Global Warming

[tigersnake]

The pedophile analogy was spot on. Confronting I admit, but logically spot on.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

The pedophile analogy was spot on. Confronting I admit, but logically spot on.

Quite correct. There is no reason for anyone or any company to stop undertaking a profitable (emotionally perhaps, as disgusting as this analogy is) activity just because it is harmful.

My argument is that the new technology makes it possible to undertake the same activity, minus the harm, in a way that will make it just as profitable maybe more so in the future. My argument further is that large corporations will not do this of their own accord. The market will not self regulate. There is no justification for thinking that it will. Alcoa could have had a system of continual small upgrades that would see them still in operation in Geelong. Instead they worked their old machinery until it gave up or became impossible to run at a "justifiable" profit, then skipped town. This is exactly what will happen if we don't nudge industry into a cleaner age. Doesn't it make more sense to legislate for better practices while companies are still profitable and thus guarantee their survival long into the future, rather than allow an obfuscate for now, and then cut and run later strategy?

 

[Liverpool]

Alcoa could have had a system of continual small upgrades that would see them still in operation in Geelong. Instead they worked their old machinery until it gave up or became impossible to run at a "justifiable" profit, then skipped town. This is exactly what will happen if we don't nudge industry into a cleaner age. Doesn't it make more sense to legislate for better practices while companies are still profitable and thus guarantee their survival long into the future, rather than allow an obfuscate for now, and then cut and run later strategy?

For a company like Alcoa to upgrade means capital expenditure and therefore lower dividends back to the shareholders.
Lower dividends means more people will not invest in the company and will look elsewhere to invest where they will get a bigger return.
No money to invest means the plant runs as is to survive, it shuts down, or the company move operations offshore.

And that's before we even take into account higher employment costs, higher overheads (like utilities), regulations and legislations that need to be abided by, and a high Australian dollar.

 

[tigergollywog]

Just to put this ridiculous hypothesis to bed once and for all :

And Bill turns around and says "Get *smile*ed mate, I already have the infrastructure to use DEADLY XXX...I can sell items cheaper than you, and with the majority market share and less rules and regulations on my property, you're going to be out of business within a year".

So let's quit with this childishness and stick to reality, eh?

Livsy, theres a website called lumocity, where through cognitive online exercises, you can actually connect neurotransmitters and improve your logic and stuff like that. It may not be for you, but Ive posted a link in case youde like to try it. your not that far off the mark with your abstract thought and logic, it probably only needs a few million neural connections. I know this may sound like a lot, but its not in the scheme of thing. All the best TGW

http://www.lumosity.com/app/v4/personalization?gclid=CJCf96vsp7QCFZBYpgodHg0ASQ

 

[tigergollywog]

Just to put this ridiculous hypothesis to bed once and for all :

And Bill turns around and says "Get *smile*ed mate, I already have the infrastructure to use DEADLY XXX...I can sell items cheaper than you, and with the majority market share and less rules and regulations on my property, you're going to be out of business within a year".

So let's quit with this childishness and stick to reality, eh?

Thats not really right either. See it wasnt that hypothetical. I use a 16% sulphur drench, which is certified organic. It used the same drench gun (infastructure I guess) as the nasty organochloride ones. It seems to be keeping all the parasites at bay, and ive got the organic free range farm gate beef market cornered in my valley. Bills cows are covered in ticks, his creek banks are stuffed and the other day he had two calves drown. I think hes struggling a bit to be honest. I'll tell him about the sulphur and let you know how he gets along.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

For a company like Alcoa to upgrade means capital expenditure and therefore lower dividends back to the shareholders.
Lower dividends means more people will not invest in the company and will look elsewhere to invest where they will get a bigger return.
No money to invest means the plant runs as is to survive, it shuts down, or the company move operations offshore.

And that's before we even take into account higher employment costs, higher overheads (like utilities), regulations and legislations that need to be abided by, and a high Australian dollar.

Well isn't that just a lecture in militant capitalism? I had hoped that the lesson of the GFC was that capitalism is broken. Everything is not dependant on the market. If wishes were horses I know..... The business of publicly listed companies strikes me a bit like those people with negative equity mortgages. Your house is a home, not a leveraged asset. Your business is service delivery not dividend delivery. It's an old-fashioned idea, but wouldn't it be nice that if you wanted to expand your business that you did so by being so good at your trade that you were able to amass enough capital and good will you could borrow the small extra you needed to grow without floating on a market that behaves like a scolded brat whenever whichever is that days golden idol sneezed?

 

[AngryAnt]

For a company like Alcoa to upgrade means capital expenditure and therefore lower dividends back to the shareholders.
Lower dividends means more people will not invest in the company and will look elsewhere to invest where they will get a bigger return.
No money to invest means the plant runs as is to survive, it shuts down, or the company move operations offshore.

Your market forces analogies are as inept as all your others.

