“This is enough to choke a horse,” confided Bill Clinton - “this” being climate change, “one of the two or three biggest challenges in the world”. Clinton was speaking in April in a joint interview with New York mayor Michael Bloomberg.

The dream team already look a litle tired and they've only just begun!

Together, the “big dawg” former president and the diminutive, billionaire mayor have formed what amounts to an informal, two-man committee to save the world.

It’s not a new concept. The original ‘committee to save the world’ was conjured up in 1999 by the journalist Joshua Cooper Ramo, who appointed the then-Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, US Treasury secretary Robert Rubin and the man who would succeed him, Larry Summers.

That ‘committee’ was concerned with warding off global financial instability, a story that ended badly. This one wants to actually save the world, from runaway climate change and, quite explicitly, from what many see as the dangerous intransigence of national governments on the issue.

The two leaders have teamed up in an effort to dramatically reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of the world’s major cities. Bloomberg is chair of the C40 group of world cities, which includes Melbourne and Sydney. Clinton’s eponymous Climate Initiative has partnered the C40 outfit since 2006.

In April, the collaboration was scaled up. A plan to double the budgets for participating cities and expand the group’s membership was announced. Former Clinton staffer Jay Carson was hired as the C40’s chief executive in May. Bloomberg had already pledged US$6 million annually to fund the C40 for three years.

This ramped-up commitment seems to have brought an immediate payoff. Meeting in São Paolo last week, the C40 announced a funding agreement with the World Bank, under which member cities will have ‘one-window access’ to the Bank’s climate investment funds. According to Bank president Robert Zoellick, these amount to around US$6.4 billion and could be supplemented by tens of billions in private funding.

Mayor Bloomberg said the promised World Bank support ‘will help drive local emission cutting actions that will have a significant global impact’. Clinton labeled the World Bank agreement ‘terrifically important’, adding: ‘It will give credibility to these [city] projects to get private capital’.

Out of these projects, the retrofitting of New York’s Empire State Building - to cut energy consumption by a planned 38 per cent - is an unusually iconic example, but is characteristic of the C40’s focus on improving energy efficiency. And potentially just as valuable as any one project is the C40’s effort to develop a single standard for reporting greenhouse gas emissions. ‘If you can’t measure it’, says Bloomberg, ‘you can’t manage it’.

The most obvious rationale for city-to-city cooperation on climate change lies in the numbers. While around half the world’s people live in cities, cities account for an estimated 70 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions. The C40 cities collectively account for an estimated 12 per cent of global emissions. Plainly, what cities do matters.

Then there is the matter of the diplomats’ quest for the ever-elusive global deal on reducing emissions. This, coupled with still-inadequate national climate policies, puts city leaders in the position to make a virtue out of necessity.

Kevin Sheekey, Bloomberg’s political adviser, puts the case bluntly: ‘We are putting a stake in the ground around the idea that national and international governments have failed, possibly quite permanently, or at least in a way that they will not make any serious progress before it’s too late. If you address the problems of the cities, there will be no need for China and India to sign onto some international accord. And thank God, because that’s not going to get done. It’s time to say it.’

After April’s deadlocked UN climate meeting in Bangkok - where national delegates spent much of the week arguing over the agenda - a strong international agreement does indeed look a distant prospect. The UN talks resumed on Monday in Bonn. The key points of contention are all still on the table.

Succeed or fail, the Clinton-Bloomberg partnership could be the biggest challenge yet to the established UN climate process – or the biggest spur to more effective action than has yet proved possible.

Last week, government climate change adviser Ross Garnaut challenged Australia not to be a ‘pissant country’ when it comes to climate change. The national negotiators meeting this week in Bonn face the same challenge, while Clinton and Bloomberg, whatever else they’ve been accused of in their long, storied careers, are anything but pissants.

Most commented

69 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • acotrel says:

      07:17am | 08/06/11

      I can only remember one smart comment from Clinton - ‘it was MY dress’!

    • Mayday says:

      09:27am | 08/06/11

      You forgot….
      “It depends on what the meaning of the words ‘is’ is.”

      I didn’t inhale and never tried it again.”

