Copenhagen -it will look good but achieve nothing but continue the revenue stream

Even though there is very little credibility in the idea of a ETS working in a practical way on the ground , the groups present will focus on making the target sound good - that's what modern meetings and media theory insist on.
Forget the science - thats a secondary matter. Forget science and the truth - this is about international politics and Rudd, Wong and Flannery's role in it.

Few international meetings have ever such a poor consensus really on how to/( as opposed to what to ) use any tax . The much too late speculation in Australia today about biosequestration is an illustration of the mess Labor have left the non direction for agriculture in - doors remain open that should have been closed by the leading proponents- running sores.

Despite all the leaks , I expect the target will be high because : numbers are all that matters to the school of mere description who are running this salvation machine . This salvation machine with a tax to drive it and bureaucrats to run it . The appeal of this simplisticity with wannabes is completely understandable.

To see how easy it is to calm the nerves of just about everybody just watch the newsrelease ; WE agree to no more than a 2 degree rise by 2020 or a 15% cut by 2020. What with changing energy prices , carbon tax increases and buffering of the increased co2 emmisions , the world will not need an international bureau to achieve those targets. More on win-win at copenhagen here

The poor world will not be any richer and the rich nations may well get away too easily - but it will be a failure of mispaced reason and direction , not a failure of willfulness.
In a society which worships technology , the greatest evil is still done by not engaging the minds when persuing the best intentions .

ETS become CPRS ; 3 legs becomes 2 and the whole chair falls over

The agindustry leg is removed. ( Actnow Ad has 3 industry )
Those of you have read this blog for a few years will know ---we lead ----the government follows.
You will also know that Australian politics is talking about the TITLE issues to the point that it could cause an election and a big spill of leadership.

Clearly though, the lack of credibility over direction, content and effectiveness will cause Rudd to end up wearing no clothes over the issue. You heard it first on blogger . If Labor knew where they were going they wouldn't now find themselves in the black hole of deep space where they now are-trying to say something about effectiveness , when, even according to their own logic, they will produce NONE .

None of us enjoy this hard yakka because we had careers where we could concentrate on providing protection and good unchanging advice. Once you've done that and seen conservation work , the less satisfying " I told you so" is no fun . After all too, all this advertising hotair hss cost careers in science.
Be useful and blog yourself ( bookmark this blog)so the big opportunities aren't blown by philibusters and the fanatics sitting far too confidently in the seats of power.

The greatest waste is in every century is done in the name of the best intention.

Just a lot of hot air - as usual

If our polys knew what they were doing by trying to change the earth with hot air taxes they would realize they are going around in circles with only hot air to help them. Playing with ephemeral gases maybe their forte, but it doesn't cut any ice - either long term with the electorate or on the edge of the ice shelf itself.
Neither party is credible on the ETS or the renewable energy industry sector because they both have allowed this esoteric issue to become a political football .
The sustainable energy industries are sometimes just like their other mates in industry - willing to put eco in front of anything because it looks right - The right badge can hide a multitude of sins on sustainaibility esp when the right veneer does wonders for industry growth .( for a short while)
That this silly game has no substance is well illustrated by Senator Feildings being able to kick a few goals on the subject with it -Wong can't tell anyone whether its CH4 , CO2 , or which combination of which "we" are actually worried about. the left are happy to suspect industry as the enemy ,while the right fail to know what's wrong with the enemy .

This weekends announcement of an agreement about the renewables energy sector is an expensive act of desperation. It may be an agreement of sorts but it is generated by Labors fascination with fantasy and helped along by the libs disengagement from ( business knows best myths ) the faulty science and practice logic in this whole area . Industry is not a god to be hated or loved.

Make up your mind you dummies - should the market decide , or should YOU decide whats sustainable ( by spending our super money )or for safety's sake - engage some experinced sustainability Scientists .

The rush to support the renewable energy industry is a sign of things to come - more misinvestsment because neither party has a reliable science practice advisory system in place to prevent them from backing the wrong horses . Hanarahan might have a few suggestions about picking a real winner when the well dressed and their dressage agents are the only ones in view .
A sound sus science group could tell the naked emperors( or the wannabes) whether the gearboxes for the wind energy focus should be bought now, later or never , or whether solar energy means cells or sun reflectors It goes on - etc etc
There was a guy called Don something , I recall - he was really into backing his own horse on wind technology .Noone took him seriuosly after a while !

Moving On is often moving Back

The postmodernists are reluctant to admit it, but a facination with change ( the worship of technology or progress or whatever name you like to use) is , in matters of much human health strategy and governance , a recipe for wasting public money; and, in the end, coming back to somewhere near where our not so stupid forefathers left off .
Mr Howard acknowledges he is looking for some new age nightingales. Pity his blinkered bookkeeping mates pushed em out a few years ago eh!.
The people too will vote on whether his version of employer relations is infact a back ward or a forward step . Time the libs knew what the solid ground of conserative politics really looks like .

