Climate Change - Biggest Money Making Con of the Century or Imminent Extinction of the Human Race

Kippie

Moderator
When you actually think closely about it, everything comes down to an individual level. The individual's choice on who to vote for, or where to spend your money. Both governments and big corporations move according to collective individual forces.
That's right. And that's why I believe that as an individual you can take action no matter how big or small. I remember a quote by Anita Roddick:

“If you think you're too small to have an impact, try going to bed with a mosquito in the room.”
 

LongRoad2Go

Well-Known Member
I don't think anyone really thinks Australia has much influence on the world stage. We do have some though, as a result of our substantial coal production and exports.
On what Australia and our population should do in relation to climate change (as with all things really), for me it's a case of ask yourself, if something is the wrong thing to do, then do you just keep doing it because others are?


So-called 'soft power' is where our Pollies/Business and Organisations aim. That type of power wields a lot of clout particularly with important European and Indo-Asian nations e.g. calling out the need to investigate where COVID originated, etc. The other important aspect is our geographic location, stable government, and good relationships with our neighbours - a doorway for the UK, EU, and 'Merica to access Indo-Asia trade and agreements - ASEAN, APEC, et al. Not to forget the +70 year links with UK and 'Merican space programs and military that continue to today.

If we can show a real alternative to coal, and substantiate it by doing it, then other countries then point to us a a country/continent example, That hold a LOT of weight.

It's not the size of the dog in the fight ...
 

Albynsw

Well-Known Member
So-called 'soft power' is where our Pollies/Business and Organisations aim. That type of power wields a lot of clout particularly with important European and Indo-Asian nations e.g. calling out the need to investigate where COVID originated, etc. The other important aspect is our geographic location, stable government, and good relationships with our neighbours - a doorway for the UK, EU, and 'Merica to access Indo-Asia trade and agreements - ASEAN, APEC, et al. Not to forget the +70 year links with UK and 'Merican space programs and military that continue to today.

If we can show a real alternative to coal, and substantiate it by doing it, then other countries then point to us a a country/continent example, That hold a LOT of weight.

It's not the size of the dog in the fight ...

That comes at a huge cost to our economy for no real outcome on a global scale. You guys all get caught up in the myth that we are going to start the new industrial revolution with renewables and that will be our new economy base.
That is a load of rubbish. We might come up with the idea but it won’t be made here as no one could afford it.
What you are suggesting is like Australia is be influenced by what goes on at Lord Howe Island

I am all for the transition but you have to be realistic about our insignificant position on the world stage. Taking these drastic measures will mean significant hardship for the Australian people
 

Kippie

Moderator
That comes at a huge cost to our economy for no real outcome on a global scale. You guys all get caught up in the myth that we are going to start the new industrial revolution with renewables and that will be our new economy base.
That is a load of rubbish. We might come up with the idea but it won’t be made here as no one could afford it.
What you are suggesting is like Australia is be influenced by what goes on at Lord Howe Island

I am all for the transition but you have to be realistic about our insignificant position on the world stage. Taking these drastic measures will mean significant hardship for the Australian people
Remember back in the 70s when computers were in their infancy? Many people feared that the rise of computers would eliminate jobs. Thousands would be unemployed the unions claimed. The IT industry is now one of the largest employers.
The same is happening with renewables. 10 years ago there were very few jobs. We scoffed at solar panels and wind turbines. They were for geeks. Now the renewables industry employ 27,000 jobs, 120% growth in 10 years. Anyone dare to guess what that number may be in 2030?

I don't believe that there will be hardship if people are prepared to transition. If you want to hold on to non renewables, then it's guaranteed hardship. The global transition is happening now and Australia is in prime position (local availability of renewable energy, technology and expertise) to embrace renewables and play a major role on the international stage. Instead we chose to do the opposite and that will cause hardship, particularly in regional areas.


 

discomatt

Well-Known Member
Taking these drastic measures will mean significant hardship for the Australian people
I think you could do some reading of what the worlds top scientist are saying what will happen to the planet by the end of the century and what hardships that will bring on humanity if we continue the same path.
Although having said that scientists have been very wrong multiple times on many topics and some of the early predictions on global warming have been way off, just look at the very expensive to build and maintain desal plant we have in Victoria that was built on the advise from some of Australia's top scientists and advisers, what a massive waist of money and resources that is turning out to be, it will be so old and broken we will need a new one by the time we actually need one.
So are the top scientist right or wrong, toss a coin and take a gamble, gamble the wrong way the earths environment totally collapses and billions die and billions are displaced from there home or we have a couple of years of transition and spend some money
 

Albynsw

Well-Known Member
Remember back in the 70s when computers were in their infancy? Many people feared that the rise of computers would eliminate jobs. Thousands would be unemployed the unions claimed. The IT industry is now one of the largest employers.
The same is happening with renewables. 10 years ago there were very few jobs. We scoffed at solar panels and wind turbines. They were for geeks. Now the renewables industry employ 27,000 jobs, 120% growth in 10 years. Anyone dare to guess what that number may be in 2030?