There is a real cost to pollution - of any variety. There are already a myriad of regulations/laws/practices that mean that companies cannot indiscriminately pollute. Should we remove all of these to prevent the likes of Alcoa moving offshore?

There is a real cost to implementing and maintaining OH&S. There is a real cost to paying employees superannuation. There is a cost to paying tax on profits. Do you disagree that these things are necessary to doing business in Australia?

All these things cost money, and in the short-term detract from the bottom line. It's the cost of doing business. If companies are not willing to do these things they WILL go out of business whether through market forces or through enforcement of regulations. And in the long term they add value to the company, not detract from it.

 

[tigergollywog]

How about Wayne cut foreign aid and give you your $2000 plus use the rest of the money to persuade people away from desert areas that aren't sustainable in the long term for generations of people?

Or how about you get off your arse and either get a job or get a second job?
Maybe the school then might get the whole $2000.

There's a couple of options

I feel a bit mean pointing out your cognitive ineptitude Livs, but since everyone else is, I'll just point out one more case

The above quote is you assuming that I got $2000 carbon tax offset money because i'm poor. Incorrect. See i'm firmly in the middle class and am just another recipient of your bloke Howards middle class welfare.

This is where your Abbottesque cognition kind of stumbles. Actually, it lurches hopeless to the right, to the point where you embarrass yourself. Ive got THREE jobs and i'm nicely tucked into middle Australia, but that dont stop the government (over)helping me out with the power price increase, which is about the only way 20,000,000 of us are affected by the Carbon Tax.

Sorry to have to do that to you Livsy. Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind.

 

[tigergollywog]

The pedophile analogy was spot on. Confronting I admit, but logically spot on.

Glad youve got the horse power in the head to see it snake. I find Gina Rinehart and Clive Palmer getting fatter while Tuvaluans have to breath through a snorkel pretty confronting too.

 

[Liverpool]

Well isn't that just a lecture in militant capitalism?

Well, we aren't talking about Willy Wonka's Chocolate factory and living in Gingerbreadland...thats the reality.

Your market forces analogies are as inept as all your others.

So what is inept about that particular post?

There is a real cost to pollution - of any variety. There are already a myriad of regulations/laws/practices that mean that companies cannot indiscriminately pollute. Should we remove all of these to prevent the likes of Alcoa moving offshore?

Not at all, but like anything, there is a limit to what is an acceptable cost to be able to do business and make profit...and what is prohibitive enough that it may make businesses look at more 'less regulated' countries.

There is a real cost to implementing and maintaining OH&S. There is a real cost to paying employees superannuation. There is a cost to paying tax on profits. Do you disagree that these things are necessary to doing business in Australia?

Like the answer above...I agree that our standards are higher and therefore what we ask for from businesses trading here is more, than say a China or India.....but there comes a time when businesses start to do the maths and they will eventually look offshore if the numbers don't add up.
That's not being pessimistic....just realistic.

All these things cost money, and in the short-term detract from the bottom line. It's the cost of doing business. If companies are not willing to do these things they WILL go out of business whether through market forces or through enforcement of regulations. And in the long term they add value to the company, not detract from it.

I agree with you Antman....but its only a short term loss if the investment you are making is going to either save money or make money.
That is what the shareholder wants to see and in turn, will be happy to put their money into the company so you can invest it.

If Alcoa, for example, invested a lot of money keeping their plant modernised or even looking at renewable energies years ago....would it still be around anyway, if the investors over the years didn't get a dividend but simply saw their money being spent in continual upgrades, and so decided to move their money into another portfolio?

Its a fine line between keeping investors happy as well as having the capital to keep your plant as a benchmark facility.

 

[tigergollywog]

Its a fine line between keeping investors happy as well as having the capital to keep your plant as a benchmark facility.

your forgetting one important point AGAIN Livsy. Lets use Alcoas Gove bauxite facility (they owned it last time i looked, not that that says much) as an example. No matter how 'benchmark' the facilities, with projected sea level rise, the staff will wading around in knee-high sea water on a kingtide. All that salt wont be good for the capital investment, whether you fully frank it or not. And to be fully frank, when the loading facility washes away in a tsunami, by which time insurance policies against natural disasters will be like sabre toothed tigers, the dividends will be badly affected. In fact, the shareholders will probably have a big liability that goes with the share certificate. The investors arent gonna be happy, the capital all gone and the benchmark facilities, however best practice on the global stage they may be, will be stuffed ..... along with the planet.

 

[Liverpool]

your forgetting one important point AGAIN Livsy. Lets use Alcoas Gove bauxite facility (they owned it last time i looked, not that that says much) as an example. No matter how 'benchmark' the facilities, with projected sea level rise, the staff will wading around in knee-high sea water on a kingtide. All that salt wont be good for the capital investment, whether you fully frank it or not. And to be fully frank, when the loading facility washes away in a tsunami, by which time insurance policies against natural disasters will be like sabre toothed tigers, the dividends will be badly affected. In fact, the shareholders will probably have a big liability that goes with the share certificate. The investors arent gonna be happy, the capital all gone and the benchmark facilities, however best practice on the global stage they may be, will be stuffed ..... along with the planet.

