The Greens appear to have achieved some useful commitments from the Labour Party. Here's hoping a couple more independants get on board to give it an even better chance.
http://greens.org.au/content/australian-greens-labor-commit-agreement-stable-government
Greens-Labour Agreement
(60 posts) (15 voices)-
CunningPlansDept
MemberPosted Thursday 2 Sep 2010 @ 10:59:20 am from IP # -
swanning_it
MemberSeems most of it centres on more committees, debate or discussion! Can't really see that as being anything more than lip-service to appease Mr Brown and Co. It'll only be useful if 1) the committees actually do something constructive instead of feather their own nests; and 2) if they do realise some constructive advice, then convince the Gov't to act on it!
Good luck.
Posted Thursday 2 Sep 2010 @ 11:26:36 pm from IP # -
alfresco24
MemberThis is looking more like a no-win situation for the public with local issues dominating these so called independents decision making, founded on ridiculously obvious localised bribery from Labor & Liberal. Where's the national interest?
It scares the hell out of me thinking Oz might adopt a carbon price (among other things) that will put us at a huge competitive disadvantage against those countries who do not.
(We continue to provide excessive subsidies and FIT's for PV - which is completely unsustainable - and continue to give credence to the bleeding hearts who seem to be in it mainly for personal gain at the expense of everyone else.)
Things have to be done in-step with the rest of the world. We're too small to be jeopardising our ability to look after ourselves for high ideals.Posted Friday 3 Sep 2010 @ 12:13:03 am from IP # -
I guess everyone is different. It scares the hell out of me that if we don't have a carbon tax it will place us at and enormous disadvantage if we ignore the rest of our trading partners when they do.
And we continue to subsidise the wealthy overseas mining industry with a $4.9billion diesel rebate - which is completely unnecessary - and continue to give wealthy people FHOG, baby bonuses, maternity leave and tax breaks at the expense of the poor and disadvantaged.
We are capable of much better and a more equitable and sustainable society will result.
Posted Friday 3 Sep 2010 @ 1:01:08 am from IP # -
Benny
MemberI'm with you Rockabye. All the serious analyses of what the real cost of imposing a Carbon Tax will be suggest we will not "destroy the economy" or put industry at a "huge competitive disadvantage". All the suggestions seem to be that the cost will be about 2-3% of GDP. Increasing electricity costs - which I think will be the main effect of a carbon tax - will only increase a small proportion of a companies costs - unless they are an Aluminium smelter anyway.
Our main exports are coal and iron ore etc and it didn't seem to put the chinese off when the price of these products doubled recently. Who are our main competitors ? Brazil ? They could probably do with an increased share of the market anyway poor buggers.
We are the worst CO2 emitters in the world (per capita - forget that we have a small population) so I think we have a role to play in being the first to make serious attempts to reduce our outputs and get back down to more like the world average before we start asking others to do something.Posted Friday 3 Sep 2010 @ 2:38:22 am from IP # -
Gerry Atrik
MemberI was under the impression that the Greens had introduced a Private Members Bill pushing for a National Gross Feed In Tariff for Solar Electricity and debate was adjourned. It was certainly on Senator Milne's website prior to the election. I gave the Greens my 1st preference and a Senate vote thinking that this was still an issue. I would have thought it would have been a priority for the Greens but I cannot see it mentioned on the list that the Greens have discussed with Labor. I guess it is a dead issue now that the election is over.
Posted Sunday 5 Sep 2010 @ 10:40:54 am from IP # -
CunningPlansDept
MemberRe Carbon tax/pricing - In every analagous case study, the early movers gain the biggest advantage. Using the CFC response as an example, the early movers didn't just lose less money, they made money.
Everything that I've read says that business is mostly ready to move, but can't until they get some certainty on the finances so that they can run the necessary financial models to make business decisions, irrespective of the change of return on investment.
Malcolm Turnbull got it, shame we got left with 'not on financial matters, the world is flat' Abbott and a labour party shifting with every wind.That said, an effective price signal is contingent on a system not plagued with fundamentally undermining concessions.
Posted Monday 6 Sep 2010 @ 11:34:52 am from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
MemberHas anybody considered that a Carbon tax alone might not go the full distance to reach sustainability and a 100% carbon emission reduction? (BTW I'm all for effective environmental policies, so don't get me wrong)
My concern is:
How can a carbon tax paid by fossil fueled carbon polluters/consumers, that also "fuels" the economy as we know it, pay for the introduction of RE and the demise of its own "economy" at the same time?
If the outcome we are trying to achieve is NO fossil fuel polluters, then surely the result will also be: No fossil driven consumption & economy = No Carbon Tax revenue = No RE subsidies to pay for the RE capex.
At some point in the transition phase to RE, fossils will not be able to afford to pay for the extra expense of RE via a Carbon tax (even with an RE capex reduction). I expect that the max RE transition point will probably be around 30%-40% RE. The result will be a transition to a higher price of energy, namely the cost of RE. We cannot expect RE to reduce energy cost, compared to a fossil fuel based economy, and neither can we rely on fossils to "pave" the way to sustainability, through a tax or other economic mechanism on fossils.The point I am trying to make with this, is that all of the fossil "fueled" (read paid for) social services, health care, products, infrastructure and even agriculture (no fuel for pumping, tractors etc) will cease to exist with a fossil emissions reduction to 0%. To get there we cannot continue to support the current capitalist "environment" of metropolitan areas, and we need to change EVERY level of products and services to a sustainable version.
