No binding targets have been agreed since the Kyoto protocol of 1997. 2020 targets cover only thirty-six countries (including Australia) collectively responsible for less than 20 per cent of global emissions. After 2020, there are only the voluntary national pledges made under the 2015 Paris agreement. The Madrid conference in 2019 failed to agree on global rules for emissions trading, its key objective. The three largest emitters of carbon dioxide—China, America and India—have not agreed to binding targets. These three countries account for about half of global emissions. Understandably, China’s and India’s emissions continue to rise, as do emissions from scores of developing countries.

Not very hopeful at all for the climate commos.

[Cont.]

"4. Loss of habitat and wildlife are not yet included. All are attributed largely to climate change, which is caused mainly by burning of fossil fuels."

Refer to item 2 and 3.
So what now your saying it's the governments fault for not banning cars and trucks?
What exactly do you people want?
Maybe if we did ban trucks and cars we'd save a billion animals a year on our roads?
We can all live in huts and wipe our butts with leaves.
What do you want?

Why is it your so intent in bringing in global climate taxes, but your not interested in addressing the issues to change things for the better now?

Give me policies to do things better and I'll support them, but I won't cut our noses off to spite our face.

I don't care if seas rise and insurance companies have to pay everyone out and we all move inland 100meters.

I don't understand why you lot don't understand that we humans need to adapt to survive anyway.
We have to master OUR environment to survive.
Why can't we focus on on creative human ingenuity to better adapt to whatever the climate does instead of acting like we can somehow control the planets climate and weather by paying someone else a weekly tax?

This whole thing is about scaring us into giving consent to others to dictate ours and our kids lives.
Why in the hell would anyone with a brain support that?

Still no answer to this question;
Why does the temperature rise and THEN the co2 rises ?

In New South Wales, the Independent Planning Commission has upheld the rejection of the Crookwell 3 wind farm, stating, “visual impacts of the project are unacceptable given the significant visual impacts on multiple residences”.

Is the tide turning against these ugly blights on the landscape?

I see some reasonable points being raised, and will try to discuss them.

Bazz asks, Why does the temperature rise and THEN the co2 rises?
I agree the current records show them both rising simultaneously. That does not clearly show which causes which.
But the theory is very clear that CO2 MUST cause warming, due to all our scientific knowledge of the atmosphere, IR radiation etc. Warming (due to a different cause) does not have a mechanism which can explain the observed CO2.
Secondly, detailed modelling of the earth system shows what causes what.
And thirdly, CO2 contains C12, C13, and C14 isotopes. The extra CO2 (from 280 ppm to 414) has isotopes which match the fossil fuel we are burning. It is different from what would come out of the oceans if warming were the cause. Details at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

Armchair Critic asks if I am right, what to do about it? Do I want to ban cars and trucks? No, but transitioning to electric vehicles reduces fuel emissions. And we can charge them using solar and wind.
…giving consent to others to dictate ours and our kids lives… No, the kids are wiser than our leaders, that is why they are protesting. They will remember who opposed and who supported climate action!
Give me good policies… OK here is a proposal. Combine energy sources to make one system as reliable as coal – Fair Dinkum energy as Scomo said. Solar, wind and storage together make a good combination. Remember, my qualifications are in physics and electrical engineering.
The solar and wind power are cheap, and the greatest cost will be in the storage. Known options include molten salts, pumped hydro, and batteries. We should be developing all options to get the price down.
My vision is to put solar, wind and storage into the one site, so it can be separately funded by a regional council, and within one electorate. The local community will feel ownership. One politician can support it.

Ian, Great point. "My vision is to put solar, wind and storage into the one site, so it can be separately funded by a regional council, and within one electorate. The local community will feel ownership. One politician can support it."

Yes put them in inner city electorates, and leave the countryside pristine.

However changing our power source to current solar is not going to supply heat for furnaces to produce metals, glass, cement and bitumen roads only fossil fuels; which fuel is in fact the storage of ancient solar energy.

To give every person on the planet food, housing, transport and comfort is not going to happen by wind and solar, because it will only supply the first world. It means we neglect 2/3 of the world's population for some ideologue's brain scheme.