Science/Environment climate hustle documentary

[Bradesmaen]

Wouldn't a move to green energy be better for the planet even if the science turns out to be wrong? It seems we have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Except coal mine owners

 

[Lebbo73]

but they have and they do, and this thread is a perfect example of its outcomes. so i think, if someone wishes to criticise the "ideological problems" of AGW, then it would be reasonable to include both ends of the spectrum (which perhaps you were doing, i might've misconstrued what you were getting at).



i'd prefer if we introduced some real-world examples into the theorycrafting. most obvious and relevant example here would be the "carbon tax". it definitely "****ed us over", but shouldn't the consumers of the products and services associated with co2 production get ****ed over in the sense that they should take some responsibility for their choices? taxes are a good disincentive for undesirable behaviour. internationally, i think there are plenty of examples of good AGW policy which don't necessarily involve ******* people over or enriching others (the one im most familiar with being the US states' RGGI.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/real-world-example-carbon-pricing-benefits-outweigh-costs.html

CO2, without it there would be no oxygen. Keep up the good work, LLHFC.

 

[M Malice]

Brilliant summation RupieDupie , my translation of your last few posts-

Even if the government is on the right side of the debate/argument which they are on AGW they will find a way to screw the plebs over and we will all bend over and take it with a smile on our face.

The political process is the epitome of palm greasing and I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine situation, they have had centuries to perfect the art of getting the public to accept gleefully what they want for their benefactors and by extension themselves.

 

[Long Live HFC]

CO2, without it there would be no oxygen. Keep up the good work, LLHFC.

you're an intellectual pygmy. obviously co2 has played a really important part in sustaining life on this planet. guess what- part of that is due to its interaction with solar radiation. the interaction you don't believe is a thing. cretin.

 

[Lebbo73]

you're an intellectual pygmy. obviously co2 has played a really important part in sustaining life on this planet. guess what- part of that is due to its interaction with solar radiation. the interaction you don't believe is a thing. cretin.

There's nothing like personal insults when you are wrong. Keep up the good work, LLHFC.

 

[Long Live HFC]

I think you or I are missing something here...

almost certainly me. one of my mates left heaps of beer at my house last weekend and it's caused me a few issues this week!

Your last point is what my first point was addressing, between us, we could come up with 15.6 trillion different and humane ways to mitigate climate change with no resultant monetary burden on the Australian public. But as soon as any government has to translate any one of these 15.6 trillion ideas into reality and only the government and Key Stakeholders will benefit from the application. Everyone else, including the issue of climate change, gets a good old fashioned Rogering.

i don't disagree with your conclusion, but i think the premise is on shaky ground. s**t costs money, and any wholistic approach to reducing emissions or mitigating changes in climate is going to cost. and i think as part of the problem, we all deserve to take a bit of that responsibility. did you have any particular examples from the 15.6 trillion options you'd like to mention? i'm not across every idea re AGW mitigation but i would've expected to have learned about any panaceas.

Secondly, if any one of us lowly Australian public members exhibited a behaviour not conducive to the people in power's view of how society ought run and most likely we do not get taxed (meaning the behaviour is still acceptable) for that behaviour, we get fined or imprisoned.

Yet if governments best friend exhibits a behaviour not conducive to the people not in power's view of how society ought run and most likely they are taxed, which is another way for the people to voluntarily pay a higher price to the governments friend to pass onto the government, that is, the people are punished and the behaviour is still considered acceptable.

perhaps, but that could be a complaint levelled at just about any policy or attempts at social/economic change so im not sure how much good it does us in this specific debate.

 

[Long Live HFC]

There's nothing like personal insults when you are wrong. Keep up the good work, LLHFC.

insult? what insult? merely stating the facts.

and wrong? lulz.

The greenhouse effect is a natural process that warms the Earth's surface.

apparently you didn't realise heat was good for sustaining life.

 

[Lebbo73]

insult? what insult? merely stating the facts.

and wrong? lulz.



apparently you didn't realise heat was good for sustaining life.

A 0.4°C increase in global temperatures since the start of the 19th Century and no increase in 20 years. Soon you will be banging on about humans causing global cooling.

 

[Long Live HFC]

A 0.4°C increase in global temperatures since the start of the 19th Century and no increase in 20 years. Soon you will be banging on about humans causing global cooling.

are we skipping right past the fact you don't understand the role that the greenhouse effect has played in supporting life on this planet? because i've already crushed you on "the pause" bullshit on at least one occasion previously. that's when you run off to lick your wounds, then come back (like here) to spread the same vacuous bollocks again.

