Climate change is the "pivot point" of Australian politics: party allegiances are ded

[The Warlord]

That's the conventional wisdom but its nowhere near that simple.

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/brexit-and-the-squeezed-middle/

Our findings confirm a negative relationship between education and voting Leave: the higher the level of one’s education, the lower the likelihood of them voting Leave. Our findings, however, reject the dichotomous view of the low-educated Brexiter vs the high-educated Remainer, by showing that two groups with intermediate levels of education (voters with good GSCEs and A-levels) were more pro-Leave than the low-educated (those with no formal education and with low GSCE grades).

Our argument is that, rather than representing the ‘left out’, Brexit was the voice of this intermediate class who are in a declining financial position. This category of voters represent a group of high sociological relevance also labeled as ‘the squeezed middle’.

Indeed, the squeezed middle who are losers of neoliberalism.

 

[The Warlord]

Quantitative Easing has played a big part (thats hardly neo liberalism).

https://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/09/10/some-95-of-2009-2012-income-gains-went-to-wealthiest-1/

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-04-10/qe-and-inequality-the-two-seem-to-go-together

Austerity more in the UK

 

[Seeds]

Climate change has to be sold to the public correctly.
For example, fighting climate change will make Australians wealthy.
Australian scientists are the leaders in fighting climate change.
The patents that are developed in Australia will lead to billions of dollars flowing into the economy.
Let's get behind our greatest minds in Australia with the money they need to do their job.

Billions have flowed into cancer research because everyone is affected in some way by cancer.
Well everyone is going to be affected by climate change.

Climate change mitigation is a cost. It does not create wealth other than through zero sum gains (i.e. dominating new markets at the expense of other countries). Australia will be a particularly big loser given we are the largest coal exporter on the planet.

 

[Seeds]

In the UK Brexit is the lens by which the ongoing struggle between the economic winners of the last forty years (metropolitan, tertiary educated, professional employment, internationalist in outlook, welcome immigration and diversity coz good food, hotties etc) and the losers (manual or "sunset" industries and locations, lack of access and/or willingness to engage in tertiary education, see, usually correctly, immigration and "diversity" as directly threatening their personal economic situation) in the neo-liberal western politico-economic structures.

Now many traditional Labour voters are pro-Brexit who will vote for literal Tories, many Remainers were classic soft liberal Tories. All is upside down.

In the US Trumpism has provided that same lightning rod that has destroyed the old reliable party structures - Trump won by turning blue collar ex Democrats Republican, the old "patrician" Republican party of the Bushes was killed stone dead by Trump.

In the Australian election (and lead up) we saw Liberal seats abandon the party for climate change candidates either fully like Warringah, or partially like Wenwtorth, Kooyong and Higgins. On the flipside traditional Labor union blue collar votes went to the Libs over mining jobs and Adani and the associated climate change politics. But it was essentially the same dynamic as UK and US playing out but with climate change as the lens, well off educated metropolitan v "left behind" blue collar regions.

Discuss.

You think tertiary educated and those with international outlook should not be winners? That is quite a scary world you are suggesting.

 

[Seeds]

The time for climate legislation was 2009/10. Were it not for Rudd’s hubris, Turnbull’s truculence, Abbott’s opportunism and the Greens’ obstinance we wouldn’t be debating the science behind anthropomorphic climate change, a decade on.
We could be world leaders in renewable energy production, research and development as well as climate adaptation/mitigation advocacy. But clearly the game of thrones played by those across the political spectrum was worth it.

And the worlds emissions and climate would be no different if we did the above as australia contributes f** all to global emissions.

 

[The Warlord]

And the worlds emissions and climate would be no different if we did the above as australia contributes f** all to global emissions.

Suppose Australia shouldn't have taken part in any international action then.

 

[Mofra]

And the worlds emissions and climate would be no different if we did the above as australia contributes f** all to global emissions.

Countries that contribute ~2% of global emissions make up 40% of global emissions as a bloc.

 

[GoldenSky]

Countries that contribute ~2% of global emissions make up 40% of global emissions as a bloc.

Cool, so let's agree a course of action as that bloc.

Oh...you're telling me we've already done this with Paris? Silly me. Didn't realise with all the hoopla about Australia taking "no action on climate change".

 

[Mofra]

Cool, so let's agree a course of action as that bloc.

Oh...you're telling me we've already done this with Paris? Silly me. Didn't realise with all the hoopla about Australia taking "no action on climate change".

