Politics Climate Change Paradox

Should we act now, or wait for a unified global approach


  • Total voters
    57

RobbieGray17

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Posts
10,707
Likes
5,179
Location
adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Thread starter #1
Should we act now or should we wait for a unified global approach to reduce total emissions.


Australia created 559.6 Mt CO2e from all sources in the previous year, down 0.7 % (http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/emissions.aspx)


While we create less than 1.5% of the worlds total greenhouse emissions(eia.gov), we have one of the highest emissions/capita in the world.


If Australia went it alone, really, what impact would we have, considering China has increased its emissions by 39% between 2005 and 2009.


However the paradox is that we are one of the greatest contributors per capita in the world. Perhaps we do need to take action to get our levels per capita to an acceptable level. The truth however is that unless the the United states and China make an effort to reduce emissions, we probably won't see a significant reduction in global emissions.


Discuss with possible solutions to 'our' reduction in emissions and a date to meet a target.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

rayven

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 26, 2005
Posts
9,967
Likes
1,702
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
PC racing
#2
So your in favour of doing something if China is?

America has issues with federal leadership but various states are quite advanced in thier contributions.
 

Caesar

Ex-Huckleberry
Joined
Mar 3, 2005
Posts
23,054
Likes
7,812
Location
Tombstone, AZ
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
#3
Any action Australia might take unilaterally is politically, diplomatically, scientifically, environmentally and economically insignificant WRT to the global problem.

The only argument for Australia acting rather than waiting and working towards global consensus is a moral one based on our status as high per capita emitters - which frankly is not a very good argument at all.
 

TheStinger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Posts
12,688
Likes
1,293
Location
Barcelona, Catalonia.
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Penguins, Aston Villa, Adel Utd.
#5
Climate change is inevitable. Not global warming or cooling or any other catch phrase spouted by the masses. Just climate change. It is inevitable. Are we causing it? No. Are we contributing to it changing marginally quicker than it ultimately would have? Probably, but not significantly.

The earth has been through a number of ice ages, a number of polar shifts and it will continue to happen. The earth is just wacky. Nothing we do will make any difference to whether climate change happens. It just will.
 

rayven

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 26, 2005
Posts
9,967
Likes
1,702
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
PC racing
#6
Any reference for that stinger that will factualy adress nearly 200 countries that would disagree?
and if you can find half of 200 countries that agree on 1 thing like climate change i'd be hell impressed
 

TheStinger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Posts
12,688
Likes
1,293
Location
Barcelona, Catalonia.
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Penguins, Aston Villa, Adel Utd.
#7
Any reference for that stinger that will factualy adress nearly 200 countries that would disagree?
and if you can find half of 200 countries that agree on 1 thing like climate change i'd be hell impressed
First of all, countries and their leaders who by their very nature have adversarial views on most things are probably the worst group to be leading the charge on climate change. They can't agree on anything and any positive change by one group of countries will be counter balanced by another group of countries making matters worse.

As far as scientists go, well they have enough trouble deciding on which theories to continue pursuing and which ones to throw away. Some run with one theory and others run with a number of others. So any "evidence" that is out there, there will be a number of other scientists around saying it is bunk.

But for what it is worth, here is what wiki has to say about the two things I mentioned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_shift_hypothesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

I personally choose to believe that certain events have been set in motion and nothing we do will stop them from happening. Whether this means another Ice Age or some kind of other world wide natural catastrophe/reset, well that is something that will probably only be known when it happens.

Anybody thinking that we can "save the planet" by changing our ways is fooling themselves. We are on a hunk of rock that is on a path of self destruction. Nothing will stop it. I just hope that I am no longer here when it happens.

Not sure I want to try and survive an apocalypse.
 

Slax

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 13, 2001
Posts
15,844
Likes
6,737
Location
In the dark corner of the bar away from security
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Man City
#8
For many years I was a believer in being a good global citizen and leading the way for others to follow. Now with the world economy in a serious rut that will take years to come out off, I've change my tune.

Whilst we have duty to the world, we have a greater duty to ourselves. We can not go boldly off on our own just because we believe it is the right thing to do and in doing so destroy large parts of the economy. I'd rather be in a country known as a major pollutor (per capita), where we have a solid economy and good levels of employment than have unemployment go up to 10%.

If we are going to do something the government should then invest heavily in developing renewable industry where we can create jobs and export opportunities first.

Also how does Tim Flannery know that the melting of the ice caps and raising of the sea level won't have a converse effect of lowering the temperature and thus sending us into an ice-age?
As everything is done on modeling who is to know who's model is right?
 

