Global Warming

[bullus_hit]

You might like to add the power of unions and their ties to the ALP up there with the likes of Clive Palmer.

Very true, Labour is just as compromised as any of the political parties.

Growth is sustainable if it is backed by real savings earned by generating real wealth.

The problem with the growth theory is that we live in a finite world and are experiencing population growth which will add another 3 billion consumers by the turn of the century. Given that we are struggling to feed everyone now, I shudder to think how we'll cope with all the extra mouths to feed. It's almost an apocolyptic scenario in which all life on earth will be seriously challenged.

Free markets are bunkem in that they don't exist or never existed, but it is fair to say the development of markets are what allowed us to become as rich as we are.

Yes, we are very fortunate to have been born in an era where we have been the main benificiaries of economic expansion. The problem facing the West is we are also loathe to downsize our expectations, even if it's inevitible. The Greeks are a perfect case of a nation unable to accept that the country is broke and that the government cannot be relied upon for welfare. It's a rude wake-up call but it's reality and it's only the beginning.

The perverse thing about the collapse of a nation state is you actually begin to gravitate towards a free market system as people attempt to eke out a living through whatever means they can muster. Cuba has been a classic example of a country that has drawn on it's internal resources and in some cases, thrived in the face of adversity. Some of their urban horticulture is amongst the world's most efficient and their ability to recycle everything and anything is something we could all take heed of.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

..........
......
..
Growth is sustainable if it is backed by real savings earned by generating real wealth. The likes of the USA and Europe are fed on a system of debt because the current monetary system requires it to keep the lie going. It is a giant ponzi scheme the current banking system and fiat money. Fractional reserve banking meaning banks can simply create money out of thin air, and have government backed guarantees meaning they have zero incentive to take risk seriously. Central banks have a monopoly of the supply of money, meaning government can simply inflate our savings away as if it is all good, yet if I was to print money I'd go to jail.

I doubt very much that historians will accurately determine why we are failing, we never seem to learn the lessons of the past. This stuff has been going on for centuries.

Perhaps the Eurozone accidentally got it right. The Greek default and the parlous state of the PIIGS is happening because with a central currency they couldn't hide their debts any more and they can't print money. Maybe it is time for one global currency?

 

[tigersnake]

The West managed to increase it's standard of living without the sort of environmental destruction taking place in China, and what took place under the Soviet Union.

Growth is sustainable if it is backed by real savings earned by generating real wealth.

You can't be serious. Those are statements of somone who knows zero about the history of environmental impacts of Wester societies. Western environmental protection laws only commenced in the 1970s. Thats 120-180 odd years of unregulated destruction in Europe and the US. (Europe removed all its forests centuries prior to that but thats another story). China is already making rapid moves to clean up its act. If it can economically develop this quick it can also clean up its act quick.

As for the last statement, thats true if the value of the environment is discounted to zero. Therein lies is the crux of your position. Economic growth requires exponentially increasing amounts of raw materials.

You are correct that 'pure' free markets are a mythical beast, as they should be. They are regulated to mitigate their impacts on people and the environment, as they should be. They are there to serve people.

 

[Sintiger]

The top 6 carbon emitters are:

China 23%
USA 18%
European Union 14%
India 6%
Russia 5%
Japan 4%

Thats 70% of the world's carbon emissions right there.
(Australia was 16th on the list with 1.32%)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

So it would seem logical to me that if you have a global problem that people on here think needs urgent attention, then these are the countries you aim to make reductions first and foremost and they should be driving the market....not have inconsequential countries like Australia attempt to do it.

Even if we are successful, what have we changed to the climate?
Nothing.
You could shut Australia down tomorrow even and what difference would we make to global warming.
Zilch.

I am so glad that we are just a medium size country, it means we don't have to do anything about any global problem because whatever we do is insignificant. It's so great being able to do what we want to do.
Japan and Russia must be so annoyed that they are in the top 6. Surely they could be left out of any responsibility as well because the other 4 create 60% of emissions?

 

[tigersnake]

Exactly...its o.k trying to be at the forefront of new technologies but one has to ask the question then, what is the carbon tax trying to achieve?

Is it to force industries here to move to new ways they do things to try and save the environment and hope the rest of the world follow so a difference might be made on a global scale?
Is it to force industries here to move to new ways they do things hoping they will invest more in R&D in these areas and have Australia become the world leader in greener energy?
Is it a bit of both?