The Sydney Schmatz

How do you get an agreement signed , when you don't really agree ? The answer--You say something , but you say nothing. The leaders will be smiling when they finish , but people who care will wonder at what opportunity has been lost.
What arrows , amongst the many being fired, would have cut some mustard for the future ? Was this talkfest just the biggest load of hot air ever about hot air? And why didn't Australia take the opportunity of a lifetime to be credible about the environment , poverty and protection ? The answer : No consensus and no credible focus in this country for environmental risk assesssment. How can we encourage agreement outside this island when we have no agreement within it . Tell me i am wrong and why i am wrong!

No one it seems , should be happy with the Sydney agreement, whatever it finally says .( this post published on 8th sept at 8am )
The greens cynical use of "climate change" in recent months ( cf "global warming" and much better targeting ) has left the door wide open for the bigger horses to bolt . The result is everyone is smiling, except those who would like our most powerful leaders to tackle the problems of poverty and protection seriously .

Change doesn't come out of agreements drawn up in the heat of the moment , but on the basis of consensus and realistic ecological , scientific and economic facts . Despite the media hype , the content of this broad consensus is missing. This should not be so, when the west is so wealthly and the integrated problems of disaster , threat , rural poverty and environmental protection are matters of known praxis. Australians have led the way in the intellectual debate on earthcare .
Those who thought attendance in Sydney would bring forth new agreements in the context of controversy are not very realistic - the ground work in the above areas must be done and consensus built BEFORE it happens . Kyoto was bad enough, Sydney was quick fix ( where is the carbon trading consensus???) Sydney maybe be a turning point in being too weak to be believable . A turning back

Those who should be most worried about this loss of opportunity are the Greens and those of us who want the earth to be better used . The trouble with the " bucket of change for changes sake "is --it leaks. Grist are saying this and they are right . You can't win wars with all the money in the world . Mr Gore !Your arrows have to be sharp . You must support strong scientific debate and consensus building that comes from it - This could have been the real big " agreement" from Sydney , Australia in 2007 . not some self congratulatory statement that we have the physical resources and we are willing to share theme with you ! The big worry in this is ---the intellectual climate !
You can't change the agenda from global warming to climate change and back again with out opening the door to nuclear distraction.

Those of us who want realistic attention given to resource use need to support those who advise these leaders with informed comment on the above matters . There can be no international agreement out of SYDNEY if there is no internal agreement in Australia - support a forum for consensus .
Sydney will probably be noted for at least one major achievement - the biggest load of hot air about hot air ever .

Tasmania in big trouble

Poor old Tasmanians will be wondering at what cost a reasonable discussion of the possible impacts of a paper / chip mill in the Tamar valley after parliament is recalled to change the EIS legislation . Historic precedents and historic undermining of the credibility of a parliament over environmental issues.

Its no longer OK to blame bob brown for the careless talk . Careless Environmental discussions occur on both sides of the house, so how do the people get the real truth. click here

Just a lot of hot air and obfiscation

Well , did we get what was expected? A lot of hot air talk - yes . Could you call it a debate ? No ( ABC debate on Durkins hard work on "the climate change swindle")) , I don't think so !!!

Tony Jones and Robin W did a shocking job of setting up a debate - wasting a good hour and failing to nail the only scientist to criticize the films' key question - the dearth of evidence of a connection between co2 and temperture rises!

The public have every right to question certainties that can't be easily explained!
.

Just a lot of hot air!

The hot air tonight will leave many steaming . Many of us , what ever the limits of Durkins work ( I am not surprised the research on sun activity-(the Big deal in the press this morning) maybe not conclusive-- but what is!) I will be glad at least one person got together to question the rationale.

The fearmongers will not have it all their own way .

the winn ing points ( we haven't seen it yet Posted 7.30pm) should be

- the lack of evidence of CO2 as the priniciple causation factor

- the deliberate willingness of carbon trading proponents to push " the need for it " through regardless of the "haste makes waste" and sound "too early to build invetsemest"arguments

- the very real difficulty modern scientists have to gain credibility when the media propote a change issue .
-The funding problem for research must be taken as a real danger for the clever country- scientists are now at mercy of short term political agendas - tonight the night to at least "put it"

- the foolishness of those (on the PCteam) who think you can force people to behave well

--the foolishness of those who think all the pushing haste and fear generation will produce some sort of improvement in how we use resources . "short term gain long term nothin" is expected to be the result of this PUSHINESS

- the failure of our own ABC to raise the reality of fanaticsm and denials of powerlessness as a major diseases of our own age .

- the ABC's failure to support scientific debate and its preferenecce for promoting popular causes ( will the candidates of review be worthy?????) A great test of the ABC tonight !!!!