No king tides in the middle of China

Maybe read this:

Some companies need to leave Australia to survive
http://www.smh.com.au/business/offshore-move-gives-gloom-the-boot-20120824-24ryr.html

Get it now?

 

[tigersnake]

I definately get it.

Off topic, I used to swear by Blundstone boots since the late 80s, a pair used to last me 2-3 years in comfort. Wore 'em working, into town, anywhere. Last pair I bought were Chinese. Lasted 3 months, during that time the inner sole desintegrated rendering them very uncomfortable, got new inners, then the outers fell apart.

I now buy Oliver workboots, made in Ballarat. Don't look as nice but look OK, tough and comfy. I don't reckon Blundstone HAD to shift. They just chose to reduce quality and hope to increase volume. I'm skeptical given my experience. They could have positioned themselves as a premium Aussie made boot, but like premium brands before them who chose to low qual/ high volume, they'll become yet another item of Chinese landfill. They pulled the wrong rein IMO, but I have been wrong before.

Back to ALCOA, The asbestos and tobacco industries relocated to the developing world. It happens. Again, the CT is designed to put pressure on highly polluting industries and promote innovation and development of new alternative and/or efficient energy industries. If an Aluminium smelter relocates to the third world that is a predictable outcome of the policy.

 

[Liverpool]

Ive got THREE jobs and i'm nicely tucked into middle Australia, but that dont stop the government (over)helping me out with the power price increase, which is about the only way 20,000,000 of us are affected by the Carbon Tax.

Three jobs and still time to come on here responding to every post I make.
Impressive....who would have believed it? :cutelaugh

I dont have a job. The job market for black gay spastics with afros is limited. Could you lend me $10 till dole day Livsy?

 

[tigergollywog]

No king tides in the middle of China

Um, tides are global livs. Sure maybe sea-level rise wont reach the chinese highlands, but other impacts of climate change will Livs old son. See thats the thing, you can run, but you cant hide. Its not a very big planet. Get it?

On that note, I am off to the highest mountain in australia to send christmas with my lefty family. I will emit about 50kg of carbon getting there, but i will offset it by drinking Cascade Green all christmas.

Merry and safe Xmas to all (yeah even you Livsa) and a happy and equitable new year to ALL. :hula

 

[Liverpool]

Back to ALCOA, The asbestos and tobacco industries relocated to the developing world. It happens. Again, the CT is designed to put pressure on highly polluting industries and promote innovation and development of new alternative and/or efficient energy industries. If an Aluminium smelter relocates to the third world that is a predictable outcome of the policy.

The outcome of the policy is to attempt to save the world from impending disaster (climate change/global warming)

Is that going to happen by simply moving the problem from one country to the next?

 

[Liverpool]

Um, tides are global livs. Sure maybe sea-level rise wont reach the chinese highlands, but other impacts of climate change will Livs old son. See thats the thing, you can run, but you cant hide. Its not a very big planet. Get it?
On that note, I am off to the highest mountain in australia to send christmas with my lefty family. I will emit about 50kg of carbon getting there, but i will offset it by drinking Cascade Green all christmas.
Merry and safe Xmas to all (yeah even you Livsa) and a happy and equitable new year to ALL. :hula

Of course not...the sun will eventually get us...that is true.

Merry Christmas to you too.

 

[tigersnake]

Yes, but as I've said, it will take a long time. Relocating is not ideal you're right on that, but to continue the tobacco analogy, first world countries move to implement sledghammer policies to reduce smoking first. The industries relocate to the third world, slowly over time, developing countries want to develop, and inevitable try and do what developing countries did or are doing, they realise the socail and economic costs. Developing countries like China and Malaysia are now going hard on anti-smoking policies. Eventually, no country is keen on smoking.

In an ideal world nations would all sit down at the UN and say lets fix this climate change biz. Everyone acts decisively and simultaneously. The world though, as we all know, is far from ideal.

Again the nub of your argument is that unless the whole world acts decisively and simultaneously, there is no point in acting. I reject that argument on ethical (as per TGW analogy) and practical/ pragmatic (see above) grounds.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Well, we aren't talking about Willy Wonka's Chocolate factory and living in Gingerbreadland...thats the reality.

Rampant capitalism isn't "the" reality it is "a" reality. You can choose. Your company doesn't have to be at the mercy of shareholders and their tanties when dividends are low. The market is not king, and that should really be better understood in the wake of the worst economic disaster in human history.

 

[Liverpool]

Again the nub of your argument is that unless the whole world acts decisively and simultaneously, there is no point in acting. I reject that argument on ethical (as per TGW analogy) and practical/ pragmatic (see above) grounds.

Its not "no point in acting" but "no point in us acting", while the rest of the world pump out new coal powered stations.

If we were massive greenhouse gas emitters and agreed that man-made gases were the main culprit then I may agree with you....but...well...