RobbieGray17

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Posts
10,707
Likes
5,179
Location
adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Thread starter #9
I Dont have much time atm but i was thinking, governments can make all the policies they like but ultimately its up to all australians to make a change. We can reduce emissions by being innovative and resourceful. If you haqve the ability to walk or ride or catch public transport, do it. I still dont know why people still continue to use cars despite being able to use public transport. They're also the first to complain about rising fuel costs.
 

Demonic Ascent

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 21, 2006
Posts
14,042
Likes
9,495
Location
Muckertal
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
NY Jets, Boston Celtics, WADA
#10
For many years I was a believer in being a good global citizen and leading the way for others to follow. Now with the world economy in a serious rut that will take years to come out off, I've change my tune.

Whilst we have duty to the world, we have a greater duty to ourselves. We can not go boldly off on our own just because we believe it is the right thing to do and in doing so destroy large parts of the economy. I'd rather be in a country known as a major pollutor (per capita), where we have a solid economy and good levels of employment than have unemployment go up to 10%.

If we are going to do something the government should then invest heavily in developing renewable industry where we can create jobs and export opportunities first.

Also how does Tim Flannery know that the melting of the ice caps and raising of the sea level won't have a converse effect of lowering the temperature and thus sending us into an ice-age?
As everything is done on modeling who is to know who's model is right?
I Dont have much time atm but i was thinking, governments can make all the policies they like but ultimately its up to all australians to make a change. We can reduce emissions by being innovative and resourceful. If you haqve the ability to walk or ride or catch public transport, do it. I still dont know why people still continue to use cars despite being able to use public transport. They're also the first to complain about rising fuel costs.
My feelings are that both these issues are related - regardless of whether man-made climate change, global warming whatever is true I think we need to greatly improve the way we look after our environment. Does dumping chemicals in rivers and oceans cause global warming? No but we need to ensure this type of thing isn't done. We also don't want to end up like some third world pollution hell-hole like Mexico City.

However I think the environmental movement has either been co-opted or was set-up from the start by people who are just trying to use it for their own economic and power gains. Imposing a tax which will funnel down to consumers will not work and will only further increase the inability of people to meet basic needs (such as mortgage/rent, food, energy bills, child care etc) nevermind being able to actually enjoy life.

So the answer needs to come from the bottom up, not from the top down. People need to take responsibility for themselves - there is no reason why most houses in this country couldn't run off solar power and have water tanks installed. Further to this having your own fruit trees and vegie patches for those who can would further reduce the energy used in transporting produce to be sold in supermarkets and the like. Businesses could also retro-fit their buildings with solar panels & water tanks to reduce consumption of energy.

This is my thinking anyhow. I think if people abdicate their responsibility and leave it to government to sort out they are only going to wind up with wealth and power being transferred (as is what usually happens when government is in charge of initiatives like this) and nothing really done to fix the issue.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

RIOLIUSTAR

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Posts
11,234
Likes
9,234
Location
Padded cell
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Can only dream of being this good
#12
I think we need to greatly improve the way we look after our environment. Does dumping chemicals in rivers and oceans cause global warming? No but we need to ensure this type of thing isn't done. We also don't want to end up like some third world pollution hell-hole like Mexico City.

However I think the environmental movement was set-up from the start by people who are just trying to use it for their own economic and power gains.

- I agree

Imposing a tax which will funnel down to consumers will not work and will only further increase the inability of people to meet basic needs (such as mortgage/rent, food, energy bills, child care etc) nevermind being able to actually enjoy life.

- I agree

So the answer needs to come from the bottom up, not from the top down. People need to take responsibility for themselves - there is no reason why most houses in this country couldn't run off solar power and have water tanks installed. Further to this having your own fruit trees and vegie patches for those who can would further reduce the energy used in transporting produce to be sold in supermarkets and the like.
This is my thinking anyhow. quote]

Geez , I think I agree with everything you've posted :thumbsu:

My biggest concern is that basically carbon credits are another currency that is been created by fat cat bankers and the like for pure economic gain to themselves under the guise of "helping the planet" to exploit the masses.

It is an emotional issue for many that will reap trillons for some and screw us normal folk who already are struggling to get ahead.

Sure in a ideal world it makes sense, but unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world :cool:

You'll have governments bend over backwards behind closed doors for big polluters coz they employ large numbers of people, so they will be given a hand for obvious reasons, and in the end we all pay more...for what net effect on the climate..SFA is may guess.
 

Monniehawk

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Posts
3,491
Likes
603
Location
Mornington Peninsula
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Monbulk, Upwey, Strathmore
#13
Climate change is just not true and was made up by all those dumb scientists who want to wreck our economy and make industries stop so that more people go out of work and they will then get angry and bring down governments and cause wars that will kill everyone and destroy the earth.
So there! :)
 

Holy Foley!

