Follow the link to watch a fantastic speech by Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. He wants US energy to come from completely renewable sources in 10 years.

http://www.wecansolveit.org/

100% of energy from renewable/clean resources in 10 years?
I bet it doesn't even grow by 10%.

manbearpig, supa serial.

thread subject and OP leave a bit to be desired in terms of information. What do you expect me to do, click on the link to find out what it's about?

edit: way better now!@#

last edited by trog at 12:43:17 30/Jul/08

MANBEARPIG!

how rad is it that global warming can be solved by signing a petition.

why hadn't anyone thought of that before?

have you signed up for your manbearpig awareness t-shirt and sticker guyth?

On a recent episode of Penn & Teller's Bulls***! they pointed out how much more electricity Al Gore uses than the average American. It was an episode all about companies using 'green' marketing to guilt people out of money - some companies whole business is to 'offset emissions' and they simply guess the amount of emissions you make since there is no standard way to figure that out, and there is no oversight to determine where and how they spend the money.
Al Gore himself gives money to such a company - which, in turn, he owns.

last edited by thermite at 12:46:51 30/Jul/08

Apparently on Virgin flights (might be Virgin Atlantic) they come around asking if you'd like to offset your carbons for a nominal fee, they find they get more people saying yes when they are asked in front of other people rather than checking a tick box when they book their flights.

Of course, all they do is pay someone to plant trees in plantations on land that was cleared of trees to make a plantation (to plant trees).

Of course, all they do is pay someone to plant trees in plantations on land that was cleared of trees to make a plantation (to plant trees).

Well, I guess if the trees were cleared to be used in such a way that doesn't result in their accumulated carbon being released into the atmosphere as CO2 it might be OK though, right? Like if they're all used in papermills or something (I am assuming that tress->paper doesn't result in CO2 emissions, which it might well do).

I think the point is that there were already trees there before they were cleared to make way for tree planting

heh, co2.. the ultimate manbearpig. it's highly debatable (except with global warming zealots) that carbon dioxide is even the cause of increased global warming. it's almost like the world suddenly caught carbo-phobia :P i <3 my carbons.

it would be many times better for the enviroment (local) to burn trees into pure black carbons than to convert them to paper. paper production produces dioxin which is one of the worst man made pollutants for toxicity.

What is that? Some kinda Pigbearman?

Not to mention paper production requires diesel guzzling forestry machines, massive trucks to haul everything, and factories that pump out that dioxin sludge. It's even more effort to recycle a piece of paper, because then you need to build a second bin to sort it from other rubbish, and special trucks to collect recyclables and ferry them out to the factories.

I'm of the opinion that we should move toward more efficient and greener energy sources simply because pollution is not good for us and why wouldn't we want to live in a cleaner environment anyway? Seen China lately?

qft.

It's been common knowledge on Digg that [...] Global Warming is a scam

Haha, of course, it's common sense, really! Everyone on Digg agrees and -knows- that global warming is a lie!

planting trees to capture carbon is a stupid idea in the first place, because a single tree in a year might only capture the carbons produced by a single tank of petrol. so you really should plant enough trees to capture the carbons you produce in the same time span, which i'd imagine is significantly more trees (i think they work it out on 20 or 40 year cycles - so 20 to 40 times more trees). also, its captured it doesn't disappear. all it would take is a bush fire and its back in the atmosphere.

but the biggest problem is that planting useless trees takes land from farming. now climate change is a 100 year problem, in 100 years see levels will be half a metre higher, it'll be on average slightly warmer and there might be bigger storms. but at this very moment food prices are going through the roof. doubled. and yet chumps want to feel good about themselves by planting trees.

the panic about climate change is missing the bigger picture. for a start its unavoidable. china and india will keep increasing emissions for as long as their economies are growing. the carbon savings made by europe, etc have arguably been generated by off shoring carbon producing industry to china. and if china is growing then why shouldn't they be allowed the same carbons per capita that the US, Australia, or the EU does?

the biggest issue that nobody seems to want to tackle and which will kill more people than climate change ever will is food production/prices. zealots pushing the carbon agenda are making it worse by pushing the use of renewable fuels (aka burning your food). global warming might make for some harsher weather in 20 years and we might lose crops because of it, but if we are burning food to stop that from happening we're just arriving at the same point anyway.

