Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new tax (1 Viewer)

[redmayne]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

Hint: people elect governments.

Yeah... and? Failed attempt at a smart arse comment. The voters have to elect somebody. And every government has to make unpopular decisions for the good of its people, even if they don't understand. Governments that just pander to their constituents never work out.

And China will be the winner. Everyone else saves the world from climate change while China profits from pollution.

Oh I suppose you're right. Let's just leave it then hey! And then everyone can pollute equally and have great profits. Wonderful. Oh wait, then the world's gonna shut down. And nobody will be profiting anymore.

What would you do instead then, O wise one?

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

So we have to do what we can, with the governments of Australia and the world (who will all be here for foreseeable future, whether you like it or not.)

Why do we have to? What value is there in making an effort, if as I suspect, the effort will be expensive and futile?

The only thing that wealth has done for Western society is make us the worst per capita polluters (see Australians). Sure we're equipped to deal with it, but does anyone want to part with their precious goddamn money? No, it's sickening.

The ONLY THING? So I'm guessing you don't enjoy all the wealth that it has provided.

Do you want to part with YOUR money? Feel free to hand it over to some climate change group buddy, don't try and make everyone else sound selfish you hypocrite.

You even admit that more wealth makes us more equipped to deal with it. That's a huge benefit. I'd rather have the resources to erect sea walls, import food and even rebuild urban areas and infrastructure if necessary than to simply say "oh well, we tried but failed, now lets lay back and accept our fate."

People aren't gonna volunteer their money for the world of their own volition. So the government needs to do it for them.

Utter nonsense, unless we have a totalitarian government. If people aren't willing to give their money voluntarily why would they vote for governments that will give it away on their behalf.

the US is getting on board better than most, so there's a fair chunk. If the rest of the world plus the US catches on, China's polluting ways will definitely be in the minority.

It doesn't matter what they say, it matters what they do.

The US may claim to be getting on board, but the US is notoriously corrupt and self interested (look at their sickening military record). It's naive to think they will actually sacrifice their own economic interests in any significant way.

 

[redmayne]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

Why do we have to? What value is there in making an effort, if as I suspect, the effort will be expensive and futile?

Well if you suspect something is amiss, jennyfromdabloc, then it must be so! Look, there's been sceptics and conspiracy theorists for every major development and event of modern times. Round earth, solar system revolving around the sun, Darwin, moon landing, 9-11, and the list goes on. Anthropogenic global warming is just another one of those divisive realities that generate opposition, I just hope the foolish opposition subsides sooner than it usually does, because this issue has much more riding on it.

The ONLY THING? So I'm guessing you don't enjoy all the wealth that it has provided.

Do you want to part with YOUR money? Feel free to hand it over to some climate change group buddy, don't try and make everyone else sound selfish you hypocrite.

You even admit that more wealth makes us more equipped to deal with it. That's a huge benefit. I'd rather have the resources to erect sea walls, import food and even rebuild urban areas and infrastructure if necessary than to simply say "oh well, we tried but failed, now lets lay back and accept our fate."

Forgive me, but I miss the part where I say I don't enjoy my wealth. It's fairly clear that I was talking in terms of the relationship between wealth and the environment.

Yes, actually. I would happily part with my money to help government initiatives that combat climate change. That's an emphatic yes. While I enjoy having money, I'm not so fixated on it as you seem to be.

What are you on? It's better to prevent than to cure. Yes we should look into both, but the immediate concern is stopping global warming, not figuring out what to do when it does strike really badly. That's the disturbing morbidity of your argument, just resigning yourselves to climate change.

Utter nonsense, unless we have a totalitarian government. If people aren't willing to give their money voluntarily why would they vote for governments that will give it away on their behalf.

Because...they do.

It doesn't matter what they say, it matters what they do.

The US may claim to be getting on board, but the US is notoriously corrupt and self interested (look at their sickening military record). It's naive to think they will actually sacrifice their own economic interests in any significant way.

You against the world, isn't it. You and your libertarian friends, fighting the universally corrupt governmental democratic system.

While I agree we shouldn't have blind faith in government, sometimes people have to unify behind a common cause, with the government leading that initiative. No one else is going to do it. It's all we have, and it's not gonna change any time soon.

Just out of curiosity, how could you possibly believe that a pure libertarian state would be less corrupt? Without any reason not to, people would jump at the chance to benefit from corruption and self-interest. If you believe people would just think "Oh, no one's watching now, I'll be a good boy as a sign of my allegiance to the universal morals of humanity" then that is naive.

 

[ComingUpForAir]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

I'm glad you conservatives will never be in charge of actual policy, because your short-sightedness, and strategic ineptitude, is rather astounding.

Countries that 'ignore' any international agreement will be subject to tariffs, their 'cheap-and-dirty' goods will lose any competitive 'edge', thus they have an economic incentive to comply.

Just leave the thinking to us grown ups, you can go stand around huffing the fumes from the bins outside McDonald's or something

 

[Vce121]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

Why not? Introduce incentives for people to 'go green' instead of throwing money at the polluters (for what? Nothing will change).

No viable alternative

 

[zstar]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

I'm glad you conservatives will never be in charge of actual policy, because your short-sightedness, and strategic ineptitude, is rather astounding.

Countries that 'ignore' any international agreement will be subject to tariffs, their 'cheap-and-dirty' goods will lose any competitive 'edge', thus they have an economic incentive to comply.

Just leave the thinking to us grown ups, you can go stand around huffing the fumes from the bins outside McDonald's or something

Yes kill industries that bring jobs that's your bright idea.

The global warming scam has already been exposed for the fraud that it is, The only people that refuse to listen to fact and reality and ultra left wing nut jobs.

