Copenhagen, its nearly over, just maybe the debate should have started now, or after it.
No not saying Abbott's mob got it right, but in just hours we will see egg on many faces, as some weak but working plan emerges.
That claim, come its headlines all over the world, a super tax will do nothing for Climate change.
It is so very clear if we do anything, at all, it will be funded by cash.
Tax is the source of any governments income.
Focused on tax ignoring the facts is blind stupidity.
But in review taking voters for granted did not work.
We hear of conspiracy's, left and right and just maybe we are seeing signs it may be right.
If, and I believe it is, Global warming exists, many humans are going to die, who cares, truly some do not.
If man has affected Global warming, and I firmly think we have, what will we destroy next in the name of cash and progress?
It will cost to fix this problem, we will and must pay, is politics diverting us from truly looking at it?

If man has affected Global warming, and I firmly think we have, what will we destroy next in the name of cash and progress?
Belly,
Mankind, the guilty & as per usual the innocent too, that's who will cop it.

Dear Belly,

As Thomas L. Friedman tells us in his book,
"Hot, Flat, and Crowded,":

"The big challenge we have today in energizing a
real green revolution is that the people most
affected by any climate change are not likely
to be "us." The people who are likely to be most
affected by energy and natural resources supply
and demand, petrodictatorship, climate change,
energy poverty, and biodiversity loss don't get to
vote - because they haven't been born yet..."

This climate change issue pits the present versus
the future - today's generation versus its kids and
grandchildren. In our model of democracy, policy
is the product of the clash of interest groups.
When disasters hit our shores,
when severe droughts ravage our country, then
perhaps climate change will become the biggest
interest group in history - but by then it could be
too late.

We need a change in our outlook. We need to come
together on this issue. An unusual situation like this
calls for that ethic of stewardship: what parents do
for their kids - looking over the horizon, thinking
about the long term, so they can have a better future.

Of course its much easier to say - I'm looking after my
interests now - and not worry about society.

Our parents and their generation mobilized to face down
a threat to our way of life in World War II. They applied
all their economic resources and human effort in solving
the problem, and they did not stop until they'd won,
because they understood that their way of life was at
stake. Everyone sacrificed and everyone participated.

We need a similar mobilization to launch a real Clean Energy
System - and we have to prevent disaster that we think will
happen rather than respond to one when it does.

It's not easy - but it is about the obligation to make sure
that there is a stable planet for all species - and an
opportunity for all of us to renew and regenerate.

Dear Belly,
After seeing how they hoped to divy up the tax pie at Copenhagen I would guess the people who want population control will get their way as food production is scaled down in the developed world and drought and hunger take their toll on the poor nations.
It is terrible to watch cattle starving to death so how much more your family.
Unless we get the devil out of the detail it will continue to be survival of the fittest in a world controled by him. Without God you can't bind the strongman. Merry Xmas and a prosperous New Year and remember Jesus is the reason for the season.
The Blessing of God on you and yours.
Richie

A thread was started here from people who know far more than I ever will about GW.
I posted saying I was enjoying it, but a key player, two in fact left.
So I tipped toed out of that thread.
It is well beyond my knowledge.
But another end of the debate exists, people who should know much better say it is only about tax's, others do actually say it is not me why should I care.
Foxy you and I care, many millions do, but the outcome of Copenhagen is weak and gutless.
I see now we Australia have lost the chance, truly, to contribute as much as we should.
In retrospect, sorry C J Morgan, the Greens, intent on ONLY AN EXTREME program, come out no better than Abbott.
2 Liberals voted with us, had the greens done so?
As Barnaby Joyce searches for seats by confrontation with his bed fellows the Green may find winning new senate seats is not as easy as they think.
Bob Brown in my view is not an inch better than any Conservative, his stance is hurting true conservation issues.

Belly,
Glad you raised this topic because I really want to ask you if you actually believe in human induced climate change, or are you just following the Labor line?

Given that you are a practical bloke, with common sense, would you not agree that there are many things we have little or no influence over? Like our orbit, earthquakes, volcanos, tides,etc. why then do you think we have any influence over the worlds climate? AGW is not proven, it is theory, and is my expert any better than yours, or vicy versa. There is no proof of CO2 causing temperatures to rise and in fact the natural proportion of CO2 is many, many times that produced by human activity. (I've forgotten the propotions)

So you support government action, at great cost to taxpayers, in effort to reduce a small propotion of CO2, which has not been proven to effect us in any way? That does not seem practical.

On another thread, I said

I reckon Aussies recognize that AGW is not proven and is a religion to some. Most are sceptical about it, as I am, and want proof before doing anything. The government has made no effort to explain the ETS, or how it would reduce our CO2 emmissions. In addition it is a tax and will cost us plenty and doubt that our efforts will make any difference to the world. That is what Aussies think about AGW and the ETS.

That pretty well sums up my attitude. I just hate the exageration and misinformation put out by those with religious fevor on AGW.

A little while back, our PM cited a couple of hot days in Adelaide as proof of AGW, yet a few days later there were record snowfalls and record earliest snowfalls over vast areas of North America. So how do you reconcile that one event is proof of AGW and the other is just weather?