(only difference is we'll have more beach.)

a far better option is to plan for the climate change, secure food sources better (bigger stockpiles, alternative production methods, etc) and take the focus off solving just the one problem and ignoring all the others.

(I am assuming that tress->paper doesn't result in CO2 emissions, which it might well do)

no co2, just lots of dioxins into the oceans

but at this very moment food prices are going through the roof. doubled.

Isn't that largely because of the ethanol craze screwing up food prices though? That seems to be what everyone is pointing their fingers at.

and yet chumps want to feel good about themselves by planting trees.

Planting trees, almost regardless of whether it has any net effect on greenhouse gases, I reckon is a good thing.

Trees are just awesome in general. I just got back from LA, and let me tell you that place is a f***ing s***hole compared to Brisbane. I can look out of almost any window in Brisbane, even in the CBD, and see a bunch of greenery around the place.

LA is one big, ugly, concrete s***hole. Whatever green you might see is tainted by the yellow sky and sheer grey mass of concrete everywhere.

but the biggest problem is that planting useless trees takes land from farming.

I'd rather have more trees than more land getting cleared for use by farming. I think the problem of not-enough-food is caused by the problem of too-many-people and I'd rather solve that problem by reducing population growth in third world countries (and in first world countries), which will (imo) have better effects across the whole planet in almost every respect.

I think the last time I said that everyone complained at me for either impacting people's human rights to have as many children as they want or pointing out economic drivers behind a big working population - but as a species we can't even feed all the people we have now. Why would we want to add more? Growth just for the sake of growth seems utterly pointless to me.

we're meant to be expanding the population trog, didn't you get the memo from infi/johnny ?

Its not just population growth. Its the fact that although plenty of places are poor as s*** still, places that used to be poor as s*** (china, india are obviously the big ones) suddenly have bucket loads of cash to actually buy food now, and food that also eats food (like animal meat). I've read somewhere before that it would be possible to support ~12 billion people food wise on this planet, so its not like the population issue is really the problem at all. Its more what you do with that food, or rather what you do with the land you could grow food on.

It is almost ironic though that ending poverty (in some areas) has helped bring about famine. How do you feel right now Mr Geldof?

pretty high, prolly

Its the fact that although plenty of places are poor as s*** still, places that used to be poor as s*** (china, india are obviously the big ones) suddenly have bucket loads of cash to actually buy food now, and food that also eats food (like animal meat).

Oh yeh! I forgot China was communist and all their peasants were reaping the benefits of their booming economy.

Wow, I typed that with a straight face

Wait, are you saying that the average chinese person isn't better off now than they were 5 years ago?

Or are you saying that they'd be better off if china was a true communist country?

I'm of the opinion that we should move toward more efficient and greener energy sources simply because pollution is not good for us and why wouldn't we want to live in a cleaner environment anyway? Seen China lately?

Agreed.

From what I've read from numerous reputable sources (ie, peer-reviewed science journals)...global warming is real, and it is almost definitely caused by humans

The right way of going about it, or whether or not this is necessarily a bad thing...I still don't know.

Wait, are you saying that the average chinese person isn't better off now than they were 5 years ago?

I watched a news segment thing on TV (on the SBS news, one of their partner things) about a month ago that was basically all about how the average Chinese peasant is basically no better off now. They had all the usual heart-rending imagery of the stark poverty that they live in, etc - so that's all I've got to go on.

It was from "the media" so no idea if its actually indicative of conditions in general but basically they were trying to imply that the fatcats in China were taking all the moneyz and it wasn't filtering down to the masses.

Or are you saying that they'd be better off if china was a true communist country?

uh, no, it was a witty comment meant to imply that if communism worked then the effects of their booming economy would be spreading equally throughout the whole country, which (at least according to what I watched on TV!) isn't happening

by al gore logic... people in china were better off with communism because capitolism clearly causes earthquakes. :D qed

I'd rather have more trees than more land getting cleared for use by farming.

