Consider the state elections next year: SA, Tas & Vic

Since Australia is producing 1% of human carbon dioxide emissions, we could turn out the lights completely and make almost no difference to climate change. Or, we could reduce our emissions by 50% by all going and living in caves, since it would entail turning off all coal fired generators, and taking every vehicle off the road.

But it would please Europe and China?

Give me a break.

Reducing our emissions over time, replacing coal with renewables, reaching for the low hanging fruit through greater efficiencies and smart grids is what we can, and must do. It may not be ideal, (pray tell, what EVER is?) but it’s a course of actions that we can practically achieve, and Labor has at least got a plan, flawed, imperfect, but what alternative is there?

Oh yes, do nothing.

Take your pick.

Once a global deal is reached, punitive sanctions on non-participants (especially developed ones) will make the science (and morality) irrelevant. It becomes a trade issue and you sign on the dotted line because there’s no choice.

CC sceptism, where it exists, can no longer be seen as a rational position. Given the concurrence of the science, the only people who are still sceptics are so because of ideology or a fixed mentality.

In other words, they’re not going to change their opinion because they’re incapable of doing so.

A long way of saying that there is no way the Liberals will change their minds – not without splitting the party.

However given the level of compensation proposed for US trade exposed industries I’m not sure that the US will need to us carbon tariffs.

I can imagine sanctions and the fear of them putting pressure on the Government. I can’t imagine they’d have much affect on the voting patterns of Fieldings, the Nats and the Libs.

But I bet it’ll have a powerful effect on the electorate’s voting patterns.

That said, the performance of the government isn’t much better. They can’t seem to muster a single set of balls between them. The ETS is, IMO, a disaster that will actually send us backward on emissions and make it much harder to get effective policies in the future.

But as a climate change action skeptic I’m not surprised. Whenever humanity has had to choose between the environment or short-term self interest in the past it has consistently chosen the latter. I believe it will again.

They will if the rest of the world community threatens sanctions against recalcitrants,

You’ve observed the Liberals in Parliament, I presume?

They wouldn’t care if the country went to hell in a handbasket.

Any threat of sanctions will have the Libs reviving the ‘noone should be telling us what to do, Labor isn’t standing up for Australia’ arguments.

I can imagine sanctions and the fear of them putting pressure on the Government. I can’t imagine they’d have much affect on the voting patterns of Fieldings, the Nats and the Libs.

Being a good global citizen and have the most ambitious targets in the world is a nice proposal. But its also a good way to get completely screwed at the negotiating table by the US, China, South Africa, Europe, etc…

Once international scheme linkages exist, emissions will occur where they are most highly valued regardless of the quota’s agreed at Copenhagen. Permits/offsets and emissions will cross borders freely. The only question is how much of the global permit revenue pie does Australia (government/business) get.

They will if the rest of the world community threatens sanctions against recalcitrants, which is a possibility. Even the Russians, a country that on the surface would appear to have much to gain from a warmer climate has started to become worried about the wider implications and recognised that CC is already costing it dear:

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090526/full/news.2009.506.html