Fossil fuel is a mass that belongs underground, and not in our biosphere. As long as Wind RE and PV are produced primarily from fossils they will continue to increase carbon in the natural carbon cycle, and therefore it cannot be the basis of a sustainable and a fossil emission-free planet. To be truly renewable it needs to be fossil free in it's whole life cycle. I think we have a way to go before we can produce even basic RE, fossil free. A carbon tax on fossils, to support production of RE made from fossils, just seems a bit contradictory to me, especially if it can only offer that support for as long as fossils are consumed.Posted Monday 6 Sep 2010 @ 1:43:29 pm from IP # -
The carbon tax is a very blunt instrument. What we really need is an efficiency tax.
Tax goods and services based on their 'waste' value. This will drive manufacturers to produce better quality products. The focus can also be based on need vs want. Build an energy efficient fridge, zero tax. Plasma Tv, 40% tax. Here is an example below.
Quality and longevity should also be rewarded. I received a $50 toaster for xmas last year. After 4 replacements in 3 months I got a refund and went to another store where I purchased a similar item with a 2 year warranty for about $100. It is still going strong.
No doubt the returned units went to landfill as uneconomic to repair. I examined them before return and discovered in each case the failure was the thin nichrome wire element that had gone open circuit. I took note of the new one and the wire was at least twice the diameter of the 'cheap' one. So for a manufacturing cost saving of a few cents all that energy expensive manufacturing went to the dump.
By levying a 'waste' tax on cheap products we will get much better performance and improve the bottom line.
Posted Monday 6 Sep 2010 @ 8:50:26 pm from IP # -
termite
MemberI'm with you, rockabye.
I have a toaster that has been around since before 1989 and still going strong; eminently repairable. I bought that particular model because my family had had one since before 1970 (classic Sunbeam automatic - often copied but never equalled). Appliances these days are a primary example of great waste. It used to be that new appliance models were more expensive, yet many have forgotten this.We have to find an economic model that rewards repair over replacement.
In terms of employment, it is also better to have armies of skilled repair people than only robotic assembly lines. After all, I've just seen the F1-11 dump and burn at Riverfire (yes, I know it's wasteful but it was at least magnificent), with a jet that was only supposed to last into the 1980s, but kept alive due to comparatively cheap maintenance - and the fact that it was a worthwhile design in the first place. Hmmm... that wasn't a really good example... can fighter jets run on renewable fuels?
The same goes for buildings - repair over demolition.
If our current pricing systems can get away with separating disposal costs from purchase, legislation needs to substitute this responsibility. Those materials that seem cheap or affordable now should be sufficiently expensive that we would not consider replacement until the item was worn out.
Posted Monday 6 Sep 2010 @ 11:14:05 pm from IP # -
And getting back on topic I think we are all obligated to let the Green - Labor party machine what we want. I put my submission in to the PM's Energy Efficiency taskforce but not many did. Too much talking and not much walking is a big problem in Australia.
Depending on what happens today it all may be of little value, however if nothing else, political parties in this country are on notice that under performance will no longer be good enough to be elected.
Posted Monday 6 Sep 2010 @ 11:30:32 pm from IP # -
thatmosis
MemberThis so called Climate Change Committee is nothing more than rubber stamp for the Green, aka The Raving Looney Party, policies as they will not allow any person that doesnt agree with their philosophy to be on the committee. We are being told that the "science" on Global Warming is settled in favour of the Greens when in fact it is far from settled and a lot of the "science " that the Greens base their ideas on has been proved wrong, misleading and downright lies. A true debate should be encouraged before Australia is forced to accept the raving Looney Parties ideas of utopia. With out a free and frank debate Australia will be placed in the situation of having all utilities overpriced, everything we buy will go up, we will become uncompetitive in the world market and for nothing. Even if Australia cut our emmisions to zero now it would do nothing to stop the rise of CO2 into the atmosphere at the rate it is going and our yearly contribution to the lowering of CO2 would be wiped out in a month by the Developing countries. We are going to be made the scapegoats for people who's ideas are not based on real facts but on emotion and this will cause more hardship for people like the lower paid and pensioners who are already doing it tough.To go it alone is an exercise in futility and a finacial burden that Australia can not afford. To say that we must make a start is all well and good but we must not under any circumstances have a Government mandate that we pay extra taxes and prices for no reason other than to appease a minority for a few votes.If people want to do something then they should by all means do it but pay for it themselves. Education is the key but it must be true science based and not Al Gore type flim flam.
Posted Wednesday 8 Sep 2010 @ 11:20:54 pm from IP # -
I think there is some confusion between the scientific research that is quite conclusive in regard to the effects humans are having on the worlds ecosystems and climate and the economic arguments for taking action. These are really two separate issues.
The science is about observing, measuring and recording data related to climate among other things. The economic hysteria is about who and what sections of the economy might have to pay some money or change behaviour if the observed scientific data suggests we do such a thing. The economics will not alter the observed scientific data however the scientific data may alter economic activity which is what nations who are polluting the most are worried about.
