Climate change is politcal *smile* ,its a govt way of increasing taxes nothing more nothing less. I live in Vietnam and do you think 90,000,000 npeople give a rats tosser about climate change ,India ,China ,US ,don't care either . Our goverment is a "DEER WITH NO EYES ".
-
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
tigersnake said:
Well der Fred, it's a figure of speech. Don't own a house outright to put on it anyway. But that's not the issue really, is it? Just a nice diversion for you.
The thing about US politics is that it is inherently conservative. The republicans aren't going to do it - it has to be the democrats. The democrats are a much more conservative party than the ALP, even with the ALP being more conservative than it used to be. And they don't have the 3rd party left of them to further left causes. So any negotiation is to the right of their stance. And unlike Australia, they aren't little kids playing in the big kids' playground. They don't feel the need to risk their nation's economy to be noticed by the big kids.
Your point about the black president is valid. I didn't think there would never be one, but I lived on the west coast which is much more small l liberal than the rest of the country. I am surprised it happened so quickly, though and I agree that 50 years is a long time in politics. But I stand by my never. I just can't see it happening. I can't even see it happening in my kids' lifetime (they are in nappies). And neither of us will be around to point score beyond that.
I can certainly agree with you that your the proposition that a CT would aid economic recovery is a crazy, mental idea (as you put it).
I know a reasonable amount about US politics.
Its not a nice diversion. Its not the way to have a debate. I reacted to it because you said 'you can bet your house they never will',... but I think they will. (but I wouldn't bet my house on it). Hung out to dry, economy destroyed. Its ridiculous. I work in mining analysis. The new coalmine proposals that are on the table at all stages of development along 20 year timelines is mind boggling, I don't say that lightly. My mind is boggled when I stop and think about the scale, its hard to get your head around it. These companies are putting a lot of money into these developments even tough they know a CT is coming and its just another cost on a hugely profitable game, just like trucks and stationary. Their profits will go from massive to just very very big.
Its the same as Native Title, the miners, the coalition and John Howard and the Murdoch press said it would destroy our mining industry. Destroy it. The dabate at the time was very similar in tone to this one. If anything the NTA had bigger effect than what the CT will, and it wasn't much. Native Title put a cost of between 0.1 and 1.2% on the cost of some mines. A lot of companies, including some arms of the 2 biggies, are now more than happy to pay that because it goes to employment and community infrastructure for the Aboriginal landowners. Thats taken nearly 20 years to get to that.
Thats a key point here, the timelines involved. This is an initial tiny step of getting people used to the idea that pollution has an ecological and economic cost. We have to be looking at at least 100 year timelines to move to a genuinely low-energy sustainable capitalist economy. People just can't get their heads around that. Abbots argument rests on 'a CT will make no diff to the environment'. No it won't for at least 40-50 years, probably more like 100. I dunno if that is possible to sell. Saigon boy's post above is another good example of how people just can't see beyond a few years ahead. I can see why SB thinks that, but I can see asia's awareness shifting rapidly. By rapidly I mean 5-15 years. Things can change quick. I was in Bogota Colombia 15 years ago, 9 million people. It was a dangerous, dirty, violent scary place. Good urban policy has changed it into one of the most livable cities in the world. I'm going back there. I never would have thought that could happen.
As for my crazy idea, I don't think I'm ever gunna convince you, but all the modelling shows, (apart from my own knowledge of economics) a CT will generate significant economic activity. A few inefficient coalmines will shut. A heap of new ones will open. Energy efficiciency R&D will grow, maybe even boom. To me its common sense to direct a small percentage of huge profits to promoting industries of the future, to you its a crazy idea.
If it stays free to pollute we'll keep polluting. Putting a price on pollution is the only hope we've got, and starting in a very small way is the only hope of bringing it in. As your rhetoric shows, even that seems like too big a sell. I'm not being patronising, but you seem intelligent, but you're running around like the sky will fall. Personally I think we're probably stuffed, (not in my lifetime), and I think the root of a lot of the opposition lies there, 'why bother when we are stuffed anyway? lets party while we can'. I can see that logic, but I'm just not comfortable with it.
Its not a nice diversion. Its not the way to have a debate. I reacted to it because you said 'you can bet your house they never will',... but I think they will. (but I wouldn't bet my house on it). Hung out to dry, economy destroyed. Its ridiculous. I work in mining analysis. The new coalmine proposals that are on the table at all stages of development along 20 year timelines is mind boggling, I don't say that lightly. My mind is boggled when I stop and think about the scale, its hard to get your head around it. These companies are putting a lot of money into these developments even tough they know a CT is coming and its just another cost on a hugely profitable game, just like trucks and stationary. Their profits will go from massive to just very very big.