 

[John McCain]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

The easiest way for Australia to meet emissions reduction targets is to completely phase out cattle farming.

 

[SylviaB]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

the world cares about what Australia thinks and does

 

[Planck]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

I have been doing a ridiculous amount of reading and research into this tedious fucking topic, and given the reduction in output from an ETS (the amazing rorts aside) won't bring us down to 340ppm, the only direct method of actually fuelling a reduction in output is the wholesale usage of thorium reactors and other methods of green energy.

Take every single dollar from the proposed ETS system and flood it into thorium reactors.

5 - 10 year build time, super cheap zero-carbon output power sources of up to 10GW.

Trivial to do, so fuckin, you know, get on it.

 

[Kwayera]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

Rising CO2 emissions is generally beneficial to the ocean life. Ocean acidification can be problematic, but there are two issues which are important.

1 - To what extent is man the cause of the increased carbon dioxide. Humans only produce about 3% of the world's total carbon dioxide emissions, approximately 1.1% of which is sequestered in the ocean.

2 - To what extent can we be sure that the levels of carbon dioxide and the resulting acidification of the reefs is damaging to the reefs? As i said before, levels of carbon dioxide have been far higher in the past, primarily due to natural events. The coral reefs have survived haven't they? How therefore do we determine whether it is the acidification which is destroying the reefs? Personally, i believe that it is far more likely as the article suggested that is is due to other human disturbances.

Just so you know, dude, you don't actually have any idea what you're talking about. Best stop talking before you dig an even bigger hole.

Also a good idea: when you throw figures around, provide your sources, so we can mock them as well as your arguments.

 

[Riet]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

You don't need a great big tax, just a fair one. No exceptions. Money used directly for the development and construction of renewables/green energy sources in particular nuclear, geothermal and solar.

 

[Riet]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

No viable alternative

Nuclear power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Name_Taken]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

Nuclear power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This.

Australia is set to profit so much out of nuclear energy anyway, I don't know why there is so much opposition to it.

We own 23% of the worlds Uranium deposits. As more and more countries go nuclear (including ourselves, potentially), and commodities like Uranium increase in demand, we are set to benefit.

Also, 33% of our country is desert. We are one of the most sparsely inhabited continents on Earth, so we could also store other nations nuclear waste as it decays, especially that of more population-dense countries who don't have the space.

 

[Fish Tank]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

The only reason we don't have reactors is cos the media gave it such a bad name. And Chernobyl didn't help.

 

[Kwayera]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

The only reason we don't have reactors is cos the media gave it such a bad name. And Chernobyl didn't help.

Or, more, you can lay pretty much the entire blame between Greenpeace and the Greens Party.

 

[Planck]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

Greenpeace was cool before it was stacked out by marxists and all the oldschool environmentalist types left

Keep in mind we don't understand the hype about Nuclear Weapons as our elderfolk do.

 

[Kwayera]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

Greenpeace was cool before it was stacked out by marxists and all the oldschool environmentalist types left

Keep in mind we don't understand the hype about Nuclear Weapons as our elderfolk do.

Hey, I give Greenpeace money, or at least their anti-whaling operations. But they are by far the most prolific organisation - of any type, be it a political party or an NGO - that actively opposes nuclear energy. They are to nuclear energy as PETA are to fur farms

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

We own 23% of the worlds Uranium deposits.

We also own about 25% (debatable, but we certainly own a very large amount) of the world's Thorium deposits. We're well equipped to either use nuclear fuel alongside alternatives, or sell it and tax the sales, and use the revenue to subsidise solar, wind geothermal, etc.

Thorium, as well as uranium, can be used as a nuclear fuel. Although not fissile itself, Th-232 will absorb slow neutrons to produce uranium-233 (U-233)a, which is fissile (and long-lived). The irradiated fuel can then be unloaded from the reactor, the U-233 separated from the thorium, and fed back into another reactor as part of a closed fuel cycle.

In one significant respect U-233 is better than uranium-235 and plutonium-239, because of its higher neutron yield per neutron absorbed. Given a start with some other fissile material (U-233, U-235 or Pu-239) as a driver, a breeding cycle similar to but more efficient than that with U-238 and plutonium (in normal, slow neutron reactors) can be set up. (The driver fuels provide all the neutrons initially, but are progressively supplemented by U-233 as it forms from the thorium.) However, there are also features of the neutron economy which counter this advantage. In particular the intermediate product protactinium-233 (Pa-233)a is a neutron absorber which diminishes U-233 yield.

Over the last 40 years there has been interest in utilising thorium as a nuclear fuel since it is more abundant in the Earth's crust than uranium. Also, all of the mined thorium is potentially useable in a reactor, compared with the 0.7% of natural uranium, so some 40 times the amount of energy per unit mass might theoretically be available (without recourse to fast neutron reactors). But this relative advantage vanishes if fast neutron reactors are used for uranium.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/default.aspx?id=448&terms=thorium

Interesting note: Thorium is safe to handle with your bare hands.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

Hey, I give Greenpeace money, or at least their anti-whaling operations. But they are by far the most prolific organisation - of any type, be it a political party or an NGO - that actively opposes nuclear energy. They are to nuclear energy as PETA are to fur farms

Hahaha. You save the whales people are a joke.

Every year 63 billion animals are raised as livestock and most of them live a life of excruciating pain and torture confined in tiny cages in factory farms.

Everyone is happy to ignore the millions of pigs and chickens that are in unnecessary agony right now in Australia, but we love to get all uppity at the Japanese for killing a few whales.

 

[Planck]

Re: Strong and effective climate change policy, that doesn't involve a great, big new

Now they're JUST LIKE US!