      “Being president is like running a cemetery: you’ve got a lot of people under you and nobody’s listening.” –Bill Clinton

      Not listening now Bill either, blah, blah, blah.

    • michael j says:

      10:29am | 08/06/11

      @-both good one’s but i liked ‘‘i wanted to do her in the tool shed ‘’

    • Sony B Goode says:

      07:39am | 08/06/11

      Wasn’t this the guy who sparked the GFC with mandatory low income housing ratios for banks? Wasn’t his VP the one who kicked off the global sauna scare with that movie inconveniently twisted facts?

    • Charles says:

      07:45am | 08/06/11

      I don’t think setting up a talk/meeting fest with similar nodding heads around the world will do anything to affect the climate.

      Perhaps it is time for these self-promoters to sit down and have a think about what they are saying.

      Removing every human from the planet and any evidence (buildings, roads, etc.) of us ever being here, will reduce CO2 levels from 390 ppm down to 378 ppm. 

      Since the move from 280 ppm to 390 ppm has taken over a century, and has lifted the temperature a mere 0.7 C, then we probably will get nothing from this latest lot of attention-seekers who are suffering inordinately from delusions of grandeur.

    • PTom says:

      09:08am | 08/06/11

      Charles,
      What happen to your body when it goes up a mere 0.7C?

    • bev says:

      09:30am | 08/06/11

      PTom says:09:08am | 08/06/11

      Charles,
      What happen to your body when it goes up a mere 0.7C?

      You sweat a little more.

    • John Smythe says:

      05:18pm | 08/06/11

      I dunno PTom….what happens to you when the season change?

      Bodily core temperature raising 0.7 and ambient environmental temperature raising 0.7 are two different things….

    • Gregg says:

      07:58am | 08/06/11

      Ross Garnaut, Bloomberg and Clinton have in common what most of us will never have and that is plenty of money, a heap of it being made through developments of one kind or another and no doubt they will be very happy to see plenty of city councils lining up to borrow money that has to be paid for with interest and by whom - just all the ants that is.
      So we should piss on them all.

    • gnome says:

      11:08am | 08/06/11

      even three half wits don’t make a wit!

    • Joan says:

      07:59am | 08/06/11

      Now that Climate Gate and other rorts have reduced the credibility of Climate Scientists who have now gone into hidiing , it`s roll out the gaia man, celebrities, the doddering politician and any and every economist ready to make a dollar with their computer generated graphs to promote Carbon tax .  To the scientists who didn’t predict the breaking of the drought but speak with certainty about 2050 and to economists who didn’t predict GFC or current downturn in Australia today but are quite certain about 2050 Message to them -we`re not a pissant country, Australians can easily spot the guy on the make.

    • acotrel says:

      08:45am | 08/06/11

      @Joan He’s on our side.  He must be a good guy !

    • Maggie says:

      09:38am | 08/06/11

      The science is settled joan
      didn’t you get the memo?
      You deniers are requested to cease and desist with your fringe rhetoric and get with the program.
      Even RAbbott is on board now.

    • Joan says:

      09:49am | 08/06/11

      Acotrel; Clinton`s out on the make with the rest of them…. as if his name will give the project credibilty . We are so over celebrities and ex pollies endorsing every get rich scheme or save the planet.

    • Joan says:

      10:38am | 08/06/11

      Maggie; Exactly which bit of science is settled? That Waynes Carbon Tax on everything will change the gobal temperature by how many degrees and reduce world CO2 by how much? Melbourne doing nicely without a Carbon Tax ... at 11C for max and snowfalls in areas overnight , dams near full things are on track without Swans Carbon Tax.  Australia, and the world has survived without Carbon Tax and it can do so in the future. With volcanic eruptions belching into atmosphere in Iceland and Chile guess what… we will observe a cooling of the planet. Anyone for a tax on belching volcanoes?

    • Gregg says:

      12:07pm | 08/06/11

      @Maggie,
      The good ship science is settling lower in the water it would seem and the seas ain’t even rising.
      If you wish to believe what is predicted based on modelling from a few guys who are only on the planet fopr a very short time, so be it but the planet is laughing at them.

