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

[its free real estate]

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 a really good worm farm.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

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.

Love to see the numbers and supporting evidence.

3.5% would be calamitous and would reshape everything from population centres, food webs, at risk ecosystems, urban design, to supply chains for agricultural produce and water availability. In short it would likely see the end of this current era of global capitalist and post industrial society.

Labor have 3 times tried some variant of an ETS, carbon tax, price on emissions etc. and the public scare campaign has been stupendous. It's a non-starter and floating the idea is a vote killer. Whether market mechanisms are needed or not.

 

[Rob R]

On "identity", many people who should be in a union today simply don't view themselves as working class regardless of the fact their income says otherwise. Chicks flogging makeup at Myer, IT grunts, whoever. Air conditioned workplace and dressing properly means they can't see they're at the bottom. Also the casuals and part-timers doing what used to be full-time jerbs think they're "passing through" or "lol not doing this forever". Suddenly 5 years go by, they're still there, being underpaid.

Or.is it like some workplaces (public service as an example) where there is no point being in a union cause they just don't care when issues are raised. We have hundreds of.jobs cut or relocated in recent years and the CPSU has said nothing and done nothing despite pleas from union members who are all now.quitting the union.

On SM-G570F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[demondavey]

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.

It is a cost we need to pay now, it’s a liability on our fiscal balance sheet and the creditors are knocking. You can’t exhume and exhaust and not be held accountable for that. I won’t be alive in 50-100 years I’d say, but I don’t want my grandchildren to have to work through serious climate action policies that are the most pressing issue on the table because grandad couldn’t be crumbed forking our for the planet.

 

[Seeds]

It is a cost we need to pay now, it’s a liability on our fiscal balance sheet and the creditors are knocking. You can’t exhume and exhaust and not be held accountable for that. I won’t be alive in 50-100 years I’d say, but I don’t want my grandchildren to have to work through serious climate action policies that are the most pressing issue on the table because grandad couldn’t be crumbed forking our for the planet.

They wont. The worst case climate scenarios, which is what most uneducated in the subject think is the baseline view, will not play out. Your grandchildren will be twice as rich as we are. Im happy for them to pay 2 percent of their income to deal with climate change adaptation. It will mean they will only be 1.98 times richer then us. I can live with that.

 

[demondavey]

They wont. The worst case climate scenarios, which is what most uneducated in the subject think is the baseline view, will not play out. Your grandchildren will be twice as rich as we are. Im happy for them to pay 2 percent of their income to deal with climate change adaptation. It will mean they will only be 1.98 times richer then us. I can live with that.

 

[Seeds]

Love to see the numbers and supporting evidence.

3.5% would be calamitous and would reshape everything from population centres, food webs, at risk ecosystems, urban design, to supply chains for agricultural produce and water availability. In short it would likely see the end of this current era of global capitalist and post industrial society.

Labor have 3 times tried some variant of an ETS, carbon tax, price on emissions etc. and the public scare campaign has been stupendous. It's a non-starter and floating the idea is a vote killer. Whether market mechanisms are needed or not.

3.5 degrees will be calamitous for a small amount of communities. It will impact agriculture greatly. Some agriculture regions will be wiped out but others will benefit and some will arise from nothing. But its not going to be a dramatic change in a year in most cases. It will be gradual changes over decades giving plenty of time for adjustment. Thus the planet isnt going to be short of food or water, particularly given we can now grow food inside at unbelievable efficiency rates.

But there will be significant economic costs for certain regions if we wish to prevent environment damage to coastal areas and water systems and deal with increased storm damage. And given developed economy capitalist systems tends to double in wealth per person every 40 years and emerging markets that have adopted capitalism tends to triple or even quadruple in wealth per person every 40 years then the costs will be more then manageable and not even noticable from a country level in fact. This is assuming governments are willing to pay for the economic damage. But as we know, poor uneducated people can be easily convinced to vote against helping the environment.

 

[Seeds]

View attachment 679652

Which part do you disagree with?

Ps. It would be nice if for once we can keep discussion above immature memes.

 

[Fat Yak]

Which part do you disagree with?

Ps. It would be nice if for once we can keep discussion above immature memes.

I like immature memes, they make more sense than the waffling and temper tanties

 

[Frank Bunn]

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.

The issue in the UK goes beyond Brexit but is related. This week we have seen the likely closure of British Steel with probably 5,000 direct jobs lost and maybe 25,000 indirectly. Part of British Steel's problems was that they were required to meet obligations under the EU’s emissions trading scheme.

https://www.ft.com/content/1d8ffaaa-7d6d-11e9-81d2-f785092ab560

 

[demondavey]

They wont. The worst case climate scenarios, which is what most uneducated in the subject think is the baseline view, will not play out. Your grandchildren will be twice as rich as we are. Im happy for them to pay 2 percent of their income to deal with climate change adaptation. It will mean they will only be 1.98 times richer then us. I can live with that.

