A point I consistently find myself happening across when reading/watching various news sources on climate change is, yes climate change may not be a solid science, but what is the net harm of reducing pollution and deforestation?

Surely preventing excess methane, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from being poured into our atmosphere is a noble cause? I think most people would agree that limiting industries ability to pollute in various ways is, overall, a good thing.

Sure, the various scientific reports that have filtered down to the public may be fraudulent. Sure, the data collected, analysed and summarized by the IPCC may be faulty or incomplete. Sure, all the anecdotal evidence of the increasing amounts of retreating glaciers, stronger hurricanes, stronger and longer droughts, etc, etc, may be proven incorrect. But what is the harm in taking preventive action against this possibility - slow economic growth? my, heaven forbid!

It is important to remember that over the 20th century mankind's net population increased exponentially, from 1.6 Billion to 6.7 Billion. Our ability to use the worlds resources has developed into a mad consumerist lust that has already washed over America and Europe and is now lapping against the shores of over 2 billion people (China and India). Nearly 7 billion people must be having SOME kind of impact on our small planet. (If not climate change, then at least the depletion of finite resources?)

Agian, switching to green technology and mannerism (mass recycling etc) may come with some economic burden. But New Zealanders, and most westerners, now live in the lap of luxury! I think we can skip the occasionally latte', PS3, or new cellphone in exchange for helping the planet.

Naturally though, any major collaborative work such as combating climate change will always have scandal associated with it. Thousands (if not millions) of people are working on this, so naturally some (if not many) will be attempting to serve their own interests. It is merely human nature surfacing through. This has of course manifested itself in the recent scandals mentioned in the first post.

On the news I heard (the opinion) that NZ's climate change pledge doesn't matter, because we 'only' contribute 0.8% of emissions. Thats a hell of a lot considering we only make up around 0.0005% of the world's population.

I get the feeling that Bruce feels the government is out to vacuum the pockets of the 'common man', perhaps. I think rattling on about a George Orwellian 1984 type future is getting a bit old nowadays. I think it is a little more appropriate to compare modern society to Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (a good read).

By the way, Solar Power is a good start, but its not a magical Deus Ex Machina that can solve the world's ecological problems.

Oh, and a few questions;

Since when is trying to limit smoking a 'silly law'?

What is so terrible about preserving (overall) ecological diversity?

So, you think Europe being stripped of it's (former) forest's is beneficial?

You appear to be quite protective of our primary industries, so don't you think it was worth protecting the apple industry agianst a potentially economically devestating moth?

As an end note, I support the type of semi-dystopian society's potentially envisioned under Helen's rule because, frankly, I lost faith in society's ability to do virtually anything right without government intervention a while ago now.
(e.g. NZ's drug problems, drinking problems, domestic violence problems, racial inequality problems etc, etc and etc ad infinitum.)

Oh, don't take any of this too seriously. I certainly can't say I have wisdom of years on my side in this department.