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 > Gillard and the Gen Y vote > Comments

Gillard and the Gen Y vote : Comments

By Ramya Krishnan, published 20/7/2010

Now more than ever Julia Gillard cannot afford to be seen as sitting on her hands on the critical issue of climate change.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Good economics is not just "built on on buoying economic prosperity" - it is built on avoiding marked peaks and troughs of prosperity, especially those associated with failed or dead-end policies.

Transforming Australia to a low pollution economy will require billions of dollars in investment before there is any possible benefit, and that needs to be managed against a background of Australia being at arms-length from much much bigger emitters, and being a drop in the big world economy.

Steady as she goes is best, particularly after the flop of Copenhagen, the recent decade-long plateau of temperatures, and the turmoil of the East Anglia email debacle (made more significant that it was by the sceptics).
Posted by McReal, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 10:02:19 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 critical issue of climate change.”

This ‘great moral dilemma’ ceased to be of critical importance after Rudd’s humiliating defeat at Copenhagen. Life went on, and will continue to go on if absolutely nothing is done about climate change.

The critical issues for Australian voters are the economy, housing, jobs, illegal entrants and increasing population caused by immigration.

The climate? There’s nothing we can do about it. The “young people” are still young enough to think that they have, or will have the answers; but when it comes their turn to do anything, they will have matured, lost their naivety, and come to terms with the hard facts of life.

They don’t seem to realise that we were all young once. And, a generation Y-er talking about the old chestnut a ‘a fair go’ is a joke, given that her generation is the most self-absorbed and selfish one yet. To them, climate change is just something to believe in; they don’t have much else.

I wonder how many of these young people are among the 1.4 million Australians who haven’t even bothered to register to vote
Posted by Leigh, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 10:52:24 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
Every time I see an article by someone from the AYCClub, I wonder if I will see yet another instance of a completely self obsessed overblown sense of entitlement.

I was not disappointed by this article.

I wonder if the AYCC knows that it's not all about them.

I'm guessing though the most socially obsessed generation yet, would really come out strong not about climate change (it does you know, and will continue to change regardless) but if we cut off the electricity that powered computers (no Facebook) and cell phones.

Then you really could enjoy the peace your parents experienced.

Mind you, you'd have to give up the self adulation somewhat.

So you all got sucked in by Kevin Rudd's "I've got a plan!", and it turned out he didn't, so what will you do about it.

You'll line up and grovel to the next ALP leader .. there's no mention of any other way to get what the AYCClub wants, except via the ALP. They give you attention!

Guess what, they don't even have to bother with you at all, they know you are rusted on and at such a young age too. You are all little sucked in ALP voters, you buy all the crap they spin at you, and then write articles begging for more.

Hey, maybe they will run another best and brightest festival, because the last one was so effective.(you could even run your own, oh .. but then, who would notice and it's all about attention with gen Y isn't it?)

Do you all feel like a bunch of failures?

Copenhagen wasn't the big party you thought it would be?

Your parents also had to deal with not getting their own way at times.

Maturity is a great leveler, ask an adult.
Posted by Amicus, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 11:25:17 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
This climate change youth group has 50,000 members! Dear lord but activists can get organised can't they?
This writer, in her youth, has made the classic mistake of confusing activism with popularity. Simply because there are a lot of activists pushing a particular cause does not mean it is popular with youth, or the electorate in general. It just means that those pre-disposed towards believing that human activity causes climate change are more likely to join organisations.
That said, climate change was undoubtedly a factor in the last election. Whether it will be a major factor in this election remains to be seen - although the green preferences will be crucial for labor. For the big factor which tipped Rudd out of office was undoubtedly illegial immigration. That's the real hot buttom issue in marginal electorates, forget climate change.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 11:49:25 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
A nice segue here with re youth and number of young people apparently not enrolled to vote as per the George Williams story today on OLO.

I agree with the other posters. Immigration and population will be big issues. Climate change will be in the top 10 but I fear editors are 'over it'.