Your words say it all. "If people want to do something then they should by all means do it but pay for it themselves." So if you didn't have to pay anything you might be happy to listen to what the vast majority scientists are saying?
This is no different to the cigarette's cause cancer argument. The science was denied to the very end by the money making cigarette and advertising companies because of the economics. If there were no loss to their profits they would have been happy to agree with the science.
Edit: Even the mining industry believes in climate change.
Quote: The MCA supports a measured transition to a low emissions economy based on unified global efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and the deployment of low-emissions technologies.
Posted Thursday 9 Sep 2010 @ 4:58:49 am from IP # -
CunningPlansDept
MemberThatmosis - How are you able to discredit the IPCC reports? (With something solid please, preferably from someone commenting within their field of expertise.)
I've read widely on both sides of the argument and have come to accept the IPCC reports, while acknowledging that 2 out of 30,000 statements made in the reports were incorrect in regards to the rate of consequence. That said, I am always open to considering a new source, I would like to have to do nothing, but I currently can't accept the risk.Rockabye - There is still strong debate in the scientific community about the specifics of rate and extent, although not that it is on the whole bad.
Also, I'd suggest that the MCA and many others have got past 'believing' (ala Easter Bunny, Santa Claus) and moved into 'accepting' (ala Gravity, speed of light).Posted Thursday 9 Sep 2010 @ 11:38:34 am from IP # -
cool at home
MemberThatmosis, you would appear to be on the wrong forum and behaving naughtily, or have not read very widely on the issue. The costs of not acting or acting late will certainly be higher than the costs of acting now, business wants certainty so they can invest appropriately, and it is laughable to suggest Australia would in any shape or form be 'going it alone'.
You obviously have access to the internet, so why not use it. Here's a few suggestions:
- http://www.webcitation.org/5nCeyEYJr
- http://www.garnautreview.org.au/domino/Web_Notes/Garnaut/garnautweb.html
- http://www.europa-eu-un.org/documents/en/070531_eu_action_against_climate_change.pdf (check out page 9 for a quick view of what our northern cousins have been doing while we've been contemplating our navels).And for the record, I have NOTHING to do with the Greens.
Posted Thursday 9 Sep 2010 @ 12:33:58 pm from IP # -
Ross Garnaut is not a scientist as far as I am aware, he's a Professor of Economics. He is also the chairman of one of Australia's largest mining companies, Lihir Gold.
The debate on the science and on the economics needs to be openly and vigorously debated. Hence I think the views of anyone who disagrees with the science on this forum is welcome in my view as it is up to all of us who support good science to show good reasons why they are right. As now deceased climate scientist Mr Schneider said, all good scientists are skeptics, and that is how they get the best outcome. The evidence to date supports the view held by virtually all nations that man made climate change is occurring and their has to be a change in our behaviour to address this.
As for the economics it is the tool that is used to change behaviour. Many believe that the science gives us opportunities to improve our faltering economic systems and change from a waste based system to an efficiency based system. I'm all for that.
Professor Garnaut said that the overall cost to the Australian economy of tackling climate change under both the 450ppm and 550ppm scenarios was manageable and in the order of 0.1-0.2 per cent of annual economic growth to 2020.
http://www.rossgarnaut.com.au/ClimateChange.html
http://www.rossgarnaut.com.au/Documents/CLIMATE%20CHANGE%20AND%20THE%20GREAT%20CRASH%20OF%202008.pdf
Posted Thursday 9 Sep 2010 @ 9:23:14 pm from IP # -
thatmosis
MemberInteresting reading but a lot of it is pie in the sky as some of the proposed ideas havent even been tried and tested yet. If you want to live in this utopian world where everybody pays through the nose for something that hasnt been proven to be man made then go for it. The earth has been heating and cooling for millions of years and this is just a likely to be one of those cycles as man made. The figures used by all the "believers " only go back far enough to suit their needs and dont take into account the millions of years that this has been happening. If you selectively use data that suits the criteria then you will get the answer you want whereas if you take the whole of the earths history the outcome may and will be different. This is the trouble with all the so called "science" that has been used to prove the point that global warming is man made. People voted for the Greens for two reasons, one they believed the so called science of global warming and two as a protest vote but did anybody realise that their vote was also a vote for 40% death duties????? I dont really care what happens as I am self sufficient in most things except fuel and price rises wont effect me to the extent they will hurt others but I still maintain that Global Warming by man hasnt been proved despite the protestations from those here as the parameters are to narrow to take all the science into account. As for the EU or the UN doing anything about it it still remains to be seen as the hurdles they have put up to implement their ideas are huge. They are as usual huge on retheric but action is another thing. The big conference in Copenhagen showed that no country has got the balls to go it alone but we are being asked to do it, but why, to lower CO2, not a hope, to raise taxes, YES.
Posted Friday 10 Sep 2010 @ 1:54:27 am from IP # -
whatwasthat
Membermmmm...pie in the sky. I hope it's Raspberry/Apple yum!.
Yes, there is some evidence to show that the earth goes through cooling/heating cycles.
Is there sufficient evidence to show that humans are the root cause of current global warming?...hmmm dunno.
