Taking into consideration all the sciences' rejection of any notion of absolutes we should not be surprised that these same sciences understand they cannot know anything with any certainty. Once absolutes are removed from any system be it a religious system or a Government system certainty of knowledge is not possible. This is the position science occupies by default. On the other hand the Bible with its notion of absolutes speaks about fire and brimstone as opposed to Global Warming. Once idea based upon absolutes where certainty of knowledge is possible and the other unworkable idea from the chance section of empiricism. So Kevin Rudd's position is clear and he supports his idea with a new push for a better education for all. An education system made up of these sciences and their chance ideas that are regarded as objective truth. So Kevin Rudd's position really goes against much of the flow of the Christian ethos. Education is important sure but understanding the final reality being communicated as objective reality is far more important. Better education for all is good to but only one based upon the biblical idea of absolutes and not the chance section of the sciences. Science cannot prove a thing despite what their observations and ours tell us. Once absolutes are gone man and meaning are gone to. Kyoto vs The Bible; Bible wins hands raised.

Is Kyoto the way to go or are we wasting precious time and money on flawed mechanisms that do little to slow climate change?

Here are some excerpts from article What to Do About Climate Change by Ruth Greenspan Bell in Foreign Affairs May/June 2006

“ emissions-trading regimes…by themselves actually do too little to cap pollution”

“Much of the discussion, meanwhile, has centered on how to refine the existing trading mechanisms rather than on the most difficult but most important issue: how to set and enforce caps on greenhouse gas emissions.”

“Evidence from China demonstrates that even plants equipped with superior pollution equipment (acquired under Joint Implementation) do not run those controls when doing so proves inconvenient.”

There are questions “whether these transactions could honestly be said to achieve the CDM objectives or India's pollution-reduction goals.”

“The first steps toward the effective enforcement of high environmental standards should be to…encourage developing countries to set goals they can meet, as a preliminary move toward developing a more rigorous regime.”

“Harnessing the magic of the market and enlisting technology may become significant tools in combating climate change, but they will not work on their own.”

“And like climate change itself, this sobering truth is best faced sooner rather than later (Ruth Greenspan Bell)”.

We will just have to wait and see. With so many of the worlds "top ten" polluters not part of the pact, will it be too little too late? If you actually read even the summary on wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol] and especially the "framework" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change#Annex_I_countries], you realise that we'll actually be signing up for a lot more.

Only a small number of the countries signing up actually have to do anything other then take money and of those who do have to do something we're in the lucky smaller group that get's to provide the money for other countries.

Either the situation is as bad as the scientists are saying and we're all in this together or not. Either way it doesn't seem a very fair protocol. If it gets signed the way it is I bet it doesn't get fixed - most of the signituries stand to make an awfull lot of money from it.

Look for example how one South American country (Brazil?) is now selling carbon credits in the form of it not tearing down forest. It's asking people to pay so it does not destroy the planet. So blackmail is OK when it's done through the UN?
Just a thought.