Politicians will kill us all koko and this article on cars shows their true colors regarding polution ....thanks ...........clay

...





:bug:

I honestly cannot see any real agreement coming out of this UN Conference and I pray I am right because I just do not trust Rudd to do the right thing by the people of Australia - only for big business and his own agenda for his future.



Rudd must not sign us up to pay out billions a year starting this December with 7 billion we don't have and will have to borrow to add to the debt and then add 2.5% for next years billions donated to the UN and every year after that until the end of the agreement to distribute to countries who probably will do nothing at all about climate change but send it off to Cayman Islands for private use as they do with aid money got from selling the goods donated to help their people.



So could lower all of our standards of living and services by paying out money we don't actually have and STILL not do a thing for the climate if it is man made.



None of the governments there can actually do what is needed to be done if AGW is real and that is debatable.



Why? because if they did would never ever get re- elected. That's why ! Do think about it.



Most of those private individuals offering up solutions are young wet behind the ears and full of student ideology for change and getting back at the "Establishment" - all will change once they get out and start having to work for money instead of getting it free from parent/grants.

Some wont - some never grow up and mature as we well know. Others do and go on to raise a family with all the bills that entails and realize that we have to be pragmatic on some things. Look at the protesters/demonstrators always for age - usually students or activators of some donation paid organisation - or would be unable to go due to work commitments and family and bills to pay as we all well know. Remember the rent a crowd that followed Pauline Hansen about - young out of work on the dole or students ideologically driven to get her and they did with help from the two parties who were threatened and of course the media who tore her to pieces and still do today. Frightened that a right of centre party would get into government and actually work for the people not for just business.



Yes the climate is changing it does seasonally and we get cycles of drought and have done since Britain colonised this country in 1788 and named it Australia. Whether it is actually worse is debatable as it gets violent and so when we have that kind of a storm now - those who believe go "OOh its Climate change! Chicken Little said so!" rofl........



Thank God for Tony Abbott and his decision to make the Liberal party policy to vote against the ETS until after Copenhagen and after a debate on whether it is man made CC or natural cycle of the Sun. Which cools.



Also the bit about Polar bears if a con - of course you see them swimming around in the summer but come winter they hibernate too blooming cold not to do so.

Cant trust the media to tell you the truth.



Man is responsible for one thing on this earth and that is greed and looking after his own back pocket. also for over population and Mother Nature has her own ways of dealing with this as it is historically the over populated countries that get hit with violent storms floods or even plague to thin out people.



We will have no agreement that satisfies all as the developing countries including China the largest emitter now they say and India catching up fast - plus the African nations who will not do anything anyway except carry on their tribal warfare - and then the Arab oil rich nations also counted as being developing countries all walking out because they want to see more money on the table for them saying that the rich countries put the carbons up and they want the chance to catch up before doing anything and if they do have to be paid to do it.



So as most governments want to be re-elected and 2010 is a election year for many - cant see any agreement and that is another gift from God.



Maybe even he is fed up with our greedy ways - but spared Australia the ETS for now.

I hope God stands with you Mr. Rudd to help you make the right decision as seems "you are damed if you do and damed if you do nothing"

You are a strong man (representing us nicely and looking good on tele. matey) :)

Be strong with your convictions and may you make the right decisions for Australia. You will never make many happy no matter what you do or achieve, but many of us feel you are doing your best.

Our prayers are with you.

Phyl.

Politicians will kill us all koko and this article on cars shows their true colors regarding polution ....thanks ...........clay

...





:bug:

.

.



Clay, that statement could be closer to the truth than we realise...



http://www.sosnews.org/newsfront/?p=457



"The first Australian family lives to be destroyed by the Commonwealth Government of Australia Global Warming Policy."

.

.Scroll down on link above to see a picture of Mr Spencer.

.

.



Peter Spencer, is a farmer in the Canberra district who is on the 23rd day of a hunger strike in protest against native vegetation land clearing laws, and national carbon emissions reduction.

.

.

.



"Would you be prepared to die for your principles?



That is the stance of a hunger-striking farmer in s/e Australia entering day 18 of a protest on his farm at Shannons Flat near Cooma, NSW.



A scone with jam and cream was the final meal 18 days ago (now 23) for Peter Spencer, the Monaro farmer suspended on a platform up a wind monitoring tower on his farm.



"He has had no medical attention"



"In his own mind, passive protest is the only way he can be heard"



"He has put his life and his health on the line for this" says supporter Alastair McRobert.