Is there evidence to show that human activity is contributing to an acceleration of the warming process?. I think so, and it is a likely scenario. Logically any non-natural addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere has got to have some effect, they don't just disappear do they.
Is there evidence that human activity is polluting the biosphere?.. Well..duh!. I don't think anyone can claim we are not slowly destroying the place where we live.
I am all for a carbon tax or whatever, even if it's sole effect is to make people stop and think about their energy usage. Besides someone has got to stick their toe in the water to see how cold it is. Why shouldn't be us, are we more special than other countries?.
I also agree that the cost would be minimal, unless the main polluters get greedy.
As certain interest groups keep telling us, "let the market sort it out", set an ETS, and it will.Try to step back and think of what world am you going to leave your children. They are the ones when are going to have to deal with the mess prior generations have created. Unlike earlier generations, those still alive cannot claim ignorance. Frankly I would rather not have my kids ask me when I am 90, why did you not do anything.
The responsibility is ours, people.Posted Friday 10 Sep 2010 @ 4:18:07 am from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
Memberthatmosis
You like prodding with your economic and science stick, and yet it seems wherever you go you get the same lecture from most of the people on this forum. Including me!
In order to help analyse your opinions on the current economy & climate change, I would like to impart some general information that might assist in focusing your perceptions of these concerns.
Your arguments regarding the economics of changing from fossil to RE are valid to the point of your understanding of fiat money as a trading currency. I know I must be getting annoying repeating this all the time, but I can only advise you to inform yourself in regards to how the fossil economy works, and were your money comes from.
ie wiki fiat money, capitalismMaybe the words of the current richest man in the world, Warren Buffet, will provide you with an incling of what money really is. His definition of money is a "social debt note". Now his version of a social debt note (IOU) is that it gives the bearer of the money note, the power to call in a debt on society from (nearly) anybody who "believes" or "trusts" in the continued convertibility of the government issued IOU. The Fed bank, that issues money, is a private company (not government) that lends money into existence from quite literally "nothing" but our future. The point here is that it "lends money into existence", therefore it "borrows" it from our personal future tax obligations to the government (ie our yet to paid taxes, for which we have yet to work for, spend etc, etc). The only way you can have more money (or value) now, than is in existance now, is to borrow it, ie go to the (future) bank for a loan. The fed banks are the banks the "government" goes to, to lend money to pay their dues, and every dollar it borrows becomes a debt for the future generations, via their yet unpaid tax. In the USA a retail bank can lend from the Fed $10, for every $1 dollar the retail bank holds in savings. This is a simple leveraged multiplier of government IOU's. All of these dollar "bills" are then simply registered in a "governmental" ledger called the "treasury", which take "note" of all the outstanding debt of society (or us!) Now take out some money "bills" (ie invoices!!) from your wallet and you will find that it says on every Aussie (debt) Note "This Australian Note is Legal Tender Throughout Australia and Its Territories". Now when it says "tender" it really means offer (chk tender in the dictionary!), ie it is nothing other than a proposal (!!) for payment, it only becomes payment if the receiver considers this "tender" a satisfactory compensation for the debt incurred by the bearer of the note. Chk out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender for more.
The money itself is absolutely worthless (apart from using it a a tissue to wipe away your tears of dismay, at the "realization" of your beloved money!), ie it is nothing other than a "social debt note" as good old Warren puts it.
Chk out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money for an independent definition if you don't believe me.It quite clearly describes fiat money there:
- any money declared by a government to be legal tender.
- state-issued money which is neither legally convertible to any other thing, nor fixed in value in terms of any objective standard.
- money without intrinsic valueNow you might say "who cares" and "what's the point" with this story? Well the point is that your perspective, on what "value" your dollar has to purchase goods and services, is completely fictional in the first place, therefore all of the "economy" that trades using these mechanisms are fictional, and your concerns regarding the "cost" of going to renewables, is likewise only a syndrome of the same misguided beliefs, in fiat money and a infinitely growing economy. Your claim that the "climate change believers" will force everyone to pay "thru the nose" for something that is scientifically unproven will become irrelevant with this understanding, because as it stands, with or without climate change, YOU are borrowing from our combined futures and spending OUR wealth, everytime you purchase something with fiat money.
Maybe now you can ask yourself which is the greater evil, and which one we should get rid of first, fiat money or climate change?
It is bad enough that nobody wants to believe in doing good and what is just anymore, but when the world is so full of lies, that our only option is to choose the less obvious lie, so that we can justify not changing our lives to the good, then surely humanity is doomed.
The reason we have so many concerns with our beliefs (ie economy or climate), is because we are surrounded with the general disbelief of how bad it really is, and instead of clinging to the "unbearable" and "priceless" truth and the consequences of change it requires, we opt for whichever lie lets us live another day.
If our evolutionist mantra "survival of the fittest" continues, then only those that TAKE will survive, through deceit, lies, hatred, greed and fallacy.
This is not sustainable, this is (d)evolution.
To be human we need to be better than animals, and our current actions might just yet prove Darwin right. I just think its about time we stop monkeying around...and finally accept our job as caretakers of this planet. After all we're the only species powerful enough to sustain it, or destroy it. This is our choice, as a people of this planet. We can't wait for the monkeys in governments to do it, we have to do it ourselves.Be good people!
