sounds like another "al gore expert", hardtack
like al he's not a career environment scientist either so it's no surprise he came off second best against a nobel prize winner. reckon most "experts" on here would too.
it hasn't been dismantled hardtack
labor wouldn't let the legislation pass the senate, so have to wait till new senate in june (i think)
as in said before.....happy to be part of a genuine global emissions reduction program as long it includes all the major emitters. anything less is just masochism for a small economy
but putting your rubbish in the bin does have an impact - no rocket science there
but will paying a carbon impost cause temperatures to drop or arrest global warning? that is the question and it is a fair question and not defeatist at all
you really over-rate any leadership role australia could take
the majority of the world don't even know (or care) of our existence
we could send ourselves back to the dark ages trying and no-one would blink an eyelid
thanks for the history lesson hood. If Churchill had his way we would still be part of the British Colonial Empire
I noticed you just changed the goal posts. The discussion was what could we (australia) achieve (for global warming reduction) by a massive unilateral sacrifice
I am quite happy for us to follow a multi-lateral policy with the world's major emitters, though i am skeptical it would make a big difference
I've long been a believer that over population is a bigger issue
call me a pragmatist if you like
you can argue better than that hardtack
it's a valid point. 1.5% would make hardly a dent in the GLOBAL position
and that is assuming a ridiculous 100% drop in australian emissions. you'd have to slaughter a lot of livestock among many other things
so the question is, at the end of the day what realistic contribution can we make and at what cost to our relative competitiveness and living standards