Possibly, but the evidence collected in research data before, during and after the event whether gathered by outside or Chinese sources will help establish the case against unbridled pollution. True, this may only be peripheral to the whole climate change concerns, but it is a starting point.

Sorry don but I don’t think that even the Chinese disagree with the idea that pollution is bad,both for the environment and bad for the health of it’s people really it’s self evident even to them

The value placed on human life in China may be lower than here (albeit, some may argue that tobacco corporations and mining companies in 3rd world countries don’t place a high value on human life either). But any government will eventually have to bear the cost: hospital care costs may exceed those of pollution and carbon controls. And as is occurring with the Olympics, a despotism may allow more drastic controls than a democracy, where as you noted it is not hard to generate populist objections.

There is no evidence that China is going to expend the same sort of efforts that we do when it comes to health care for its citizens, I am sure that their government just does not care.

The ideal, of course, would be to enable India and China to leapfrog the automobile age, but it won’t be possible without offering a lot of incentives.

I cant see this happening , no matter what incentives are offered.

As to two nations then left staying out of AGW actions,well, I wouldn’t think the US would hold out much longer than Bush’s departure, which is now <6 months. Even if McCain should get up he could only do so by not being a captive to Big Oil.

I don’t think even Obama in the White House will do any more than pay lip service to the climate change faith Don, it would be political suicide to do so.

I see water supply as inextricably linked with our survival irrespective of AGW concerns. Perhaps it comes from being of South Australian origin. We have always known of the finite quantities of water. (Bolta, assuming Carbonsink’s link is correct, is also one, but must have been raised with his eyes closed.)

I believe that Andrew is actually from SA and I even agree with you that the way we use water is something that is a serious concern But I just get mad when green idiots claim that the Murray Darling problems are a result of “climate change” heaven in a hand basket, anyone can see that the problem is the rult of both drought and extracting too much water for irrigation further upstream. Fixing the way we manage that water is very important but by no stretch of the imagination predicated on any sort of ETS .

That origin is relevant. It took a Texan archaeologist to nail the sudden collapse of the Mayan civilisation to loss of water supply. Texas, like SA, has had to get by with insufficient water.

Another one identified 7 great ancient civilisations, 4 of which had evolved quite independently of any other influence. All collapsed eventually through overuse of fertile land and usable water.

I agree water management is vital

Many of our policies are a consequence of obsolete political-economic theories. The decisions to grow cotton and rice in Australia were based on the 1930s priorities of trading self-sufficiency. Growing them meant less balance-of-trade deficit. Nowadays that no longer makes sense. The priority should be to help these irrigation communities out of those industries. Alternative energies may offer some help.

Well maybe what we need to do is to only grow such crops during the right part of our drought cycle when there is actually an abundance of water for irrigation, rather than trying to stretch the envelope when there is not enough water to go around.

Fantastic link. I’ll have to give it a try.

I can’t believe that you put up with Bolt’s blog for three years. Basically I view it as a slowly unfolding trainwreck where One Nation cranks have found a bus seat and the Boltwit can feed his growing egomania.

Really, it is 57 different varieties of Teh Stoopid.

Possibly, but the evidence collected in research data before, during and after the event whether gathered by outside or Chinese sources will help establish the case against unbridled pollution. True, this may only be peripheral to the whole climate change concerns, but it is a starting point.

The value placed on human life in China may be lower than here (albeit, some may argue that tobacco corporations and mining companies in 3rd world countries don’t place a high value on human life either). But any government will eventually have to bear the cost: hospital care costs may exceed those of pollution and carbon controls. And as is occurring with the Olympics, a despotism may allow more drastic controls than a democracy, where as you noted it is not hard to generate populist objections.

The ideal, of course, would be to enable India and China to leapfrog the automobile age, but it won’t be possible without offering a lot of incentives.

As to two nations then left staying out of AGW actions,well, I wouldn’t think the US would hold out much longer than Bush’s departure, which is now <6 months. Even if McCain should get up he could only do so by not being a captive to Big Oil.

I see water supply as inextricably linked with our survival irrespective of AGW concerns. Perhaps it comes from being of South Australian origin. We have always known of the finite quantities of water. (Bolta, assuming Carbonsink’s link is correct, is also one, but must have been raised with his eyes closed.)