Posted Friday 10 Sep 2010 @ 7:01:10 am from IP # -
thatmosis
MemberI dont care about money per se I have quite enough to live on comfortably and buy the little luxuries that make life bearable but I do care about the fact that people have been fed distorted "science" in the name of fact. You have written a lot about Fiat Money but failed to answer the questions posed, like why only a minute, in the terms of the age of the planet, slice of history was chosen to back up the arguement for man made climate change, was it because to go back further would show that the world was hotter at times than before man and the industrial revolution??? People always come back to Garnaut and his findings but lets look at that for a moment. Here we have a man who with the best of intentions took on the job offered to him by a Government hell bent on bringing in an ETS. He was given all the appropriate data that the Government deemed essential and surprise surprise just happened to back up their case. Where was the data from the opposing scientists????? Its much easier to get the required answer if you delete anything that may lead to questions being asked. Its like this so called Climate Change Committee, if you arent a believer then you dont even get a say. This is communism at is highest. The same goes for the IPCC who's data was found to be flawed, Al Gore who's data was so flawed it stood the test of time, not. Its time all the people had a say not just those who would force their ideas on the majority. The Greens have 12% of the vote hardly a mandate to do anything and the unproportional numbers of Senators from Tasmania make up the bulk of these people. If it can be proved 100% that man is responsible for all the global warming then okay but slices of data that confirm this whilst not allowing the other data that refutes it leads one to think "what have they got to hide" More taxes for the sake of taxes sounds about right. The facts and all the facts from both sides of the arguement are what should be presented to the public and not the revised one way facts. That is the crux of my arguement, we are being given only one side of the equation whilst the other side is dismissed because it does not back the stance of the Climate Change faithful. Unlike some I dont just go for the idea that best suits my feelings but looks at both sides of the arguement and then form a considered opinion based on ALL the data available.
Posted Saturday 11 Sep 2010 @ 2:27:35 am from IP # -
LanceTurner
Key MasterThatmosis, you need to do a bit more reading. Many climate change studies are now looking at data going back hundreds of thousands of years to even millions of years, the evidence is all stacking up that the planet is changing because of us. Yes, there have been rapid large climate shifts in the past, but they have all been associated with catastrophic events somewhere on the globe.
There has never been such rapid change on a global scale such as is being seen now, without some large event taking place, be it a meteor strike, megavolcano or whatever. At this time, the only large event occurring is us and the emissions we are producing.
What many sceptics don't seem to get is that the planet is a dynamic system with a degree of inbuilt self recovery. You and poke and prod it a certain amount (such as volcanic erruptions etc) and it will recover. But, if you apply a sustained force for a long period you will eventually push the system past a point from which it can recover from. Our emissions are doing that. The planet can cope with the emissions from volcanoes and other average natural events, but the extra we are adding is what's causing the problem, even if it is not the majority of the emissions occurring on the planet. It's the old 'straw that broke the camel's back' issue, it is a common cause of failure in many dynamic systems.
There's a hell of a lot of convincing info out there, just read a few scientific journals, the global scientific community doesn't doubt rapid climate change, only a few specific individuals with often rather dodgy vested interests if you track back their funding and affiliations. But even if you don't believe the reality of it, think of it this way. If the sceptics are right, doing nothing won't hurt and doing something will improve the planet.
But if the sceptics are wrong and nothing is done, then much of the planet will become uninhabitable and you can look forward to massive species dieoffs, including most of humanity, with wars, shocking standard of living falls etc to be your future. Indeed, we are already in the middle of the largest mass extinction event for millions of years, and that's a fact, there seems to be no doubt about it.
So, in short, it comes down to how much the sceptics like to play russian roulette...
Posted Saturday 11 Sep 2010 @ 2:50:20 am from IP # -
Eco
MemberIf, say, 90% of the climate scientists are saying the climate change is enhanced by man and 10% are saying it isn't, is it reasonable that the 10% still get 50% of the time to put their case? What about if 98% of climate scientists think climate change is enhanced by man, is equal time and space it still reasonable?
I think not.
The arguments of the climate change skeptics are out there - simple Google search will find them in abundance, and the media give them much more coverage than their numbers would suggest they deserve. In fact so much so that it can give the impression to the general members of the public that there is more doubt than the actual science would indicate.
I think the issue is that the arguements of the climate change deniers have been heard and evaluated by the scientific community - and their arguements have been rejected. Some people find this difficult to accept. Just as, or perhaps because, they find it difficult to accept that there are going to have to be lifestyle changes to address this issue.
Posted Saturday 11 Sep 2010 @ 4:49:36 am from IP # -
CunningPlansDept
MemberEco - You're spot on. I went to a seminar by a scientist who'd been on the IPCC panels and his summation was that scientists are not good at communicating to the broader public. A friend is a scientist working in the field of atmospheric gases and he is constantly surprised that people are still debating it as for he and his colleagues it has been accepted years ago.
Fortunately, the scientific community is starting to address this gap
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-election/climate/climate-change-needs-a-plain-english-guide-20100712-107y5.htmlI also suggest people google "doubt is our product" which was a philosophy from the tobacco industry and is being applied by the fossil fuel industry.