    • Maggie says:

      12:20pm | 08/06/11

      That laughing sound gregg is the sound of the rest of the world laughing at the lunatic fringe.
      You included.

    • RyaN says:

      01:44pm | 08/06/11

      @Maggie: yes we are laughing at you “the end is nigh” lunatics.

    • Reggie says:

      03:30pm | 08/06/11

      “The good ship science is settling lower in the water it would seem and the seas ain’t even rising.” 

      When did that happen Gregg? Since the Industrial Revolution, “science” only seems to have advanced, whether you approve of its use or not.

      Suddenly ... in spite of the scientific voices that say .. “all the evidence I have seen supports Global Warming,” you and certain others hold up your totally unqualified rods and order the tide of scientific advancement to recede.  Why should anyone take ANY notice of you when up until now science has done such a great job while as far as is known, you’ve done SFA?

      Is yours some silly attempt to denigrate science in support of some funny religious belief or other?  Do tell.

    • Mattress says:

      06:33pm | 08/06/11

      What is it with this web site? Comment after comment of people denying climate change or pretending it’s all about the politics. It’s embarrassing and pathetic.

    • Patrck Kelly says:

      08:01am | 08/06/11

      God help us! Another excuse for Clover Moore to waste money.

    • Dave says:

      08:34am | 08/06/11

      Who’s Clover Moore?

    • mickey says:

      09:16am | 08/06/11

      More important.      .WHERE is Clover Moore

    • duk dog says:

      08:42am | 08/06/11

      WOT ?  No need to bring China and India in ‘Climate Change’ ?

      Truly , go back to your planets from a far far Galaxy . Twits .

    • duk dog says:

      09:34am | 08/06/11

      “there will be no need for China and India to sign onto some international accord.” , thats where PTom .

    • PTom says:

      10:48am | 08/06/11

      You only quote half the sentence.

      As their major cities sign on, countries then don’t need to sign on to ALL of the international accord. That also applies to USA too.

      That mean that the USA, China and India will still be playing parts in reducing our impact on the evironment.

    • Nic says:

      11:03am | 08/06/11

      As in at a national level, if they get support from the city level they can bypass the beaurocracy the same as they are in the US.

      As the UN constantly proves, diplomacy doesn’t work. “Spent much of the time arguing over the adgenda” wow, I’m glad we’re paying these clowns.

    • Deepthinker says:

      09:12am | 08/06/11

      For a person who doesn’t know what sexual relationships are, what else doesn’t he know about. It was all those prehistoric monsters passing wind that has caused the climate change, they even caused the inland sea in Australia to DRY UP, just as all the of the hot air and passing wind in this day and age is causing the polar icecaps to melt. If the earth would just stop wobbling the problem would be solved, and then all the experts could look for another excuse to get people from looking at their inefficiency.

    • watt says:

      09:27am | 08/06/11

      Ross to Clinton and Bloomberg….“it’s the Carbon Tax…stupid”

      Pay Carbon tax and VOILA!  Tides recede,  no more “Global Warming ,climate stops changing,wind and solar power don’t need subsidies up the wazoo.

      It’s truly magic.

    • Tim says:

      09:29am | 08/06/11

      But, Bill’s not a climate scientist!

    • andre says:

      09:49am | 08/06/11

      Only Saviour of the worls is Jesus Christ. When zionists and their acolytes team up in order to save the world we can only be sure that the endo of the history of this wolrd is near. Christians rejpoice!! They failed to unite the world on government level, that is why they are trying to bypass and thus C40 cities initiative.
      Ap John foretold in Revelation that eventually they will succide to unite the whole world against its Savior J.Christ and spiritual Armageddon will follow.

    • Warwick says:

      10:24am | 08/06/11

      Amongst lefty intellectuals, the fear of the killer gas is overwhelming. In my youth the fear of capitalism and trust in socialism was the overwhelming enthusiasm of the same sort of lefty intellectuals. It wasn’t necessary then, and it isn’t necessary now, to dispassionately consider the evidence; just learn the jargon and take your position on the side that’s winning. And prop up your side with every lie, fraud, political manoeuvre and intimidation imaginable.

