The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > An ethical and sustainable Australia makes sound business sense > Comments

An ethical and sustainable Australia makes sound business sense : Comments

By Simon Divecha, published 29/12/2005

Simon Divecha argues Australia needs clear policy leadership on greenhouse gas emissions.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
Thanks for being passionate about the environment, we are all becoming more concious in this day and age but let me tell you why it cant happen.

Kyoto does not make business sense for Australia. It places un neccessary restrictions and strains the ability to develop as a nation at speed. the problem lies with witholding technology therefore for Australia to develop and keep pace being a niche economy, we must have the ability to make independant choices on our emmissions, as emissions are the result of our development and a developed lifestyle. Until new cleaner technologies become prevalent and available, as with the rest of the world we cannot do anything about it.

John Howard has alot more quality information, advice and people assisting him than most. He is not evil despite everything, and if was a sound option he would entertain it for the nation. I am not a liberal voter by the way.

Your heart is with this, i applaud you for that but our way of life is important and freedom for Australia to develop is just as important.

Not everyone would be as content as you with a degradated lifestyle, considering we have worked so hard to create a good one.

Remember, we are only talking 20 years time when petrol may be replaced with water emitting engines.
Posted by Realist, Thursday, 29 December 2005 9:17:28 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Realist, I agree nothing can be done, but the buck stops with Howard and the rest of the ruling elite.

Waiting for beneficial changes to come about in 20 years is like saying, after the bomb goes off, we will do something. We have the technology, the resources but not the will to change. We could reduce our reliance on imported oil down to almost zero without reducing our standard of living, again it just requires the will power.

There is not one politician that who will do that, because they know that they are only there to support big business and current economic approaches. If I, as a small business operator, can reduce our energy bills to just maintainance levels, grow our fuel and after 5 years have saving of more then $12000 a year to be put into lifestyle improvements, then why can't others. I sit here with all the mod cons, not connected to the grid nor a telephone landline and never worry about power or telstra bills. Next year when they will begin to add excise to biofuel products, we will still have fuel that costs less than 50c a litre to produce.

Change will not come about until our ecology collapses enough to bring our society to a stop. What most can't understand or want to hear, is that you can have an environment without and economy, but you can't have an economy without and environment. Its as simple as that, all the semantics and rhetoric in the world won't allow you to overcome nature and its retaliation.

If you lived where I live, then you would see how dramatic they changes are becoming now, not in 20 years. At the present rate of change, in 5 years, society will be struggling to survive the onslaught of nature ripping its cities apart with increasingly violent storms and collapsing ecosystems. Being a true realist, I see and accept this coming reality. Sorry about the pun, no offence meant.
Posted by The alchemist, Thursday, 29 December 2005 10:40:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why do enviromentalists always want to penalise Australia for having a low population? The real impacts on the environment and on climate change are the total impacts. We should be congratulating ourselves (not criticising ourselves) for keeping our population low and therefore our impact on the world's environment low.

The United States may produce 27% less greenhouse gases per capita but they produce 12 times as much total greenhouse as we do. Well done Aussies. China may produce a quarter of the greenhouse per capita that Australia does, but they produce 17 times as much greenhouse gas as Australia does. Good work Aussies.

None of these countries have made any special sacrifices to have these lower per capita greenhouse emissions. China is burning all the coal it can dig up, in order to industrialise and improve its lifestyle as quickly as possible.

Total environmental impact is based on population times per capita impact. Australia has kept its population low and we have a low total impact on the world's environment. Lets keep our population low and our impacts low and we will be able to live sustainably.
Posted by ericc, Thursday, 29 December 2005 11:23:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Singer as an ethicist? Surely we are now approaching a special time when "The Lion shall lie down with the Lamb". I stopped reading when I came across his name.

Is that the same Peter Singer who: advocates sterilisation in Third World countries; said "When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed" and he went on to say that killing the disabled infant should be considered right; and in furthering his advocacy of infanticide he says the killing of healthy "newborn-infants especially if unwanted, are not yet full members of the moral community," and thus it is acceptable to kill them (Rethinking Life and Death). He offers a plan in which "a period of 28 days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to life as others".

Mr Singer has an odd view of humans and animals. He said: "This does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural, whatever those much-misused words may mean, but it does imply that it ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings" (Singer, "Heavy Petting").

Preterists at OLO can remember that just a few short weeks ago Team Left tried to whip us into a frenzy over the state-sanctioned execution of one person - a drug dealer, yet it is happy for Mr Singer to advocate a system whereby the state will dispense with unwanted infants if they are not claimed within 28 days. Why not have an auction like CityRail does for lost property.

Peter Singer as an ethicist? Why not Hitler or Pol Pot?
Posted by Sage, Thursday, 29 December 2005 11:31:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry Sage, I will get back to the issue, if you don't mind. People are complacent and will only act at the 11th hour it seems. If we have the technology, it seems crazy to me not to use it. We have alternate sources of power now, hydro, solar, wind turbines to name a few. Our governments, yes government's' need to fund R&D into these industries to exploit these technologies, and transform them into viable solutions for the mass market. Why can't Australia lead, instead of follow for a change? We may find that we have a huge commercial advantage in doing so, with resulting employment, and a healthier economy both in terms of climate, and lifestyle. If industry are participating in greenhouse reduction in the USA, why is it unreasonable to suggest that Australia employ the same or better technology, especially having read the previous post concerning savings in power bills, and telephone charges. There are a great many people like myself who could benefit from a revolution in this technology, however at the moment it is just too expensive for the homeowner to purchase. Lets lead the world on sustainable energy, help the world out of poverty, and ourselves to an enhanced economy similtaneously.I believe business call it a win/win situation, strange for
Posted by SHONGA, Thursday, 29 December 2005 12:09:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Our little planet has been in a state of change forever and will be henceforth. Oil, hopefully, will run out in the near future and maybe a less polluting substitute will be found.
Wind, solar,tidal energy is all there waiting to be harnessed, it just takes a willing mind to do it.
The big problem is overpopulation. We have the means to prevent the various plagues, we have the means to prevent famine, not sure if we have the mind to prevent war which is so profitable. Maybe it is the only way we have of population cull.
Think of the hugeness of Australia, will a little bit of smoke make any difference in comparison with such a bulk? I think not.
Posted by mickijo, Thursday, 29 December 2005 2:37:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy