What the scientists are saying when they outline savage cuts necessary to avoid significant climate change is “here’s how we could avoid really serious climate change.” They’re also implicitly saying “if we’re not prepared to make those cuts, we’d better start thinking about the consequences.”

Unfortunately at present we’re considering neither the cuts nor the consequences.

The draft treaty states in part that “the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties”… “shall appoint a board” to manage the financial mechanism and the related facilitative mechanism”. The document goes on to state that “Mandatory contributions from developed country Parties and other developed Parties … “should form the core revenue stream for meeting the cost of adaptation”, … and that “Assessed contributions of at least 0.7% of the annual GDP of developed country Parties” shall be payable, “taking into account historical contribution to concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere”.

Signing the treaty in its current form would commit $7 billion per annum to an unelected body with countries like Zimbabwe and North Korea having equal votes whilst contributing virtually nothing. What is the Government’s position on this matter? I am struggling to find any concrete reference to Australia’s position and would like to know where Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong propose to position us in relation to Copenhagen.

Of course the 7 billion is in addition to the cost and the ETS or any other carbon reduction proposals within the country. Whether one is a climate control advocate or sceptic, we need to know both the numbers and the governance processes associated with these proposals.

It is quite obvious that any carbon permit trading scheme involving Third World jurisdictions will be a governance nightmare, with the potential for an unholy alliance of carpetbaggers and corrupt Third World governments to create a situation wors than the GFC.

Furthermore the taxpayers and consumers of Australia have not being acquainted with the long term impact on their standard of living of any carbon reduction proposals as politicians on both sides are in denial concerning the eventual impact. I await further developments with interest.

The draft treaty states in part that “the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties”… “shall appoint a board” to manage the financial mechanism and the related facilitative mechanism”. The document goes on to state that “Mandatory contributions from developed country Parties and other developed Parties … “should form the core revenue stream for meeting the cost of adaptation”, … and that “Assessed contributions of at least 0.7% of the annual GDP of developed country Parties” shall be payable, “taking into account historical contribution to concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere”.

Signing the treaty in its current form would commit $7 billion per annum to an unelected body with countries like Zimbabwe and North Korea having equal votes whilst contributing virtually nothing. What is the Government’s position on this matter? I am struggling to find any concrete reference to Australia’s position and would like to know where Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong propose to position us in relation to Copenhagen.

Of course the 7 billion is in addition to the cost and the ETS or any other carbon reduction proposals within the country. Whether one a the climate control advocate or sceptic, we need to know both the numbers and the governance processes associated with these proposals.

It is quite obvious that any carbon permit trading scheme involving Third World jurisdictions will be a governance nightmare, with the potential for an unholy alliance of carpetbaggers and corrupt Third World governments to create a situation worsen the GFC.

Furthermore the taxpayers and consumers of Australia have not being acquainted with the long term impact on their standard of living of any carbon reduction proposals as politicians on both sides are in denial concerning the eventual impact. I await further developments with interest.

As much as I dearly want action to be taken, I can’t even see us making 15% cuts by 2020 let alone 25% … let alone 100%.

We need to start modeling and planning for how to cope with large global temperature change as well as doing our damnedest to cut our emissions. I can’t say I can see many politicians coming out in favour of such planning though, more’s the pity.