and the right wing Australian angle...

on the clean energy pact here, Martin Ferguson here (quoted below),

Australia's relatively high energy intensity has to be considered in the context of the country's size and its relatively low population density, its climate, its heavy reliance on coal for power generation, and the presence of energy-intensive industries such as aluminium which form the backbone of the nation's wealth-generation capacity.

This is a just-so explanation of per capita emmissions. If you cap carbon emmissions and this is reflected in the price of say, aluminium then countries that don't generate carbon to make aluminium will take up the slack i.e. hydro-power rich countries such as Norway, Brazil and NZ. That's the whole point of the excercise you daft git.
Also:

It is extraordinary that the Greens could place the economic security and jobs of their constituents at risk and at the same time advocate a worse greenhouse outcome by displacing Australian industry to countries with lower standards.

Funny thing about change, it's all swings and roundabouts. Why should i expect a politician to know what jobs will exist to enhance Aussie's economy in 20 years, it could just as easily be the solar energy industry. This lack of imagination screams industry subsidies and crocodile tears of change. Nobody really gives a crap if America's car industry is destroyed by Toyota but the subsidies that they, the steel and the agricultural sectors get are a crime against humanity. Australia should not pander to special interests and go down that path.
John Howard defending the status quo here.
Arrggh, i'm sick of this talk-fest...