Posted Saturday 11 Sep 2010 @ 5:34:26 am from IP # -
CunningPlansDept
MemberCPRS/Trading Scheme vs Tax
Here's one take on it from an economic think-tank
http://www.ceda.com.au/research/current-topics/ace/2010/02/27/carbon_tax_byers.aspxPosted Saturday 11 Sep 2010 @ 12:57:24 pm from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
Memberthatmosis
I'm glad I could help with the economic or money perspective. Can I safely assume you are no longer "concerned" about the economic/monetary cost of climate change then, or would you prefer some further discussion on this matter? I have looked back through various other threads in which we have had similar discussions, the "Climate change-where to from here" thread in particular comes to mind. Some of your issues have been discussed intensively in these threads, but nonetheless your position remains unchanged. Maybe you need to change your position to get a new perspective? Just a thought.In regards to providing some alternative scientific perspectives on human induced climate changes, I have copied a list from that thread here, for you to consider, and maybe even research. Below that I have expanded on just one of these.
- The heat capacity of the atmosphere is equal to a mere 3.2m depth of ocean. Measuring atmospheric temperature change to prove climate change, is like sticking your finger out the sunroof of a driving car, to measure the road temperature. Chk this link for more:
http://www.oco.noaa.gov/index.jsp?show_page=page_roc.jsp&nav=universal
- Methane clathrate deposits can become a major problem if there is a oceanic temperature rise. Estimates range to exponentially more methane hydrates than fossils, and methane is 20-60times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas
- Ocean warming provides extra momentum, by creating an imbalance in the climate cycles, similar to a person only slightly pushing a child on a swing to gain height. These "swings" will not necessarily manifest themselves in an overall temperature rise, they are more likely to produce weather extremes (high an lows) like in Afganistan, China, New Orleans etc. and promote more droughts, floods, heat waves etc by effecting natural patterns like El Nino and the North Atlantic system.
- Global dimming is skewing actual climate temperature rise, because anthropogenic water vapor and particulate in the atmosphere is reflecting between 10%-40% (by country) more of the suns energy back into space since the introduction of fossils, without the sunlight even being absorbed by the atmosphere or earth surface to increase climate temperatures.
- Ice caps reflect up to 90% of sunlight, and also have only half the specific heat capacity of liquid water which also absorbs more than 90% of heat.
- Some marine biologists say that Phytoplankton account for possibly 90% of the world's oxygen production, and these all live in the ocean in very specific temperature ranges. (In other words chop down all the rainforests who cares! Just kidding;)Similar to the claimed anthropogenic temperature rise in the atmosphere, these issues above have similar scientific backing as global warming from CO2 emissions, however their effects can be just as severe. Take global dimming for example: (copied from wiki)
It is thought that global dimming is probably due to the increased presence of aerosol particles in the atmosphere caused by human action.[2] Aerosols and other particulates absorb solar energy and reflect sunlight back into space. The pollutants can also become nuclei for cloud droplets. Water droplets in clouds coalesce around the particles.[3] Increased pollution causes more particulates and thereby creates clouds consisting of a greater number of smaller droplets (that is, the same amount of water is spread over more droplets). The smaller droplets make clouds more reflective, so that more incoming sunlight is reflected back into space and less reaches the Earth's surface. In models, these smaller droplets also decrease rainfall.[4]
Clouds intercept both heat from the sun and heat radiated from the Earth. Their effects are complex and vary in time, location, and altitude. Usually during the daytime the interception of sunlight predominates, giving a cooling effect; however, at night the re-radiation of heat to the Earth slows the Earth's heat loss.I suppose even here you could argue that it might not be caused by human activity, or that volcanoes have had a similar "natural" impact on global dimming in the past. But consider the consequences of these events, an ice-age and possibly the extinction of dinosaurs. Now if we take the same consequences and apply them to effects by human activity, wouldn't you agree that it is prudent to at least consider the risk of it being true? If you would be so kind, and indulge me by watching this you tube video on the risk of climate change, maybe this will give you another perspective why many here on this forum consider action now preferable, versus wait and see if it's true. BTW this video uses fairly standard practice risk analysis methodology.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
As to the motivations behind some groups/corporations/governments to either support or deny climate change, these are drivers that should be considered independently from
both the science and the economics of these issues. I completely agree that many are riding this green train for the wrong reasons/motivations, but this should not be construed as the evidence that the science, economics or the inherent risk is inaccurate or untrue.In regard to your statements regarding the apparent "minute" of global history that is considered, when making scientific assumptions about the effects of human activity on the climate, I remain assertive of my previous position from various posts to you on the matter.