All Australian
Joined
Apr 9, 2011
Posts
714
Likes
951
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
#14
I compare the climate change debate to an analogous car carrying a group of people driving towards a cliffs' edge, arguing over when to apply the brakes. Of course you would apply the brakes as soon as possible, no? Or would you keep arguing until you reach the edge, and by then it's too late?

This sums up a lot of peoples attitudes (and unfortunately includes politicians) towards all aspects of the climate change issue. Constantly we keep debating this issue, without actually doing anything.
It's simple. Do nothing, go over the edge. Do something, slow the car until there is no guarantee it will stop. Or do everything we can to stop it before the edge. I fear that it will be too late until real action is taken. Which could happen within the next 100 years, and every day we postpone real action is 1 metre closer the edge.

Why does it matter whether the cause(s) of global warming are man made or not (even though they are). It's happening, and we need to, no, we have to do something. All the evidence shows what can and ultimately will happen, and all the research and technology suggest it is absolutely feasible to create a 100% renewable energy future, but all we do is keep on squabbling.

So why are we piss farting around with a weak as piss Carbon Tax (which is a good idea, poorly executed), or a ~$4b desalination plant that is a) completely unnecessary, and b) contributing colossal amounts of C02 through energy usage?
 

Admiral Byng

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 3, 2009
Posts
18,285
Likes
13,756
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Perth Scorchers
#15
If the rest of the world ever get organised and serious about reducing emissions there won't be any choice to go it alone and not get involved. If we hold off until we are forced into it then it will be a rude shock and a brake on our economy, given our high per capita rates. By starting now with a small and unambitious target we ease the future pain of rapid change over a short period. We get used to how the system works. The modest target won't do bugger all for world-wide temperatures a century from now, but nor will it do much harm to the economy. It provides us with a firm mechanism to cap our emissions, and gives us the flexibility to control the pace of future reductions, depending upon suitable technologies coming into commercial production.
 

Dan26

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 23, 2000
Posts
24,964
Likes
2,589
Location
Werribee
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
post count: 38,986
#16
The Earth has not been warming at anything like the predicted rate and is not now at all likely to do so. In any event, even if the climate-extremists predictions were correct, it would be far more cost-effective to wait and adapt in a focused way to any adverse consequences of manmade "global warming" than it would be to tax, trade, regulate, reduce, or replace CO2 today.
 

Monniehawk

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Posts
3,491
Likes
603
Location
Mornington Peninsula
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Monbulk, Upwey, Strathmore
#17
Most of us are lay people in this debate, but most of us can also see BS when it is delivered.
The earth has been through untold cataclysmic weather events and it is certain to continue. Having said that, the precarious narrow environmental band that we live in is under constant threat and we are living through a period of relative calm and comfort in the fleeting moment of our existence in the planet's history. Man's contribution to climate change pales by comparison with natural forces, but it is still an effect that presents some real concerns.
There is significant evidence - alarmist or not - to suggest that we are causing incremental damage that could eventually spiral if it is not addressed in the near future.
It is beyond humanity to control the wobbles of earth's orbit or rotation, avoid cosmic collisions, volcanic winters or otherwise maintain this near-perfect balance. Natural phenomena is not the issue.
However, it is not beyond humanity to cause catastrophe, nor is it beyond us to redress some of the damage. At present it is at a scale that we can manage. The question is "do we want to?".
Much of the hysteria - and subsequent paralysis -comes from strident shouting from the periphery. Those best able to mount lucid argument must eventually succumb to the frustration because they think the other isn't listening. They are just being drowned out by a bevy of self-appointed experts who harbour other agendas.
It isn't at all helpful.
Maybe some sections exploit this. :(
 

Dan26

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 23, 2000
Posts
24,964
Likes
2,589
Location
Werribee
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
post count: 38,986
#18
There is a brilliant article here which every alarmist should read:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=monckton

There is a portion of it about 2/3rds of the way in about the economics of the issue.

"Next, Lord Monckton turned to climate economics and demonstrated that the cost of acting to prevent global warming is many times greater than the cost of inaction. The example of Australia’s carbon dioxide tax showed why this was so. Australia accounts for only 1.2% of global CO2 emissions, and the government’s policy was to reduce this percentage by 5% over the ten-year life of the tax. On the generous assumption that the entire reduction would be achieved from year 1 onward, the fraction of global emissions abated would be just 0.06%. Because this fraction was so small, the projected CO2 concentration of 412 ppmv that would otherwise obtain in the atmosphere by 2020 would fall to 411.987 ppmv. Because this reduction in CO2 concentration was so small, the warming abated over the 10-year period of the tax would be just 0.000085 C°, at a discounted cost of $130 billion over the ten-year term.

