And I agree with Shadow Minister, in fact increasingly the world does.,
There will be good out comes.
And bad, maybe the bad out ways the good.
But we an no longer hide behind our sides views.
Time well past we should look without our biases at what is good for the most.
Currently, now no I have not gone Green, NSW Forrest's has sold more timber than it can supply.
And foolishly[under NSW Labor] signed a contract, allowing fines, on Forrest,s! to an American firm, of millions!
If it can not supply.
Clear felling is taking place, even in areas said to be protected, so Forrest,s will not be fined,by its CUSTOMER!
Both side, rightly so, call for growing more trees, as carbon sink and renewable timber.
The stark clear felled nature of NSW North coast forrest,s is proof ample ground will be available to plant in.

Dear Belly,

A forest is not only trees. It is an ecological system where many different species of plants and animals live together. If one clearfells in an area not only trees are cut down but species may become extinct because of loss of habitat. Replanting the area with trees will not bring back those species. Different species of trees live together, and each forest has a different mix. Replanting will not even restore the previous mix of trees.

Clearfelling should not done. Trees to be logged should be marked out. If they cannot be moved out without minimal damage to the forest they should not be logged. All trees of one species should not be logged in an area. Some creatures live in a symbiotic nature with a particular species of tree. If that species of tree is eliminated then all associated species are eliminated. The profit from clearfelling is temporary, but the damage is permanent.

Replanting cannot completely restore what was before.

I was going to stay out of this one, but can't help myself today.
As usual, the greens will not be happy until we cease all human activity on the earth; indeed may-be even cease to exist (at least at this level of population).
Well I nominate greens to be the first not to continue to populate the earth.

The very term 'Climate Change' leaves it wide open for the band wagon supporters (who may or may not be proven wrong later) to make no commitments to whether:
- It is human induced
-How the climate is changing
-Whether it is a good or bad thing

In principle, it is not a bad thing to encourage people to use resources more wisely. We all have an inbuilt instinct to make the resources we have last. This is not limited to energy production. It also includes things like fish stocks, land degradation, water supply and minerals. The easiest way to act in these cases is always is to tax. The problem with this is that it provides yet another disincentive to get out of bed in the morning and go and do something, further eroding productivity. We should rather be investing in ways to get the cost of alternatives down. Why give alternative energy sources an artificial subsidy?

SM,
When ever the PM see's fit to call an election I expect us Greens to double our Senate representation in NSW from 1 to 2, hardly going backwards. I will be doing my little bit to help get the outstanding talent, and a lovely human being, Cate Faehrmann to join the equally talented and wonderful Lee Rhiannon in Canberra. Unlike Liberal and Labor Party candidates, who are imposed by the party power brokers, Kate was endorsed by a popular vote of the membership, like all other Green political candidates.
SM you said: "The fantasy the greens dole out is that renewable energy is the answer to all our needs. The reality that renewables are both hugely expensive and unreliable seems to elude them."
As a conservative if we listen to you we will do nothing. I'm sure it was Grandpa SM who opposed the automobile and the flying machine as being "both hugely expensive and unreliable"
Why is it history seems to always show, on everything. the conservatives getting it wrong?
SM a very hard question for you. Can you point to one innovation or reform in Australia over the past 100 years which you conservatives opposed and was implemented and later proved to be the wrong thing to do? There are many to choose from as conservatives tend to oppose all progressive innovations. here are a few to start with, widows pensions, child endowment, The Snowy Mountain Scheme, The Sydney Harbor Bridge its a long list. Here are a few the conservatives did support, WWI, Vietnam War, mining of asbestos. I await your response, it wont come

Bazz I really do find it amazing that someone who talks so loudly, knows so little about the subject.

Even if we accept the IPCC doctored findings on the subject, we find they tell us that the effect of CO2 is Logarithmic. In short hand that means that the effect reduces, as it grows.

In the case any effect of CO2, diminishes as the percentage of the stuff increases. The 0.7C is the maximum it could increase temperature, effectively regardless of how much you put up there, in any practical sense.

This is why I suggest people need enough math to understand the scam. If you don't have the math, you can't see through the red herrings.

You end up being as misinformed as the silly little girl Greenpeace activist, or the bright eyed young lady reported on the ABC. Anything you say is meaningless.

"...Anything you say is meaningless."

While I admire your arrogant assumption that you understand climate science, Hasbeen, it's fairly obvious that on a forum such as this, blokes who trumpet that they "understand the maths" while having next to no training in many disciplines that constitute climate science, it is pretty well meaningless - your narratives included.

We had one climate scientist on this forum who has since left in despair at our ignorance...I suppose the denialists see that as some sort of victory for amateur climate commentary - because, for the most part, that's all that's available around here.