Peter Spencer is is living in an exposed position, 10 metres above the ground, on his farms wind mast as he protests against native vegetation land clearing laws, and national carbon emissions reduction."

.

.

http://www.abc.net.au/rural/nsw/content/2009/12/s2766534.htm

Hi Koko, I saw this man on tv when he first went up there, unfortunately he's not getting the publicity he deserves.

Nice sentiments Phyl. I agree Kevin Rudd has a very hard job and lets hope God helps him for his sake and ours.

Can people imagine poor old Tony Abbott over there uming and arhing :)



It will be Peter Spencer who? Maybe his family will remember him with love and we hope they do as

he would have already done damage to his health if he does not die, but true enough if he wants to do this

he can. I bet none of the Politicians will remember his name but his family will suffer. I think he is a bit of a fool and maybe just seeking fame and glory. Not much good to him dead though.



Dosn't really matter who is the flavour of the month does it? Each gets their turn as the years go by Liberals then Labour

neither much better than the other. Labour again next election? then people will want a change so the Liberals in again and so it goes. Climate Change will be discussed for ever and a day no matter what.



You have taken the forum by storm Toot 2000. What did the place do before you? with more posts than all the rest put together :) Keep up the good work.

Rudd must not sign us up to pay out billions a year starting this December with 7 billion we don't have and will have to borrow to add to the debt and then add 2.5% for next years billions donated to the UN and every year after that until the end of the agreement to distribute to countries who probably will do nothing at all about climate change but send it off to Cayman Islands for private use as they do with aid money got from selling the goods donated to help their people.

These are pretty extraordinary figures and different to what I have heard.

Do you have anything to support this claim that the figures are real and that it will go to the Cayman Is ?

]"I bet none of the Politicians will remember his name but his family will suffer. I think he is a bit of a fool and maybe just seeking fame and glory. Not much good to him dead though"



Sorry Yaretzi, but the above statement is exactly why we get what we deserve. Somebody puts their hand up and actually does something to make a statement, and those who just talk knock them.



I'm sure one of the many people KRudd employs to check on every instance where his name is mentioned on the internet, would look at the comments on this site, and realise that most of the posters just whinge to each other, but do nothing positive to get their opinions noted by those who make the decisions, and as such are ineffective. We need to forget party politics and lobby for what we believe in.



I congratulate those posters who contact politicians by sending emails, writing letters etc. and exhorting others to do the same. Thank heaven for the doers. Someone needs to remind these politicians that they represent US, and to do that, they need to know how we feel.





,

I see that fwed.....BILLIONS a year?



Good Grief. Any figure can be bandied around.



I believe we need to help our world and all Countries do have to be aware of pollution in all it's forms.

To do nothing for our future generations is like saying "we are o.k. Jack" but are we? not really.

All Countries must take responsibility. I like Rev. Costello's sentiments.....

All the best have a lovely day. We are off to enjoy the Christmas fun.

Phyl.

I see some very interesting views on climate change on this thread.

I must admit I do not fully understand what is being proposed to offset this world wide problem as too many politicians and self seeking individuals are muddying the waters.

I wish I was clever enough to collate the views of the people on this site and present it to someone who we would like to represent us.Maybe one of our 1st Policy decisions? but this is so far out of my ability

That said I am going to bingo, what a fraud I am.

Lolih, you are not a fraud, you are simply being honest. This is such a complex matter that argument and bitter disagreement is resounding around the planet. I too admit that I do not know enough to argue passionately one way or another. I do however, resent the disinformation and scare tactics being used by BOTH sides of this argument. I dont doubt that something needs to be done, but who can we trust to make an informed decision and come up with a measured, comprehensive, fair and affordable response?

seggie.

You are right, Kfchugo. We don't trust any party. They can talk all they like and try to make us believe that they will do the right thing too. Will Mr.Rudd tell all politicians, etc. to buy hybrid cars but again, they'll do it with taxpayers' money. Will Mr.Rudd and company take 1-2 minute showers. Show us. No, on second thoughts, forget that. That's too much for the imagination. We'll believe in our politicians when they actually do what they tell us to do. It's a (swear word deleted) disgrace.

This is probably the most balanced view I have seen.

It is from the Moscow Times.

The current climate talks in Copenhagen have exacerbated the controversy between climate skeptics and environmentalists. The arguments used by both denialists and supporters of the anthropogenic climate change idea have hardly changed since the late 1980s when the effect of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere first hit the headlines.



