seemingly unrelated species will lack of food source etc. etc. (web of life).

Even if we get the CO2 to targets (bloody unlikely), but fail to address the issue en toto we are still in deep do do.

One big oops, big volcano(s) will over load the system and we're on the downward slope again.

In truth we as a species have whittled away nature's margin of error, limits of its ability to correct its self to clearly perilous point.
(not one but several, tipping points) What amazes me is that what we see is process mad, politicians by advocating a more unpredictable system are effectively taking violin lessons as we go down the pan.

We have no realistic choice but to moderate our extravagance in everything, or else. Chicken little? No but it will progressively be harder to sustain our populations/profligate life styles.

Since when was CO2 a pollutant?
When you breath out you exhale it. When you drink a beer you swallow it. When vegetable growers introduce it to greenhouses the vegetables grow quicker and bigger.
Now we want to get rid of it?
Al Gore is reaping billions from carbon credit trading.
Google The Green Chip Review and learn how you can earn 32% PER MONTH on capital invested.
Who do YOU THINK IS GOING TO PAY FOR ALL THESE PROFITS?
You and me. Not Malcolm Turnbull nor Kevin Rudd.
Listen. Listen. Listen to Barnaby Joyce. At Morgans on Collins midday on Wednesday next.

As you say, Examinator, one thing we must do is to focus on the big picture. The most common technique used by deniers (as opposed to skeptics - nothing wrong with healthy skepticism) is to attempt to invalidate a single aspect of the reason for transitioning to sustainable technology, the most prominent example being CO2 levels. As in "CO2 is good for plants ergot more must be better" or "there was more in the past (sustaining a completely different bio-system), therefore CO2 is not a problem, therefore climate change is not a problem". Sheesh.

Either deliberately or simply due to ignorance (or both) deniers do not consider that more CO2 creates changes in the biosphere. An excellent and simple explanation of increased CO2 on atmosphere and effects on oceanic PH is here:

http://www.lenntech.com/carbon-dioxide.htm

While focusing only on CO2, the issues concerning pollution, land degradation, saline levels in agricultural land, over-fishing, over-breeding, forest destruction and depletion of non-renewables is effectively side-stepped. It is another delaying tactic.

If the debate actually does move onto to "well what can we do about it?", again the focus is upon a single solution rather than the entire raft of workable solutions. For example, "wind power is useless for baseload requirements" is chanted as if because wind doesn't provide ALL energy needs then the implication is that we do nothing.

Or that the one magic bullet solution is to be had in nuclear energy. Ignore the entire cadre of genuinely clean solutions, nuclear is held up to be the only solution, thus delaying investment into clean renewables.

And now the latest proposal: Copenhagen is a clever plot to destroy capitalism, religion, democracy and all life as we know it.

Examinator, I don't have a hangover, but my head surely hurts. One thing I do know is that I have limited energy and will not be duped into wasting more time than is necessary to make a few cogent points before I move on. Perhaps we need to just get on with making changes - the time for debate is past.

Dear Examinator,

I don't know if this is going to help or not...

I read an interesting article in The Age,
Saturday,October 31st 2009 by Daniel Flitton.

Flitton points out - The West is concerned about
how to limit further greenhouse emissions,
and how to pay for reductions
(which explains the bitter political
contest we currently have in Australia over an emissions
trading scheme). Whereas, poor nations want to
focus on dealing with the reality of a changed
climate in the future.

For the poor nations cutting emissions is not an
immediate concern - because they don't have
large industrial complexes pumping huge amounts of carbon
into the skies. Coping with the physical aspects of
global warming on the environment is their main worry.
For example, how shifting patterns of rainfall will
affect food supplies, or how rising sea levels
could leave them homeless.

Rich countries, such as Australia, according to the
author, "can better absorb the costs of climate
change, whether by building expensive desalination plants
to top up water supplies, or investing in agricultural
research, to keep farms productive. Poor nations have
fewer options - and they want new international treaties
to chart ways to help."

Even China and India according to the author want the
developed economies to shoulder the major burden for
cutting emissions.

The author makes it quite clear, "There are political
reasons to explain why adaptation has been the poor cousin
to mitigation in climate talks. The problems it throws
up are even harder. If you think getting business to
agree on capping emissions is tricky. Try grappling with the
prospect of millions of people forced out of their homes."

If nothing else,according to the author,
Copenhagen won't be a complete waste.
It just may get people to begin to seriously confront
questions of living in a changed global climate.

They may even tackle migration questions, which is an
issue the world will eventually have to confront in
response to climate change.