Dear Ludwig,
I can see that you have a problem.
I too have a problem looking at the image of the IPCC now. I think swiss cheese is an apt description.
Please stop living in the twentieth century and join us in the twenty first.

HAHA yeah, let's turn down $10 BILLION on principle. With all the promises of jobs by Bligh and the massive debt Qld is in you REALLY think novelty causes are going to come into play?.

NO ONE is taking global warming seriously, surely this was obvious from Copenhagen?. No one cares about anything other than how they are going to feed their family and pay the bills.

This is a wet dream for Bligh.

Seriously, how much closer are we to changing how we function as a species compared to say, 20 years ago?.

Pericles: "horrendously imperfect band-aid fix called "emissions trading", that does nothing at all to solve the underlying issue."

Conceptually the ETS is wonderfully simple. Just decide on a total amount of CO2 emissions for the year and them sell to the highest bidders. Then ratchet down allowed CO2 emissions each year until the final targets are met. Contrary to what you say, part of the beauty of this scheme is the direct way it does attack the underlying issue.

The European experience is an excellent illustration of just how well it will work, if it is allowed to bite. In order to get the ETS laws passed, they deliberately set the targets too high for the major emitters. Naturally energy companies lobbied hard to get their share of the spoils, as naturally the day after they got these emission permits they said they could not do business without they sold excess off. Democracy + Capitalism can be an ugly process.

But apparently because emissions now had a price on them they tweaked their business to reduce them so they could sell off even more emission permits. The net result was, even though Europe handed out more emission permits than there were emissions, they reduced their total emissions in the 00 decade in a time of high growth and when every other place on the planet increased theirs.

This did nothing to reduce the planets overall emissions, as some other place on the planet bought these credits and used them. But in 2010 decade the European ETS is scheduled to get some real bite - the emissions permits available for sale will drop significantly below total emissions. And if the 00 decade is anything to go by, there is every reason to expect it will work as intended.

You are right in saying the broad definition of emissions means we have fights over who pays for camels farting. I find the thought of highly paid lawyers and bewigged barristers arguing over camel farts highly amusing, but of little import beyond that.

C J Morgan, "the ALP government is no more profligate nor hypocritical than a LNP government would be when it comes to coal exports."

Of course CJ's Watermelon Party wants to stop all coal exports immediately and close down coal fired energy production - while at the same time supporting massive immigration.

The difference between the Greens and the two large mainstream parties is that the Greens will never form a government nor ever have enough members in the House of Representatives to be the minor party in a coalition. The opportunist Greens don't have to have policies for all of Australia, or even policies that are workable, it is enough to propose preposterous, sensationalist bumpf that will score a headline and cop a few percent of (usually youthful) militant votes to put a few time wasters into the Senate, to stuff around with social policy.

If the major mainstream parties show some hypocrisy in protecting Australian jobs are they any worse than a party that claims to be focussed on the environment but has yet to do anything at all about sustainability than claim it is all for it. At least Labor State Governments have taken practical steps through concrete action plans which are being implemented to make some attack on sustainability. CJ's hated Queensland government has done a lot of work on sustainability and they have the published material to prove it (just Google).

I have long been concerned about the environment and sustainability and would be among the first to call the two mainstream parties to account, however it is less than honest and damned silly to pretend that the Greens would do any better. When will the Greens put some numbers on population? What does sustainability mean to the Greens apart from being a red flag to attract protest votes?

We know you hate the Greens Cornflower, but this thread isn't about them. It's about the environmental lunacy of Queensland's dependence on coal exports and enthusiasm for population growth. You may be unaware that the OP holds the Greens in almost as much disdain as you do.

Perhaps you could tell us, as someone who claims to have "long been concerned about the environment and sustainability", exactly how this massive expansion in coal mining and exports will be environmentally sustainable? Also, how is the ALP's enthusiasm for rapid population growth environmentally sustainable?

Don't worry about the CO2 Ludwig, everybody else is in the process of
forgetting about it.
The real problem is actually selling it no doubt for a fixed
price for 20 years to China.
This looks like a repeat of the natural gas fiasco of Western Mining.

In 2025 the world will arrive at peak coal and the price will soar, but
we will be stuck with whatever price the contract has set.
I have not seen the details but I'll bet quids it will be for a song.

It will take a very long time to change to alternative energy for everything.
The best we can do is husband those resources we have because as oil
depletes we will need electricity in greatly increased amounts and
our coal and gas will be our only fuel. To sell the family silver
before we absolutely need to is just plain stupid.