Greenhouse stuff

Paul Sheehan has a column in the SMH today about Kevin Rudd's emissions trading scheme which about right.

I would add this, being my thoughts since I wrote my initial rambling post:

* regardless of the issue of the variable target, which greatly offends many for being too soft, and about which I am still undecided, the more fundamental problem is the design of the scheme itself. If the scheme is badly flawed, the targets it aims for are not that relevant anyway;

* I remain sceptical of all ETS's, for the reasons which have been given a lot of publicity in the international press lately (see my various posts on this). However, it would seem the only hope of international sentiment moving away from using ETS as the concept would be if Obama's advisers were strongly against it, and the US started to push for carbon tax instead. Who knows if that will happen?;

* Kevin Rudd seems to have come up with the worst of all possible worlds: a target idea which keeps no one happy (well, except for some of the polluters); an ETS; and an ETS that seems to repeat the mistakes already identified in existing schemes.

* Few are saying it, but I think it confirms Malcolm Turnbull's earlier criticism about Rudd's early start up date for an ETS: it is better to get it right and have a scheme that starts a year later, than to rush into one which is fatally flawed.

In other greenhouse commentary: Andrew Bolt cited David Evans again on Saturday about the alleged absence of a "hot spot" in the atmosphere being strong evidence against greenhouse gases as the cause of global warming.

Club Troppo's Nicholas Gruen knows Evans personally, and managed to get him to agree to taking part in a debate in comments to a Troppo post.

It worked very well, and I have to say (not to my surprise) Dr Evans does not look like the winner, not by a long shot. (The comment by "Rex Ringshot" seemed particularly valuable, and showed that non-scientists can write helpful explanation.)

Did Andrew Bolt follow the argument, I wonder?