I don't believe that there will be hardship if people are prepared to transition. If you want to hold on to non renewables, then it's guaranteed hardship. The global transition is happening now and Australia is in prime position (local availability of renewable energy, technology and expertise) to embrace renewables and play a major role on the international stage. Instead we chose to do the opposite and that will cause hardship, particularly in regional areas.



I am not suggesting we hold on to non renewables, what I am saying is we shouldn’t be bearing the burden of being at the forefront with this premise that we will lead the world to prosperity
A measured approach is the sensible thing to do
 

Albynsw

Well-Known Member
I think you could do some reading of what the worlds top scientist are saying what will happen to the planet by the end of the century and what hardships that will bring on humanity if we continue the same path.
Although having said that scientists have been very wrong multiple times on many topics and some of the early predictions on global warming have been way off, just look at the very expensive to build and maintain desal plant we have in Victoria that was built on the advise from some of Australia's top scientists and advisers, what a massive waist of money and resources that is turning out to be, it will be so old and broken we will need a new one by the time we actually need one.
So are the top scientist right or wrong, toss a coin and take a gamble, gamble the wrong way the earths environment totally collapses and billions die and billions are displaced from there home or we have a couple of years of transition and spend some money

Whilst I agree with all that my point is we are an insignificant player in this issue so while we should by all means keep in step with the big players as they transition but there is no point in being a martyr
 

Albynsw

Well-Known Member

discomatt

Well-Known Member
This doesn’t look real good

Saw that article this morning as well, seems hard to get a balance but some choices just seem to be totally insane, clearing untouched land to me is counter intuitive.
Another example of government failings
 

Albynsw

Well-Known Member

Well you could look at it that way or you could look at it in a more practical context like this

Both sets of information are correct but to rely on the method you posted is manipulating the people of this nation

To use per capita for this argument is misleading, there are cities in Europe that have a bigger population than all of Australia and cover less than 1% of the area
 

Kippie

Moderator
Well you could look at it that way or you could look at it in a more practical context like this

Both sets of information are correct but to rely on the method you posted is manipulating the people of this nation

To use per capita for this argument is misleading, there are cities in Europe that have a bigger population than all of Australia and cover less than 1% of the area
So, because we have less people in Australia, we are each entitled to emit more to match the population of say China. In other words our per capita emissions could rise 56 times. And each American can increase their emissions by at least 4 times. Now does that sound like a reasonable suggestion to mitigate global warming?
 
Last edited:

peterfermtech

Well-Known Member
What a ridiculous article!

Using another active thread do we say we are not responsible for the CO2 emissions to make Urea because we buy it from overseas?

A simple part of economics is without consumption there is no demand. Without demand there will be no supply (except soviet Russia)

There is over a trillion tons of coal reserves of which we have 14%. Do you really think that if we stop selling it that countries will stop buying it.

You're being conned by the EU controlled UN's marketing line.
 

Albynsw

Well-Known Member
So, because we have less people in Australia, we are each entitled to emit more to match the total country's emissions of say China. In other words our per capita emissions could rise until each Ozzie emits the same as 56 Chinese. Now does that sound like a reasonable suggestion to mitigate global warming?

That is not what I am saying. We are being conned into heading down a path of financial hardship on the basis of the manipulation of data. Of course we should evolve with the technology as it becomes commercially available in a rational manner but we are being told Australia is the worst offender in the world for emissions when the fact is we are at the other end of the scale.
 

LongRoad2Go

Well-Known Member
The greenhouse gas blame game sure smells like BS and, usually, if it smells like BS it is BS.

I suspect if we took all the figures from the end of WW2, the major powers with their enormous fossil fuel guzzling militaries alone, would probably exceed the GHG emissions of Australia over the last 100 years or more i.e. the Cold War and all the others, not to mention the rapid growth in those times.

A search of the Net shows how many Earth-equivalents certain countries use, no surprise that ‘Merica and China are at the top. On this forum, members typically use the weekend to ‘get away’, travelling several hundred km’s to find those perfect pristine bush/beach campsites. The same distance travelled in EU-Land would pass through several countries – they’re happy to ignore the fact we’re a huge, dry country with that tyranny of distance issue. Meanwhile, in some European country, a family with a 4WD needs to book months in advance for the same privilege and somehow ignore the fact that several thousand others have camped where they are about to - hardly pristine, significant trade-offs and all the other restriction that goes with over-populated places. Australia = quality of life not necessarily needing huge resource outlay.

The EU and UN all switch off when someone mentions the need for global population control – bean counters with their infinite growth models tend to have a conniption when their ideal is proven false. Their box of tricks seems empty when they're pressed on matters.
 
This doesn’t look real good


“Biodiversity is the buffer at the end of the tracks that stops the runaway train of climate change from bursting through,” Dr Nevard says.

When academics trot out this sort of emotive grandstanding, I'm reminded of why I left academia for a more practical career.

I recall when I was doing (agricultural) science at Uni in the 80's, we had a thing called 'scientific method'. Now it seems scientists - particularly environmental scientists - are as dubious as social media posts?
 
Top