Hi cockerel,

Well put, but on many points I will agree to disagree. I for one believe the impact of CO2 damage has been more than proven and that to continue unabated simply because we are all not convinced is naive. I also believe that trusting corporations to 'do it themselves' is dangerously naive.

The IPCC concluded solidly that human activity was responsible for more of the temperature increases from 1950 onwards, "these basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries." I have a couple of trusted friends involved in environmental sciences and they are convinced by the scientific data they have been presented with and would certainly be considered by your criteria as 'fanatics' pushing the government to make bold changes.

I also utterly and wholeheartedly reject the concept that the marketplace will police itself. I would love to know the basis for that observation as the marketplace has been proven time and time again to be a place where greed forces logic into the backseat. Everything from safety precautions, fair wages to limitations of environmental damage have been won from outside sources of pressures and government measures not from the industries themselves. I have worked in a number of corporations and have yet to meet with an industry leader with any care in the world outside of maximizing profits and bringing value to shareholders (why would they, that's where their bonuses are judged). Our government (read 'we the people') need to independently discuss what we are willing to live with in our environment and then provide these limitations onto industry leaders. They have many times in the past poisoned rivers, dumped chemicals and destroyed landscapes quite knowingly. When working for a pulp and paper mill in the early 90's I remember serious chemical spills knowingly being hosed into the drainage system untreated... only when the government changed policy and hired an extra 100 or so 'environmental police' and introduced new fines for the corporation AND the individual following orders did this practice stop dead.

If there were no guidelines internationally- trust me no one in Dubai would give a flying fig about emissions control (1 million people and a 16 lane highway dissecting the city- many of the people on the road in supped-up sports cars and Hummers as petrol is 10 buck a fill up).

On the other hand- have a read about Abu Dhabi and MASDAR: their attempt to move firmly into the driving seat as the 'future energy leader as well as the current one'. They know the true state of oil as they are the holders of the third highest reserves and yet they see big money and a need to move firmly into 'new energy' sources and carbon neutrality. Abu Dhabi is firmly convinced of the CO2 damage being done and it's in their current interest to dispel those concerns... why aren't they? Why are they embracing it? They have obviously done their own research and conclude with the other panels world wide.

I do agree that where businesses fail they should simply fail. I also agree that cap and trade is fundamentally flawed and do not support that as the best way forward.

I believe firmly that industrialized and emerging markets must both make firm commitments to reduce their CO2 contributions regardless of the frankly silly arguments regarding 'the cost to the economy'; I would like someone to prove that there is a real economic cost. As in any major change there is great opportunities and I for one have been placing many of my non-ECU funds into renewable resource companies and R&D as I believe the green economy will be a major driver going forward. Industrial nations should be pushing this agenda not resisting it as they are best placed to take advantage of the situation economically. I see serious, dangerous risks to our 'ecology' but not to our 'economy'. Perhaps expressing these views on a mining forum will not be well received, but I think a counterpoint argument is warranted as the issue is important.

Soul