      This misanthropic green fantasy will soon fall in a heap; just like the Soviet Socialist Republics.

    • Reggie says:

      03:44pm | 08/06/11

      Warwick “and it isn’t necessary now, to dispassionately consider the evidence; just learn the jargon and take your position on the side that’s winning. And prop up your side with every lie, fraud, political maneuver and intimidation imaginable”.

      You must have had a busy time swapping sides during WWII Warwick.
      In fact your decisiveness about indecision is mind-boggling, little better than pinning the tail on the donkey.

    • pj says:

      10:25am | 08/06/11

      I find it all most amusing,they can’t save their own lives and there talking about saving the world!!!Do they know how ridiculous that sounds!

    • George says:

      11:55am | 08/06/11

      Leftist/Warmist Climate Models Go Cold

      The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s.

      The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings.

      I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic.

      Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools out of our politicians.

      The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s.

      But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate “scientists”, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.

      Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.

      The disagreement comes about what happens next.

      The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain?

      Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.

      This is the core idea of every official climate model:
      For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three — so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.

      That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.

      If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory.

      But official climate “science” ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.

      There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any disturbance. Otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is no exception, and now we can prove it.

      It is no surprise that their predictions of planetary temperature made in 1988 to the US Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved much higher than reality.

      The official thermometers are often located in the warm exhaust of air conditioning outlets, over hot tarmac at airports where they get blasts of hot air from jet engines, at waste-water plants where they get warmth from decomposing sewage, or in hot cities choked with cars and buildings.

      The Earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the Little Ice Age around 1680.

      Finally, to those who still believe the planet is in danger from our carbon dioxide emissions: Sorry, but you’ve been had.

      http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/

    • A Question says:

      12:50pm | 08/06/11

      @ George, As a scientist,do Cities create their own weather patterns or change weather patterns locally,does the trapping of moisture under asphalt have an effect on local temperatures in relation to high density living environments ?

    • Lukew says:

      01:02pm | 08/06/11

      What a refreshing change.  You could also add, that irrespective of anything your fine article says, a climate tax will have no effect on the temperature or weather patterns of the planet.  We are being had.

    • Obob says:

      11:59am | 08/06/11

      I am saying that all predictions concerning climate are highly uncertain.

      On the other hand, the remedies proposed by the “experts” are enormously costly and damaging, especially to China and other developing countries.

      On a smaller scale, we have seen great harm done to poor people around the world by the conversion of maize from a food crop to an energy crop.

      This harm resulted directly from the political alliance between American farmers and global-warming politicians.

      Unfortunately the global warming hysteria, as I see it, is driven by politics more than by science.

      If it happens that I am wrong and the climate experts are right, it is still true that the remedies are far worse than the disease that they claim to cure.

      I wish that The Independent would live up to its name and present a less one-sided view of the issues.

      Freeman Dyson on global warming hysteria

    • bikinis on top says:

      12:20pm | 08/06/11

      Labor, the Greens,the Democrats, the Democratic Socialists, the Socialists, the Social democrats and the independents will do the right right thing and unite Australia and the world for Climatic Change.
      They live in the Age Of Queen Elizabeth 2.
      Unfortunately the Liberals, The Nationals, The American Republicans and the Conservatives, the Christian Democrats and the Gaullists want to do the wrong thing and divide the world into climatic change skeptics and climatic change true believers .
      They live in the Age of Queen Elizabeth 1

    • Obob says:

      12:42pm | 08/06/11

      Yeah right bikini!
      The whackos don’t even believe their own proaganda on mythical manmade warming!

      Hypocritical Leftist/Warmist Labor Ministers Prefer Horsepower Over Hybrids, But Still Push A Carbon Dioxide Tax On The Rest Of Us
      May 18 2011


      Labor ministers are driving gas-guzzlers
      Only 2 cabinet ministers driving “hybrids”
      Greens say revelation is “disappointing”
      The Coalition is even less “eco-sensitive”

      THE Federal Government is proving to be full of hot air when it comes to slashing greenhouse gases, with just two out of 20 Cabinet ministers choosing fuel-efficient “hybrid” cars.