Have you seen the way these retarded "Green" organisations actually go about planting trees? The get a bunch of unwashed volunteers and school kids who have never done any gardening before, out to some paddock to plant around 10 thousand trees. Once they are done they are feeling pretty good about themselves and they go home but by the end of the day most of the trees have fallen over in a slight breeze because they weren't planted properly and within the next 3 months the rest will die from either not enough water or from frost because they were planted out in an unprotected open area. They never return to check them, ever. I know this because behind my house is such a paddock that had had 10 thousand trees planted and now has bugger all left.

The truth is if they left the field to re-forest naturally it would be far better for the environment and far more successful. Instead they wasted a huge amount of cash and resources just so on some book somewhere they can note down their nonexistent carbon offsetting.

Also, grass removes CO2 from the air faster then trees. The real problems with farming are poor management by not having field rotations and the fact that cows produce a s*** load of methane, literally.

I think the problem of not-enough-food is caused by the problem of too-many-people and I'd rather solve that problem by reducing population growth in third world countries (and in first world countries), which will (imo) have better effects across the whole planet in almost every respect.

Seems like the real solution is Soylent Green.

Predictions are there'll be around 9 billion people in 2050 (that's based on every currently fertile woman having an average of 2 children), unless of course there's an increase in mortality. The time where we could politely manage the population level has passed. Fortunately, even if we don't do anything about it, the population will just start falling by itself (it just won't be particularly fun for most of the people who are around when it happens).

Actually elevated CO2 levels can increase plant growth significantly. Along with reduced permafrost areas, greater rain fall, and so forth, it could lead to increased global agricultural productivity. Which is a Good Thing. Of course the doom sayers would refuse to accept there is an upside to it. Fairly sure none of that was in the garnaut report, but I think people are focusing way too much on the negatives (polar bears, less beach, bigger storms) and ignoring the positives (s*** i said above, no raby bay, etc). Global warming isn't going to get turned around in the next 30 years, so we might as well get used to it.

The price of food is rising because the world commodities markets are based in US$ and the US$ is being devalued so price of crops go up. The food being taken for fuel isn't as significant as the devaluation of the US$.

Nearly 20% of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions come from cattle and sheep. If you switch your diet away from the extremely inefficient red-meat based diet you can not only assist in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions but you can reduce the amount of food (and land and water) wasted producing such an inefficient food source.

On top of that I am under the impression that the world produces way more food than is required to feed everyone, it's distribution that's the problem - that's why some people go without, not because the world can't make enough food.

Obligatory complete list of things caused by global warming.

i could go some global warming right now! brr

thanks pave.

Growth just for the sake of growth seems utterly pointless to me.

um share prices.... super funds.... duh.

I wonder how many chiggers die of respiratory disease in Beijing every yr?

The price of food is rising because the world commodities markets are based in US$ and the US$ is being devalued so price of crops go up. The food being taken for fuel isn't as significant as the devaluation of the US$.

I disagree. IMO, it is a typical Demand/Supply issue, coupled with a 'cost push' issue due to the significant increase in Energy prices (ie oil).

It costs more to produce food, supply of food has reduced and demand is increasing. Stockpiles (ie reserves) of staples have been reducing across the globe.

- Increase in the middle class of India & China (increase in demand)
- Increase in food for fuel in Americas (reduction in supply - corn/sugar predominately)
- Prolonged droughts in various regions (reduction in output, wheat / maize)
- Export bans / increase in export tariffs, in various countries (reduction in supply - wheat / rice /soybeans)

Not to mention the overfishing of our waters.

Earth is overpopulated by humans, need to export humans.

The reason why poor countries starve is because rich countries like Australia and America choose to eat themselves to death (obesity and diabetes) rather then give it away and live a longer healthier life.

There is plenty of food to go around. It would take something pretty special to fix it up though.

Earth is overpopulated by humans, need to export humans.

Oh yeh, that's the other thing! Sign me up for the first colony ship out of this solar system. Or even to Mars.

On top of that I am under the impression that the world produces way more food than is required to feed everyone, it's distribution that's the problem - that's why some people go without, not because the world can't make enough food.

After being in the US again and seeing a) how big their average serving of food is, b) the resulting amount of food that is thrown away and c) the sheer excess of food that people generally eat resulting in fatty mcfat fats, I can't believe there's not enough food globally to feed everyone. Oh yeh, it's cheap as s*** too - not even taking into account the dollar steak is like half the price of what it is over here.

My caloric intake probably tripled when I was over there (well, mostly because I was eating from a menu consisting of cookies, donuts and icecream, but also because they just serve you s***loads of food).

if this thread doesnt get back on the topic of al gore being awesome im going 2 delete it.

On top of that I am under the impression that the world produces way more food than is required to feed everyone, it's distribution that's the problem - that's why some people go without, not because the world can't make enough food.

Then you got the meat argument... such as it takes 16 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of beef.

There's a really old school book called "diet for a small planet" that explores these ideas and why there's well and truly enough food to feed the planet... and then some.

Yeh my aunt was telling me about a book called The Omnivore's Dilemma which sounded similar; gonna try and check it out.

edit: I wonder what foods you can eat that produce the least environmental impact? Like, if what chub says about beef is true, it's probably not great to eat beef because of its impact. But if you just eat bread or something its presumably the lowest-impact thing because it requires the least raw material to make (..maybe)

last edited by trog at 10:26:10 31/Jul/08

Like, if what chub says about beef is true, it's probably not great to eat beef because of its impact.

That's why I LOL at climate change... the environmental impact of eating meat is massive, but nobody gives a s***.

Everyone likes to be an eco-warrior when they don't have to change their lifestyle.

All this solar, hybrids, carbon trading, light bulbs, what not... but ask them to stop eating meat and they'll kick and scream. Rudd is throwing millions into these hybrid cars, but he could just come out and encourage everyone to go vege, but he won't, because that's not popular... people like meat.

That's because meat is awesome. I won't stop eating it, but I am certainly prepared to adjust my eating habits to eat a bit less of it (actually I've started doing that already but that's just a coincidence). Further I don't really care what sort of meat I eat, so if some types of meat is more enviro-friendly than others I'd be happy to take that into account.

All this talk about global warming makes me want to build a fallout shelter, get the best of brightest with the best technology implemented. I think ill call it a vault...but it needs a number, how about my lucky 13. They should make a game based on my idea. But seriously, talking about it will just make you all feel worse about it unless your emo and want to see everyone die, in which case keep discussion up.

Also trog i shotgun seat next to you on the trip to mars, rather take my chances out there then fix the problem at home :P lol.

That's because meat is awesome. I won't stop eating it, but I am certainly prepared to adjust my eating habits to eat a bit less of it (actually I've started doing that already but that's just a coincidence). Further I don't really care what sort of meat I eat, so if some types of meat is more enviro-friendly than others I'd be happy to take that into account.

Point proven.

I like meat, but on the flipside I don't act like I'm doing anything for climate change. It's the dickwads that are whinging at us about climate change... all the s***ty things like hybrid cars, solar power, carbon trading but then eat meat (which is one of the top carbon pollutors).

last edited by CHUB at 10:57:31 31/Jul/08

so in other words you're just as much a part of the problem as anyone, and you just want to whinge about people who you feel are out of line because they whine about climate change - which makes you just as much of a d******* as them _on top of the chub factor_

lol l2calmrage, my point was talking about it wont change anything, money rules what we do, people could turn around and do everything right yet the entire economy would collapse, people cant feed themselves, civilization turns to poo. The flipside business do what they want to do (what they are currently already doing) and the world turns to s*** and once again lots of people die. So in the end discussing it wont change anything, the only thing that will work is either A) move to another planet or B) Change out of financial economy and turn the world into Star Trek economy.

Oh well.

Rudd is wasting all our money on this useless climate change crap, making fuel/electricity and essentially everything more expensive.

When we're a tiny country that emits only the tiniest fraction of the worlds carbon pollution into the atmosphere, f*** it.

It's not making a difference, China/India/US are the ones that need to suffer finanicial loss for a stupid cause.

kangaroo is the best meat alternative. they have soft hooves (unlike cows) so they don't f*** the ground. they are lean (good for you) and don't take grain to feed (good for the environment).

plus its very tastey. you can get it at coles.

personally i wouldn't be booking my flight to mars to escape earth's "IMPENDING ENVIROMENT CATASTROPHE!".

mars has an atmosphere that is 95% carbon-dioxide, f*** all nitrogen or oxygen... so i think it might be better to try n live with what we have here (even with worse case scenario climate change) than making any plans to goto that dead rock :P mars lacks 2 major things we have here on earth that it will never get... plate tectonics & global electromagnetic field.

personally i wouldn't be booking my flight to mars to escape earth's "IMPENDING ENVIROMENT CATASTROPHE!".

pfft, I wanna go to Mars because it'd be awesome.

lol l2calmrage, my point was talking about it wont change anything

if you're talking to me - I wasn't replying to you, I was replying to chub

When we're a tiny country that emits only the tiniest fraction of the worlds carbon pollution into the atmosphere

where'd you get that information from chub? according to carma australia is the 7th biggest producer in the world

http://carma.org/dig/show/world+country

Well is underground an option, until the world sorts its self out?

carbon's a big problem, and if you aren't believing it now then you better start questioning whether the world is really round.

the only thing the rablings in this thread have done is further confirmed my thoughts that ethanol for car fuel is bad.

When we're a tiny country that emits only the tiniest fraction of the worlds carbon pollution into the atmosphere

Being lazy so I'm getting stats from Wikipedia:
Australia
0.32% of World population
1.2% of World CO2 emissions

China
19.86% of World population
18.4% of World CO2 emissions

India
17.03% of World population
4.9% of World CO2 emissions

US
4.57% of World population
22.2% of World CO2 emissions

So while the China and India are releasing less than their share of CO2, the US and Australia are releasing about 4X as much as their share of the population suggests they should.

bleh. saying 'carbon is a big problem' is like saying 'oxygen is a big problem'. you are over-simplifying a complex situation. without carbon we wouldn't exist. without carbon-dioxide earth would be too cold to support life.

comparing it to old flat earth belief is just a lame troll... it's easy for anyone to prove the world is spherical, it's impossible to prove conclusively that carbon-dioxide is the cause of increased global warming yourself.

Sorry Jim I assumed you were talking about me 'as much of a d******* as them _on top of the chub factor' thought you ment the guy that posted before Chub lol.

lol demon you know the world isn't a perfect spherical shape, stolen quote from some site on google 'The Earth is not quite spherical, due to what is know as "rotational flattening." It's not egg-shaped, either, it's shaped more like a pumpkin. The radius of the Earth at the equator is 6,378 km; at the poles it is 6,356 km.'

But back on topic, really without a new system for the world economy we will always be under the thumb.

yeah no s***, just saying in terms of the scientific consensus. If you're a climatologist with evidence-based conflicting views then that's great, else I have to question why you would reject peer-reviewed scientific conclusions. The overwhelming conclusion is anthropogenic global warming is happening and that a significant cause is greenhouse gas emissions.

You have to work with the best science available at the time, anything else is just personal belief and therefore has no more basis than religious beliefs for example.

Well is underground an option, until the world sorts its self out?

the machines will still get us

mars has an atmosphere that is 95% carbon-dioxide, f*** all nitrogen or oxygen... so i think it might be better to try n live with what we have here

You guys are also forgetting the MASSIVE PING TIMES you would get to Earth!

EDIT: O and the odd gate to hell opening, that would suck. Unless you had a shotgun or chainsaw or something.

He's not awesome, he's a hypocrite and a fraud capitalizing on fear and people's desire to feel good about themselves.

Uh, yeh, but in the grand scheme of things, at least what he's doing might actually have some positive outcomes. As opposed to Bush and the current US administration, which is basically just capitalizing on fear to drive anti-terrorism sales so his cronies can get rich.

Chakas, of all people you should know that a per capita comparison is such a bulls*** look at CO2 "bad" emmittors.

