Global warming.

The long awaited Ross Garnaut report warns that unless we immediately adopt a carbon reduction strategy we face catastrophe. We will lose the Great Barrier Reef, our prime food source from the Murray/Darling river system - and rising temperatures will increase the death rate from heat strokes.

What this report doesn't say is probably as important as what it does say. We are being asked to accept poverty because the cap and trade regimen that will reduce carbon output will increase petrol, electricity, gas and food prices to such a degree that our standard of living for the average person will drop to near third world level.

We can forget " the lucky country " epithet - but at least we should all have a good feeling that our sacrifice is saving the world.

Unfortunately, that is not so. Europe is considering similar methods and America is thinking about it - but there are no plans in rapidly developing China and India to curtail their economies or reduce carbon output. Whatever reduction Australia achieves will be negated by further industrialization in the developing world.

Australia would be wise to think long and hard before it jumps from the frying pan into the fire - and there are ways that we can reduce our carbon footprint without adopting all the draconian measures called for in the Garnaut report.

One of the biggest sources of carbon emissions is power generated by burning coal. We can reduce this to near zero by biting the bullet and embracing nuclear power stations.

We have opposed nuclear power in the past, but now the balance between cap and trade and it's resultant impact on our standard of living and embracing technology that has long been adopted by other countries is a different equation. France derives over seventy percent of it's electricity from nuclear power stations and has done so for many decades. It is time to debate this option without the hysteria from the anti-nuclear brigade of morons.

Another major source of carbon is automobiles burning petrol. We have almost unlimited quantities of natural gas from our own wells. If the government made a conscious decision to declare transport gas powered the change could occur quickly.

Car manufacturers would be required to provide gas powered vehicles as the only new vehicles permitted in this country, and the government should provide a healthy subsidy to convert all cars under five years old. Natural attrition would take care of older vehicles - and gas powered cars emit less carbon that petrol powered vehicles.

Cap and trade will impoverish us without making much of a dent in world carbon emissions. We can and should do better by taking the hard decisions and changing what is there to be changed by simply dropping old shibboleths and taking a fresh approach.

If we make the logical decisions on power generation and cars the adoption of cap and trade to industry generally will not have a shattering impact because the two biggest sources of carbon have been neutered.

And if the developing world ignores the carbon threat we will have done our bit - without cutting our own throats in a Quixotic gesture !