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 > Don’t sacrifice workers on altar of climate change > Comments

Don’t sacrifice workers on altar of climate change : Comments

By Jeremy Gilling, John Muscat and Rolly Smallacombe, published 6/12/2006

In Australia’s case, Kyotoesque measures are tantamount to using a jackhammer to crack a walnut.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All
I for one, actually think that nobody wants to really do anything about climate change.

They want the issue fixed, yes, but that's not the same thing.

The kyoto protocol seems like a solution. Everyday voters think it won't affect them - we should just sign it and the problem will go away.

Everybody wants a solution, nobody wants to have to curb their lifestyle. Welcome to the human race.

Kyoto won't do much, but it is a start. It will hurt economically. Quite a lot. But better we sustain an injury while we are healthy, than when we are ill.

If we aren't willing to take serious measures, we can't seriously expect other nations to as well.

China and India will need to be convinced and we probably can't do that if Australia and the US don't sign up.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Wednesday, 6 December 2006 11:52:12 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
I tend to agree with Perseus. Kyoto was stacked heavily in Europe's favour and failed to address carbon sinks properly, which Australia and North/South America have plenty of. The capacity of the oceans to absorb and reprocess carbon was one I hadn't really though much of and needs more looking into.

Ponder makes a very good point, but underestimates the timeline of the cycle and the number of different cycles. The Sun has magnetic/thermal cycle of 22 years. The Earch a sidereal cycle of 26,000 years (that's why the sun is no longer in virgo at whatever time of the year - but it was 2000 years ago).

Places like ancient Carthage moved from fertile to wasteland in recorded history before the industrial revolution. So too has the size of the Sahara desert increased over the last few millenia. 6000 years ago England was mostly wooded, and 12,000 years ago Europe was buried by ice. 66 Million years ago the world was tropical with hardly any polar or galacial ice.

To add to Ponder's point climate change is needed for evolution/natural selection of life. The world is in constant flux and always has been. The question is how much is human activity impacting on this ever present change.
Posted by Narcissist, Wednesday, 6 December 2006 12:42:25 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
I must admit that I am baffled by the new climate change religion. The first thing I don't understand is the philosophy of Kyoto. If you burn a kilo of coal, you get the blame. Fair enough. But why do you STILL get the blame if someone else in another country burns your kilo of coal? Why doesn't he get the blame? And if we tell him we won't supply him any more, and he gets his coal from South Africa and burns it, NO-ONE gets the blame. If someone can explain the reasoning behind this, I would be grateful.

Again, I can't understand people who denigrate the desire of modern countries to run expanding economies. As I see it, the last time we ran a world where the economies weren't expanding, it was called the Great Depression, and most people weren't happy. Mass unemployment, starvation, hopelessness, don't seem to be good goals to aim for.

Again, why is it that NO-ONE mentions the real problem, which is world population growth. Nature has a cure for this, and it is called the four horsemen of the apocalypse. Not a lot of fun, I would think.

It seems to me that many extreme environmentalists are watermelons; green on the outside, red on the inside.

A few comforting statistics to end with.

The percentage of the world's population that lives in the southern hemisphere: 11%.

The percentage of the world's pollution generated in the southern hemisphere: 4%.
Posted by plerdsus, Wednesday, 6 December 2006 12:54:08 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
“I for one, actually think that nobody wants to really do anything about climate change.” I tend to agree – most will expect governments to come up with the ‘feel good’ policies such as Kyoto – providing energy costs (fuel and electricity) are kept reasonable. We’ll happily continue to run our air conditioners, drive our many vehicles and consume the products made in China (produced from our coal and raw materials). As with our so called ‘water restrictions’, we’ll just increase our usage because, “be damned! Our back yard ‘just don’t’ use much in the scheme of things”

I’ll congratulate the politician who can sustain popularity at the ‘Gallup’ and simultaneously tell the public we cannot afford the capital to continue building our McMansions with a 2nd plasma screen in the bedroom, along with every other appliance or ‘gizmo’ we ‘need’.
Posted by relda, Wednesday, 6 December 2006 1:17:48 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
Plerdsus,

I dont think you are right about if someone else burns our coal we still cop the blame. It is certainly the case with wood chips exported to Japan in that the stupid rule is that he who chops the tree down cops the blame, but for coal dug up here, exported to Japan which they burn,then they certainly cop the blame for that.

But, we also cop the bame for opening up the mine here in the first place, which supposedly releases Co2. That may be a fiddle,I dont know.

In any event Kyoto itself is still a nonsense.
Posted by bigmal, Thursday, 7 December 2006 9:34:06 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
Global warming is happening and it is caused by the release of carbon in many forms into the atmosphere. The CO2 concentrations as measured over the past few years at Cape Grim are increasing at an increasing rate. There is little doubt that we need to reduce our emissions and to start to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.

This can be done and it can be done in such a way as to have a positive effect on the world (or any particular country) economy.

The solution is to invest in the infrastructure to produce energy which does not release carbon be it nuclear, solar, bio-diesels, etc. As well as producing energy we need to invest in the infrastructure to produce materials which extract carbon from the atomosphere for useful purposes (eg. non biodegradable plastics).

The trick is to finance the infrastructure so that it will have a positive economic effect. One way to do this outlined at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5180

The first country to move to such a regime will have "first mover" advantages and be able to export its techniques and methods to other countries. Australia has a great opportunity to be that country.
Posted by Fickle Pickle, Saturday, 9 December 2006 12:06:52 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All

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