If you want a comparison you need to look at the productivity of a country. Paints a massively different picture.

Fixed below. *stats based on 2005*

Australia
1.7% of World GDP
1.2% of World CO2 emissions

China
5.1% of World GDP
18.4% of World CO2 emissions

India
1.8% of World GDP
4.9% of World CO2 emissions

US
28.2% of World GDP
22.2% of World CO2 emissions

bottom line: australia should not be damaging its industry which must compete on a global scale unless other developed countries are prepared to do same.

if we jump first we will send our own industry broke trying to feel good while our competitors get rich spewing out their pollutants.

if the greens could have their way we would be a completely non-polluting country, but would also be living in caves, using fire for light and eating grains picked from wild bushes.

it just doesn't work that way. australians want quality of life and that only comes with exports. if rudd goes too fast on this he will get tossed out on his ass cos middle australia won't cop it.

Fixed below. *stats based on 2005*

it should be noted that since 2004 china has very nearly doubled its co2 production.

if we jump first we will send our own industry broke trying to feel good save the planet while our competitors get rich spewing out their pollutants.

fixed it for you.

oh yeah reducing our 1.2% of global emissions will save the planet if no one else does anything. thanks for correcting.

ok, so if everyone was killing jewish people you'd be into it? you know, what the hell, everyone else is doing it.

as larry would say, one is an act of ommission, the other an act of commission.

Chakas, of all people you should know that a per capita comparison is such a bulls*** look at CO2 "bad" emmittors.

If you want a comparison you need to look at the productivity of a country. Paints a massively different picture.

What gives an Australian or American more of a right to enjoy a better standard of living at the cost of CO2 emission over someone in China or India?

bottom line: australia should not be damaging its industry which must compete on a global scale unless other developed countries are prepared to do same.

if we jump first we will send our own industry broke trying to feel good while our competitors get rich spewing out their pollutants.

If the worst scenarios are actually playing out we're all going to feel pretty stupid as we're starving, looking back on how we argued about which country's citizens should continue to have the means to buy plasma or LCD TVs for the bathroom and generally live wastefully/unsustainably.

If the worst scenarios are actually playing out we're all going to feel pretty stupid as we're starving, looking back on how we argued about which country's citizens should continue to have the means to buy plasma or LCD TVs for the bathroom and generally live wastefully/unsustainably.

I don't necessarily disagree with you but politics is the art of the possible. Voters are selfish c***s. Once these emmissions trading starts to drive up the cost of electricity, fuel, cars, raw materials, produce EVERYTHING (mark my words it will permeate our entire economy) you will have 10mil angry f***ing voters.

The polling which suggests Australians are in favour of an ETS will be valid for about 5 secs once the price hikes kick in. we need to get real on how to introduce this stuff and it requires international diplomacy, not gung-ho cripple-our-own-economy style leadership.

/vote for infi

you know whos fault it is, todaytonight and all the other indepth look about all that crap that goes on. People listen to it like its the word of god, I remember seeing stories and about how everyone should go out and buy a house and funny enough people started doing it, stupidly people went for houses they could never possibly afford to pay off and the great cycle of bad began.

I hope everyone burns in a hell fire, im having a good day! :D

The world's gotta go this way sooner or later (sooner being better for a variety of reasons) so imo Australia should show how for instance coal can be used effectively if we want to keep selling it long term.

For example, we're basically the most geologically stable continent - how about we get cracking on proving carbon capture and storage? It's something virtually every country in the world is going to want in the near future for all of their future (and some of their existing) fossil fuel plants, be they Open Cycle Gas Turbines, Combined Cycle Gas Turbines, PF Coal or Integrated Gassification Combined Cycle (ie. existing or new tech).

Autralia has excellent coal, gas, solar, wind, tidal and hot rock resources along with plenty of cash (relatively). Why not start an ETS that makes low-emissions technologies able to get off the ground here so we can get a headstart on the technologies that the whole world is going to want before too long? Or does Australia always have to wait for a grown up country to show us the way and then buy all their knowledge/services/designs/equipment?