That origin is relevant. It took a Texan archeologist to nail the sudden collapse of the Mayan civilisation to loss of water supply. Texas, like SA, has had to get by with insufficient water.

Another one identified 7 great ancient civilisations, 4 of which had evolved quite independently of any other influence. All collapsed eventually through overuse of fertile land and usable water.

Many of our policies are a consequence of obsolete political-economic theories. The decisions to grow cotton and rice in Australia were based on the 1930s priorities of trading self-sufficiency. Growing them meant less balance-of-trade deficit. Nowadays that no longer makes sense. The priority should be to help these irrigation communities out of those industries. Alternative energies may offer some help.

pretending that we can mobilise a politically diverse world to take up the ascetic lifestyle advocated by the green faith.

You keep invoking this “faith” thing without ever really explaining what you mean Iain.

Nobody is advocating ascetism, simply the placement of a price on the emission of carbon and nothing more. That doesn’t necessarily entail shifting to a lifestyle of robes, caves and living in silence.

I agree but that is no reason to artificially inflate the costs for either to meet create a “cure” that will not actually work at all.

It’s not an artificial inflation of costs, its accounting for costs that have so far gone unpaid to our detriment.

We know with 100% certainty that increasing the cost of carbon will reduce it’s output - that other countries are reluctant to follow is neither here nor there as was ably proved by the incredible success of trade liberalisation. We went that alone initially too.

Well, I’m not so sure that China will remain intransigent, given the extraordinary lengths the authorities have had to go to to make Beijing Olympics habitable. In fact it might provide an excellent starting point for ‘before’ and ‘after’ research on the affects of pollution on the population health. Pollution is only one part of addressing global warming, but a pretty important component.

Don there is no reason to believe that the changes made in china for the Olympic games will continue after they tourists have gone home, Life is cheap in China and while I share your concerns about the rampant pollution there ,pollution it self is NOT the crux of the ETS scheme and even if you were right about china that still leaves two nations of equal magnitude who are not towing the AGW party line.

I am a little lost on your assertion that the current proposals are pointless and futile. I’d have thought any proposal trying to put a real value on perishable resources would go a good thing, if only in preparing the public. The US consumers are currently going through a huge shock mainly because they got away with cheap gasoline for years while the rest of the world was paying somewhere near the real cost. On such an issue I don’t think the market can be trusted to act benevolently without directives.

As i keep saying what is the point of creating a very elaborate trading scheme if it does nothing to actually change the climate (supposedly it’s raison detre′ )? But we do not pay the real cost for petrol, nor do most places in the world because governments impose lots of taxes on it which distorts it’s market value and I just don’t think the argument that making things more expensive so we will get used to them costing more is worth much either.

Likewise, doing something about water supply is hardly futile regardless of where you stand on Global Warming. You’re not seriously suggesting we should continue to allow the Murray-Darling system to deteriorate, which seems to be the outcome of the NSW and Qld governments’ policies of supporting upriver irrigation?

Water supply and the Murray Darling basin are not really relevant to this topic and while I actually support efforts to better manage the water we have there the proposed ETS will not make any difference there either.

The 19th century was a great age benefiting from the Enlightenment and leading to huge advances in engineering, geology and water control. The down side is that we’ve come to treat fuel and water as cheap throw-away resources. And they’re not.

I agree but that is no reason to artificially inflate the costs for either to meet create a “cure” that will not actually work at all.

I am a little lost on your assertion that the current proposals are pointless and futile. I’d have thought any proposal trying to put a real value on perishable resources would go a good thing, if only in preparing the public. The US consumers are currently going through a huge shock mainly because they got away with cheap gasolene for years while the rest of the world was paying somewhere near the real cost. On such an issue I don’t think the market can be trusted to act benevolently without directives.

Likewise, doing something about water supply is hardly futile regardless of where you stand on Global Warming. You’re not seriously suggesting we should continue to allow the Murray-Darling system to deteriorate, which seems to be the outcome of the NSW and Qld governments’ policies of supporting upriver irrigation?

The 19th century was a great age benefiting from the Enlightenment and leading to huge advances in engineering, geology and water control. The down side is that we’ve come to treat fuel and water as cheap throw-away resources. And they’re not.

