In the interest of balance and loathing for all things political.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/14/2770326.htm?site=thedrum

There *appears* to be dodgy accounting in Australia's claimed CO2 emissions. The government has omitted some of the sources to give good looking figures.

If so, shouldn't the government be attacked as being hypocritical?
However, doesn't this make the MM's attack even more opportunist and hypocritical?
Again, if true, what does this say for politics in Australia?
The lessor of two evils or God (who ever that maybe) help us because Politics certainly isn't.

As you've been told a thousand times before, this whole freaking joke has nothing to do with saving the planet and everything to do with making the rich richer!

It's time all the useful-idiots on this planet woke up and stopped hyperventilating tons of carbon into the atmosphere over a big fat lie.

If they really want everyone to go green, just tell all the polluters they've got 5/10 years to become clean or face being shut down. If the polluters can't do it for legitimate reasons, then we need to look at other ways of compensating for those industries. No need to tax anyone, no need to screw our economy and no need to transfer huge wads of cash to poly-ticks that do noooooothing!
Before you know it, industries that have been hiding cleaner cheaper technologies will come out and compete otherwise they're dead!

It all comes down to the modern tendency to govern via image or perception rather than dealing with reality. Without repeating some of the main thrusts of arguments on other threads, the short electoral cycle and party politics is the biggest contributor to spin politics.

For all participating countries, it was always going to be a manipulated presentation of figures and 'facts' - I don't believe Australia would be the only transgressor. No government or nation wants to be first to disadvantage their population in terms of trade or costs of production, they only want to 'appear' to make sacrifices.

Just goes to show how ridiculus the whole argument over carbon is.In the winter our forests take in carbon and in the summer release it through bush fires.All natural phenomina.The want to tax cow flatulance,what next human breathing? It is all a farce.

Water vapour is the greatest warming gas on the planet.Perhaps we should have a cloud tax as well.

Arjay,
No it doesn't, more water in the atmosphere means more fierce storms read the science.

Excess CO2, methane etc because of their chemical make up cause global warming Chemistry (second semester uni)

Ruminant farts can be altered simply by altering their food.
Again this is addressed in the uni lectures I quote.

What this story says is that The Government is still hostage to the big polluters regardless of his claiming the high moral ground.
What it says about our politics is tragic to put it mildly.

Scratching my head at this:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/down-and-dirty-farm-soil-will-offset-emissions-in-australias-carbon-cut-scheme-20091213-kqhj.html

Only days after our Government exempted agriculture from their carbon scheme it appears there are plans for ag in general, and until we see detail it may not be to the benefit of farmers. History suggests farmers don't receive many thanks for their contributions on behalf of the nation.

"The brilliant “win” for the Federal Government at Kyoto was only the first part of the “trick”. To make it work the Howard Government then had to stop private property owners land-clearing. Not only did they have to stop them but as private property it had to be done at no cost to the Commonwealth."

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/rooted/2009/12/12/carbongate-the-great-carbon-heist/

To my mind the use of soil carbon capture is doing nothing to curb actual emissions, only making us feel better about maintaining the status quo with regard to using fossil fuels. If Carbon is our enemy then we should not be introducing more to the biosphere, fullstop.

If the world wishes to capture fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions alone it needs over an Australia's worth of land area planted to trees each year. Currently the world emits about 28 billion tonnes of CO2 per annum from fossil fuel consumption, and from what I can gather an actively growing plantation forest captures 25 tonnes CO2 per hectare per year. Correct me if I'm wrong but that is approx 1 billion hectares a year required, with the area of Australia being around 800 million hectares. Bio-sequestration of carbon can help but it can't be the solution.

Dear Examinator,

I've finally managed to get hold of your
recommended book by Thomas L. Friedman,
"Hot, Flat, and Crowded."

In it Friedman asks the question if America's
political system is capable of producing leaders
able to solve a problem like the 'Energy-Climate
Era.' A problem of this magnitude: a multigenerational,
multifaceted, multitrillion-dollar problem?

According to Friedman, it is so difficult. It is
multiscale, multidisciplinary, with large certainty
in some areas and small certainty in others. It's
irreversible and reversible and 'we won't know how
we did it until it is over. We will know forty years
later.'

Australia is facing the same problems as can be seen from
the recent fiasco with the Opposition's performance
in the Senate where blocking everything was the
order of the day.
Smoke after all means jobs.

The PM has quite a battle on his hands.
And he's trying his level best to tackle
the situation as best he can.

The problems are complex.

I totally agree with Friedman when at the end of
this book he sums up by saying:

"The decisions we make about sustainable development
are not technical decisions about peripheral
matters, and they are not simple decisions about
the environment. They are decisions about who we
are, what we value, what kind of world we want to
live in, and how we want to be remembered...
Our good fortune is that we were born at a time
of enormous prosperity and technological innovation.
Our misfortune is that to spread that prosperity and
reach new heights of technological development, we
can't do it in the old way - by just mining
the global commons and by thinking that the universe
and nature revolve around us, and not the other way
around."

