Another article said that the current spate of cold weather could in fact be caused by warmer temperatures overall, which are changing weather patterns such as the strong winds which held cold air over the poles. This was an interesting coincidence as I watched a doco about how there was a massive drought 4000 years ago, linked to changes in ocean currents reponsible for carrying warm air around the globe. This drought lasted 100 years or more, and was responsible for the decline of the pyramid age of the Egyptians.

Interesting to think that this can happen even with minimal human intervention. I think which ever way you look at it, there is big change on the horizon. I'm not too into doom and gloom but we are going to have to change our expectations about quality of life at some point in the next few generations if we want to sustain billions of people.

The comment from Gillard that the climate change deniers seem to be taking over the liberal party has the ring of truth about it. What are they thinking? I can only imagine the thought process as going like this: "Hmmm, lots of people are saying climate change isn't happening. They must be right" . This overlooks the obvious fact that while a small percentage of the 20 odd million people in Australia is still a significant number of people, there are even more of us that realise that human action is likely responsible for climate change.

Here are the facts as I see them:

• Climate change is likely to occur over the next century, with huge ecological and financial impact
• This is due to human activity
• The majority of all voters, and the great majority of some segments of voters, are in favour of doing something about it
• The ETS proposed by the Rudd government is an attempt to do something.

Here's the thing- I'm not at all sure that the ETS will be an effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I would rather see more focus on things like a massive push towards renewable energy and carbon storage as biochar (imagine if we had spent all of that stimulus money on renewables). But at least we are trying something. If it doesn't work, we can continue to adjust and change the details of the ETS over time. I see this as a starting framework that is being put in place while pleasing all of the interest groups. Once it's locked in, we can build on that foundation. The position of the Libs seems to be: 'let's do nothing'. They could actually achieve something worthwhile here by proposing a credible alternative or worthwhile amendments. It's sad to see instead that they are tearing themselves apart and probably removing any credible voice on alternatives to government policy development for the next 4-8 years.

To some extent, I think the answer is to adapt our current lifestyle rather than giving things up. It is going to be too difficult in the short term to convince the masses that drastic change is needed but maybe by applying some intelligent design, we can reduce the way our lifestyles affect the planet. In this report on lifestyle changes, Indian scientist Rajendra Pachauri says that "Studies have shown that producing one kilo (2.2 pounds) of meat causes the emissions equivalent of 36.4 kilos of carbon dioxide." He goes on to say that "...raising and transporting that slab of beef, lamb or pork requires the same amount of energy as lighting a 100-watt bulb for nearly three weeks". Imagine if everyone cut their red meat intake in half - this would make a huge difference!

There's lots of other choices you can make around the home as well, even if you have some pretty energy intensive luxuries. Swimming pools use a lot of water to fill and maintain, not to mention the chemicals used. Salt water pools are one way to reduce the chemical use, and retractable swimming pool covers are another great idea to cut down on evaporation and thereby minimise water use.

This is just the tip of the iceberg really! For every facet of your life, I bet there is a way to minimise your environmental footprint. Any other bloggers out there who want to share ideas of their own?