A very balanced treatment of the subject from Murray.
Now, 30 per cent is even beyond the upper-end target of the Rudd Government. It is offering only 5 per cent now with the possibility of increases to 15 or 25 per cent depending on international action.
You do the maths on the effect of that tiny cut to our 1.5 per cent of global emissions.
Cutting atmospheric pollution is never a bad thing, especially if it doesn't entail an over-complicated system of trading permits that even on its own modelling causes huge fluctuations in the carbon price and would damage our international competitiveness if not matched by our trading partners and competitors. But trying to fool Australians that cuts to carbon emissions of 5 per cent - even 30 per cent - will have any real effect on global warming is just dishonest.
Australians are concerned about the implications of climate change. Cynical politicians, on both sides, do them no favours by merely trying to turn those fears to their electoral advantage.
Both sides of politics need to think hard about Lord Monckton's final words in his open letter to Mr Rudd. He argues that waiting and adapting will be more cost-effective than trying to change how the atmosphere works:
"It would be kinder to your working people to wait another decade and see whether global temperatures even begin to respond as the IPCC has predicted.
"What is the worst that can happen if you wait? Just 0.02C of global warming that would not otherwise have occurred. It's a no-brainer."