Perhaps Australia knows what other countries know, including Canada and they don't want any part of it. I think for a start we really need to separate man-made CO2 emissions from the UNEP. There is no question we must have a post-kyoto agreement, but there are questions about UNEP's motives. For instance, Fox reports (I know, it's Fox) Document Reveals U.N.'s Goal of Becoming Rule-Maker in Global Environmental Talks. UNEP's 4 year strategy includes some rather unsavoury words regarding sovereignty issues. The link to the 4 year plan is in the story. But here is an example - "At the same time the paper warns that these groups need to be "harnessed to the UNEP mission without appearing to make an end-run around the member governments." How do you interpret that?

I looked up end-run and found a quote from Richard N. Gardner, who teaches Law at Columbia. "In short, the "house of world order" will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great "booming, buzzing confusion," to use William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault. Of course, for political as well as administrative reasons, some of these specialized arrangements should be brought into an appropriate relationship with the central institutions of the U.N. system, but the main thing is that the essential functions be performed." Richard N. Gardner "The Hard Road to World Order" Foreign Affaris 1974.

As I said I do believe we need to ask questions, get answers and stay cool, because something is not right here.

Cap and Trade schemes are ineffective, counterproductive, and environmentally damaging, while carbon offsets are an out and out fraud. If we absolutely have to use cap and trade, however, there are some changes we can make to ensure we can still get some benefit from it.

http://www.selfdestructivebastards.com/2009/12/cap-trade-and-offset.html