      Despite insisting Australia must reduce carbon emissions, Prime Minister Julia Liehard and Climate Change Minister Greg Combet are among scores of Labor MPs driving gas-guzzlers.

      And former PM KRudd’s campaign to roll out the eco-friendly Toyota Prius as part of the Commonwealth car fleet has also been dumped - with just one such vehicle still operating.

      An investigation has revealed just seven out of 104 Labor MPs are choosing hybrid vehicles, such as the 2.4-litre Toyota Camry.

      The revelations come at a sensitive time for the Government, struggling to win support for a carbon tax- due in July next year.

      The politician’s love of gas guzzlers was first reported in December last year - and nothing has changed.

      Documents released under FoI show Ms Liehard and most senior ministers are driving thirstier Fords, Toyotas and Holdens, even though they pump out three times the level of carbon emissions.

      The Coalition is even less eco-sensitive, with only one Liberal MP - shadow climate change Minister Greg Hunt - driving a Toyota hybrid. These vehicles use a combination of electric/petrol engines and are far more fuel efficient.

      KRudd made a fuss of choosing a Prius when he became opposition leader before the 2007 election. But the Foreign Minister is now one of just four MPs and senators in Parliament to drive the Prius, which has an 8.5 rating on the Government’s “Vehicle Green Guide” website.

      The Prime Minister has chosen the 3.6-litre Holden Calais VE sedan, which has a 5.5 rating and chews up nearly three times as much fuel.

      Environment Minister Tony Burke drives a Ford Territory.

      Mr Combet has also chosen the Holden Calais as his vehicle, along with Regional Minister Simon Crean and Defence Minister Stephen Smith, whose electorate of Perth covers a small area.

      Even Peter Garrett, the Education Minister and one-time eco-warrior, drives a 3.6-litre Holden Commodore although his vehicle is a “dual fuel” engine which also takes a more eco-friendly fuel.

      Opposition leader Tony Abbott is no better. The Sydney-based MP drives a 4-litre Ford Territory, which also rates 5.5 on the “vehicle green guide” and emits 232 grams of carbon per kilometre driven.

      Only the Greens have opted for the hybrid vehicles with the party’s leader Senator Bob Brown and his deputy Christine Milne both driving the Toyota Prius.


      http://www.news.com.au/national/labor-ministers-prefer-horsepower-over-hybrids/story-e6frfkvr-1226057878607?referrer=email&source=eDM_newspulse&emcmp=Newspulse&emchn=Newsletter&emlist=Member

    • Anthony G says:

      12:47pm | 08/06/11

      Bikinis on top.Can you adjust your bikini .It has obviously slid and is covering your eyes. It has also affected your brain.

    • eddie says:

      12:58pm | 08/06/11

      Your comment: Once again the “deniers” are out in force on this site.
      The way I see it is that every major scientific organisation that is not directly funded by fossil fuel companies is in agreeance - man made pollution, including CO2 is changing our environment, atmosphere and thus our climate. So you either accept what organisations like the CSIRO, Geographic Society of London and a very long list of reputable scientific organisations are telling us, or you believe that there is a massive global conspiracy backed by almost every western government and scientific organisation to make us give up what we love.
      I know I believe what the CSIRO tells me over what the likes of Lying “Lord” Monkton say.

    • RyaN says:

      01:49pm | 08/06/11

      @eddie: and not one of those GOVERNMENT funded organisations can prove a definitive human marker in global warming, not one!
      So other than spouting on to relieve more fearful punters of their hard earned cash what else have they to add, certainly not direct evidence.

    • iansand says:

      02:46pm | 08/06/11

      Here you go, RyaN http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09762.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20110217

      “Here we present a multi-step, physically based ‘probabilistic event attribution’ framework showing that it is very likely that global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions substantially increased the risk of flood occurrence in England and Wales in autumn 2000.”

      Although I doubt that it wkill make any difference to you.

    • Lukew says:

      03:05pm | 08/06/11

      Eddie, the scientific research organisations have to get money from somewhere and for those who aren’t funded by the nasty fossil fuel companies (who provide the power we all use) where better to get it than a governent funded climate gravy train. 