One problem that Ramya doesn't point out is that there are only ten people in Australia who understand what an ETS is and how it would work - and I'm not one of the ten. Climate change = hard. Darkies invading our northern coastline and then eating our food and driving on our roads! I can understand that.
Posted by Cheryl, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 12:02:00 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
What a bunch of grumpy old comments!
Sorry Ramya, OLO is a idealism free zone at times.
Most of theses guys believe Global warming is a hoax, conspiracy, or just sheer arrogant incompetence. They are wrong, but any uncertainty at all is being taken for error and malice.
Our economy *is* overwhelmingly oil based, and all the "winners" under this system believe they are fighting for truth, honesty and their way of life...it is a very visceral thing. The fact that much of the profits goes overseas, and the profit share is increasing as the expense of workers (ie, young people) is usually ignored.
Rather then face up to concepts that cause cognitive dissidence, it is much easier to brand the young as ignorant, scientists as corrupt (all of the qualified ones, they quote the bought ones!) and the last 50 years as the "way things are".
To be fair, there has been a lot of hype around some green tech...for instance electric cars have been spruiked for years, yet they have been impractical without modern electronics, brush-less motors and Lithium batteries that don't explode. Now they are feasible (due to very recent tech) we need scaling up and economies of scale. This is also true of solar voltaic, wind, tide and geothermal...all need some pretty recent tech to be competitive with old dead plants.
For national grids we need something along the scale of the Snowy river project...this requires parts of GDP that are currently reserved for 2nd investment properties, luxury yachts and tax havens, so you can expect a fight from some very powerful interests...and those that fawn to power too.
Posted by Ozandy, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 12:31:01 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
So ozandy, besides grovelling to the author and rambling on your pet subject .. any thoughts on the article?
Posted by Amicus, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 12:36:45 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
Amicus, it looks like Ozandy started his post then got so carried away by hysterical hatred of skeptics, he forgot what he was doing and just had a rant.

Hilarious .. thanks, that makes my day.

I am easily amused though.
Posted by rpg, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 12:57:11 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
concern about climate change and other bulldust is a bit like acne....

for most of us we grow out of it in our late teens, early twenties.

Of course, some suffer the scars of acne for the rest of their days but the vast majority have real issues to deal with

Like raising families, funding mortgages and staying gainfully employed

If we were to fixate on Climate change we would probably find our employer was forced out of business because of stupid regulations and taxation demands.

No job makes ensuring we can afford to pay the mortgage of have children an impossibility

and all the time someone in China or India would be feeling very smug as they get on, doing the job you used to do and exporting the stuff your employer used to produce back here for you to look at in the shops, unable to afford them at any price.

Climate Change - expect it to be accompanied by employment and economic changes.

Everything has its price and Climate Change even though it has not been proved, is already extorting a heavy fee.
Posted by Stern, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 1:39:26 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
from my experience it is usually the youth that leave lights and heaters on. They also want to travel and stay at luxury resorts. Many that swallow the man made gw myth also work or study in comfortable offices where they insist on air conditioning and heating. To think that somehow Gen Y is exempt from this consumerism is an absolute joke. Most who bang on about man made gw are total hypocrites. It will be the elderly who can't afford heating and cooling that will suffer with higher prices for the 'me' generation who exude such self righteousness. People should support the nuke industry or shut up about gw. It is hypocritical and sickening. Just look at the restraint shown by their high priests (absolutely none). The general public will wake up to late as usual as again we get ripped off by those stupid enough to think they can play god. Lets have another CopenHagen and more corrupted data from the scientist. It is doing nothing to address those in need and everything to feed egos.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 2:27:01 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
Ozandy:>>Most of theses guys believe Global warming is a hoax, conspiracy, or just sheer arrogant incompetence. They are wrong,<<

Climate change is no hoax, it has never been static and as the little ice ages demonstrate, not particularly sequential. But climate is not affected by mankind’s polluting activities. Have a look at this link for some straight talking perspective on who controls the youth environmental movement Curmudgeon mentioned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEggt0ldQUI
Posted by sonofgloin, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 3:44:47 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
Ramya, I think you are right; we need a Prime Minister who faces this issue head on, with the full seriousness it deserves. There are people voting in this election who were born after the fundamentals of AGW were well established science, enough so to have established an IPCC (but not enough to slow growth of,let alone cut emissions). Despite a largely manufactured campaign promoting doubt and denial, the scientific basis is more sound than ever now. For a Prime Minister to promote further delay - or offer up greenwash like Carbon Capture and Storage 'in two to three decades' - ought not be tolerated by voters of any age group.
I can only continue to believe that over time the numbers of people who take this seriously will grow and hopefully not all through generational change. To understand the problem is to know that failure to tackle it isn't an option. I hope the Australian Youth Climate Coalition keeps growing and we hear more from you. Thanks Ramya.
Posted by Ken Fabos, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 4:12:14 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
runner:>>it is usually the youth that leave lights and heaters on.
They also want to stay at luxury resorts.
also work or study in comfortable offices where they insist on air conditioning and heating.
To think that somehow Gen Y is exempt from this consumerism is an absolute joke.<<