 

[RupieDupie]

almost certainly me. one of my mates left heaps of beer at my house last weekend and it's caused me a few issues this week!



i don't disagree with your conclusion, but i think the premise is on shaky ground. s**t costs money, and any wholistic approach to reducing emissions or mitigating changes in climate is going to cost. and i think as part of the problem, we all deserve to take a bit of that responsibility. did you have any particular examples from the 15.6 trillion options you'd like to mention? i'm not across every idea re AGW mitigation but i would've expected to have learned about any panaceas.



perhaps, but that could be a complaint levelled at just about any policy or attempts at social/economic change so im not sure how much good it does us in this specific debate.

Yeah, but taxing business does not solve the issue it only passes a cost onto the customers. For example, we already had a carbon tax, therefore we should be able to tick off climate change as solved. But we can't. Because taxing a business (and therefore the Australian public) and hoping the problem resolves itself only passes the problem back to the Australian public, while the government in the meantime gets heaps more cash and kudos for "tackling climate change".

Say if I knowingly gave a person an increased chance of getting cancer for financial gain, I would be probably jailed and I'm pretty sure the judge would say my behaviour was bad or morally reprehensible. But a cigarette company can continue to sell cigarettes as long as government can tax them and get heaps of cash off them, which the cigarette companies then pass onto the customer, meaning the behaviour / activity of selling carcinogens is perfectly fine because the government cares about population health and has "done something" to solve the issue.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Yeah, but taxing business does not solve the issue it only passes a cost onto the customers. For example, we already had a carbon tax, therefore we should be able to tick off climate change as solved. But we can't. Because taxing a business (and therefore the Australian public) and hoping the problem resolves itself only passes the problem back to the Australian public, while the government in the meantime gets heaps more cash and kudos for "tackling climate change".

i still don't understand why we shouldn't be the ones bearing the cost, though? and rather than (only) passing on the costs to consumers, businesses can also make themselves more energy efficient, and put pressure on their competitor who is merely passing costs along. (example, previously linked RGGI stuff)

Say if I knowingly gave a person an increased chance of getting cancer for financial gain, I would be probably jailed and I'm pretty sure the judge would say my behaviour was bad or morally reprehensible. But a cigarette company can continue to sell cigarettes as long as government can tax them and get heaps of cash off them, which the cigarette companies then pass onto the customer, meaning the behaviour / activity of selling carcinogens is perfectly fine because the government cares about population health and has "done something" to solve the issue.

yeah, but you're also ignoring the role that these taxes have played in changing behaviours (in this case, reducing smoking rates), which by default have negatively impacted the bottom lines of these supposed untouchables? (we could spend ages noting the numerous legislative or regulative efforts that ran contrary to business interests since the industrial revolution.)

 

[Lebbo73]

are we skipping right past the fact you don't understand the role that the greenhouse effect has played in supporting life on this planet? because i've already crushed you on "the pause" bullshit on at least one occasion previously. that's when you run off to lick your wounds, then come back (like here) to spread the same vacuous bollocks again.

Standing on an ant in your backyard doesn't equate to doing the same on a forum. You really need to stop dreaming and wake up.

 

[RupieDupie]

i still don't understand why we shouldn't be the ones bearing the cost, though? and rather than (only) passing on the costs to consumers, businesses can also make themselves more energy efficient, and put pressure on their competitor who is merely passing costs along. (example, previously linked RGGI stuff)



yeah, but you're also ignoring the role that these taxes have played in changing behaviours (in this case, reducing smoking rates), which by default have negatively impacted the bottom lines of these supposed untouchables? (we could spend ages noting the numerous legislative or regulative efforts that ran contrary to business interests since the industrial revolution.)

But what you're saying is selling addictive carcinogens is fine as long as the Australian public wears the burden.

But at least now we are in agreement, we should cut out the middle man, government, as the useless party in the chain between Australian public and solving issues relating to the Australian public.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Standing on an ant in your backyard doesn't equate to doing the same on a forum.

i know. the ant can at least handle 10x its body weight. i do like that you've got the dimensions in your analogy correct, though. go you.

 

[Long Live HFC]

But what you're saying is selling addictive carcinogens is fine as long as the Australian public wears the burden.

it's more that i think selling carcinogens is fine as long as there's enough information readily available for the consumer to make an informed decision. but yes, i do think those consumers should wear the burden of their choices, in the same way they should wear the burden of running their aircon all summer.

But at least now we are in agreement, we should cut out the middle man, government, as the useless party in the chain between Australian public and solving issues relating to the Australian public.

no, we shouldn't cut out the middleman because left to their own devices, business can't/won't address the negative externalities caused by their operations.

 

[RupieDupie]

it's more that i think selling carcinogens is fine as long as there's enough information readily available for the consumer to make an informed decision. but yes, i do think those consumers should wear the burden of their choices, in the same way they should wear the burden of running their aircon all summer.



no, we shouldn't cut out the middleman because left to their own devices, business can't/won't address the negative externalities caused by their operations.