      Never mind that not one prediction to date has been accurate, never mind that the climate has always varied and never mind that all the experts are still guessing.

      So in the spirit of your argument, they have a much stronger bias to make claims and manipulate statistics to keep that dough rolling in.  I mean, what would they all do if it came out that the sky was not falling after all?

      I think most would be in favour of cleaner energy strategies that were more cost effective, but a more reasoned and substantiated course of action would be a better way to get there.

    • RyaN says:

      04:43pm | 08/06/11

      @iansand: while interesting to see the RESULTS of warming based on computer models and ‘probabilistic event attribution’ (similar to the BS we got about Australia never having proper rainfall again and the dams and rivers being empty forever, probably!) this is not direct evidence of a human marker in climate change. Come back to me when the articles stop saying “very likely” and say words like, “evidence” and “absolutely undeniably and verifiably DID cause said event”.

    • iansand says:

      06:13pm | 08/06/11

      Gosh RyaN - In scientific terms “very likely” is more certain than you would be about deciding not to throw yourself in front of a bus.  If you do not think there is evidence that anthropogenic climate change is happening you can only have wilfully closed your mind.

      If you want that sort of certainty I suggest you demonstrate your true scepticism and start asking the creators of those blogs you read to provide the same level of certainty.  At the moment your scepticism only applies to one side of the argument.  That does not make you a sceptic - it marks you as a credulous fool.

    • RyaN says:

      03:08pm | 09/06/11

      @iansand: ahh the low-class name calling, unsurprising from the lowest of the low filth, a lawyer.
      “If you want that sort of certainty I suggest you demonstrate your true scepticism and start asking the creators of those blogs you read to provide the same level of certainty.  “
      Clearly the skepticism is not required there, they aren’t the ones trying to convince me of some sky fairy are they?
      The default is it doesn’t exist, now prove it does, this isn’t a wishy washy legal argument mate, this is science and science is black and white, its either true or false it isn’t some “likely” grey area in between. It either exists or it doesn’t, there is no “believe” there is only “evidence”.
      To claim statements like “very likely” as scientific is like saying I have some snake oil that will “very likely” cure you of all your ailments, here its only 20 bucks.

    • Harquebus says:

      01:30pm | 08/06/11

      Let me know when they find that renewable energy.

    • iansand says:

      03:11pm | 08/06/11

      There is this nearby nuclear fusion reactor that is pumping energy at the Earth in downright profligate quantities.  We expect it to continue to do this for a few billion more years - long enough that it is likely to outlast our species.  The reactor is commonly called “The Sun”.  Sure - it’s not renewable but it will still be going long after you are dead.

    • iansand says:

      09:09pm | 08/06/11

      Absolutely.  Plant lots and lots and lots of trees.  Under an ETS the people who plant trees can sell the carbon credits into a carbon trading system and make a buck out of a carbon mitigation scheme.  I love markets.

    • Obob says:

      03:03pm | 08/06/11

      88% Say NO To Climate Hysteria
      June 8 2011
      Janet Albrechtsen has the numbers that say no to the weekend’s Say Yes campaign:

      As at January this year, 88 per cent of people said no thanks to paying less than $2 to offset carbon from their Jetstar flight. When buying a ticket on a Qantas plane, only 8 per cent of online flyers consciously ticked the “yes, offset flights” button to pay $1.82. By May this year, that figure had dropped to 7 per cent.

      To make things clear for the political class, most people are saying no to spending less than $2 to apparently help the environment when they fly….

      Irving Kristol ...  once remarked that bad politics is like bad poetry, which as Oscar Wilde said, doesn’t get any better just because it springs from genuine feeling. In 1972 Kristol wrote: “It seems to me that the politics of liberal reform, in recent years, shows many of the same characteristics as amateur poetry. It has been more concerned with the kind of symbolic action that gratifies the passions of the reformer rather than with the efficacy of the reforms themselves.”…

      More than 40 years later, Kristol could have been describing the protest marches last weekend ...

      http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/mind-the-gap-on-climate/story-e6frgd0x-1226071255005

    • iansand says:

      03:13pm | 08/06/11

      This is why we need an element of compulsion.  Of course the doomsayers will claim that the offset price of less than $2 will send the average family into penury.