You think that in 60 years the future generation of children should then start paying for the climate as opposed to now?

 

[demondavey]

Which part do you disagree with?

Ps. It would be nice if for once we can keep discussion above immature memes.

1. By 2030 it looks like we are on track for an average increase in temperature of 1.5 degrees. That will exacerbate fires, flooding and food shortages.
2. Net emissions from carbon dioxide need to fall by 45% of 2010 levels.

In 2030 my kids will be 15 and 12. I won’t have any grandchildren. I won’t even be 50. I’d say given its 2019 we pull our finger out, but hey, we’ve now got a PM waving coal around in parliament telling us ‘it won’t hurt you’.

 

[demondavey]

Which part do you disagree with?

Ps. It would be nice if for once we can keep discussion above immature memes.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/amp.abc.net.au/article/10920500

You think serious leaders at the next summit will take Morrison seriously after waving around a lump of coal and saying that ‘aussies love cars with grunt’ on national TV?

As an Australian citizen, I am disgusted by the immaturity our politicians have shown since 2007. With a LNP government we start lowering ourselves to trump levels.

 

[Rob R]

Love to see the numbers and supporting evidence.

3.5% would be calamitous and would reshape everything from population centres, food webs, at risk ecosystems, urban design, to supply chains for agricultural produce and water availability. In short it would likely see the end of this current era of global capitalist and post industrial society.

Labor have 3 times tried some variant of an ETS, carbon tax, price on emissions etc. and the public scare campaign has been stupendous. It's a non-starter and floating the idea is a vote killer. Whether market mechanisms are needed or not.

Perhaps if they did it properly eg not lied like Julia (who other than that was actually a pretty good PM until she was knifed by Rudd and albanese)or refused to cost it and relied on dodgy international permits like Shorten, there would be more support.

On SM-G570F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

Perhaps if they did it properly eg not lied like Julia (who other than that was actually a pretty good PM until she was knifed by Rudd and albanese)or refused to cost it and relied on dodgy international permits like Shorten, there would be more support.

On SM-G570F using BigFooty.com mobile app

The LNP are pathological liars, weird you only hold Gillard accountable because she parsed between price and tax.

Also, is this a sudden attempt to insert Albo's name where Shorten's used to be, with the knifing of Gillard. Albo had little to do with it. Finally, both Labor and the LNP were using the same permits and they didn't refuse to cost the policy, it was simply difficult to cost as a broad platform, without undertaking each phase of policy proscriptions systematically. As numerous experts and think tanks stated, there were too many factors, such as the falling price of renewables, unstable cost of commodities, uncertainty over the energy market and costs associated with climate change.

Most independent orgs, bar Howard's old mate, indicated in the short term though there would be negligible cost to the economy or loss of jobs, with long term benefits from growing of the renewable industry. But they've abandoned that platform now, so it's a green new deal style of direct investment and action. Which is centred around job programs and replacing ailing supply with new low emissions tech, or directly investing in greening businesses.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

The issue in the UK goes beyond Brexit but is related. This week we have seen the likely closure of British Steel with probably 5,000 direct jobs lost and maybe 25,000 indirectly. Part of British Steel's problems was that they were required to meet obligations under the EU’s emissions trading scheme.

https://www.ft.com/content/1d8ffaaa-7d6d-11e9-81d2-f785092ab560

This is completely deceptive.

The EU shielded British steel from many regulatory requirements and gave it preferential access to a market it would otherwise have been outcompeted in.

British steel tanked because of BREXIT, not in spite of it.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

3.5 degrees will be calamitous for a small amount of communities. It will impact agriculture greatly. Some agriculture regions will be wiped out but others will benefit and some will arise from nothing. But its not going to be a dramatic change in a year in most cases. It will be gradual changes over decades giving plenty of time for adjustment. Thus the planet isnt going to be short of food or water, particularly given we can now grow food inside at unbelievable efficiency rates.

But there will be significant economic costs for certain regions if we wish to prevent environment damage to coastal areas and water systems and deal with increased storm damage. And given developed economy capitalist systems tends to double in wealth per person every 40 years and emerging markets that have adopted capitalism tends to triple or even quadruple in wealth per person every 40 years then the costs will be more then manageable and not even noticable from a country level in fact. This is assuming governments are willing to pay for the economic damage. But as we know, poor uneducated people can be easily convinced to vote against helping the environment.

This is all wrong.

 

[Rob R]

The LNP are pathological liars, weird you only hold Gillard accountable because she parsed between price and tax.

