rosy23 said:
rosy23 said:
I thought it was obvious.
I understood it was always about global warming. Then it seemed to be climate change. So apparently it's climate change.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
I thought it was obvious.
I understood it was always about global warming. Then it seemed to be climate change. So apparently it's climate change.
Liverpool said:
seems your saying you dont think humans are influencing climate change, but just in case we are us Aussie's shouldnt do anything about it anyway because we make such little difference?
Brodders17 said:
I don't think human intervention is the main cause of global warming, no...therefore I think the carbon tax is a total waste of time in regard to saving the planet.
I am also happy to go one step further and say that even if proven 100% wrong regarding man being the main cause of our planet warming, then with a population and total emission in the extremely low category, the carbon tax is still a waste of time in regard to saving the planet.
This is such a pointless deabte (no offense). We're got the technology now to power the world through clean and efficient energy and we should be using it. Not only would it save money for those that need to it lowers carbon emmisions in case that is actually the problem. Imagine if the $900 the goernment gave everyone a few years ago was spent on installing solar panels on every dwelling in the country. How much savings would that have created for both the individual and the environment?
Liverpool said:
You have already been proven wrong, you just don't accept the empirical agreed upon science. Any stimulus that forces the slow moving industrial sector to clean up it's act and revolutionise the way it generates and uses energy will far outweigh the cost imposed by early intervention in the form a carbon price and emissions trading system. That is the point. Not silly point scoring and nonsense arguments disputing scientific methods.
KnightersRevenge said:
It won't force the industrial sector to clean up its act at all...it will simply force businesses overseas where they do not have to abide by such stringent environmental laws or carbon taxes.
Major companies are not going to invest billions of dollars more or less reinventing the wheel to churn out the same product they already do and stay in Australia when they can use that money to set up shop offshore with the bonus of having lesser taxation and environmental controls as well as cheaper labour and overheads.
The company I work for is one of Gillard's major emitters.
It will have to pay over $10-million in carbon taxes and the board are already looking at viable manufacturing alternatives overseas (especially if Abbott doesn't get into power and repeals it)
So how is that helping the Australian economy? helping the global environment? or revolutionising the way we use energy?
Liverpool said:
On industry relocation, the evidence suggests otherwise. A couple might, but that will be more than offset by new industries stumulated by a carbon price.
This is all about changing thinking. Starting the process of normalising that air pollution has a cost. This a first tiny teeny baby step in tapping the brakes on runaway growth in pollution. To suggest that there would ever be some mechanism whereby every nation in the world all took simulantaneous radical action, which is what your argument demands, is total unrealistic lunacy, a total furphy, yet you cling to it relentlessly. We either a) do nothing, or b) start small. You have to start somewhere, to turnaround the aircraft carrier that is the energy intensive global economy will take at least 50 years, probably more like a hundred.
tigersnake said:
That's all great too Tigersnake, but what I suggest is that instead of a country like Australia punishing company's here that...what was it, pump out less than 2% of the global carbon emissions....we start the baby steps you mention with developing countries ( I think the top 4 countries pump out 70% of the total global emissions).
Then you might actually make a difference if you believe man-made emissions are the cause of global warming.
Having a country like Australia with its low population, low total emissions, and high carbon price is just about useful to the global climate as if you went out side on Black Saturday and decided to try and put the bushfire out with a garden hose.
Things change Liverpool. Your logic is the same as suggesting the asbestos industry was punished. The tobacco industry. The radio industry. The horse industry. The ice industry. The radium industry. Industries shrink and die or adapt while others grow and flourish due to technological change, health discoveries, consumer and social demand. It has always been the way and always will be.
Liverpool said:
You haven't actually responded here. Same old, 'Don't act because the problem won't be solved instantly' argument.
tigersnake said:
Never said that things shouldn't change due to technological advances or changes in Government policies even....all I am saying is that there is still debate and a good part of the population is sceptical about climate change being driven by man-made pollutants to begin with, but if we are to believe that this is true, then surely aiming policies/taxes at the countries that actually pump out the majority of the carbon emissions would be a good step forward in improving the global climate?
tigersnake said:
Yeah? What's it say?
Liverpool said:
first point, there isn't any debate.
Second point, it says that the source of your livelihood may have an influence on your political views on this issue. Which is understandable.
tigersnake said:
If there is no debate and lets say you are 100% right that man is the main reason...surely then it would be logical to look at the root cause of the man-made emissions and to try and make a difference ASAP...and aiming at the biggest emitters to begin with:
Liverpool said:
Why risk our economy and growth when we are a drop in the ocean and our emissions are negligible?
Lets make a difference then and go for the biggest polluters which in turn will persuade businesses here to stay rather than go to developing nations.....wouldn't that make more sense than taxing Australians?
As for your second point:
It doesn't, as the role I am in is pretty safe regardless of whether the manufacturing arm of the business moves offshore or not.
Liverpool said:
See it is words like "risk" and a favourite of the Libs, especially Pyne, "sovereign risk" that are part of the problem. They, and you, dress up the argument as though it is an all or nothing proposition. We can't move our energy production off-shore for instance. Energy will have to be generated on site. Mining has to be done where the minerals are. As long as there is a buck in them the miners will be here. You aren't suggesting that mining companies will leave the stuff in the ground if they can make a dollar off it are you? The industries which are currently keeping Australia near the top of the table for per capita emissions will have to adjust they way they do business. We can wait for them to do it themselves, this is the market forces model. Except they won't. They'll obfuscate until their old architecture is creaking and straining and until the cost of digging it up or upgrading their machinery is too high, then they'll bugger off. So you force their hand. You make them improve now when there is still an economic argument and you reap the rewards in the future of leading the world in sustainable work practices and China and India come to you to use your expertise in these areas and you become the Asia region go-to guys. Graduations in Engineering and Science sky-rocket off the back of the new technologies. You become a centre of knowledge. And you profit off it as the newest and most progressive Republic, striding into the next millennium as the model for the rest of the world.