Or will businesses shun this idea and use the carbon tax to justify moving their business offshore, spiking our unemployment rate, all the while making not one iota of difference to the environment, and investing in technologies nobody is really interested in?

The top 6 carbon emitters are:

China 23%
USA 18%
European Union 14%
India 6%
Russia 5%
Japan 4%

Thats 70% of the world's carbon emissions right there.
(Australia was 16th on the list with 1.32%)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

So it would seem logical to me that if you have a global problem that people on here think needs urgent attention, then these are the countries you aim to make reductions first and foremost and they should be driving the market....not have inconsequential countries like Australia attempt to do it.

Even if we are successful, what have we changed to the climate?
Nothing.
You could shut Australia down tomorrow even and what difference would we make to global warming.
Zilch.

:cutelaugh nothing cowardly about not answering a question that didn't need answering to begin with.
Similarly to Giardiasis, I see no reason for subsidies for any industry or body, as you have to ask the question whether the money you are spending (wasting?) in markets that need propping up are viable anyway.
The auto market (Ford, etc) a prime example of bailout after bailout.
But we know that is purely for political points not because the business itself is seen as being viable in the future,

So your argument is a) humans are having neglible effect. and b) even if humans are having an effect, Australia's contribution to that effect is neglible so we shouldn't do anything until others do.

I can't argue with you on point a). I believe the science. You for whatever reason do not. So lets look at point b)

That kind of thinking represents all that is wrong with this country. Its stale and scared thinking. We should never innovate, always follow, never get on the front foot. There is big money to be made in sustainable energy. Its the next big thing in global capitalism. Lets get on it. Be at the cutting edge for once. Its exciting.

 

[Liverpool]

I am so glad that we are just a medium size country, it means we don't have to do anything about any global problem because whatever we do is insignificant. It's so great being able to do what we want to do.
Japan and Russia must be so annoyed that they are in the top 6. Surely they could be left out of any responsibility as well because the other 4 create 60% of emissions?

That kind of thinking represents all that is wrong with this country. Its stale and scared thinking. We should never innovate, always follow, never get on the front foot. There is big money to be made in sustainable energy. Its the next big thing in global capitalism. Lets get on it. Be at the cutting edge for once. Its exciting.

All "lets go and get'em" but no logic or thought behind the comment.

Sustainable energy is only going to be the 'next big thing' if there is a market for it and while there are countries out there with token carbon schemes or no schemes at all, then why will businesses here commit to investing in a technology that is going to hurt their bottom lines when it will be easier and cheaper to move their facility offshore to places like China and India?
Cheaper carbon prices (if there is a scheme at all), cheaper labour, cheaper overheads....all of a sudden businesses here who were maybe just contemplating moving all of a sudden have another reason to move.

If the global community were all for saving the environment and truly believed man-made emissions are at the forefront of causing climate change, then surely a carbon tax on the biggest emitters first (China, India, etc) to make an instant impact on the total emissions being generated would be imperativeand logical.
This would also discourage businesses here at looking at China/India as a place to relocate when an eventual carbon tax is introduced here.

I could maybe understand the rationale if we were one of the largest emitters and it would actually make a difference but the only change we will see at the moment is a change in the length of the unemployment line with the same amount of pollution (if not more) being pumped into the atmosphere from China and India instead.

 

[tigersnake]

You call that an argument? We've arrived back at pointless dead-end territory. It did take a significantly longer time to arrive here this time though.

 

[Liverpool]

You call that an argument? We've arrived back at pointless dead-end territory. It did take a significantly longer time to arrive here this time though.

There isn't an argument.

Australia.
0.31% of the worlds population.
1.32% of the worlds carbon dioxide emissions.

Says it all really.

How anyone can justify a carbon tax and look people in the eye and say this is going to make a difference to the environment and the future of our children is beyond me.

You use the word "pointless"...that sums up the carbon tax in Australia perfectly.

 

[AngryAnt]

:cutelaugh nothing cowardly about not answering a question that didn't need answering to begin with.
Similarly to Giardiasis, I see no reason for subsidies for any industry or body, as you have to ask the question whether the money you are spending (wasting?) in markets that need propping up are viable anyway.

Too late Livers, you had to wait for your intellectual superior to answer for you as you had no clue how to answer even though I asked you at least four times. Then you agree with him.

Still, you could do worse than agreeing with G-Man as he does have his own thoughts and poses good arguments.

 

[Giardiasis]

As for the last statement, thats true if the value of the environment is discounted to zero. Therein lies is the crux of your position. Economic growth requires exponentially increasing amounts of raw materials.

No it doesn't. It requires innovation to find new ways to do things, and new things to make based on the prices of things the market tells us. You think that when all the oil gets used up that we will simply crash in on ourselves? Oil prices will go up gradually as the supply drops, which will make it profitable to develop new technologies and to extract new resources. That's why the market is so powerful, because it tells people when an investment is worth it. The best way to value the environment is to respect property rights, not by making it unprofitable for small business to compete with large companies because of excessive regulations.

You are correct that 'pure' free markets are a mythical beast, as they should be. They are regulated to mitigate their impacts on people and the environment, as they should be. They are there to serve people.

They are regulated because some people think they know better than other people, and have an unstoppable urge to co.erce them into doing what they want. The net result is that people are worse off.

 

[Giardiasis]

There is big money to be made in sustainable energy. Its the next big thing in global capitalism. Lets get on it. Be at the cutting edge for once. Its exciting.

Then go forth and place your hard earned on investments into these technologies, but get *smile* if you expect me to waste my money on it.

 

[Liverpool]

Too late Livers, you had to wait for your intellectual superior to answer for you as you had no clue how to answer even though I asked you at least four times. Then you agree with him.

Still, you could do worse than agreeing with G-Man as he does have his own thoughts and poses good arguments.

Too late for what? :

Yep, Giardiasis is doing well

No it doesn't. It requires innovation to find new ways to do things, and new things to make based on the prices of things the market tells us. You think that when all the oil gets used up that we will simply crash in on ourselves? Oil prices will go up gradually as the supply drops, which will make it profitable to develop new technologies and to extract new resources. That's why the market is so powerful, because it tells people when an investment is worth it. The best way to value the environment is to respect property rights, not by making it unprofitable for small business to compete with large companies because of excessive regulations.
They are regulated because some people think they know better than other people, and have an unstoppable urge to co.erce them into doing what they want. The net result is that people are worse off.

:clap

 

[poppa x]

There's one big reason beyond the carbon tax why some Australian manufacturers are moving production to Asia.
It's the value of the A$.
In my small business, we recently closed down a small area of our local manufacture and sourced the product from China because of the A$.
Job losses? 3 people, not many in the overall scheme of things but 3 people and their families who never the less have had their lives severely impacted.
The Carbon Tax is not helping Australian business but please, let's not kid ourselves that it's the big reason why we are currently uncompetitive.

 

[Brodders17]

i know some on the conservative side do think 'expert' opinion is not any more valid than anyone elses but here is an article in the economist about the carbon tax-
http://www.economist.com/node/21558258

 

[tigersnake]

You should know better than to post analysis from pinko rags such as the Economist Brodders.

 

[tigersnake]

No it doesn't. It requires innovation to find new ways to do things, and new things to make based on the prices of things the market tells us. You think that when all the oil gets used up that we will simply crash in on ourselves? Oil prices will go up gradually as the supply drops, which will make it profitable to develop new technologies and to extract new resources. That's why the market is so powerful, because it tells people when an investment is worth it. The best way to value the environment is to respect property rights, not by making it unprofitable for small business to compete with large companies because of excessive regulations.

Thats all well and good if burning the oil until it runs out had no ecological impact. I understand that you think that pollution is OK and doesn't have an impact. I understand why you hold that view. I don't hold that view. I beleive that not having a price on pollution, ie. its free to pollute, is a market failure that needs to be fixed.

 

[Giardiasis]

By fixed you mean via totalitarianism.

 

[AngryAnt]

Too late for what? :

Yep, Giardiasis is doing well

:clap

If it means you post less, it's win win.

 

[Brodders17]

You should know better than to post analysis from pinko rags such as the Economist Brodders.

yeah sorry but it is only far lefties that are in favour of an ETS/carbon tax.

 

[tigersnake]

By fixed you mean via totalitarianism.

now you're just taking the *smile*.