Knowing that no agreement will be reached in Copenhagen during this round of discussions, wouldn't locking Australia into a policy be a rather futile experiment? Why is Rudd so gung ho in his approach to this issue? Is it because he has been so limp-wristed with the asylum seeker issue that he has an unfettered desire to prove just how big a man he really is?
Dex, I understand the point you are making however, rather than spend trillions of dollars in the hope to do some good for the environment, shouldn't we commit to actually doing good for the environment. Maybe the world financially supporting countries like Brazil and Malaysia, giving them opportunity to stop deforestation. IMO the loss of flaura and fauna species far outways reducing slightly the amount of co2 pumped into the atmosphere. Why not research methods of getting the best bang for our buck rather than just locking ourselves into a financial commitment, based on false science, that may not provide any benefit whatsoever for the environment? I would much rather see the money Rudd wants to commit to the Copenhagen deal be tabled for discussion on how best to help the environment. I am all for saving the environment, just hate the idea of making a few extremely rich along a path to nowhere.
