Nancy: Rove McManus was talented in the same way relative Shaun McManus is talented.

Able to get places through pity.

I know, I know, this is like "Where's Trolly?" It's Winifred Speering.

The silence is deafening!

Civilisation exists on top of the Natural World. Which Federal Government Department ensures absolutely nobody breaks the "rules" that defindes us as a Real Civilisation aka Sustainable aka Critically Ethical, and not just ill-informed or ignorant stabbers in the dark, swining wildly between bushfire fried animals and wollowing in it own destructive and murderous excrement, since falling out of Convict ships.

No really Bob, I've wondered for more than thirty years, as I watched the environment such as the Murray-Darling just fricked away, and I'd like to know the answer before I'm forty, at least I thought there would be an answer before I was forty aka 2010, having indeed precisely reseached so much green design from the beginning of the 1990's. It's ... See Moreby stupidity or by design, and by stupid design or sustainable design. What's so hard about reigning in the corruptiuon, so we as civilisation will survive for longer than only another hundred years.

The Ethical Dilema for Un-Ethically Dyed Lemmings.

"people with room-temperature IQs" , "not skeptics; they're suckers"- OH, GIVE ME A BREAK! You're getting desperate when you need to suggest that those who don't agree with your view must do so because they're not intelligent enough to agree.
Humans are not the centre of the universe. WE don't control the planet's natural processes.
PS. I'm not >65, Right-Wing or fearing death :-)
Namaste

I think this points to the real problem with the practicalities of climate change. Tell people that what we need to do is achieveable, and they'll probably do it. Tell people that what we need to do is change to a lifestyle virtually no-one alive is familiar with, and they'll react against it - to the point that they don't care and will accept the consequences.

It's that balancing act I'm not sure a lot of Green groups understand, are aware of, or work on the basis of.

Despina: if global warming is our biggest environmental problem, then your priorities are a bit out. Diversity would become a very secondary priority. But you are right with forestry.... See More

Because co2 stays active in the atmosphere for 100 years or so, cutting emissions wont have an impact for some time. Getting the co2 out, will though. So the first priority is stopping the logging in old growth forests around the world, that have a very large carbon storage capacity (and release large amounts when felled). We need total sustainable forestry as soon as we can to maximise carbon extraction.

If we do like the Wilderness Society wants, and do not harvest sustainable timber plantations on places like the Tiwis, all that will mean is old growth forests in Tasmania, or in SE Asia or South America are continually logged instead. And the co2 situation will worsen just on those decisions.

I guess the conclusion from all this is that in Australia, we just aren't serious. ETS or no ETS we just aren't doing the no brainers. But I guess that kind of reflects the intelligence of the Australian populace...

It only takes an idiot not to comprehend the planet is not infinite, and the power to destroy a single environment, repeated in every other single environment on the planet, adds up to a lot of stupid rednecks run out of nests to destroy.

Precisely we don't control the planets processes, but we are now influencing them profoundly, and IF it passes... See More a tipping point WE, NOT THE PLANET doesn't like, good luck reversing what you don't even understand you have done, or even accept you have done, like the silly bints you are.

Someone has disappeared right up the delusion of the film Metropolis, without ever having had a single lesson in real science outside a lab coat.

How could anyone pretend to profess intelligently on the modelling of the natural world when they have never left a shopping centre and shopping centre intellect is but the spew of redneck idiots.

Sad little trolls, a spade, is a spade, is a spade, you don't have the moral high ground, just hypocrisy, but thanks for completing the picture. You're too clever by half.

lol

It's a mistake to assume that because someone doesn't agree with the ETS that they don't live with respect for the environment and its limited resources. The truth is our government doesn't want anybody to give up their "shopping centre" mentality and live more simply. They're all about continuous economic growth, but to give the appearance of ... See Moregiving a damn about the environment they'll just sign up to a treaty and make us pay for consuming. What does the government say about one of the major environmental problems: population? That we will grow to 35mil by 2040? That is not good for the environment but it will grow the economy and that is all they really care about.

Agree totally Virginia.

If we were actually serious about climate change, and if environmentalists were also, we wouldn't be funding humanitarian programs in third world countries. Sure, per person the western world emits more carbon. But, at the same time we are trying to get the developing world to do the same. We can't have both.

So if we were serious about climate change, we would cut food aid to developing nations and be lobbying to stop paying for retro-viral drugs in many areas as a way to cut future carbon emissions.... See More

But radical, meaningful changes aren't a good look most of the time.

Bravo Brave Winifred. While we all tip toe around being terribly polite and politically correct you just came right our and said it!
What we are experiencing now is The Tragedy of the Commons and there is no techinical solution to rescue us from the misery of overpopulation.

There are more imprtant things than name calling but if the shoe fits, i'd rather be green and pigeon holed with a few green hystericals, than a redneck idiot from a long tradition of redneck idiots who don't know when the only person left to conquer is themselves, before they drown themselves and us in their own excrement, now the town rubbish tip is out of sight and out of mind, but will inevitably return on the inexorable tide.

