"What is your stance on refugees?

We don't have one. I think that the major parties and the media give more than enough attention to that issue.

"Noted an article on your website about -evolution being false -is that part of your platform?

No. Maybe you are referring to an ad, but there is no article on the website claiming that evolution is false.

"How many will make their quota ? Even the carbon trading price has dived.

Russia will exceed it's quota by a long shot (ie, emit far less CO2). The reason the price has dived is because Russia has cut it's emissions so much. A green tax shift will avoid that situation from arising. Failure to adequately enforce legislation or the fact that it was too easy to comply with is not an inherent flaw in the idea. They just got the details wrong. Those details are easily fixed.

"Of course, but electric cars should only be used as shopping trolleys

Sorry, I was a bit vague. I did not mean electric cars. I meant more efficient use of electricity - in those areas where it is already used.

"Given our low population, we will quickly run into a situation where >more public transport actually increases our greenhouse emissions.

"Please explain

The size of a public transport network needs to match the size of the population. Public transport only becomes more efficient when you have a high population density. Otherwise you end up with almost empty busses and trains cruising around, which wastes a lot of energy and greenhouse emissions.

"No, I am refering to Colin Campbell's proposed international treaty for importing countries to reduce imports of oil by the world depletion percentage.

I see. That sounds like an interesting idea. However, a less rigid approach would work better. It's the total amount consumed that needs to be controlled. Within that limit, if one country wishes to sell their allotment and another wishes to buy, they should be able to.

Are you going to tell me what you personal elephant is? If you don't explain yourself to other people, it is your fault that they have no idea what you are talking about, not theirs.

Thanks for the link Ludwig.

freediver: "'Noted an article on your website about -evolution being false -is that part of your platform?'

No. Maybe you are referring to an ad, but there is no article on the website claiming that evolution is false."

Unless freediver is playing semantic games, then this seems patently false. See "Evolution is not a scientific theory" at http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-not-scientific-theory.html - linked from freediver's page.

Not a very promising intro to your politial party, I'm afraid.

Hello Freediver,
>>"No, I am refering to Colin Campbell's proposed international treaty
>>for importing countries to reduce imports of oil by the world
>>depletion percentage.

>I see. That sounds like an interesting idea. However, a less rigid
>approach would work better.

The protocol is designed to powerdown gradually as oil production
declines. When it is decided that depletion has begun at say 1% in
the first year, every importing country reduces its import by 1%.
It is hoped that this will avoid oil wars and the bidding up to
ridiculous prices of the available oil.
Go to www.aspo.net and do a search for Transition Protocol.
It has nothing to do with global warming.

Re the elephant; it was a way of saying that while everyone was busy
getting all excited about global warming there was a much more
imminent problem about to run all over them, ie the elephant coming
into the room and they did not even notice it !

"Unless freediver is playing semantic games, then this seems patently false."

It is not a semantic 'game.' Saying a theory is not scientific and saying it is false are completely different. This is not a game but is simply trying to get people to understand what is written in plain english in front of their face. It is necessary to correct people's misunderstandings about what you say in order to have a rational debate with them.

"When it is decided that depletion has begun at say 1% in
the first year, every importing country reduces its import by 1%.
It is hoped that this will avoid oil wars and the bidding up to
ridiculous prices of the available oil."

Won't the looming scarcity of oil push up prices and keep the quantity consumed below the protocl requirements anyway? Isn't the protocol a bit arbitray? I am not concerned about the end of peak oil. What concerns me is that the scarcity of oil will be the only driving factor in reducing consumption and people then then just move on to other equally bad options, like oil from coal. It misses the whole point of trying to limit greenhouse emissions. It is a bad economic policy in the sense that it takes a scarce resource and tries to distribute it arbitrarily rather than giving it to the highest bidder.

Yes I understood the elephant analogy, I just had no idea what Bazz thinks everyone else should be more worried about. Ask ten different people and they will give ten different answers. Perhaps he is just trying to appear clever.

Sure, CJ it's totally semantics. I have had this argument with freediver before about his (it's?) ideas about evolution etc. It all hinges on his definition of science, if that is not semantics, then I need a new dictionary.

And if that part is included in your 'sustainability party' platforms freediver, you can seriously count me out on that one.