I've only considered the power sector here since that's why I'm an expert on.

last edited by orbitor at 17:59:56 31/Jul/08

I don't necessarily disagree with you but politics is the art of the possible. Voters are selfish c***s. Once these emmissions trading starts to drive up the cost of electricity, fuel, cars, raw materials, produce EVERYTHING (mark my words it will permeate our entire economy) you will have 10mil angry f***ing voters.

The polling which suggests Australians are in favour of an ETS will be valid for about 5 secs once the price hikes kick in. we need to get real on how to introduce this stuff and it requires international diplomacy, not gung-ho cripple-our-own-economy style leadership.

Couldn't agree with you more about the voters. Unfortunately it's not really in human nature to make immediate sacrifices for possible long term survival.

Of course the flip side is maybe we have no control over climate change and we may as well live it up while we can or wait for things to correct themselves. In that case the people that go to extraordinary lengths are going to look like morons retrospectively.

it just doesn't work that way. australians want quality of life and that only comes with exports. if rudd goes too fast on this he will get tossed out on his ass cos middle australia won't cop it.

Well, that's not what leadership is - leadership is doing the right thing even if its unpopular. Sadly our political system is biased around doing what IS popular more often than doing what is right, so I don't think there's any real danger of Rudd (or pretty much any other elected PM) doing whatever regardless of the long-term cost.

Pandering to the masses so we can export our pollution to third world countries because they have slave labour wages so we can buy cheap trinkets I don't think is a really good idea. I'd rather pay a little more for quality products that have less of an environmental footprint.

I know, I know, I'm sure lots of people say that but don't mean it, but I actually mean it - I'm one of those crazies that actually picks up products and looks to see if it says "Made in China" on it, then looks around for one that's not made there. Do you know how many garbage bags you buy at the supermarket come from China?!?! pretty much f***ing all of them; I can't find a single non-chinese garbage back at my local Woolies!@#

What gives an Australian or American more of a right to enjoy a better standard of living at the cost of CO2 emission over someone in China or India?

I dont. My point is the statistics you used are completely bias. America/Australia are more efficient/better managers of CO2 emmissions than India/China.

I would certainly argue that economies like US/EU/Japan have an obligation to provide technology/methods to developing countries to ensure that they use efficient process/methods/tech etc... This would have a very beneficial worldly impact. Not a great incentive to a capitalised market place but hey someone has to bite the bullet to make headway of this issue.

And India/China would have to give up their "independence" stubborness and allow the industrialised worlds to assist.

a 10% reduction in India/China will have a MUCH bigger impact than a 50%,70%,100% reduction in Australia.

Australia should become a leader in developing clean coal tech. We are well behind Russia & US, yet it is our biggest energy resource and Chinas.

Maybe China doesnt need anyone's help... when in doubt, just shut everything down, problem solved! (NY times article)

extract

Environmental officials ... tried to counter the photographic images by arguing that much of the gray is not pollution but just weather.

In recent times the Ausrtalian government has made many decisions because they were the right decision to make, not just short-term populist vote grabbers. Just because you don't agree with them, doesn't mean they weren't the right decision to make for australia's long term benefit.

I strongly doubt it

Watched Q&A tonite and they based tonites episode on the ETS scheme.

They had Wongy, Turnball, Tim Flannery and some other nobs on the panel.

Thing is, that old Malcolm Turnball came up with his usual bs but surprisingly brought up some key points:

1. The Howard Government (with M.T as Enviro Minister) were going to introduce an ETS scheme of their own by 2012. No doubt a more cautious scheme than Ruddy's.

2. That whether you believe in 'Man-Made' climate change or not, Malcolm suggests that you look at policies (irregardless of party) to tackle climate change as 'Risk Managment' or 'Insurance' against the detrimental effects of large scale industrial pollution and deforestation. He argues that the obvious immediate benefits of lower pollution are being overlooked whilst we argue over ETS schemes, China, India blah blah. He states that of course with should be incrementally heading towards cleaner air for health reasons and that its pretty obvious that we should produce energy more efficiently and reap the benefits from it.