I personally think Global warming is a hoax.

Like cmon there was a Ice Age Millions of years ago.

I have heard things that put Global warming out on the street.

Sam Morgan (Trademe Founder) Invested in to a Global warming Study, and found that the earth heating up is the planets "Mood swings".
And as well as these ETS, Load of shit. Whos getting the money? Or for that fact how the fuck can money save the fucking earth?
They Should go with the idea of launching mirrors up into space the reflect some of the sun, see how that works out for them

There is general consensus among the scientific community that human activity is at least partially responsible for climate change. However, assuming we don't know for sure, isn't it better to take action now? If we are to blame, our action will abate climate change. If it is just natural fluctuations, we're not really losing anything.

The ETS requires producers to pay for the cost of the pollutants they produce. Through this, it is economically worthwhile to utilise more environmentally friendly methods of production etc. Without this, producers are effectively encouraged to use cheaper, more environmetally damaging methods. The money paid goes to offset the damage done, by planting trees or whatever.

This is where you are dead wrong. No one is seriously going to claim that shutting whole industries down, and all the encroachments on freedom and privacy necessary to police such "action", won't affect peoples lives. If we were certain that it would be the difference between happily ever after and the day after tomorrow, sure it would be worth it. If you want to do that "just in case it might do something" without knowing much, different story.

IMO in the current intellectual climate, there is NO credible evidence either way. Both camps are highly politicized, are self-interested and practice deception. As an atheist, i see it as up to the people who benefit personally from "action", to prove their case. And selectively releasing information always casts doubt. Any doubt can suggest they are bluffing. It's more poker than probability.

BTW "their case" has to be that the effect of "action" on the climate will likely create a net benefit in wellbeing greater than the net costs to wellbeing of all other consequences of the "action". Which is a big ask.

WWIII. Nuclear Winter. Global Cooling. Y2K. SARS. Bird Flu.

save world for our ancestors ............

Yes we are losing something... billions and billions of dollars, pushing ourselves even faster into 3rd world status. Do you really want to risk that?

You can't just say "assuming we don't know for sure, isn't it better to take action now?"

I've heard grass could damage the environment... some people regard certain types of grass as a weed!

Now of course we are not quite sure which are causing damage, or even if damage is really being done but isn't it better to take action now?

From now on I declare that NZ shall be grass-free!

I understand some people will moan and complain about that, as apparently they think grass is needed for their business?!

So for them I've came up with the GTS (Grass Trading Scheme), it is all very complex involving grass credits and research funding for grass substitutes but a rough rule of thumb is you can expect to pay a yearly tax of NZ$1 per blade of grass.

Thanks folks, and think of the good for the planet Earth!

It is only "damage" and "pollutants" if you fully buy in to the idea of global warming in the first place...

DISCLAIMER: IANACS (a climate scientist)

I think there is a trade-off here. On the one hand, obviously no-one wants New Zealand to become a third-world country (not that that's technically possible given the original definitions of first-, second-, and third-world, but I digress); on the other hand, I think that over the long-term decreasing our rate of pollution and increasing efficiency and sustainability is a laudable goal.

Also, pollutants are pollutants irrespective of whether AGW (Artificial Global Warming) theories are true. As I understand it, recent (300 years or so) deforestation of large areas of the planet, combined with a dramatic increase in CO2 emissions by industries and the ever-increasing human population is sure to disrupt the balance between O2 and CO2 in our atmosphere. It's not the end of the world, but remember that humans can't breathe CO2

"We don't need alternative energy sources. Global Warming is a myth perpetrated by scientists, therefore peak oil is not a problem."