Namely: Were is this scientific proof from a million years (or more) ago, and how can you be so sure this information is correct, (even though no humans, let alone temperature recordings existed then), if you fail to believe one of the most costly and extensive environmental studies ever undertaken by mankind? You are simply taking one scientific theory and trying to use it to disprove another theory, in the end both are just theories that try to evidence the truth, hence what you want to "believe" is up to you. And yes you must believe, because the only evidence you can consider fact is that which you can perceive with your own senses, and seeing that I doubt you have a time machine handy, to prove to yourself of the climate a million years ago, or the climate in the future, your belief will only change if you change your minds perspective. For this change to occur you will need to spend some well invested time investigating your concerns, and above all else, also consider other peoples perspectives (or "ALL the data", including the responses made here), in your search of the truth. Happy hunting and gathering. Eco
I am not quite sure I agree with your assertion about using the most common scientific analysis as evidence of the truth. Neither that only the most common analysis should be made heard. Even though this might be perceived to contradict some of my previous statements in this post, the minorities opinions should still be heard and considered. If anything history has taught us that the minority is quite often neglected and disadvantaged ie slavery.However, despite this, your points regarding the general publics understanding, and the portrayal by the media of climate change, especially those with vested interests in it's denial, are completely valid in my view. Buy also on the flipside, I find it despicable that corporations/governments are taking advantage of the peoples concern and good will, to change to renewables, for only financial gain.
Posted Saturday 11 Sep 2010 @ 4:09:46 pm from IP # -
Eco
MemberI didn't assert that common scientific analysis should be the only point of view heard. I just said general discussion should be proportionate to the scientific consensus. Surely you can't be arguing for all ideas to be given equal weighting and time in the debate. Taking an example from another field of science, this would mean that creationists should be given equal time to evolution, or indeed the flat earth society should also be given an equal hearing to the spherical earthers. Certainly these ideas should not be suppressed and indeed they are not. The internet is a great source of information about these and very many other theories (http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/) and is available to anyone who cares to look. And I am sure the flat earthers are are very disappointed that their ideas aren't more widely discussed and taught (another conspiracy!).
If a scientific idea has validity it will gain acceptance over time even if it is against the scientific orthodoxy of the time and only a couple of people are asserting it. Think Copernicus and Darwin. But then again if a idea does not have validity it will not gain in acceptance and will go to the fringe with the adherents still stubbornly sticking with their ideas. This does not mean the rest of us have to be or are in paralysis because of this.
It gets to a point where a decision has to be made. We can't keep discussing the validity or otherwise of human enhanced climate change forever, until 100% of people agree with that humanity is effecting climate - it isn't going to happen. The evidence is in and it says action is required. Some won't like it for sure and we should keep trying to educate them (as indeed I am sure they will keep trying to educate us). This dissent should not stop action otherwise we will allow 50 years to go by, by which stage action will be useless or incredibly expensive.
Posted Sunday 12 Sep 2010 @ 12:48:38 am from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
MemberHey Eco
I'm totally on your side when it comes to action on climate change now. I also believe that this substantial change in human activity should be used as an opportunity to fix some other blatantly obvious problems, ie fiat money economy, poverty, resource wars, and the indiscriminate raping of the planet by corporations for profit. All of which are due to the deformity of capitalism that is popularly used and enforced in the industrialized world.I'm not at all saying that I would like to see our lives turn back to the "dark ages", or under industrialized, but rather, that if we can send men to the moon, and create atomic weapons that can destroy the planet many times over, then surely we have the capability to produce solutions for these problems. And we should do these things now, even without the justification of scientific evidence to justify the change, but rather based on our moral obligations as residents of this planet, we call home. Previously we had no need to concern ourselves with global issues, we could simply leave the problem to it's own devices, and move to another location on the planet with a favorable environment (within reason). But now, we no longer have this luxury, and are forced to act locally but on a global scale to fix these problems. I think that if we broaden our horizons instead of a manic focus on climate change, we will see that this change can be used to benefit all, including the disproportionately disadvantaged, and that it will become easier to make the decision and therefore to make these changes. Hopefully we can adjust our lives through this change, to gain "actual" freedom and quality of life, as opposed to the illusion that consumes our lives because of a faulty system.
As to your statements regarding spherical earthers and darwins theories, looking at them in a historical sense actually proves my point (as you have also outlined in your validity comment); both of these started as a minority theory, and through "informed" public debate become popularly acceptable. In my view popularity cannot simply be assumed as the truth, neither does it have any place in scientific debate as a tool to evidence a theory and therefore restrict discussion about alternatives. ie if a congregation of scientists believe that pigs can fly this does not make it so, and neither should we then only discuss the "scientific" proof of how they fly, if the truth is that they can't fly at all.
If a minority opinion is left unheard or discussed by only promoting (timely and weighted) discussion on popular opinion, how do you propose that the idea of one or a few, that could be the truth, to be propelled into publicity and common acceptance?@all
When it comes to how much time and coverage is given to the naysayers, this is mostly due to the capitalist syndrome of sensationalism "sells". Proportionately, how much good news is there on the media? Our information is all skewed because of this, and it is nigh impossible to formulate an accurate opinion and decide on how to change for the better, especially if our information and perspectives are corrupted by mis-information. Popularity only further compounds the problem, and creates an inertia of beliefs that resist change, be they true or not. This is why propaganda is such a powerful tool. If one were to accept the popular opinion of "facts" at face value, then why didn't (or doesn't) this popular (scientific or otherwise) opinion save us from fossil fuel induced climate change in the first place?
