If the Government knew what it was doing and really wanted to do something positive then it would move to get rid of some of the emissions. How?

Firstly it could fast-track geothermal electricity generation and outlaw the use of coal fired generation.

Secondly it could reintroduce rail for a lot of bulk transport, thus further reducing carbon emissions and, heaven forbid, it would cut the road toll and reduce the massive costs of road maintenance and construction.

It all seems just too logical to get off the ground.

How about making it fairer and helping farmers get some return from trees and soil carbon, make the system work so the money stays in Australia.

How the scheme is proposed at the moment we will be sending money offshore through offshore traders and foriegn owned banks (you forgot to mention lawyers) to foreign-owned projects.

At least with on-farm storage the money goes to the landholders. Why not try and make it work for landholders?

* Establish Renewables Aust - $365million.

* Clean Energy Initiative - $4.5 billion.

* Climate Change Action Fund - $2.75 billion.

* Climate Change Regulatory Authority - $82 million.

* Climate Change Adaption Program - $126 million.

* Carbon Capture & Storage - $2 billion etc etc etc Susan says Barnaby's the only politician... well, Susan there's the Climate Sceptics Party www.climatesceptics.com.au

If Barnaby wanted to have a real crack, he would look at the secret deals done between major consultancy firms and the DCC and ex AGO. Big consultancies that appear either only go to tender to a select number of consultants or to completely closed tenders that no one even hears about.

The audit costs can be cheap but I do not expect that will be so, as the major consultancies and big carbon poluters are the only ones with access to the DCC consultations. No voice for the land holder.

Where is the NFF or AFI in these negotiations? The regulations and legislation have been framed to suit the big boys so they can screw the farmer, because there is no landholder representation.

They will make you audit your plantings using one of their annointed auditors, who, as they have the DCC ticket, will charge what they like, then the DCC will tell you how much carbon you have anyway, so in effect you will be auiditing for them.

It will be just like the MIS schemes all over again. Do not sell your carbon, farmers.

1). How many kilograms of pasture/fodder does each cow eat in order to produce the 1470 kg carbon-equvalent of methane?

2). How many kilograms of carbon taken out of the atmosphere by the growing of that pasture/fodder?

3). What is the carbon content of pature or fodder?

The answers will give you some indication of the carbon balance sheet for grazing cattle.

Miners and aluminium producers made billions in the past five years, and seem to have expected world consumption of everything to be a one-way street. It never is, and now they are laying off workers to protect revenues.

Barneby also rails against the ordinary mechanisms of capitalism, like brokers who make a market in trading things like permits and credits. It's a bit like slamming the banks for making profits - we all hate them for doing it, but they are an integral part of small business, we can't really do without them.

Markets are the best way to trade such things - it's a matter of designing the permits and credits properly so they can be traded.

Those who make the market liquid aren't charities, he must realise.

The three were church ladies who had come to help feed the crowd and they had to sit around the auction ring while the cattle paraded through in a sham auction.

Now these stud cows are worth $20/kg as prime steak. If the politicians think they can put another tax on the farmer to help us out of the deepening global financial crisis they had better think again. Keep the NO's going Barnaby. The silent majority are on your side.