    • RyaN says:

      04:48pm | 08/06/11

      @iansand: I thought all the doomsayers were saying we are all going to die in a fiery ball of goo if we don’t go it alone and implement a carbon tax?

      Won’t someone think of the children, the Chinese, Americans, Japanese, India etc.. etc… etc.. won’t so we need to make our children and our country into a third world cesspool.

    • iansand says:

      06:20pm | 08/06/11

      RyaN - You will have to stop listening to the voices in your head.  No one else can hear them, you know.

    • loulou says:

      06:42pm | 08/06/11

      @iansand   I’m hearing the voices of the warmists, now uncomfortable with the tag “alarmist”, unhappy to be labelled quivering, trembling handwringers.
      Up goes the cry…...  “you sceptics are the doomsayers”.  Well, no -  it’s YOUR FEAR.

      No fear going on in the sceptics’ camp.

    • iansand says:

      09:13pm | 08/06/11

      loulou - therapy may cure that.  If not, there are medications that will help.

    • James III says:

      03:04pm | 08/06/11

      Clinton, Bloomberg and Al Gore stand to make millions from trading carbon credits though Wall Street companies that they own.

      It is a scam.

    • ausspud says:

      03:27pm | 08/06/11

      for something that is meant to be settled they are sure making alot of mistakes to keep having updates.
      and nothing shits me more than when the greens point to coal powered station and say ‘LOOK AT ALL THE CARBON POLLUTION’.when carbon isnt a pollutant and its invisible.

    • philbe2 says:

      04:54pm | 08/06/11

      Carbon is not invisible. Carbon dioxide is an invisible gas.

      The definition of “pollution” from Encyclopedia Brittanica is:
      “the addition of any substance (solid, liquid, or gas) or any form of energy (such as heat, sound, or radioactivity) to the environment at a rate faster than it can be dispersed, diluted, decomposed, recycled, or stored in some harmless form.”

      Carbon dioxide is a pollutant

    • John Smythe says:

      05:32pm | 08/06/11

      ....so plant more trees maybe?

    • Outraged says:

      03:51pm | 08/06/11

      So…we are now meant to believe Clinton about Climate Change, when he was a man who lied under oath about his affairs? AND a man who was charged with rape?

      Why can’t the Alarmists ever get some actual Scientists on these “committees”? It is only ever politicians talking about Climate Change…

    • Anthony G says:

      05:04pm | 08/06/11

      So the worlds in danger hey. Don’t worry Superman will save us, if not you know we can always depend on Batman or Prince Planet. So calm down everybody it’s ok. Nicks old man is still kicking and he smoked 5 packets of camel a day for as long 60 odd years. So a little pollution somewhere up in the atmosphere is not going to make any difference to ones life. Know one puts a gun to your head and tells you to live next to Hazelwood or any other power stations. Cleaner energy will come in due course we don’t have to make people feel bad about using an essential service when there is no alternative anyway.

    • gigeda says:

      10:15pm | 08/06/11

      its a real bummer for those who are desperate to still claim against the climate change stuff. the majority is slowly leaning toward taking responsibility and doing something about it, whilst a lot of punchers like to pretend we ‘still don’t really know anything for sure (the bloody case with anything we presume to understand). change is inevitable, the only true constant that spans the entire universe. beliefs and practices are part of that universe folks.

    • TheRaptured says:

      09:13am | 10/06/11

      Enter the EU as a entity into the UN security council and end England and France as sovereign nations.
      Framework for world Currency (BANCOR), based on Carbon taxing rich countries.
      They are deciding on the next IMF chief. Probably from Mexico.
      Confirmed, Iran has detonated a nuclear device.
      Censorship of the Internet.
      How to further economically decline the US economy.
      Drive up Oil cost by creating a major war in the Middle East to justify the wars in that region except Israel.

    • Kayleen says:

      02:27pm | 14/06/11

      I’m out of league here. Too much brain power on dsipaly!

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter