Anyone who has the answers does not know

what the plot is.
My letter on the climate change 'debate' was printed in the 'Tiser yesterday. Yesterday I was also bailed up in the supermarket during the regular Thursday shopping session. I was told, in no uncertain terms, that I did not understand the climate change debate. True. I do not. I doubt however it is for the same reasons as the rabid Labor supporter was trying to tell me about. He believes that Mr Rudd has the answers and that Mr Rudd's government can, single handedly, save the world. I wish it was true.
The reality is really very different. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme - voted down in the Senate yesterday - will not make one molecule of difference now. It would not have made many molecules of difference, if any, anyway. We should be back to square one but political arrogance means that the bills will be put forward again. To back down now would mean losing face. It would mean acknowledging that there are no easy answers. It would mean acknowledging that the whole scheme was a con job from the start, a means of getting elected and staying in power while quietly relieving unsuspecting tax payers of billions. It does not matter if we ruin the economy, send our carbon dioxide emissions 'off-shore' and make the presumed problems far worse - just so long as Mr Rudd stays in power and eventually gets Australia a seat on the UN Security Council and , eventually, the job of Secretary-General. The only reason he does not aim for President of the United States is because, not having been born in the United States, he is ineligible for the position. As I write he is probably trying to work out how the rules could be changed in his favour - declare his little bit of Queensland a part of the United States perhaps?
Mind you, the Opposition is no better - except that they seem to be a little more realistic about the climate change debate.
I suggest that we simply do not know but the following can do no harm. It may even do some good. We could begin by planting some trees. I think I have suggested this before. I suspect we need to plant a lot of trees. It is a simple idea. It should not be difficult to do. We could show the way. One tree for each Australian each year? That is more than 20 million trees a year. It is not a lot in world terms but I suspect that environmental impact would be about the same as the entire CPRS just voted down. It would not solve the problems we are told exist but it would be a start.
The problem is that this is an environmental solution, not a political one. It does not look after big business and that, in turn, means it does not look after government and they are supposed to look after us - so that we will re-elect them.