During the day foresters, scientists and enviro-kids of all shapes and sizes shall sit and listen to keynote speakers droning on about their favourite trees.

Where it really gets interesting however, is after hours, where we shall see the serious tree people enjoy some fantastic Argentinean cuisine and sort out these climate issues. What is for sure is that the wheeling and dealing done in Buenos Aires, along with the handshakes and laughs exchanged, shall actually do a lot more good for the environment than the stubborn loggerheads shall, at COP15.

Do I hear distant indignant cries? Come on then, prove me wrong, I dare you.  . . read more

Now imagine building another five power stations for every one that already exists in the United States. That is about the amount of electricity generation that the world is on track to add over the next 20 years.

And three-quarters of the new stations will use fossil fuels. These startling figures were released today by the International Energy Agency. The agency predicts that between a quarter and a third of the new capacity will be built in China, which generates over 40 per cent of its electricity from coal. This will lead to huge increases in carbon dioxide emissions.

The agency has previously said that the current recession has helped rein in emissions, but that effect will not last. The report predicts that 40 billion tonnes of CO2 will be emitted worldwide in 2030, around twice the figure for 1990.

That would put us on a path towards a future in which atmospheric carbon dioxide levels top 1000 parts per million and average global temperature rise by up to 6 °C. Many scientists think that that our goal should be a maximum rise of 2 °C and that 4 °C would cause severe flooding and drought.

The agency describes our current trajectory as almost certain to cause "irreparable" damage to the planet. We are not, of course, locked into this future. The agency's calculation come from a modelling exercise in which we continue on the path we are on now, rather than switch to low-carbon technologies like solar power.

Many governments have already committed to changes, albeit limited ones, so the most dire aspects of the agency's predictions will not come to pass. But they are a useful reminder of just how wrong things will go if we do not take action.

Originally published at New Scientist, click view for more information  . . read more

It's been referred to as a fad, a con, a scandal that has earned it the famous 'gate' suffix and infamously 'as the greatest moral and economic challenge of our time'- climate change, the issue we've loved to forget.

So why are numerous reports still appearing that show the earth's temperature to be unequivocally rising?

And why is it barely charting as an election issue in Australia?

And how has it fallen so precipitously from the public consciousness?

The answer to these questions- if they ever emerge- would show three facts about society today.

One is that humans are unable or unwilling to act to prevent problems that appear invisible today, the second is that there are forces in this world that would see its destruction- all the while holding the keys to its survival. 

The third fact of life today relates to an old English proverb that suggests that even when voices of reason pierce through the cracks of intransigence that turning away from the truth will always be easier; the old proverb reads that there are none so blind as those, that will not see. 

Who amongst us can pretend to be anything but willfully blind?

 . . read more

He gave us in An Inconvenient Truth a melee of graphs based on sound scientific data; the affect of which was amazing in bringing the issue of climate change to the homes and cinemas of the middle-classes. 

However in a worrying change of tone, Al Gore stated yesterday in a speech in Copenhagen that:

''Reason based analysis has thus far proved of limited value in motivating action''

Now this may be true but the alternative- to rely on emotion and fear- plays right into the hands of deniers who claim the climate change movement is one built on unlikely doomsday prophecies. 

The risk is also enormous when you consider what has happened to the climategate emails. Those much analysed documents seemed to show a similar reasoning by renowned scientists who were frustrated by inaction so they used their credibility, and reputations to fuzz the numbers. 

Now it may have been a throw away comment, but I really hope that Al Gore- still the climate change movement's most prominent face- stays patient and prudent.  . . read more

I urge you to reconsider your position vis-a-vis the controversial proposal to create a Gas Hub at James Price point in the Kimberly, particularly in view of the recent incidents of serious off-shore disasters in the Timor Sea and the American Gulf coast.

I recently watched a snippet on YouTube by local elder and law man Joseph Roe, who is one of the many people opposed to this ill thought-out project that could well cause untold environmental damage to the area, and it brought tears to my eyes.

It seems to me, Mr Barnett, that the thinly veiled threat to compulsorily purchase the land (which I understand belongs to the local Aboriginal people under a "Land Rights" grant) smacks of hypocrisy!

I don't know whether either of you have a family home or estate, going back with several generations of history. If you did, try to imagine how you would feel if your Aboriginal gardener dug up some ancient Nungar bones, and was able to prove it was a sacred site, and was allowed to compulsorily purchase your home (probably for far less than it was worth) and demolish it - and your history into the bargain?

As for you, "Silent" Peter - do you remember a song you were proud to sing with the Oils called "Warakurna"?