It is similar to the belief of popular vote in democracy, if our vote (or decision) is wasted because our only two real voting options are the monkey party, and the other an ape party, then surely no matter how popular either animal is, the outcome can be at best a governmental circus? I cannot envisage a system that uses popularity as a definition of truth, especially if that population is disillusioned and mis-informed, and are using these perceived "facts" as the basis of the decision. Saudi Arabia still taught in schools that the world was flat until the late 1990's, 911 polarized America in fear against Islamic extremists in an act against capitalism (ie World Trade Center!?), and the GFC compounded this fear (unknown or mis information) of the demise of capitalism as we know it. We should consider this fact, that regardless of how intelligent or well informed we think we are in society, that we do not know all (ie we are not God) and that we still have a lot to learn from each other and nature. We are therefore still in pursuit of the truth, and any decision we make should be made on the assumption that it is as truthful as we understand it at this moment in time (or that we should do the best we can now). This attitude should carry on until an alternative perspective is formed that changes our opinion, and we should intently consider any information we are provided in life (ie use our eyes to see), and always use it to promote a better life for US all, regardless of the cost to oneself, or the change of opinion it requires.
When it comes to Darwinism and capitalists, these two are in mutual symbiotic relationship with eachother, one propels the other. Similar to how religion and kingdoms were always intertwined concepts. These are concepts that have promoted the justification of personal wealth (survival of the fittest), and the exploitation of the poor, through moral decay in the form of greed. A corporation is the personification of this greed, as it's only obligation is to make profit for itself at all costs, to increase the wealth of only it's own shareholders, regardless of the cost to non-shareholders. We have developed a system that propels itself uncontrolled, and it is time the people took back that control, and did something meaningful with their lives, instead of pursuing the popular dreams of personal wealth.
In regards to a Carbon tax or the like, I still have concerns how this can be envisioned as a solution to the problem. In my eyes it is nothing other than a treatment of a symptom of capitalism, ie make fossils less profitable. Why not get rid of the problem that is causing so much evil instead, and replace it with a "sustainable" solution?
Our animalistic behaviors, justified through Darwinism and Capaitalism, have serious personal and social flaws that do not promote or sustain life. To believe our existence was born of the premordial soup, gives lives the information and associated perception of belief, that we have no destiny, therefore no hope, that we do not matter, that we serve no purpose, that we have no purpose, that we have no accountability if we are at the top of the heap, and that we might as well do whatever it takes to live comfortably regardless of the cost to others. Or otherwise known as survival of the financially fittest. As an example of this effect: It is commonly known to be the general perception of the Germans before WWII, that if survival of the fittest was perceived as the modern truth of the day, then it is justified to war against whomever was opposed, regardless of the truth, as only the fittest would survive and perpetuate mankind's (d)evolution as a species. Why is it that they were so "hell bent" on a pure human race without the "inferior" races, and that all these be expunged of the face of the earth to ensure humanity "survived"? And why were they so obsessed in pursuing the "God fearing, creationist" Jews to delete the opposition and their beliefs? Ah...the true face of Darwinism, or just another conspiracy by the creationists?
We must learn to believe that moral values of compassion, integrity, kindness, parenting, gifting, understanding and good will are only functional if they are used by humans, for each others benefit, and only when we live using these moral concepts together, we can lead a sustainable and valuable life. There is simply no survival in I, even if I am the fittest.
Posted Sunday 12 Sep 2010 @ 6:13:48 am from IP # -
thatmosis
MemberYou people say it all "THEORY". Its all theory and none of it conclusive but the Climate Change faithful cling to it like leeches. If one has a look at a real "time machine" the core sample from Antartica and the Artic they would find evidence of hotter and colder climes than we have now and not just once but several times in the earths history. A tax on a Theory is wrong in the extreme and will do nothing to rid the world of CO2 which at last repoet was needed to sustain life on earth. To place a monetary burden on people for a Theory that has never been proven is completely wrong whichever way you look at it. Prove your theory 100% or get off the bandwagon. By the way I dont have to change my ways as I most definitely have a smaller carbon footprint on the earth than most "believers".
Posted Sunday 12 Sep 2010 @ 6:44:39 am from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
MemberThatmosis
I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, but I only tried to explain my perspective on the matter vs my understanding of your perspective. But one thing I am failing to understand is why you still continue with claiming you are a self-sufficient, renewable, low carbon footprint person, whilst still defiantly claiming that we should do nothing about man made climate change...to me this is very conflicting. Would you care to please outline your beliefs vs your actions?BTW I'm pretty much set like you against a Carbon Tax, but not thru denial of climate change or our moral obligation to improve the planet for all, but rather the problems caused by capitalism/money. Also CO2 needs to remain in sustainable levels in the carbon cycle, that nature can reabsorb. An excess of man made CO2 is a problem, not what nature creates/absorbs in it's natural processes. The time machine Antarctic core ice samples can be used to prove/disprove climate change either way, and are not necessarily the truth either.
Posted Sunday 12 Sep 2010 @ 7:14:10 am from IP # -
Eco
MemberThe onus of proof should go back on to the carbon producers and supporters. If someone is pumping a chemical into the environment it is surely their responsibility to show that it is safe. Insecticide producers have to do it - why not carbon producers. Prove it to me 100% that carbon at any concentration in the atmosphere (including double and triple current concentrations) is safe and I will gladly join the CC deniers. But it has to be 100% (90% is not sufficient) or I will deny its safety.
Posted Sunday 12 Sep 2010 @ 9:19:16 am from IP #
Reply »
You must log in to post.