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 > The cost of the warm inner glow > Comments

The cost of the warm inner glow : Comments

By Nicholas Gruen, published 29/1/2009

Debate on how to handle two crucial issues - the financial crisis and climate change - remains heavily (and unfortunately) moralised.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
It may be possible to kill two birds with one stone; revive the economy and mitigate climate change. Instead of trying to stimulate discretionary retail spending it may be better to invest in slower payback infrastructure like clean energy and conservation. Some of the people made redundant from the finance or retail sectors could help install solar water heaters, home insulation and smart meters. Perhaps the present economy is top heavy with finance and services and underweighted with respect to the basic necessities.

As to a long run of deficits the prevailing view seems to be that it will get back to normal in time. Maybe it won't. Therefore if there is only so much spare cash it should be used prudently. Even retailer Gerry Harvey questions the merit of one-off income boosts. Therefore the only economic fix may be a slow one and while the end result may seem lacklustre it will be more sustainable.
Posted by Taswegian, Thursday, 29 January 2009 8:45:08 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
The drivel coming from those who believe in man-made climate change and what the government should do about it is certainly moralising from a bunch self-righteous, holier than thou ponces.

Well, here’s one in the eye for them: the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric administration has found that “a dramatic reduction in carbon emissions, would fail to repair changes in surface temperature, rainfall and sea level.”

The NOAA believes that climate change is irreversible!

It is probably not irreversible, as it wasn’t caused by CO2 emissions in the first place. The climate will probably change again, sometime in the future, as it has for aeons. But at least another body has thrown further doubt on the whacko idea of costly measures to ‘make climate change go away’.
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 29 January 2009 10:07:59 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
It's not easy to criticise 'moralisers' without doing a bit of 'moralising' yourself and I can't really see how pointing the finger in this direction furthers the broader debate in any way.

Scientists and activists who criticize Rudd for not going far enough are hardly 'moralising'. They're simply responding to the ever increasing urgency of the data, which is indicating that changes are occurring much more rapidly than previous forecasts predicted.

Even if Leigh is correct (and it's a very big 'if') in stating that climate change is irreversible, there are other compelling reasons for us to reduce wasteful consumption and fossil fuel dependency. The earth's resources are being stretched to the limit as it is. There is no way the earth can support increasing billions of people living a profligate western lifestyle.

Oil reserves are finite and we need to switch to alternative renewable sources of energy if we're to avoid being held to ransom by oil rich states and the resultant oil wars which will ensue. The pollution of our oceans and rivers and loss of habitat caused by mining, heavy industry and agribusiness are also creating enormous health and environmental problems. The storage of waste, both nuclear and landfill, is another pressing problem.

So, quite apart from climate change abatement, these reasons and others make the option of continuing on with business-as-usual completely out of the question. A fundamental and universal change of direction is required.

I totally agree with Taswegian's comments. The way of the future is to tie our financial recovery to climate change mitigation. Governments must avoid where possible handing out untied money and tax cuts to consumers and bailing out corporations for them to continue on with more of the same. Wise and targeted public spending is needed in areas such as public transport, renewable energy, water and soil conservation, health and education. Not only will this provide much needed employment but also a sound investment in our future.

And if that sounds like 'moralising', so be it. I'll wear the tag proudly!
Posted by Bronwyn, Thursday, 29 January 2009 11:05:27 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
The end result of fear and earth worshiping is that you create some silly ideas in your head, find some 'science' to validate your idea, brainwash the young and gullible and classify all who disagree as heretics. Not since the YK2 'bug' has there been so much unfounded hysteria. If you want to do something constructive about our environment we should come down heavy on those acting like pigs in leaving rubbish wherever they decide to get drunk. Governments who focus on this gw crap show they want to draw attention away from the real problems that we face on this planet. Gw certainly is not one of them (at least not until some crazy Arab State nukes Israel). I suppose its easier to solve a problem made up in one's head than doing something constructive. It does seem to give the crusaders that feel of moral superiority.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 29 January 2009 12:41:42 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 looked carefully, but I couldn't find this in Nick Gruen's article: does he accept the climate science of manmade CO2-e emissions causing most of the global warming over the past 200-odd years, as set out in the 2007 4th IPCC report, and the Stern and Garnaut reports?

I hope his answer is yes, because I've always understood Nick to be a serious public commentator.

Tony Kevin
Posted by tonykevin 1, Thursday, 29 January 2009 2:03:21 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
Leigh, read the report carefully

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090126_climate.html

You have misunderstood (therefore have misrepresented) what Solomon has said.

You have taken this quote out of context:

"The study examines the consequences of allowing CO2 to build up to several different peak levels beyond present-day concentrations of 385 parts per million and then completely halting the emissions after the peak. The authors found that the scientific evidence is strong enough to quantify some irreversible climate impacts, including rainfall changes in certain key regions, and global sea level rise."

Why?

It never ceases to amaze me why people cherry-pick data or 'mine quotes' to distort what the science shows or what the researcher/s are saying.

Are they doing this intentionally, or do they really not understand?

Susan Solomon was the lead author of the IPCC's AR4 report, specifically the Working Group I co-chair.
Posted by Q&A, Thursday, 29 January 2009 2:58:39 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. 5
  7. All

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