There have been extremist posts on both sides here.

Which, IMO, still begs the question:

Does anyone really believe, or is there any hard science to suggest, that spewing millions of metric tons of GHG from fossil fuels (primarily automobiles and power plants) into the atmosphere every year is healthy for the environment...or even neutral in its impact?

So what should we do about it? Nothing....just wait until the science is 100% irrefutable?

We certainly can start with a more honest discussion at every level.

I think plenty of people are working on changing our habits at a personal level, which will only have the effect of forcing corporate responsibility sooner or later.

In the grand scheme of things, we're making changes at a remarkable rate. Possibly too slowly for some peoples liking, but change in any case. There is a limit to what people can be expected to be responsible for because ultimately, most people owe their loyalty to their family and will do what's best for them. Most people can't afford the green technologies out there, nor can most companies at the moment, but as more people come on board, these things will become more affordable for average people. It's always been the same formula.

New technology = expensive. Not affordable or cost effective
developing technology = less expensive. Affordable only to the wealthy.
developed technology = affordable
old technology = cheap

The issue we're facing now is the the old technology being fossil fuel as an energy source is about to become more expensive therefor forcing us to look to new technology which in turn will bring the price down.

It's just going to take time, and yodelling about it constantly isn't going to make it happen any faster.

Just like climate change, it's a natural progression. Regardless of what anyone believes now, we will be powering up with alternative energy sources before most of us kick the bucket. Well before I should expect.

Ali...I cant speak to the policies and practices in Australia.

I can say that in the US, over the last eight years, there has been a regression, rather than a natural progression, with regard to controlling GHG emissions.

From Bush's ignominiously named "clear skies initiative" which gutted critical provisions of the Clean Air Act regulating power plan emissions....to his EOs that forced many states to take his administration to court on auto emission standards (Bush lost every case in federal court but succeeded in delaying policies he opposed)....to the suppression of scientific studies within the federal government that did not support his ideology.

I can give you examples from Bush's energy policy of the massive tax breaks and incentives given to the oil industry and the pittance given to alternative energy resources.

You can call it yodeling...I call it holding our government accountable.

OH....one Aussie proposal that is leading the way.....

Aren't incandescent light bulbs banned in Australia beginning this year (or next) to be replaced by the more energy efficent CFL bulbs. The result will be lowering the nation's GHG emissions, granted not in huge numbers, but every step makes a difference.

As to cost, while the initial consumer cost of the CLF bulbs may be higher, wont the energy savings (estimated as much as 60%) to the individual consumer offset that cost?

As a result of Australia's lead, the US adopted legislation last year to phase out incandescent bulbs...but wont begin until 2012 and not fully in place until 2020.

The government has a number of energy saving programs in place including a 'health check' where you pay $85 and they come in and put a switch on so you can see how much energy you're using as well as replace all your old lightbulbs with energy saving alternatives. They also check your metre box and suggest ways in which you could save energy.

We also now (as part of one of the stimulus packages) have the option of claiming up to $1600 to insulate the roof of your house in order to save on heating and cooling bills.

As you probably know, our new government signed off on Kyoto last year and are in the process of refining a carbon emissions trading scheme which was due to begin in a couple of years, but due to the financial crisis, it might be put off. Time will tell with that one, but it's in the works, and it'll happen one way or another sooner or later.

I support all these moves, and believe Australia is heading in the right direction. We still have one of the highest emission outputs per capita in the world though, so we need to work on that. Our population is so small though, that in real terms, we're responsible for less than 1% of all pollution in the world. It's the per capita that I personally think we need to be more aware of though.

Ali.....From your examples, the natural progression towards energy conservation and alternative energy sources has been encouraged and supported with government policies and actions for which Australia should be applauded.

And as I noted, in the US, the policies and actions of the last eight years resulted in more of a regression.....eight wasted years, IMO.

Well, with any luck and a bit of hard work, that regression will be repaired. I personally believe it's happening as we speak anyway; in small ways by individuals who realize that the buck stops with them.

Individuals can do alot...but IMO, it still requires public policy to take that leap to having a significant impact.

The repair of US policies and programs has begun, with broad public support and a significant investment in the stimulus bill, despite the wishes of some to wait:

I've had this discussion with Merc before. I don't agree with his point of view. There's not much point in he and I discussing it further. :)

Most soitenly, and we can start by accepting that it's not all our fault, but what we are doing to contribute is not good, and there is much we can do to change that. On the other hand running off in 17 directions at full throttle is neither smart or likely to be effective.

Fortunately the change in U.S. leadership will probably help get a more coordinated effort going to address this issue. I hope an effort that keeps both Al Gore and Big Oil on the sidelines.

:thumbsup: bruce

Great. Let's go ahead and destroy ourselves because someone else doesn't care? That is just stupid. That's like saying, you'll quit smoking when everyone else quits, even though you know it might kill you or make your life miserable in some other way.

That's ridiculous. If we invent/build the technology to help curb the effects, then we can sell it to the rest of the world. I don't care what you may think, I KNOW we can get ourselves off of damaging technology like coal and oil and move to completely clean and green technology to generate all the power we need, both for cars and for buildings.

So everything will be lovely if we don't pee in our corner of the same pool?

Well Redux, since Jimmy Carter was pretty big on creating alternative energies, I would say we are actually decades behind.

Do you still work in government? I'm curious, because there is something I want them to work on.