Words used like "it's their land, let's give it back" would appear in retrospect to be so much hot air!

C'mon, both of you!

It's time to "Stand up! Stand up and be counted!".

The safety of this pristine environment, and its whale breeding ground has to be worth more than money....? 

Michael Stewart  . . read more

Without a single day of talks, the vast majority of pundits have already set the bar of expectations so low that it seems we should be popping the champagne if the most anodyne of political agreements is reached.

Not to fall into the trap of optimism, but shouldn't we be a little bit hopeful and a little bit proud of the victories this fight has already won?

For instance, there cannot be a single sane leader on this planet who can realistically ignore this issue.

Yes, so far most of the world's responses have bordered on the tokenistic, but the sheer awareness and the fear of backlash, is a sign that the movers and shakers are getting scared.

Not to exaggerate but there could also be a dangerous connotation to this wide-spread cynicism-that connotation being that the most modest of successes will cause surprise and a spark of hope amongst a grey and apathetic public.

Sort of takes the heat off government leaders who thought they'd have to thrash it out in debates and eventually return to their countries exhausted, treaty in hand proclaiming that the problem was finally solved.

Instead, with the contour-less global media poised with their fingers quivering over keyboards (and the letters that spell 'failure'), an undue amount of column inches will be written for the promised funds for developing nations, as renewable technolgies are extolled and the great demon coal is exorcised. 

My point?

Well we really have to keep our collective critical thinking cap on, because this about to become a no-holds barred grudge match where everything will be too little, too late, too much, too weak etc.

Just don't be too pessimistic because fatalism never fixed anything.   . . read more

The climate change debate has slowed in recent days, but it will soon rear its ugly head once again. However this time rather than breaking into old arguments, there should be a more pragmatic approach. 

There has been a general mutual consensus reached about the implementation of REDD schemes in developing areas, however there has not been enough money or effort thrust in their direction. 

COP15 is about to rear its head, and when everyone arrives at that table they should come prepared with options to tackle climate change. These options should centre around sustainable development in rural communities and the eradication of forest reliant localities.

Lets paint this town Redd!

  . . read more

The American Neo-cons oppressing the world through bellbottoms and boot-cut.

A new group shall soon come forward. We are talking of the real hardcore fundamentalist eco-warrior, or eco-terrorist. The hippies, emerging from their solstice in hemp woven wigwams, smelling of bud and cloves, pick up a bag of fertilizer and blow up the head offices of Petrobras.

Not exactly.

These are savvy angry men and women who truly believe in radicalising the push to preserve our world. It is only natural that extreme situations shall breed extremists. They don’t like Levi's because of the way that certain threads appear to come from a rare cotton type picked only during the full moon on the rarest part of the Appalachian Trail.

They are already present, but their numbers shall grow in the ensuing years of increased environmental focus. The most serious group that is publically known is ELF, the Environmental Liberation Front, who refers to themselves as the Elves (really? I mean, you want to be taken seriously then you describe yourself as short, felt covered, pointy eared, mythical creatures?).

While we all have a good chuckle at the name, these guys are fucking serious. Their most recent claim was the burning of a Mexican excavator in Guadalajara, Mexico. It appears that dangerous times are ahead for the polluters of our world.

I suppose it begs the question, what can we do? We sit them down and tell them that burning people is no way to demonstrate against imperialism and ignorance. Though I must say, I don’t mind the idea of a few petrol companies going up in smoke (economically of course). As long as its non lethal, go for your life and maybe someone will get the message, that enough is enough, ignorance is no excuse and it is well past the time we should have started changing.  . . read more

Ignoring how unimaginative this is (seriously, why is everything a "gate?" Isn't there a drop of creative brainpower left in journalism?) 56 newspapers in 45 countries, and none from the USA, have been proactive enough to publish a joint editorial validating climate change and demanding action with their voices united.

So far so good.

But I want to ask a question nobody else is - "so what?"

Why the hell should it matter whether climate change occurs via human action or not? Its happening isn't it? Just because climate change might not be caused by people does not negate its existence. What are we going to do - sit back and say "I didn't do it" while glaciers still melt, extreme temperatures occur and water levels rise? We see it every day.

Our world is becoming uninhabitable, regardless of fault. In any case, on moral grounds or not, human beings have always changed their environment for their own convenience - whether it's turning a tree into a table or minerals into wheels. Why can't we do the same here? Change the climate to suit ourselves.

So let's stop talking about whom is to blame, and do what we're good at - improving our self-absorbed lives and working towards our future.  . . read more