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 > Carbon rationing or freedom > Comments

Carbon rationing or freedom : Comments

By Jennifer Marohasy, published 14/3/2008

Should governments let climate alarmists impose policies that limit an individual’s access to energy?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 15
  10. 16
  11. 17
  12. All
Thanks for the World Climate link Keiran. I note all the editors are among the global warming "experts" who have received personal or research funding from the fossil fuel industry - not forgetting Exxon, of course!

Naturally, author Jennifer and her buddies at the IPA were included in the international list of recipients who benefit from the fossil fuel industries' piggy bank of bribes!

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-scientists-46011008-3

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=5
Posted by dickie, Saturday, 15 March 2008 7:46:18 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
When you add or release energy into the atmosphere, the atmosphere warms ... if there is water around, it will evaporate.

This extra moisture precipitates out as rain or snow and as we have seen, more in some places and less in others ... depending on regional pressure and temperature differentials.

The Antarctic is still below freezing so increased snow is not unusual.

What would be of concern is ice-shelf break up due to thermal expansion of the ocean or increased ice-sheet/glacial slip.

We are experiencing a warmer and 'wetter' world.
Posted by Q&A, Saturday, 15 March 2008 11:13:07 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 hope it's true that current climate modeling is a bit too gloomy - that would mean that if we start right now and do everything we can we just might mitigate the worst of the consequences of our "endless growth for growth's sake" reckless consumption binge.

Reduction in GDP is not the end of the world, unlike the potential consequences of continued unsustainable GDP growth.

Anyway, the reduction in availability and increased cost of fossil fuels will force some significant slowing of economies, so either way even the "climate change skeptics" have some adjusting ahead of them, along with the rest of us.
Posted by Yashouldabinthere, Saturday, 15 March 2008 11:23:17 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
First of all GDP is a measure of economic activity not a measure of economic well being. It is economic orthodoxy to suggest that well being is connected with increasing purchasing ability, but this rings false to anyone with two brain cells to run together.

Secondly, the freedom to pollute and that is what we are talking about here is hardly one that anyone would support. Much more laudable freedoms would be freedom from exhaust emissions, freedom from chlorine in drinking water, freedom from the increasing number of strange chemicals in body fat.

Thirdly, systems design to reduce pollution and increase resource use efficiency almost always cost less to implement than it does to continue using wasteful systems. This is so much the case that Walmart works hand in hand with The Rocky Mountain Institute, a resource efficiency think tank.

Finally, warmer or cooler is hardly the point, it is the danger of falling over environmental tipping points with rapid changes in our local support systems that is most worrying. The fact that pollution is simultaneously changing our atmosphere while at the same time undermining the resilience of natural systems to adapt to those changes should be enough to sway even the the most dyed in the wool capitalist of the need for limits. If India's and China's grain belts dry hundreds of billions of dollars in investments will melt away like the ice of greenland
Posted by Ian in Tokyo, Sunday, 16 March 2008 5:10:12 PM
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
I sometimes wonder whether anyone bothers reading these articles before posting. The really interesting thing for me is the research suggesting that the negative water vapor feedback will cancel much of the greenhouse warming out. If that is the case then CO2 emissions aren't a problem.

But instead of addressing the article 75% of those who post start off on their hobby horse. From which we can deduce that it wouldn't matter what the facts are, they'd still want people to stop burning fossil fuels, or not, as the case may be!
Posted by GrahamY, Sunday, 16 March 2008 10:15:15 PM
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
Yashouldabinthere “Reduction in GDP is not the end of the world, unlike the potential consequences of continued unsustainable GDP growth.”

Well that is true, unless you happen to be one of those folk who end up with a serious loss of “personal domestic product”, due to being out of work.

“Anyway, the reduction in availability and increased cost of fossil fuels will force some significant slowing of economies, so either way even the "climate change skeptics" have some adjusting ahead of them, along with the rest of us”

But at least that is fair, we all suffer together

Or to jump on what GY might describe as my “hobby horse”, if we address global population growth and focus on reducing it, whilst there will be a reduction in world-wide GDP, the quality of life is bound to improve, with fewer people people being dependent upon the same resources and we fix many oif the other environmental blights which challenge people around the world:

acid rain, deforestation, over-farming and over-fishing, fertiliser run off etc.

Like dear Margaret Thatcher said “Economics are the method; the object is to change the soul.”
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 16 March 2008 10:40:24 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. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 15
  10. 16
  11. 17
  12. All

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