Butcherboy,You say 'we need to act because of the risk'. I don't...

Butcherboy,
You say 'we need to act because of the risk'. I don't understand your logic if by 'we' you mean Australia.

Let us assume for the moment that the most dire AGW predictions are correct. If Australia reduces its CO2 emission and therefore its energy consumption what will be the effect?

Suppose an appropriate response, which would be a stretch, would be to half our emissions without regard to our rising population. This would curb our profligate lifestyle. More bicycles, less vehicles,less wastful travel, no wasteful airconditioning and a simpler, more natural diet and lifestyle.

However it would have negligble effect on the worldwide situation because we were a negligable contributor to start with. The action which you urge is meaningless at an Australian level.

The argument that Australia will lead and the world will follow ignores our place in the world.


I have no trouble going along with a truely global approach to a global problem, but it can't be steered through Australian sacrifice.

Lobbyists for AGW should clearly be lobbying for a global solution. However I suspect this is too difficult as politicians who are only one generation out of poverty are less easily swayed.

Australia's actions don't change the worldwide risk at all. They only change Australia's minute contribution.

Bacci