Steven

On the domestic front, I believe you are being a little dramatic when you claim that the "sums involved are huge."

Employees in all mining activities in Australia number some 1% of total employment in this country. Mining contributes around 5% of GDP. A gradual though immediate commencement of more renewable energy industries could provide much employment.

To be pro-active does not mean we want to immediately shut down industry. What is uppermost in our minds is the refusal by our governments to properly regulate and immediately cap industrial pollutant emissions without too much dent in profits.

Pollution prevention control is not new and has been available for decades, however, the recidivist polluters continue to operate for maximum gains whilst we, the "masses" endeavour to find strategies to save the planet from their toxic emissions.

You express concern for those workers in developing countries. I remind you that workers and family members in these regions are now dropping every day from toxic air pollution, a result of the very industries we are discussing. Many more are succumbing to occupational and industrial diseases from being force-fed an air quality unfit for humans or animal.

However, I can speak with some authority - regulations in this nation are minimal and also of a third world standard, therefore I suggest we lobby immediately to clean up our own back yard first!

Steven,

This is a very good thread.

Your argument is logical, reasoned and rational.

We do have to move on from debating the science to the next stage, adapting to and mitigating GHG, risk management as you say.

The problems may be complex but we do have a window of opportunity to live in a more sustainable world.

How we can achieve this is embodied in the UN's Commission on Sustainable Development program and better defined under Agenda 21.

Businesses and industry are doing more to tackle climate change, as are research institutions, state/local governments, indigenous peoples and non-government organisations.

Unfortunately, federal governments (including Australia and the US) appear to be 'dragging the chain' primarily based on their political ideology and the influence of powerful vested interest groups.

Scientists have given an assessment; humanity must now deal with it.

We are told we have the technology to address the problems, all we really need is the will to act and the leaders with a vision.

Thank you for your kind words davsab.

There are two positions that drive me equally crazy. The first is the self-righteous greenies who pretend the science is certain and that there will be no costs in going green. In fact there will be enormous costs. For some it will be catastrophic.

The second position that drives me up the wall is those who use uncertainty as an excuse for inaction.

dickie,

If you wonder how people react to a perceived threat to their livelihoods remember the reaction of Tasmanian forestry workers to Latham's forestry policy.

Steven. You do exist in a closeted world.

The perceived threats to the Tasmanian forest group were nothing to the real job losses I know about.

Hundreds, perhaps thousands of miners over the years have been called up, paid out and dismissed without notice. Many past miners had to abandon their homes to go to the metropolitan area for another job. No-one wanted to buy their homes.

Of course those terribly afflicted with industrial diseases such as silicosis, emphysema and asbestosis, from working for irresponsible pollutant companies, eventually had no income at all - just misery. Ho hum - that's life!

Then you had the closure in WA of the Albany woollen mills, the whaling industry, logging reductions, the very public closure of Ansett, and the on-going massive loss of workers' investments swallowed up by unsrupulous, greedy finance companies.

May I safely say most of those people experiencing job losses, past and present, obtained employment elsewhere? Or do you think they all resorted to the dole queues?

Have you even considered that the future "threats to people's livelihoods" may come from different sources in the future - threats of which they will have no control over
- a result of our government's inability to adopt or at least consider the "Precautionary Principle"?

Clearly you have ignored the scientific evidence I have included for debate in these posts as well as my tentative suggestions on how to obtain a workable, transitional period for implementation of non-pollutant industries.

And why don't you elaborate on your hyperbolics "gargantuan sums" and "enormous catastrophic costs." We require some substance to your declarations - we're all here to learn, Steven.

I object to your snide implication that I am a "self righteous greenie." I happen to be a conservative voter thanks!

If posters are "driving you up the wall", or "equally crazy", why do you bother?

Frankly I think you're just an old codger whose intention was to bang his own gums about nothing!

Steven/Dickie

Implicit in the two positions (of certainty and uncertainty) that drive Steven crazy is the solution to both – convergence.

It is essential that people (from all walks of life, with differing views, from different cultures and backgrounds) converge to address the one border that needs defending, the troposphere.

People have to realise that some problems humanity face are more important than the ideologies that drive those individuals or groups.

The solutions to our climate change problems should not degenerate into arguments about left or right, liberal or conservative, east or west, developed or developing, us or them, you or me.

Of course this is difficult; one only has to look at the dialogue between you both in a general forum such as this, or our political leaders’ debate in parliament, or the diatribe in the media (Andrew Bolt’s comments a case in point).

We all have a responsibility to do the right thing, and change can happen – but it has to be driven from the individual (whether you’re a miner, politician, nurse, mother, student, greenie, journalist, American, scientist, Christian or whatever).

I am sure the two of you have a lot in common (some very good points were given) and more so than you realise. However, the posts seem to have trivialised what really is important (convergence of views in dealing with climate change). Dickie’s latest post dramatises the differences and appears to have degenerated into a slanging match. This is not helpful to the debate; it is certainly not helpful to arriving at solutions.

Let’s move on.

I am particularly interested in Australia’s response to risk and how we should adapt to GW (in general) and contribute to a global action plan on mitigation of GHG (in particular).

To “muddy” the waters, our PM is now a “realist” and not a “sceptic” (hedging his bets, which is ok) and we still have to wait on the outcome of Australia’s “own Stern Report” commissioned by the opposition – something I believe should have been done years ago.

What do you think?

David