Therefore, the cost of abating all of the 0.15 C° of warming that the IPCC predicted would occur between 2011 and 2020 by using measures as cost-effective as Australia’s carbon dioxide tax would be $309 trillion, 57.4% of global GDP to 2020, or $44,000 per head of the world’s population. On this basis, the cost of abating 1 C° of global warming would be $1.5 quadrillion. That, said Lord Monckton, is not cheap. In fact, it is 110 times more costly than doing nothing and paying the eventual cost of any damage that might arise from warmer weather this century.

Australia’s carbon dioxide tax is typical of the climate-mitigation measures now being proposed or implemented. All such measures are extravagantly cost-ineffective. No policy to abate global warming by controlling CO2 emissions would prove cost-effective solely on grounds of the welfare benefit from climate mitigation. CO2 mitigation strategies inexpensive enough to be affordable would be ineffective; strategies costly enough to be effective would be unaffordable. Focused adaptation to any adverse consequences of such future global warming as might arise would be many times more cost-effective than doing anything now. “If the cost of the premium exceeds the cost of the risk, don’t insure,” Monckton advised."



What also rarely gets mentioned, is why would we want to reduce carbon dioxide anyway? It's good for us, and its good for life. It makes plants grow faster and will help global food supply if C02 is more abundant (and it makes only a small inconsequential difference to warming, which isn't necessarily bad anyway because humans prefer the warm.)
 

McCrann

Premiership Player
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Posts
3,677
Likes
671
Location
Australia
AFL Club
St Kilda
#20
But, as Tim Flannery has warned us, many parts of Australia are now in permanent drought and the dams will never fill again.

Probably, only Tim can save us really.
 

Scotland

Hall of Famer
Joined
May 5, 2006
Posts
45,854
Likes
46,884
AFL Club
West Coast
#21
What's the paradox?

We're contributing to the problem, and by doing something about it we contribute to the problem slightly less.

I mean if we tax natural to the point that industries move overseas where there is an abundance of cheap coal for example then our 'doing something' would actually be making things worse...
 

Slax

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 13, 2001
Posts
15,844
Likes
6,737
Location
In the dark corner of the bar away from security
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Man City
#22
However I think the environmental movement has either been co-opted or was set-up from the start by people who are just trying to use it for their own economic and power gains. Imposing a tax which will funnel down to consumers will not work and will only further increase the inability of people to meet basic needs (such as mortgage/rent, food, energy bills, child care etc) nevermind being able to actually enjoy life.

So the answer needs to come from the bottom up, not from the top down. People need to take responsibility for themselves - there is no reason why most houses in this country couldn't run off solar power and have water tanks installed. Further to this having your own fruit trees and vegie patches for those who can would further reduce the energy used in transporting produce to be sold in supermarkets and the like. Businesses could also retro-fit their buildings with solar panels & water tanks to reduce consumption of energy.
A tax where the only purpose is to try and get business and consumer to act in a more energy effect way is a waste of a tax.

I'm advocating that if they want this tax then we must establish business that are producing better quality solar panels, whilst providing tax breaks so manufacturers can have a competitive edge in the export market. We also need to do more to develop other renewable industries like desalination, investing in geo-thermal technolody, tidal and more efficient wind
turbines.

If we don't try and develop new industries then the ones we have will just become more vulnerable to imports and overseas competition further eroding the long term economic viability of the country.
 

rayven

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 26, 2005
Posts
9,967
Likes
1,702
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
PC racing
#23
However I think the environmental movement has either been co-opted or was set-up from the start by people who are just trying to use it for their own economic and power gains.
I actualy personaly know some peoples who contributed greatly to envioremental movements as far as back a the 70's when Global warming was just a far flung theory that australain scientists were involved in...

In the 80's that theory came apparant

In the 90's a problem.

In the naughties destructive.

I'd love for you show me who co opted and/or set up these people over 30 years ago, if that is your belief.
 

PottSie2

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Posts
6,598
Likes
1,091
Location
Victoria
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#24
I was under the impression that upto 100 Million of our 160 Million tonne reduction target was going to come from buying overseas permits ?

Also, if we were serious about the climate, we'd invest in new or ugpraded coal facilities and reduce our emissions by about 13%, at a fraction of the cost of going 'renewable' and with the benefit of cheap baseload power.

AGW is a scam in my books ... out tax to reduce our emissions is another scam on top of a scam (so much money to reduce emissions by 5% of 1.2% of 3%) ...

The climate has changed and will continue to change regardless of what we do.
 
Top Bottom