Point missed.
I don't think you're someone anyone can have a reasonable discussion on climate change policy with.

 

[GoldenSky]

Point missed.
I don't think you're someone anyone can have a reasonable discussion on climate change policy with.

I got your point. You're saying as that bloc of small emitting nations we need to take action as as a whole we contribute 40% of emissions.

I simply pointed out that we are.

 

[QuietB]

I got your point. You're saying as that bloc of small emitting nations we need to take action as as a whole we contribute 40% of emissions.

I simply pointed out that we are.

We are NOT

Australia’s target - Australia will reduce emissions to 26-28 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030.

 

[Seeds]

Countries that contribute ~2% of global emissions make up 40% of global emissions as a bloc.

Except there is no block. Why would a block form based on size of emissions? Each of those countries have wildly different stakes in the climate change game. Some are in warm climates whilst others are in cold, some are fossil fuel exporters whilst others are not, some are developed regions whilst others are low income, some are covered in forests whilst others are not, some are under threat of sea level changes whilst others would benefit if the earth warmed up.

Its like saying the greens and one nation should form a block on the issue of refugees just because they are small players in parliament.

 

[The Warlord]

Could Australia have defeated ISIS by itself? No. We provided only a very small share of the force that did.

Does that mean we shouldn't have done what we can?

No.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

Cool, so let's agree a course of action as that bloc.

Oh...you're telling me we've already done this with Paris? Silly me. Didn't realise with all the hoopla about Australia taking "no action on climate change".

Well that's what we are attempting.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

Except there is no block. Why would a block form based on size of emissions? Each of those countries have wildly different stakes in the climate change game. Some are in warm climates whilst others are in cold, some are fossil fuel exporters whilst others are not, some are developed regions whilst others are low income, some are covered in forests whilst others are not, some are under threat of sea level changes whilst others would benefit if the earth warmed up.

Its like saying the greens and one nation should form a block on the issue of refugees just because they are small players in parliament.

Australia is an extremely high emitter on a per capita basis.

The whole point of global action, is that it's global.

That means nations need to work in concert, including those like Australia that contribute around 2%. Because as a total, it adds up.

 

[Seeds]

Australia is an extremely high emitter on a per capita basis.

The whole point of global action, is that it's global.

That means nations need to work in concert, including those like Australia that contribute around 2%. Because as a total, it adds up.

I know that. Im a globalist. Most people are not.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

I know that. Im a globalist. Most people are not.

Well then you should be in strong favour of significant climate action on behalf of this country.

Burke has proposed we adopt a Green New Deal style platform, something gaining traction in the UK, Europe, US and now Aus. That includes shifting away from tax or cap and trade style solutions and towards jobs/re-training programs, direct investment in greening industry and infrastructure builds.

The Australian electorate has rejected market mechanisms after huge fear campaigns twice, yet Labor's investment mechanisms largely survived and were wildly popular despite constant sabotage, so it looks like they need to reorient.

 

[Fat Yak]

Well then you should be in strong favour of significant climate action on behalf of this country.

Burke has proposed we adopt a Green New Deal style platform, something gaining traction in the UK, Europe, US and now Aus. That includes shifting away from tax or cap and trade style solutions and towards jobs/re-training programs, direct investment in greening industry and infrastructure builds.

The Australian electorate has rejected market mechanisms after huge fear campaigns twice, so it looks like they need to reorient.

Be sure to sign the petition.

https://www.change.org/p/zali-stegg...1UdNKM_bnGMMeb0ZFH96-wG2R306dqrh4dVhCxO_BQVNA

 

[The Warlord]

There's also the small matter that we should act on our own terms before others impose it on us.

Oh yes they will.

 

[kranky al]

Let’s imagine for instance 35 years ago Hawke attempts to introduce Medicare, and some spoilers like the Greens said “it’s not socialised enough, we need to add dental work, and there must be no private insurance, etc”.

We’d likely have no Medicare today.

I actually agree here

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Be sure to sign the petition.

https://www.change.org/p/zali-stegg...1UdNKM_bnGMMeb0ZFH96-wG2R306dqrh4dVhCxO_BQVNA

I know you're doing a pisstake, but a serious question. Do you know why we have limits on how much renewable generation a house (and I think a business - not 100% sure) can have?

unless there is some technical issue, i have no issue with houses using as much solar as they want (wind is an issue because you need a council permit to build a cubby house - good luck getting approval on household wind like they have in europe)

I'd also love to see farms be allowed to install as much as they bloody want

 

[The Warlord]

I know you're doing a pisstake, but a serious question. Do you know why we have limits on how much renewable generation a house (and I think a business - not 100% sure) can have?

unless there is some technical issue, i have no issue with houses using as much solar as they want (wind is an issue because you need a council permit to build a cubby house - good luck getting approval on household wind like they have in europe)

I'd also love to see farms be allowed to install as much as they bloody want

There's issues with what the local grid can handle when it comes to rooftop solar.