Wouldn’t you be tempted to give it a go as a political strategy if you genuinely thought global warming was a commie conspiracy?

I can speak with some authority on this matter, as I was employed by the National Office of the Communist Party of Australia from 1985 to 1988, by the Queensland State office of the CPA from 1989 to 1990, was a member of the National Committee from 1989 to 1991, and attended and helped to organise all the meetings of the CPA National Committee during this period as well as the 1987, 1989 and 1991 CPA National Congresses. It is a matter of fact and record that the CPA did not begin to talk about global warming until it had been put on the agenda by other (non-communist and often non-leftist) political actors, and that Jack Mundey was displeased about the lack of attention given to environmental issues at the 1987 CPA National Congress (held the year before the IPCC was set up, and two years after the Villach Conference which got global warming going as a serious policy concern).

Ah, but then I would say that, wouldn’t I?

Again with the “green faith” thing. Don’t suppose you’ve found me an example yet…

Listen up mate, the vast majority of Australian people believe in AGW. Are you saying this is false consciousness? Are they all morons?

Even if we accept that first sentence, there seem to be a number of points to accepting short-term economic pain. On a global basis, a lot of the world has already started. The feet-draggers are the US, China and India. It is likely they will eventually be shamed into action starting with the US vis-a-vis Canada and the departure of the Bush-Cheney (petroleum lobby) regime.

Don you talk as if China , India and the US are just about to get on the AGW band wagon and there is absolutely NO evidence that this is the case. None of these nations are going to play this game and without them there is absolutely no point in anyone else doing so either, apart from that warm inner glow that true believers have when they have correctly preformed the rituals of their faith.

What’s in it for Oz would seem to be our long-term trading, especially if coal is to lose its dominance of exports. If we look at the old ‘comparative advantage’ theory, Australia is extremely well placed for alternative fuels. Apart from uranium,there is natural gas, geothermal potential, wind farming and lots of sunshine for solar energy. As an island nation there is lots of ocean for tidal, wave and ocean current generating energy. And some of these alternatives may lead to improving that scarcest of all Australian resources -fresh water -through desalination and condensation capture.

Yes well that all sounds fine and dandy but none of that needs to be predicated upon the foolish and unnecessary ETS proposed by the Labor government, When it comes to trade what matters is the right product at the right price , not ideological purity, other wise you would not be buying any goods from China. (given it’s repressive one party state.)

I’d have thought the main political weakness in the current strategy is not the changes encouraged. Rather it has seemingly missed the opportunity to involve schools and local communities in such projects. Some of the best ideas for conserving energy and water and reducing carbon emissions are likely to evolve locally at relatively low capital costs. A system of ‘rewards/incentives’ would not be all that costly and it would certainly lead to greater public/voter commitment.

No the main weakness of the current strategy is that it is entirely pointless and futile, something that the opposition should be exploiting to protect the Australian people from the excesses of the ideologues of the green faith.

Richard Bolt and Andrew Bolt, there’s an odd couple of brothers: akin to Tim Costello and $weetie. But it would be unfair, I think, to shine a cruel spotlight on Richard just because Andrew seems mistaken on climate change!

“Even the true believers concede that it will not make one iota of difference. So frankly what is the point of Australia as a nation enduring all of that economic pain for no result?”

What’s in it for Oz would seem to be our long-term trading, especially if coal is to lose its dominance of exports. If we look at the old ‘comparative advantage’ theory, Australia is extremely well placed for alternative fuels. Apart from uranium,there is natural gas, geothermal potential, wind farming and lots of sunshine for solar energy. As an island nation there is lots of ocean for tidal, wave and ocean current generating energy. And some of these alternatives may lead to improving that scarcest of all Australian resources -fresh water - through desalination and condensation capture.

I’d have thought the main political weakness in the current strategy is not the changes encouraged. Rather it has seemingly missed the opportunity to involve schools and local communities in such projects. Some of the best ideas for conserving energy and water and reducing carbon emissions are likely to evolve locally at relatively low capital costs. A system of ‘rewards/incentives’ would not be all that costly and it would certainly lead to greater public/voter commitment.