Also, is this a sudden attempt to insert Albo's name where Shorten's used to be, with the knifing of Gillard. Albo had little to do with it. Finally, both Labor and the LNP were using the same permits and they didn't refuse to cost the policy, it was simply difficult to cost as a broad platform, without undertaking each phase of policy proscriptions systematically. As numerous experts and think tanks stated, there were too many factors, such as the falling price of renewables, unstable cost of commodities, uncertainty over the energy market and costs associated with climate change.

Most independent orgs, bar Howard's old mate, indicated in the short term though there would be negligible cost to the economy or loss of jobs, with long term benefits from growing of the renewable industry. But they've abandoned that platform now, so it's a green new deal style of direct investment and action. Which is centred around job programs and replacing ailing supply with new low emissions tech, or directly investing in greening businesses.

Of course I agree the LNP are liars, just like the ALP and increasingly the Greens. The last honest politician I can recall is probably Bob Brown as no matter how bad many of his policies were, he at least stood behind his beliefs. I cited Julia because this discussion was about climate change and Julia is the one who told a blatant lie about climate change given the climate deniers an opportunity to attack the initiative from the start. If we had been talking about the ABC and Budget cuts, then Abbott would have been named. I did note that apart from that horrible mistake Julia was actually pretty good. If she had been honest and presented a carbon tax to the people with clear advice on how low/middle income earners would be compensated and jobs here protected (or helped to change), we might still have a carbon price.
I mentioned Albanese because he was going to be Rudd's deputy when Rudd first moved against Julia although when it failed he suddenly claimed to know nothing, I could have mentioned the others eg. Marles; Bowen; Shorten etc
The LNP attacked the ALP for planning to use International Permits for very valid reasons - they were going to be at the expense of local emission cuts and we could have minimal certainty that the emission savings actually existed. The ALP should have based its plans on savings here.
It is rubbish to say they couldn't be costed if they had thought it through, if that excuse held then we may as well not have a budget as it is based on commodity prices etc (to be fair given both side record of predicting budget surpluses, we may as well not have had one) They just didn't want to provide a number to be attacked and instead foolishly left the only number out there the crazy estimates from climate deniers.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

It is rubbish to say they couldn't be costed if they had thought it through, if that excuse held then we may as well not have a budget as it is based on commodity prices etc (to be fair given both side record of predicting budget surpluses, we may as well not have had one) They just didn't want to provide a number to be attacked and instead foolishly left the only number out there the crazy estimates from climate deniers.

They could have costed it, but not accurately.

It was dumb, blind honesty not to and a mistake.

 

[Seeds]

This is all wrong.

When you are sick and you visit a doctor who has studied in the field of medicine for 10 years and dont like his prognosis do you throw a tantrum and respond "you are all wrong?"

 

[Fat Yak]

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett said Monday that Berkshire Hathaway’s $10 billion investment in Occidental Petroleum is a bet on oil prices over the long term.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/06/buf...s-a-bet-on-oil-prices-over-the-long-term.html

 

[Kram]

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett said Monday that Berkshire Hathaway’s $10 billion investment in Occidental Petroleum is a bet on oil prices over the long term.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/06/buf...s-a-bet-on-oil-prices-over-the-long-term.html

I'm buying more Woodside if they pull back again.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

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.

I think its pretty clear the bulk of Australians couldn't give a fig about climate change, even those who believe it is real and human-caused. Its far too esoteric, and the do-nothing approach because "Australia's contributions don't make a difference anyway" is an easy sell (and surprisingly for a political easy sell, even has some truth to it).

The battle can't be won on climate change directly but on the observable impacts and a good new-fashioned scare campaign.
It needs to be on energy costs in the suburbs; renewable are about as cheap as coal now.
And in the bush, mining versus agriculture on access to water.

 

[Fat Yak]

I'm buying more Woodside if they pull back again.

I have 1887 shares at average buy price $28.23

 

[Seeds]

You think that in 60 years the future generation of children should then start paying for the climate as opposed to now?

If the technology base wasnt going to change overtime then the cheapest and fairest way to mitigate climate change is to do everything now and pass on all the costs to future generations who can better pay for it and are the ones that truly benefit from the action.

However the debate becomes more complicated when you consider the technology base is improving over time, in some cases rapidly. It makes you question whether its worth waiting. 15 years ago advocates of strong climate change action were suggesting replacing all coal generation plants with gas and mandating the use of hybrid vehicles over ICEs. Both would of done very little to reduce emissions and would of made the eventual cost of switiching to technologies that are actually game changes (solar with batteries and electric vehicles) more costly. In saying that, these game actual changing technologies are now close enough to being competitive now. They could be mandated now with only minimal impact on increasing costs of energy. We could very easily in developed economies be around 90 percent clean in energy emissions by 2030. Non energy emissions are much more problematic though and probably not ready to mandate clean technologies there yet.