Don't worry - within a decade the media will probably have stopped talking about it.
Last year, voters signalled they wanted something done about climate change.
It turns out that attitudinal change was the easy part.
The reality of seeking to cut greenhouse pollution is only now starting to sink in.
The federal government wants to introduce emissions trading, which will put a price on carbon to try and force people to live greener lives, in two years' time.
The scheme could pose a major challenge for Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and his colleagues.
Some households don't want any price rises, and some big industries are up in arms at having to pay what is effectively a carbon tax.
The issue is growing more complicated by the day as debate rages on trajectories, caps, gateways, free permits, timing and exemptions.
Put simply, the debate is about how fast Australia should try and cut its greenhouse emissions, and which sectors of the economy should have to bear the burden.
Given that 60 per cent of voters have little or no understanding of how emissions trading would work - according to a Nielsen poll published in Fairfax newspapers this week - the debate may be serving only to confuse the public.
The government is trying to explain and sell a complicated economic reform which will put some prices up - a task which could attract political pain.
But in a surprise twist, it's the opposition who have taken the early hits as the emissions trading debate gathers momentum.
The coalition has struggled to agree on, and put forward, a clear position.
A critical question is: should Australia forge ahead with a genuine emissions trading scheme if big polluting countries do not take action?
Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson has taken a sceptical view, consistently saying the focus should be on big emitters like China and India, and that Australia cutting its emissions will have little impact.
He thinks Australia should implement a toothless scheme if big emitters don't play their part.
"What you would do, if for example we haven't got the big emitters on board, what you do is the price of carbon is set so low and the (emissions) trajectory is so low as to be near meaningless," Dr Nelson told Sky News this week.
But some senior Liberals think Australia should press ahead with a genuine emissions trading scheme - even if the big emitters don't.
Most significantly, opposition treasury spokesman Malcolm Turnbull is less sceptical about the principle of emissions trading than Dr Nelson.
Turnbull, a former environment minister, recently told ABC Radio the coalition had a shared commitment with the government to deal with climate change.
The apparent climate split has exacerbated lingering leadership questions.
Polls consistently show Dr Nelson is not a popular opposition leader. This week, the suggestion Peter Costello could take his job was again in the media.
The Liberals' divisions on emissions trading have allowed the government to divert some of the heat on climate change their way.
The government is keeping track of how many different positions have been put forward by the opposition, and airs the results regularly.
"My appeal to Dr Nelson, Mr Turnbull and whoever else may be lining up to lead the Liberal party is climate change requires a responsible long-term strategy for the future, not just short-term opportunistic politics," Rudd has told reporters.
"At present in the Liberal Party, climate change has become an internal political debate over the Liberals party's leadership."
Rudd has come under criticism on emissions trading too.
Major industries, like aluminium and liquefied natural gas (LNG), warn they could lose new projects and jobs under emissions trading.
This is because companies who use plenty of electricity, or release "fugitive emissions" during mining and extraction of gas, will have to pay.
The scheme will provide the biggest emitters with most of their permits for free - but some industry chiefs say that's not enough.
For example, Woodside Petroleum has warned emissions trading could scupper two LNG projects off Western Australia, worth more than $60 billion.
Unions are worried about jobs. Some businesses teamed up with the Australian Workers Union this week to share their concerns about emissions trading.
The government is facing criticism - but not the full brunt yet.
This is because key details remain under wraps.
In its green paper, released earlier this month, the government revealed the design for the scheme: who's in, who's out.
They have not yet revealed the costs, whether it will be tough scheme or soft.
The government can set soft targets for emissions reductions, which means a low carbon price, which means a limited impact on prices in general.
This would placate industry and households, although it would be unlikely to cause a drop in greenhouse pollution for some time.
So the government could end up taking Dr Nelson's advice and bring in a "near meaningless" scheme.
Despite all the noise over emissions trading, the two major parties could end up with fairly similar positions.
But it's not in their interests to admit it.
