The biggest effect of the Greenhouse effect appears to be even more hot air than before. The ABC reports http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1868278.htm that a Brussel's meeting has agreed to cut Greenhouse emissions in EU countries by 20 percent by 2020 (nice ring there) compared to 1990 levels.

Only problem is that the EU has so far drastically failed to meet it's existing Kyoto commitments, so why should anyone take any notice of this commitment?

Tony Blair is glowing: "It gives Europe a very clear leadership position on this crucial issue facing the world"; but environmentalists were skeptical: "Some noted that the EU was already having big problems meeting its far smaller goals for 2012 under the UN's Kyoto Protocol pact for curbing CO2 and other climate-changing gases".

I think the nub of the problem is that the technologies don't exist today to generate our lifestyle on a low carbon basis, and no elector in any democratic country is going to vote for a lower standard of living.

Does this mean that the war on CO2 can be added to the types of war that democracies aren't very good at waging?

Graham, The way I read it in non-australian reports was it is a target of 20% renewable energy, with germany and another country volunteering to go for 30% if required. This doesn't necessarily mean the equivalent cut in GHG's. On the other hand our media may have got it right. Maybe.

Ah well Graham,

I imagine the "hot air" from Europeans is just as toxic as the "hot air" we are force-fed from our Australian "experts" on CO2 mitigation.

At least the EU's rhetoric has committed to 20% of energy sources, by 2020, from renewables such as wind and solar and a recommendation that monopoly ownership of electrical transmission production is broken up in an endeavour to give renewables a chance at the grid.

Now have a look-see at Messrs Howard and Walker's grand plan for CO2 mitigation by first investigating nuclear energy production in the US.

The first nuclear plant in US was commissioned in 1957. They now have 103 plants which supply just 19% of energy requirements.

So that's fifty years of nuclear energy and fifty years of radioactive hazardous waste with nowhere to go.

The Yucca Mountain repository with costs already blown out to some $7 billion and due for completion in 2010 has resulted in one big bun fight - all for 19% of total energy requirements!

And the US remain the biggest polluters on the planet.

Back to Mr Howard's plan to have one nuclear reactor commissioned in 15 or 20 years. My God - he could be dead by then! So what's his plans for the next 15 or 20 years. An increase in CO2, more anthropogenic destruction of our environment - mmmmm?

Oh yes, that word anthropogenic. Breaking news today that the 4,000 beautiful birds (dead ones) that fell from the skies in WA was a result of lead poisoning from industrial sources. Nah - couldn't be true could it? Pollutant industries wont hurt ya - no way!

And as usual, we've had to ingest more blathering "hot air" from out Western Australian tossers in the environment and health departments where their in-action has again, created an environmental catastrophe!

I’ve got to wonder what the point is in even trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions any more.

The issue is just so bloody overwhelming. I mean, with China’s acceleration in emissions rates and with the pissy little reductions over long timeframes that are being talked about in Europe and under the Kyoto protocol.

Even these minor reductions just aren’t being met, nor anywhere near it. And these involve the relatively easy improvements in efficiency and development of alternative energy sources. It’ll become progressively harder after these initial easy steps have been taken.

It seems that we are just going to have to live with the consequences.

What we should be doing is gearing ourselves towards genuine sustainability, with all the passion that we can muster. While a fair bit of the methodology for doing this also applies to greenhouse gas emission reductions, we really do need to concentrate on the whole deal of sustainability, and not just the climate change issue, or instead of the climate change issue.

Perversely, the climate change issue has held the focus while the more critical issue of sustainability continues to go virtually unaddressed.

It is also highly likely that a bit of a slowing of the rate of increase in GHG emissions will only make things worse by dragging the situation out. It could well be that if we just continue our profligate use of fossil fuels full bore, exhaust them quickly, and thus force ourselves to adapt to alternative energy sources, we will come out of this mess in a better state. And the rapid peak and then hopefully rapid fall in atmospheric CO2 levels will have a much less serious impact on climate change.

I don’t think we’ve got the collective power to deal with this global issue. But individual countries (and the EU) do have the power to address their own sustainability issues. And that is where the focus should be.

I agree with Ludwig's suggestion that sustainability is being ignored. However, since Australia has between 400-1000 years of coal reserves (Federal Govt. report), there is no way we could exhaust these reserves quickly.

And vehicle sales have increased in Australia. This industry produces massive amounts of destructive pollutant emissions and not just CO2.

I have continued to take an interest in gas powered stations where gas is the least carbon intensive fossil fuel, cutting C02 emissions by some 40%. If our governments were at all sincere in reducing our human footprint on Australia's sustainability, they would be encouraging this method of C02 reduction.

Last year, WA state government ministers approved the $240 million development of 2 more coal fired plants, despite the EPA's environmental assessment which ruled against these projects.

As I have previously stated, sustainability and economic progress (resulting from pollutant industries) make very poor bedfellows. Therefore, the status quo will continue as will the desecration of the environment.

Our climate has been warm in the past and has cooled again. Nature is able to correct these types of imbalances (yes it might mean that rising sea-levels drown a large part of the population - I didnt mean that Nature would be nice about it). BUT, I am far more worried about pollutants than CO2. Yes, cutting back our emmissions of CO2 is desirable, but there are far worse things being unleashed onto our environment, including things that nature ISNT able to deal with, such as nuclear waste, pollution from mining activities, and all sorts of by-products that are particularly nasty. These are things that we should be focussing our attention on, as they are truly toxic to life.

Ludwig, I think I'm with you. I think the carbon fuels will run out before we curb our reliance on them - which means adaptation is the only way to deal with climate change. That's assuming that climate change is as bad as it is predicted to be by the IPCC.