If there's ten houses on a street and five have solar, then two of the other five get it, they'll struggle to get the best result. If any. In terms of selling it back into the grid.

 

[Seeds]

Well then you should be in strong favour of significant climate action on behalf of this country.

Burke has proposed we adopt a Green New Deal style platform, something gaining traction in the UK, Europe, US and now Aus. That includes shifting away from tax or cap and trade style solutions and towards jobs/re-training programs, direct investment in greening industry and infrastructure builds.

The Australian electorate has rejected market mechanisms after huge fear campaigns twice, yet Labor's investment mechanisms largely survived and were wildly popular despite constant sabotage, so it looks like they need to reorient.

If developed countries are to pull their fair weight then we need a cap and trade system.

My modelling suggests that in order to equalise economic impacts of emissions abatement across all countries then developed economies must reduce emissions between 120-180 percent ( i.e. reduce national emissions to zero and then pay for emission reductions in developing countries equivalent to 20-80 percent of baseline national levels. This can only be done through a cap and trade system where caps in developed economies are set in the negative zone. If you believe in a progressive cost system where developed economies should incur greater economic costs then developing economies, then those emission reductions in developed economies get even bigger. I.e they could be well over 200 percent. To not have a cap and trade system will be greatly unjust to the developing world.

Lock in effects of existing energy systems and irrationally high implicit consumer hurdle rates for capital intensive green technology uptake means that government regulation should be part of the package in abating emissions. Im a free market person but climate mitigation is a special case where government regulation can bring about the most optimal outcome. But a carbon tax should still be part of the package.


In saying all this the climate change that will result without co-ordinated government action to mitigate probably wont be the great disaster that everyone thinks it will be. In some regions it will actually provide benefits. It is something we should deal with but the free market will soon prevent the worst case scenarios all on its own without any regulation or carbon prices. Solar power and electric vehicles are not far away from being cheaper then fossil fuels. Wont need much government action for energy systems once this happens. Although we will need government regulation to prevent emissions from burning forests, agriculture and process emissions. There is no magic technology bullet coming along to reduce those emissions at zero cost.

My estimate is that regardless of what Australia does the world will lag on emissions abatement (unless a major environmental event happens soon) and we will end up with around 2.5-3.5 degree warming relative to pre industrial levels by 2100. Assuming the average of scientific climate models are reasonably around the mark about the link between emission concentrations and temperature warming. This scenario will have major consequnces in some parts of the world but overall from a global perspective wont be disasterous.

 

[Fat Yak]

I know you're doing a pisstake, but a serious question. Do you know why we have limits on how much renewable generation a house (and I think a business - not 100% sure) can have?

unless there is some technical issue, i have no issue with houses using as much solar as they want (wind is an issue because you need a council permit to build a cubby house - good luck getting approval on household wind like they have in europe)

I'd also love to see farms be allowed to install as much as they bloody want

30 years ago only the rich had air cons, now most have airs cons. Are you going to give up cooling and heating? Your car? Your fridge? How about all those computers, mobile phones, 3 TV's? We are using more power now than any time in history, what are you willing to give up to save the planet?
Australians throw out out enough food each week to feed a small African nation, straight to land fill. WTF are you doing about it?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

30 years ago only the rich had air cons, now most have airs cons. Are you going to give up cooling and heating? Your car? Your fridge? How about all those computers, mobile phones, 3 TV's? We are using more power now than any time in history, what are you willing to give up to save the planet?
Australians throw out out enough food each week to feed a small African nation, straight to land fill. WTF are you doing about it?

I have already responded to this. We haven't used our aircon or heating for years. we have been growing our own vegies and compost all food waste. we dont use a dishwasher, and clean in cold water. we have solar. I use a hand mower on the lawn. we turn all devices off at the power point. I don't drive to work and either ride my bike 50km or train and walk 15km

my question was nothing on this however, it was a non political question on why there are limits on putting more than x amount of renewable on your house. JeanLucGoddard answered it, you ranted about something irrelevant