I agree.

I think Cameron is probably genuine in his views on climate change but his backbenchers wont vote throught the measures needed to make a real difference on climate change.

Remember,  not everybody on the left is convinced of the climate change argument either

Interestingly - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6333201.stm

I'm afraid you typify how the left loses it on this important issue.

When you say "clear national leadership from those who wield the carrots and the sticks" what you mean is imposing unpopular - and very likely meaningless, trite, posturing - policies on an electorate from whom you have no mandate, and won't get one either if this is the way you present your case.

When you claim "The market does not charge producers of carbon emissions the real environmental cost of the pollution they produce" this is odd, given that carbon trading is essentially the only game in town in respect of tackling carbon emissions - and embodies how a social market does actually force change.

And are you seriously arguing that all carbon emitters should be charged the real cost of their emissions - or do you just mean the ones the Green lobby loves to hate: airlines and the car industry, for example?  

Just asking because, as Newsnight's Justin Rowlatt revealed last week, applying your principles uniformly would pretty much wipe out the competitiveness of organic farming; also I can't help but note that air travel emissions (which seem to be an obsession beyond all rationale of the bandwagon environmentalists) are dwarfed by the damage methane emitted from cattle does.  

Your solution, presumably: slaughter all animals and impose veganism on the world? (Mind you, at least that solution would have an impact on climate change, unlike anything you proposed...)

"Technology will dig us out of this one. That's one hell of a gamble on which to base the future of mankind." Ah, the flat earth argument - let's go back to living in caves and the world will be saved. Brilliant!

You don't seem to get it: people will not surrender their quality of life to the extent required to have a substantial short-run impact on global warming; hence the policy debate is all about technology mitigating climate change coupled with reasonable compromise on a long-run constraint, shared globally, of environmentally-damaging economic growth.

But what exactly is it that you have against technology?:-

• Do you oppose clean coal technology that enables carbon to be reinjected back into the earth?  
  
• Do you oppose advances in architectural design that make homes more energy efficient?
  
• Or technology that makes renewable energy - which is nearly universally accepted as being insufficient in efficiency to be able to replace fossil fuels as a major power source - viable?  
  
• I bet you oppose nuclear power, despite zero emissions?
  
• Or biofuels making cars less reliant on petrol?  

In fact, from the reporting of the UN report last week (which, in case anyone got misled by the reporting of it isn't actually published for a month) one of the working groups has come up with several exciting and innovative examples of how technology might not just mitigate but begin to reverse climate change.

Seriously - outbursts like "technology is evil" are what makes the Green movement unfit to be heard.

"Asking me to fly less is an outrageous restriction on my personal freedom." Well, you state that apparently to take issue with it but as I presume you do actually know, air emissions are an absurdly miniscule contributor to climate change - why don't you obsess about the genuinely big problems instead of wittering on about what remains, essentially, an irrelevance?

The underlying flaw in your de rigeur diatribe is that we should tax, tax and tax again our way out of global warming, despite having no idea how much tax you're actually talking about, no credible model that demonstrates that such taxation will work and no appreciation of the catastrophic damage that will do - in other words a typical left-wing knee-jerk reaction to a problem you clearly don't understand.

You live in a democracy - it means you need to carry people with you and not just charge ahead with breathtaking arrogance imposing your own unpopular and unworkable, back-of-the-envelope 'solutions' on everyone else. We need to carry the public with us by debating the issues honestly and openly; rather than telling everyone what the government's got to force us all to do, based on a blinkered ideological misrepresentation of the science of climate change.

And please, can we try to elevate this debate a little above the level of "my party's better than your party".  It's pretty pathetic.