-
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
tigertim said:
So...
It was a reply to another post. I think most people would believe that certain media have a political bent.
But the ABC is funded by the taxpayer and they could do a "balanced" view of the subject. Certainly it's of public interest one would think.
This Is Anfield said:
That's one way to look at it. Another would be that your media has done a poor job of presenting the best information in a consistenly logical way.
willo said:
Most recently they gave David Suzuki his own Q&A but then created an IPCC vs "scientist" denier debate with Suzuki as ineffective moderator. It was a shambles, hence my comment about Dr Karl.
KnightersRevenge said:
Hey KR, for some reason I was very grumpy this morning when I replied - very smartarsey I admit. But for some reason when I read your post I just imagined you typing it sitting in a Nth Fitzroy cafe, all dressed in black with a beret on & sipping a latte!
Very irrational I know but sometimes you just can't help yourself.
And wouldn't it be OUR media?
This Is Anfield said:
There are some fine cafes in Fitzroy mate. You nailed me (except for the beret) I used to frequent them of a Sat or Sunday morning. Dublin is home now and al fresco lattes hold less appeal. Your media because I don't watch the news and I don't read the papers other than the odd article if I'm pointed to it online. I do watch and listen to the ABC via podcast though. Your media because whatever it is it is giving you bad information. There is good information out there but you won't get on free to air news or in the Murdoch press and Fairfax is only a slight improvement. I recommend the odd issue of New Scientist.
This Is Anfield said:
ive never understood why people's choice of coffee supposedly lessens the value of their view.
Brodders17 said:
Of course it doesn't - KR understood that I was admonishing myself for indulging in a bit of stereotyping!
KnightersRevenge said:
Sorry - didn't know you are overseas.
This Is Anfield said:
my comment wasnt only directed at you. 'latte sipping lefty' is a quite common 'insult' by right wing rednecks.
Brodders17 said:
If it wasn't ONLY directed at me then obviously you consider me to be a "right wing redneck"?
And my reply was quite clear in that I was in no way attempting to insult Knighter's Revenge.
Brodders17 said:dont take offence at my brilliant attempt at humour.
Something about this thread tends to suck the humour out of everyone! ;D
And if that's one of your brilliant attempts at humour Brodders please spare the world your poor attempts!
****(the above post was typed in a humorous manner with a smile on my face)****
This Is Anfield said:
Offence is always "taken" rarely "given". I took no offence. I like both lattes and Fitzroy cafes but everyone looks silly in a beret even green berets but no body laughs because the have big guns.
My problem with Willo's suggestion is that it implies that a balance can be found by pitting the two sides in an "even" contest. Picture a regular see-saw. Imagine a fat kid(science) on one side and a skinny kid(Andrew Bolt) on the other. Where do you have to place the pivot (fulcrum) to "balance" the see-saw? If you manage this feat do the two kids now weigh the same? This is where the science is at and a two sided debate only creates the "impression" of balance.
Tony Abbott's direct action climate policy bizarre: Ken Henry
FORMER Treasury secretary Ken Henry has described Tony Abbott's direct action scheme for tackling climate change as "bizarre" and predicted the Coalition will wind up implementing an emissions trading scheme.
Dr Henry said the public service had been advising Australian governments for the past decade that an emissions trading scheme was the least economically damaging way to satisfy their emissions reduction commitments.
Although a carbon tax achieved a similar outcome, the policy direction taken after the election was “bizarre”, with the government's strategy now being to purchase abatement with direct payments from government to industry.
“We've been reminded that buying abatement is like buying licences from irrigators in the Murray-Darling Basin for environmental flows,” he told a conference at the Australian National University.
But if the government was going to buy carbon abatement, it first had to create a licence or permit to emit and the government would then buy those permits.
“How would that be different to the Murray-Darling Basin? You're saying the only purchaser of emissions can be the government. You're ruling out the equivalent of water trading.”
“Why would you do that when (allowing private firms to trade their rights to emit) is where all the productivity enhancement comes from?”
Dr Henry said another example of the folly of making the government the monopoly purchaser of rights to emit could be found in the labour market.
Labour market deregulation does not raise productivity by reducing the supply of labour. It does so by making it easier for labour to move to where it is the most productive.
“Even if you don't want to reduce labour supply, you'd be in favour of labour market deregulation to increase productivity.
“By the time the government's scheme is legislated, it's going to look like an emissions trading scheme,” he said.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/tony-abbotts-direct-action-climate-policy-bizarre-ken-henry/story-e6frg6xf-1226752735032#sthash.ywYu2EaV.dpuf
FORMER Treasury secretary Ken Henry has described Tony Abbott's direct action scheme for tackling climate change as "bizarre" and predicted the Coalition will wind up implementing an emissions trading scheme.
Dr Henry said the public service had been advising Australian governments for the past decade that an emissions trading scheme was the least economically damaging way to satisfy their emissions reduction commitments.
Although a carbon tax achieved a similar outcome, the policy direction taken after the election was “bizarre”, with the government's strategy now being to purchase abatement with direct payments from government to industry.
“We've been reminded that buying abatement is like buying licences from irrigators in the Murray-Darling Basin for environmental flows,” he told a conference at the Australian National University.
But if the government was going to buy carbon abatement, it first had to create a licence or permit to emit and the government would then buy those permits.
“How would that be different to the Murray-Darling Basin? You're saying the only purchaser of emissions can be the government. You're ruling out the equivalent of water trading.”
“Why would you do that when (allowing private firms to trade their rights to emit) is where all the productivity enhancement comes from?”
Dr Henry said another example of the folly of making the government the monopoly purchaser of rights to emit could be found in the labour market.
Labour market deregulation does not raise productivity by reducing the supply of labour. It does so by making it easier for labour to move to where it is the most productive.
“Even if you don't want to reduce labour supply, you'd be in favour of labour market deregulation to increase productivity.
“By the time the government's scheme is legislated, it's going to look like an emissions trading scheme,” he said.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/tony-abbotts-direct-action-climate-policy-bizarre-ken-henry/story-e6frg6xf-1226752735032#sthash.ywYu2EaV.dpuf
KnightersRevenge said:
Good analogy, but it may depend on how far up the plank the fat kid and the skinny kid sit. ;D
Some might think Bolte is the fat kid
But regardless, more "unbiased" information would be welcomed
Brodders17 said:
So is he referring to the economics or to the effectiveness?
On one hand he says it's bizarre, but then he states once the scheme is legislated it will look like an ETS. Isn't that what some/most people are saying is preferable?
I have asked this on the Politics thread, but probably more apt here.
If a polluter has to pay for carbon credits because they have gone over their "allocation" isn't this cost passed on to the consumer? Similar to what has happened to electricity prices etc now. (I'm not politicking, just making a comparison to what is) So the "polluting" company still carries on but the consumer pays the eventual cost. Where do the emissions actually go? How are the emissions actually reduced? Regardless of Direct Action, ETS, carbon tax or whatever other action plans are called.
If a polluter has to pay for carbon credits because they have gone over their "allocation" isn't this cost passed on to the consumer? Similar to what has happened to electricity prices etc now. (I'm not politicking, just making a comparison to what is) So the "polluting" company still carries on but the consumer pays the eventual cost. Where do the emissions actually go? How are the emissions actually reduced? Regardless of Direct Action, ETS, carbon tax or whatever other action plans are called.