Its the same as Native Title, the miners, the coalition and John Howard and the Murdoch press said it would destroy our mining industry. Destroy it. The dabate at the time was very similar in tone to this one. If anything the NTA had bigger effect than what the CT will, and it wasn't much. Native Title put a cost of between 0.1 and 1.2% on the cost of some mines. A lot of companies, including some arms of the 2 biggies, are now more than happy to pay that because it goes to employment and community infrastructure for the Aboriginal landowners. Thats taken nearly 20 years to get to that.
Thats a key point here, the timelines involved. This is an initial tiny step of getting people used to the idea that pollution has an ecological and economic cost. We have to be looking at at least 100 year timelines to move to a genuinely low-energy sustainable capitalist economy. People just can't get their heads around that. Abbots argument rests on 'a CT will make no diff to the environment'. No it won't for at least 40-50 years, probably more like 100. I dunno if that is possible to sell. Saigon boy's post above is another good example of how people just can't see beyond a few years ahead. I can see why SB thinks that, but I can see asia's awareness shifting rapidly. By rapidly I mean 5-15 years. Things can change quick. I was in Bogota Colombia 15 years ago, 9 million people. It was a dangerous, dirty, violent scary place. Good urban policy has changed it into one of the most livable cities in the world. I'm going back there. I never would have thought that could happen.
As for my crazy idea, I don't think I'm ever gunna convince you, but all the modelling shows, (apart from my own knowledge of economics) a CT will generate significant economic activity. A few inefficient coalmines will shut. A heap of new ones will open. Energy efficiciency R&D will grow, maybe even boom. To me its common sense to direct a small percentage of huge profits to promoting industries of the future, to you its a crazy idea.
If it stays free to pollute we'll keep polluting. Putting a price on pollution is the only hope we've got, and starting in a very small way is the only hope of bringing it in. As your rhetoric shows, even that seems like too big a sell. I'm not being patronising, but you seem intelligent, but you're running around like the sky will fall. Personally I think we're probably stuffed, (not in my lifetime), and I think the root of a lot of the opposition lies there, 'why bother when we are stuffed anyway? lets party while we can'. I can see that logic, but I'm just not comfortable with it.
saigon boy said:
You make 2 points. 1) climate change is real, I know its not nice but there it is. 2) The Chinese government cares, the US cares, they just have their own economic and cultural reasons for responding on their own terms. India aren't exactly making the running, but they are showing signs. Vietnam I haven't read much about.
I found it very interesting recently when I was in Hong Kong for November. The climate change debate there revolves around HOW to respond. There was zero debate about whether or not its happening. Zero. I was handed a copy of the Aus as I got on my Qantas flight home and guess what? Some colunmist crapping on about how evil the ABC is because it accepts climate change. Amazing, and dismaying.
tigersnake said:
I don't think the sky will fall in. I do think that Australia putting a price on carbon will do two fifths of nothing to global temperatures. I believe that this is a G20 issue and unless all G20 nations are putting a price on carbon, nothing is going to be achieved other than putting Australian exporting businesses at a disadvantage to their competitors.
Thanks for the bit on your background. It does help me understand your perspective. While you're dealing with the fast side of our 2 speed economy, I'm in the slow lane. My background is small-business manufacturing, primarily exporting to US and European retail sectors (we also sell in Australia but the market here is so price sensitive and uncompetative that we have gone from being the highest selling product in our sector to struggling to be able to get on shelves although our RRPs have increased at less than inflation in the past 10 years due to cost savings and productivity gain). Many small manufacturing businesses in this country are sitting on a knife edge. We are already uncompetitive in labour costs. We live with that. Our major international markets are in recession or about to go into recession. The dollar is killing us. The CT/ETS is going to be another thorn in the side of these businesses. And yes, there is some short-term compensation coming to small business but it won't last forever. Small business manufacturing operators will close their doors as it will be the final straw in making us an uncompetitive place to manufacture but because it's 20 jobs here, 15 there, another 30 over there, 25 somewhere else (as opposed to the 100s and 1000s that get lost when large operators go) it will go largely unnoticed.
And all for what if the rest of the world is not participating? That's what gets me so frustrated.
Very tough game to be in TT very tough. I sympathise and sincerely hope things come good.
But this is a macro debate. I'ts all very complex, but I reckon the 2 speed economy is damaging us long term. I beleive a CT, along with the MRT or SPT will go some way to addressing it. At a macro level a CT will put us ahead of the game economically. I don't know your situation but the problems you mentioned, labour costs and the $, are the real issues, the CT is here or there. Its effect on the wider economy could well be positive for you. Also your operation will be more energy efficient. Chinese and US ones won't. But again I don't know your situation, but I hope it comes good.
But this is a macro debate. I'ts all very complex, but I reckon the 2 speed economy is damaging us long term. I beleive a CT, along with the MRT or SPT will go some way to addressing it. At a macro level a CT will put us ahead of the game economically. I don't know your situation but the problems you mentioned, labour costs and the $, are the real issues, the CT is here or there. Its effect on the wider economy could well be positive for you. Also your operation will be more energy efficient. Chinese and US ones won't. But again I don't know your situation, but I hope it comes good.
tigersnake said:
The 2 speed economy is already damaging us greatly because policy is being driven by the overall picture and those who can least afford it are being punished for the success of those making all the money.
Yes, the CT is just one of a plethora of problems facing small manufacturers in this country at the moment but while many manufacturers are managing to tread water with their labour costs and AUD$, the CT will be the one they can no longer factor in. The timing of it all just sucks. Had they decided to do this 5-10 years ago, the impact would not have been as great. In our case, it's not long before it will be no longer viable to manufacture our product here. We will either decide to manufacture off shore or pull stumps entirely (it was never envisaged 40 years ago that we'd still be doing this) but both of those options do nothing for those who rely on us to make a living. And we are talking low skill workers who will be competing with all the other low skill workers from similarly based businesses. And I will repeat myself - not entirely due to the CT, but it's just one more thing that small business does not need at the moment.
And I will also repeat my other point. Without the G20 doing this as a whole, it will do nothing for global temperatures.
jb03 said:
Strange article. Equating those who believe in crop circles to those who believe in climate change? To put it diplomatically, thats a long bow. He makes some OK points at times and he writes in a convincing way, but he reveals his true colours at the end when he delves into the 'huge funding for greeny scientists' crap.
Unfortunately reason won't win over the deluded, because they will never be convinced otherwise. We'll just have to wait it out, and when the economic damage of green policies wreaks everyone's lives then perhaps politicians will be forced to concede their folly. The green movement at this point will kick and scream and move onto the next psuedoscientific reason for them to save the world.jb03 said:
Giardiasis said:
Data will convince me, data. Evidence and logic is the only thing that matters to me. This bloke is an effective arguer, and he knows a lot about genetics.
I draw parallels to a speech made by Friedrich von Hayek when given his Nobel prize; "The pretence of knowledge". He talks about the problem with economists ability to explain and understand the economy, something I think is similar to scientists ability to explain and understand the climate.tigersnake said:
Describing the attempt by economists to apply the scientific method used in the physical sciences in explaining economics: "It is an approach which has come to be described as the "scientistic" attitude - an attitude which, as I defined it some thirty years ago, "is decidedly unscientific in the true sense of the word, since it involves a mechanical and uncritical application of habits of thought to fields different from those in which they have been formed."
Given the number of fields of science that climate science incorporates, I'd argue that many so called experts today comment on climate science in this manner, i.e. "a mechanical and uncritical application of habits of thought to fields different from those in which they have been formed."
Still one could argue what the hell has this got to do with climate science? It is a physical science, ergo isn't it appropriate to use for climate science? This is why I draw a parallel:
"The theory which has been guiding monetary and financial policy during the last thirty years, and which I contend is largely the product of such a mistaken conception of the proper scientific procedure, consists in the assertion that there exists a simple positive correlation between total employment and the size of the aggregate demand for goods and services; it leads to the belief that we can permanently assure full employment by maintaining total money expenditure at an appropriate level."
Something as complex as the economy, it is strange that one relationship is deemed the be all and end all. I'd compare this to the relationship between CO2 levels and global temperature. We can assure constant temperature by reducing the amount of CO2 man emits to the atmosphere to an appropriate level!
He goes on:
"This brings me to the crucial issue. Unlike the position that exists in the physical sciences, in economics and other disciplines that deal with essentially complex phenomena, the aspects of the events to be accounted for about which we can get quantitative data are necessarily limited and may not include the important ones. While in the physical sciences it is generally assumed, probably with good reason, that any important factor which determines the observed events will itself be directly observable and measurable, in the study of such complex phenomena as the market, which depend on the actions of many individuals, all the circumstances which will determine the outcome of a process, for reasons which I shall explain later, will hardly ever be fully known or measurable. And while in the physical sciences the investigator will be able to measure what, on the basis of a prima facie theory, he thinks important, in the social sciences often that is treated as important which happens to be accessible to measurement. This is sometimes carried to the point where it is demanded that our theories must be formulated in such terms that they refer only to measurable magnitudes."
