My understanding of kyoto and such schemes is that it does exactly that - essentially rewards (financially) those companies or industries which become greener by enabling to "sell off" or trade their excess quota of carbon emissions. My understanding of how it works is that every country and company within it has a certain quota for carbon emissions. Companies who use more than their quota are forced to "buy" excess on a market, while companies who use less can sell their excess - thus providing massive financial incentive for companies to become greener. Thus it's not only a system which penalises less "green" companies but rewards those that become moreso.

Hehe yes I had a large suspician that comment would raise eyebrows, and the rest... not sure why I said it... I won't attempt at all to say that what I'm saying is gospel, as I am only really read up on one side of the argument (working for an environmental organisation, and all) it's just that it seems most of the scientists who are saying it's a natural phenomenon have a reason for saying so and it is not purely scientific - for example, links with oil companies, or whatever - as I said, please don't attack me for saying that and by all means if you have evidence to the contrary I would like to be proven wrong, it just seems that those who say it is naturally occurring have a motive for it. I know I keep quoting Gore, but I think it's quite logical in that Denton interview where he says, to the same effect, that it's just obnoxious of us as a species to think we can pour so many tonnes of carbon emmissions into the atmosphere and say it does nothing - everything we have done in the past has affected the environment, only now it's on a much larger scale (population many times what it was in the early 20th century, industry in developing countries booming, more and more cars on the road, more and more polluting, etc).

But what sort of alternative fuels are they investing in? Again, I'm no expert but from what I've heard fossil fuel companies are investing hundreds of millions of dollars into the research of 'clean' coal - something which as yet has yielded no conclusive results - yet could be investing the same amount of money into much more viable options already fully developed (ie wind, solar, etc) which could be implemented tomorrow - rather than in decades time.

The ACF got together with some big names in Australian industry - BP, Origin Energy (Aust's biggest gas and electricity provider), Visy Industries (one of Aust's largest manufacturing companies), along with around 8 others - and in response to PM Howard's claims that "agreements like the Kyoto Protocol will force industry to cut jobs and send them overseas to places like China, Indonesia and China", using CSIRO (the Australian Government's major research body) climate mapping, did the math and worked out that not only would the Kyoto Protocol not cost us jobs, it would create jobs and be a boost for the economy. Keep in mind it was not greenies saying this but companies that make billions a year out of greenhouse gas emissions - though admirably more and more environmentally minded ones.

Australia used to have something called the White Australia Policy - not sure if you've heard of it but up until the 1960's and 70's immigration of all non-white races was severely restricted and in the earlier years non-existent. One of the big political justifications for it in the latter, more politically correct years (ie, where racial superiority claims were less likely to be heard) was that mass immigration (ie, Asian immigration) would cost Aussie battler's jobs and force them out onto the street, costing the economy millions of dollars, blah blah blah, blah blah blah, to a point where it will never recover. 40 years on and after Australia's population has virtually doubled in size, mainly due to immigration, the economy has (correct me if I'm wrong) never been better; we consistentely see budget surpluses, recently had tax-cuts, and in general enjoy a pretty widespread prosperity. On the surface it seems like a pretty logical argument the anti-immigrationists were pushing - hard workers more likely to put up with worse conditions for less money would undoubtedly appeal strongly to employees and thus local jobs would be in jeopardy - the thing they failed to realise obviously is that with more people comes greater need, greater need for everything; food, housing, education, etc etc, which obviously stimulates the economy and creates a need for more jobs. I think some parallels can be drawn with the current situtation: for example, if the government imposed restrictions on coal production, or whatever, of course the coal industry will suffer in the short-term, but the demand for power still remains the same, so the green, "alternative" industry will boom, and thus snowball, with the need arising for more jobs in that industry.

A very convoluted way of saying that less supply but same demand means supply from a different source is necessary. You say it'll come from China or India, I say it will come from green technology, which will stimulate the economy but in a different way.

That was long.