Butcherboy, I am not sure whether any change in climate is man made. I am enjoying your and Starbust's exchange on this. As it seems no neutral advice is available a good debate with a competent pro and con argument is a good alternative.
I think that the reference to per capita emmissions is nonsense. Australia is a mineral producer, we use capital and energy intensive industry for the benefit of people around the world.
We produce about a third of the worlds alumina, a good proportion of its aluminium, zinc,nickel etc. We don't consume this ourselves we export it. To compare the CO2 emmissions of the people of Gladstone Queensland with those of a rural Indian village is silly.
Of the industrialised countries we are unusual in producing a large proportion of the worlds minerals without nuclear power. I don't see how we can compete as a mineral producer with a carbon cost and a nuclear ban when our competitors have neither.
Vauderville tricks like the per capita comparison, scaring the foolish by demanding we act to save the Barrier Reef and bully boy behavior does not endear me to the AGW cause. However I am swayed by the precautionary principal and the balance of convenience argument.
The argument that we should sign Copenhagen, or commit in some way because 'We Have To Do Something' does not sway me. We need to keep grip of reality and our place in the world.
We are not opinion makers or leaders.We are not major emmitters but would feel the effects of any treaty in a greater proportion than other countries.
I wouldn't support us being freeloaders on the actions of others. However Australia is not well placed to and should not go first in the hope that others will follow.
Australia has a very careful approach to the environment. The only reason we can afford to do so is because of the wealth our industry generates. Poor countries have more immediate needs. I don't think destroying Australia's industrial base would be good for our environment in the long term.