"WTF???? Why does being serious about climate change have to do with cutting food aid to poor people? That is a very confusing statement. If anything it is the opposite."

Not really. There is a very strong correllation between standard of living increases and greenhouse emissions.

We are already borderlining the carrying capacity of the planet, so there is little hope for everyone in the developing world to be able to live "sustainable lives".... See More

If we reduce the number of people the world is responsible for, in terms of keeping alive, we can cut food production, therefore greenhouse emissions and still have room for the remaining people alive to increase their standard of living - and then work towards a sustainable planet. Because it is just an impossible task with the amount of people the world is carrying, no matter which way you look at it.

"Surely if anything your government should be stopping all their de facto subsidies to industrialised mass farming in Australia that is so harmful."

Also, Australia has one of the most efficient agricultural sectors on the planet and in certain areas, just about the least ecologically harmful of nations involved in mass agriculture.

A lot of the rest of the world is leeching off our carbon emissions and ecological damage to artificially counteract their ecological deficits.

Population is intrisically linked to the environment. If we want to move away from big agri-industry (and just watch Monsanto ever let that happen) we will likely not sustain the population we currently have let alone population growth.
To achieve any level of sustainability we need to live more like the third world rather than encourage them to aspire to the lifestyles that have led to resources depletion and pollution. Or is that too unsavoury for most of us to contemplate?

TTFN Off to see John Pilger in Sydney tonight.

Beats me why we have a deliberate policy in place to nearly double our population over the next 30 years, to understand how that is consistent with reducing our country's carbon footprint. Surely this policy pulls in just the opposite direction to our stated policy of reducing climate change!! Makes me wonder what is really going on. Surely more ... See Morepeople equals more carbon even with the most optimistic emissions reductions. If we were fair dinkum about doing something genuine to seriously reduce our emissions we would have a zero poulation growth policy. Instead we have a policy of the highest immigration levels since the gold rush!

Its all about economic growth. The govt is desparate to keep house prices inflated at the levels where they are now and delay the significant correction in house prices that every other western economy has experienced They see growing the population through high levels of immigration as the answer to this problem - creating never ending demand for... See More more and more houses to be buit....and in doing so sod the consequences on the environment. This really stinks....Bob Brown when did we have the debate about what Ausralia's population should be to sustain our environment...seems like Mr Rudd has decided for all of us!!

The climate change/population issues was discussed on Lateline last night.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2734710.htm

Here is a link to some (rather dated but no less relevant) work by Garret Hardin about the topic of helping the poor/starving. I post this not as my steadfast opinion but as something for us to contemplate. I see Bob... See More's site as a place for discussion of ideas and offer this in that spirit http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_lifeboat_ethics_case_against_helping_poor.html

Scott: yeah, the position is hyper logical so it's not a great viewpoint to hold onto at its most extreme.

The problem is though, that a lot of the world's populations are unsustainable, regardless of what we do from here. The countries that hold them are NEVER going to be self sufficient no matter what they do. And here is the rub, to sustain the populations that certain countries have in the long term will massively increase emissions. It would be almost impossible to keep the same numbers alive for less emissions.

The other point about Australia's population: Australian's require about 7 hectares per person to live. We have a capacity to double the population on our current ecological capacity without creating a deficit. That's what the immigration and ~ 40 million figure seems to come from. I think most of us would disagree with this asessment given future degradation etc.... See More

Anyway, the point is, if we double our population, our hpp is 7 and the developed world is 1 (for example), we can sustain people elsewhere on this planet more effectively, in numbers of a factor of 7. How does this make sense to keep our population growing then? I dunno. I think everyone here will see the nonsense in this.

I hate him now and forever!

Why is it that as scientists have firmed up to climate change being man made the general public has become softer? The facts and figures have been researched and presented, confirming that climate change this rapid IS man made yet there are the decriers who poo-poo these findings with no science to back them up. Perhaps it is easier for those people to believe what ever they want to believe and is easiest for them to assimilate.

Chris Fong, I think the reason the 'public has become softer' on climate change is because they are starting to now take an interest in the issue and that they are seeing the scientific facts are not as clear cut as they may have once seemed. You may want to take a look at Prof Ian Plimer's book, Heaven and Earth, which has recently become a best ... See Moreseller to see a completely different picture on what the scientific facts might be. Lots of people are scratchinng their head over the fact that average world temperatures seem to have been in decline since 1998, despite rising carbon levels. I want to save the planet us much as anyone, but there is plenty more work needing to be done here before we can be so bold to think that we can introduce a new tax, and solve the variances in our dynamic climate.

These videos may help you convince them :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvEH7W_w1NA <vegan bodybuilder>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOTETXwfIaY <Carl Lewis: Olympic Medals through the Vegan Diet>
Good luck!

If your kids watch this (and I recommend you watch all 6 as well) they will think twice about eating animal products
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG_tn3KAXNE&feature=related <Foods that kill - part 1 of 6>

disgusting....

No, it's not happening

I'm hoping the speech will be available eventually in some format (video, audio or transcript) since the live stream failed.

yeah. You're my hero, I love you too!!! And so does my husband!!