I'd argue climate science is indeed a complex phenomena, and there exists a mountain of unobserved and unmeasured variables that are not taking into account, and indeed are thought of as unimportant for that reason. I'd also argue that this is why climate models will always be wrong.
Hayek summises:
"On this standard there may thus well exist better "scientific" evidence for a false theory, which will be accepted because it is more "scientific", than for a valid explanation, which is rejected because there is no sufficient quantitative evidence for it."
It is a fantastic read: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1974/hayek-lecture.html
This is a very old lecture, and Hayak was very old when he made it.
The data has come a long way. The scientific consensus says human activities (burning fossil fuels) are causing climate change. When the scientific arrives at a broad consensus over a long period of time after a lot of debate and data collection, we tend to act on it. Science arrives at a consensus that if kids are vaccinated against X disease, they won't get that disease. We act on that. Some minority view scientists still say vaccination doesn't work or is harmful, but less kids are dying. This is a genuine scientific consensus, yes it might be wrong, but I for one am not in the habit of putting large sums on 100/1 shots.
OK lets put all that physical science aside, for arguments sake lets pretend that the majority of the worlds best scientists are wrong and Plimer is right. I believe we have nothing to lose and a heap to gain, both ecologically and economically, by moving to a clean energy efficient economy. In spite of what you may think, I love many aspects of capitalism and its potential. I'e done very well out of it. Energy efficiency will be the next big thing.
So even if the majority of scientists are wrong and Plimer is right, we get a cleaner world for future generations, less dpendence on expensive fossil fuels, and we get an invigorated global economy. The rise of clean energy industries will be like a second industrial revolution, the birth of the motor car or computer.
I'm never going to convince you, but based on many years of study, reading, investment, work, thats what I reckon.
The data has come a long way. The scientific consensus says human activities (burning fossil fuels) are causing climate change. When the scientific arrives at a broad consensus over a long period of time after a lot of debate and data collection, we tend to act on it. Science arrives at a consensus that if kids are vaccinated against X disease, they won't get that disease. We act on that. Some minority view scientists still say vaccination doesn't work or is harmful, but less kids are dying. This is a genuine scientific consensus, yes it might be wrong, but I for one am not in the habit of putting large sums on 100/1 shots.
OK lets put all that physical science aside, for arguments sake lets pretend that the majority of the worlds best scientists are wrong and Plimer is right. I believe we have nothing to lose and a heap to gain, both ecologically and economically, by moving to a clean energy efficient economy. In spite of what you may think, I love many aspects of capitalism and its potential. I'e done very well out of it. Energy efficiency will be the next big thing.
So even if the majority of scientists are wrong and Plimer is right, we get a cleaner world for future generations, less dpendence on expensive fossil fuels, and we get an invigorated global economy. The rise of clean energy industries will be like a second industrial revolution, the birth of the motor car or computer.
I'm never going to convince you, but based on many years of study, reading, investment, work, thats what I reckon.
Hehe no we won't ever convince each other, that's obvious enough.
I find more and more truths written by people that lived long ago. The problems they dealt with are so similar to today's problem it is not funny. Vaccination is a wee bit less complex than climate science. The scientific method can handle it. I'm arguing the scientific method can not handle climate change.
You might believe we are all better off, but what you advocate must result in the subversion of democracy because you wish to dictate how money is spent (a lot of money). That is not capitalism, that is not freedom; that is socialism, that is totalitarianism.
I have much more faith in the market to decide where capital should be allocated for the maximum benefit of society, not, forgive me, by you individually or anyone else because it always comes down to central planning of the economy. There is no way in hell that you or anyone else will ever come close to having the information you need to direct an economy, that's why socialism failed, and that's why the West is now crumbling.
I find more and more truths written by people that lived long ago. The problems they dealt with are so similar to today's problem it is not funny. Vaccination is a wee bit less complex than climate science. The scientific method can handle it. I'm arguing the scientific method can not handle climate change.
You might believe we are all better off, but what you advocate must result in the subversion of democracy because you wish to dictate how money is spent (a lot of money). That is not capitalism, that is not freedom; that is socialism, that is totalitarianism.
I have much more faith in the market to decide where capital should be allocated for the maximum benefit of society, not, forgive me, by you individually or anyone else because it always comes down to central planning of the economy. There is no way in hell that you or anyone else will ever come close to having the information you need to direct an economy, that's why socialism failed, and that's why the West is now crumbling.
I may be a simpleton but Science is Science. It's not a consensus. Science is either proven by the facts or not proven.