The truth is that no matter how much we know about climate change, there never will be an agreement among scientists on all the aspects. When there is a full agreement and absolute truth about something, this cannot be science; it can only be religion. Therefore, economists and politicians have to handle the issue under circumstances of uncertainty — a typical but not unique feature of climate change policies.



An excellent example of addressing probabilities of unfavorable outcomes is buying airbags for your car. Airbags reduce the risk of an injury or death in a car accident, even though there are chances that the people who have airbags do not get into accidents and that the airbags do not always help if there is a car crash.



In decision theory, this approach is known as a “minimax solution,” or assessing the maximum possible losses and trying to minimize them usually at a cost much lower that the value at risk. In the language of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, “minimax” is explained as the “precautionary principle”: “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures, taking into account that policies and measures to deal with climate change should be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at the lowest possible cost” (Article 3). But while the threat of a car accident is immediate, most of the severe climate change risks are projected to mature in several decades.



This explains why urgent individual and collective actions and expenditures on climate change are much more frequently called into question than those on car safety. In this context, the ups and downs of the current climate change controversies can be largely explained by a rough division of the stakeholders into three large, internally heterogeneous categories: those who are guided, respectively, by short-, medium- and long-term interests.



While the politicians in the first group wear the election-cycle blinders, for the businesses, sight is limited by what is known as “the tyranny of discount.” If calculated at the market rate (for example, 10 percent), the present value of any long-term benefits is insignificant. That is why most private businesses do not think of their operating environment more than two or three years ahead. Moreover, while benefits of any kind of mitigation measures taken by companies are mostly external and distributed across different groups and continents, the cost is directly internal and immediate. Therefore, representatives of this group see immediate expenditures on climate change mitigation measures as “giving away money” rather than as investment, especially compared with other needs currently reinforced by the financial crisis. Furthermore, climate change measures such as carbon taxes and quotas directly restrict business-as-usual operations of companies producing carbon — in the form of oil, gas, coal and cement — or businesses with a considerable carbon footprint — steel manufacturing and transport, for example. That is why it is not unusual to hear this group’s claims that measures to mitigate climate change are designed by their competitors to destroy carbon-based companies and economies.



The second group comprises both businesses and governments that are interested in leadership through innovation. They see the medium-term need for energy-efficiency and renewable energy development not only for the reasons of climate change mitigation, but also in a competitive context. This includes depletion of energy in other resources in traditional deposits and the political, technological and economic cost of dependence on new oil and gas exploration and production in frontier areas such as tar sands of Canada or the Barents Sea. Furthermore, energy efficiency requirements create a market for high-tech solutions where European and some other companies can compete more favorably than in labor- or resource-intensive industries. This group has been consistently working on bringing down the cost of climate-friendly technologies and is already earning profits under the Emissions Trading, Clean Development Mechanism or Joint Implementation Projects of the Kyoto Protocol.



Scientists and “greens” belong to the third group that argues that decisions on global challenges such as climate change can be made using long-term considerations only and a very low or even negative discount rate. This approach is well-known through the definition given by the UN Bruntland Commission to sustainable development. Following similar logic, the UN Convention on Climate Change aims at “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” The majority of scientists represented through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change now consider this level to be the rise of the global average temperature by no more than 2 degrees Celsius from the pre-industrial levels, while a rise of about 0.74 C has already occurred over the past 100 years.



continued below

Which group is the real driving force behind the international climate talks? The actual impeller is the second group. They are going to take the lead because the innovators have always done so throughout the entire history of humankind. General Motors, which helped develop a prototype of all electric cars in the late 1980s, curtailed the program to keep the mainstream production line competitive. Now, the company is nearly bankrupt. In contrast, Toyota and Tesla Motors have taken the lead in entering the new market of climate-friendly cars and are currently performing better than many of their competitors under circumstances of the financial crisis. In Copenhagen, Bonn or Mexico, the innovators will succeed in building coalitions with factions within the first and third groups, and install an improved version of planetary airbags replacing the Kyoto Protocol. Next time you select a driver, make sure you choose the right one.



Ivetta Gerasimchuk is senior adviser at the World Wildlife Fund in Russia. Theodore Panayotou is professor and director of the Cyprus International Institute of Management.

[url=http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/planetary-airbags-to-cushion-climate-change/396291.html]Source[/url]