See, now you see it, the government is only required if they serve a function. Suppose Australia produces 90,000 tonnes of carbon over x amount of time, then a government taxes the businesses and then the businesses pass off this as a cost to the customer before producing 90,000 tonnes of carbon over the same amount of time. Problem not solved. Government has not served a function. Hence my argument.

Now, if I were a person wanting anthropogenic climate change taken seriously, in that a threshold will be reached one day that the world may not be able to return from, kind of action, I would find a tax an ineffectual solution to the problem.

Making renewable and non-polluting technology the same current cost and availability as non-renewable and heavy polluting power sources however is a solution.

 

[RupieDupie]

it's more that i think selling carcinogens is fine as long as there's enough information readily available for the consumer to make an informed decision. but yes, i do think those consumers should wear the burden of their choices, in the same way they should wear the burden of running their aircon all summer.



no, we shouldn't cut out the middleman because left to their own devices, business can't/won't address the negative externalities caused by their operations.

Oh oh oh!

I thought of a better example!

When Abbott wanted to do something about "boat people" the Abbott-Turnbull government spent $10 billion over 3 years to keep 3000 people locked up overseas. He never once taxed the people smugglers and I never heard him say anything nice about the people smugglers. Imagine that kind of dedication towards climate change...

 

[Long Live HFC]

See, now you see it, the government is only required if they serve a function. Suppose Australia produces 90,000 tonnes of carbon over x amount of time, then a government taxes the businesses and then the businesses pass off this as a cost to the customer before producing 90,000 tonnes of carbon over the same amount of time. Problem not solved. Government has not served a function. Hence my argument.

but it has. you're implicitly asserting that taxation doesn't alter behaviour, when we know that it does? price is one of the most significant factors in economics. we already know that the carbon tax had a modest impact on emissions in australia, and the source i've referenced several times and that you haven't read, shows that there are real gains to be had via efficiences in energy usage, brought about by making energy costs more expensive.

 

[RupieDupie]

but it has. you're implicitly asserting that taxation doesn't alter behaviour, when we know that it does? price is one of the most significant factors in economics. we already know that the carbon tax had a modest impact on emissions in australia, and the source i've referenced several times and that you haven't read, shows that there are real gains to be had via efficiences in energy usage, brought about by making energy costs more expensive.

So then the carbon tax introduced a few years ago actually worked? Now stopping the boats, I never saw any people smuggler taxed nor talked about in positive terms. Imagine the same with climate change?

Edit: to add that the Australian government also pressured the US government to take some of "boat people" on.

 

[Snake_Baker]

CO2, without it there would be no oxygen. Keep up the good work, LLHFC.

CO2 was originally a byproduct of cyanobacteria photosynthesis

Cyanobacteria & H2O + Qe ---> O2 + H2

CH4 (atmospheric) + 2O2 ---> CO2 + 2H2O

 

[Long Live HFC]

So then the carbon tax introduced a few years ago actually worked?

if by "worked" you mean it reduced carbon emissions from the sectors it applied to, yes.

 

[RupieDupie]

if by "worked" you mean it reduced carbon emissions from the sectors it applied to, yes.

Nothing compared to stopping the boats? $10 billion "investment" over three years for only 3000 people.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Nothing compared to stopping the boats? $10 billion "investment" over three years for only 3000 people.

sorry mate, i really have no idea where you're going with that. you said:

Suppose Australia produces 90,000 tonnes of carbon over x amount of time, then a government taxes the businesses and then the businesses pass off this as a cost to the customer before producing 90,000 tonnes of carbon over the same amount of time. Problem not solved. Government has not served a function. Hence my argument.

which is demonstrably incorrect. i'm unsure what your analogy is trying to say.

 

[RupieDupie]

sorry mate, i really have no idea where you're going with that. you said:



which is demonstrably incorrect. i'm unsure what your analogy is trying to say.

Well, what the Australian government has done with the "boat people" shows they are committed to reducing "boat people", taxing Australian big business however, is only a way to tax or reap more money from the Australian public without doing anything to reduce the issue.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Well, what the Australian government has done with the "boat people" shows they are committed to reducing "boat people"...

but it sounds like you're implying that the financial cost of what the government is doing to boat people, isn't somehow being passed onto the rest of us? it either comes straight out of our taxes (and therefore is an opportunity cost vs whatever else you could do with that money), or it's paid for with bond credit, which has a nice pricetag attached re spending cuts and/or tax increases at some point down the road.

taxing Australian big business however, is only a way to tax or reap more money from the Australian public without doing anything to reduce the issue.

i don't feel you've supported your implicit assertion that taxation doesn't change behaviour (when it quite obviously does).