If we do re-generate, re-define, rediscover and
revive, we will not only survive, but as Friedman
points out, we'll thrive in an age that is hot, flat,
and crowded. In other words most important is our
outlook.

Can you imagine eleven and twenty-two-year drought
cycles?

the last few times i seen krudd on the media ...he was with kids...not scientists...not even economists..not even presenting facts..just peter beaty/anna bight type light press coverage

why does he refuse the debate...because he dosnt know the science?..in fact has been decieved by the scdience...im sick of hearing im working for big petro..from you idiots...big petro is right behoind this new tax...study the research..oh you cant..its in confidence...WHAT>>>>NO RED FLAGS?

we are being conned by spin merchants and paid to blog stooges..first proove the climate is warming..because 5 years ago the debait was its cooling..now its climate change...ever notice the climate changes 10 degrees from midday to midnight..[yet 2 point change and the reef is dead?]

think someone/media has made you fearfull...your ok..but its them others making co2...you put your food into the compost bin..little realising methane is 20 times worse..than co2..yet you got your own methane factory in your back yard

how much polution did your solar cells make/cost..or your wind mills...they were ALL using extra coal fired energy to make..get it...the cure to no more polkution is shuty down industry..be content to say this is my last phone/last car..last computer..

see you are being conned..your tax will ensure MORE INDUSTRY...more polution..you muggins cant think..it through..your consumerism cost us our earth..[ok thats the beat up]..but think..lets shut down them coal fired stations today....

and tomorrow a metrior..[or a pole shift...or volcano..blankets off the sun for a year..your solar cells mean no energy ..cause the sun cant get through the bull dust

Foxy,

my local library is a joke when it comes to issues of non-fiction up to date lit. they see themselves as an entertainment centre. Most of their relevant books on the subject are circa 'inconvenient truth' (hmmmm) >:-/

Even inter library loans cost in some instances, it's better for me to buy a copy.

Sadly local bookshops are chasing mass entertainment market, so I have to go into town to order a copy.
It sounds worth the effort to read.

I'm still ploughing through the 23 lectures on the science, up to 12 now. Sadly the outcome will only be that I am becoming a more informed idiot as opposed to a not so informed idiot.

Robin Williams Award winning science presenter (ABC) has written a good piece on the LaRouche group and 'climate gate'. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/13/2770249.htm?site=thedrum

I guess the issue is, now that sides have set in concrete, that discussion is moot, those that think will think those that won't ...won't.

You may notice that the focus of my posts and comments have changed.
I am now focusing on the positive(?) that AGW is here to stay, and I am now wanting discussion to prompt the best *long term* solution possible.

The offer still stands if you want a selection of the lectures.
I value your inputs.

From the article by Gregg Borschmann (link provided by Examinator in the opening post):

< …between 1990 and 2007, Australia's real carbon emissions actually rose by 82 per cent.

The dramatic increase has mainly been caused by rising emissions from Australia's rural lands, caused by bushfires and drought. >

How do droughts or bushfires add significantly to greenhouse gas emissions?

Obviously big bushfires release a lot of CO2. But if you look at the whole fire cycle, it is all regained in the burnt forests as they grow back.

Surely bushfires are carbon-neutral!

Similarly with drought.

If they are carbon-neutral overall, then why should we bother about peak events, such as big bushfire seasons, when trying to calculate emissions levels?

Let’s leave bushfires and droughts out of the equation.

Land clearing adds significantly to carbon emissions. Plenty of that has happened between 1990 and 2007, especially in Queensland.

So yes, there certainly is a cooking of the books in Australia’s emissions accounting. But it’s surely not due to any significant extent to fire or drought.

Dear OUG,
As you well know the religion of climate change is not about saving but who controls the world, GOD or satin . As both are spirits they need a body to operate in the physical relm and God is a gentleman for he never comes uninvited. The devil old satin, the snake, comes in uninvited to control and always has the distruction of man, Gods chosen caretaker for planet earth as his objective. Commonsence is unknown to those who chose not to see the wonder of Gods creation and who would rather believe in accidents and monkeys. All in favour of abortion and uthenasia please practice what you preach and leave the rest of us alone to practice what what we preach "loving one another and tending Gods great garden", Planet earth. Simple solutions for simple problems. When Jesus saves he does a complete makeover not piecemeal as the traditions of man would have us believe. Had a wonderful revelation last night, it is no good asking why to bible truths and giving an answer for how or when for that is how we missunderstand Gods word.

Dear Examinator,

I'm sorry to hear that your local library
is underfunded. But glad that you're buying
your own copy of Friedman's book. It's worth
a read.

You're kind in valuing my input, and I am
very flattered. However, you're intellect
and reasoning ability is far superior to
mine. As far as I'm concerned - I'm just a
little fish - in the big ocean of life.