That’s it runner hook into them,… little buggers.
The salient thing is that we were once those very same malleable youths before the career, partnering, kids and bills straightened us up.

The issue is of course the indoctrination of the youth for political gain. If Julia gets in again we may see the voting age plummet to 16. It has some merit in law on which to mount a case. Nothing surprises me with this current crop of Fabians.
Posted by sonofgloin, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 4:15:48 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
And air travel.. lets us not forget airplane trips as the young tend to travel more. Try to tell them that international airlplane travel really messes up their carbon budget, and see how enthusiastic they are about saving carbon then..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 4:59:49 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
Curmudgen, do you count Ramya's trip to Copenhagen to finger wag at everyone on her Carbon budget .. or would she get "offsets", for being pious?
Posted by rpg, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 7:10:16 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
You're on the money Ramya. ALP's cynical politics with CC are at it's own peril. A carbon tax is a matter of when, not if. If it takes them losing power this time around, so be it. Regardless of current political fashions, I'll bet that in terms of reducing carbon emissions to avert disaster, we'll be where we need to be in twenty years.

Failure to act on climate change may well be the death of conservative politics in this country.

As for the haughty responses from the deniersaurs...ho hum. The evidence keeps mounting, they keep denying. That's more than enough of my time wasted on these politically conservative reactionaries. The future is yours, they're history. Politicians know it, they know it.
Posted by maaate, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 7:31:48 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
It is ironic that shelving the ETS will turn out to be the Gang of Four's best decision. It is disappointing that so many are too brainwashed to appreciate the decision.
Posted by Raycom, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 10:44:31 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
Ken Fabos, it is not solely the responsibility of one person (the Oz PM). It is a Govt caucus/cabinet/select committee combination responsibility, along with input from experts in and around the country and around the world. Perhaps Rudd had that right.

There is no quick fix, especially without wide consensus - world-wide consensus including the big emitters - probably best coordinated through the UN.
Posted by McReal, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 10:48:30 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
"This is why the Australian Youth Climate Coalition’s membership grew by a dramatic 1,000 per cent last year, from 5,000 to 50, 000, making us the largest youth-run organisation in Australia."

And how much has it risen this year, after Climategate and Copenhagen? I know it's desperately important to you to find some Big Issue you can use to demonstrate to yourself that you're really important in the world and not just another cog in the machine. But try and find something with less potential to produce catastrophe and misery than the AGW bandwagon. Be an anarchist or an atheist or something.
Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 21 July 2010 6:31:28 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
Like some others, I think that the author has copped too much personal abuse. Having said that, I would urge her to keep looking at the so-called 'fundamental science' and the data that appear every week. The notion that human activity is causing whatever warming is occurring, or has occurred since some given date, is plausible but hard to pin down in the data. A steady increase in carbon dioxide accumulation in the atmosphere, but no increase in global temperature, is not what the IPCC predicted. It is this, plus the truly awful, almost manic, behaviour of those generating the Climategate emails, plus the growing list of errors and dodgy referencing of the 4AR, plus the behaviour of the sun (it looks as though we are entering a long cool period) — all this has made governments everywhere, not just here, feel that there are other more important things for them to deal with.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be investing in research to improve the efficiency of renewable portable energy sources (because we pay a lot for oil), or act in conserving ways with materials of all kinds. That is simply good sense and good citizenship. But linking that to AGW is both unnecessary and, so far at least, unproven.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Wednesday, 21 July 2010 10:27:15 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
Ramya, please do keep yourself well informed on this. Not with the selected bits that are paraded as "proof" of something, but the entire body of knowledge on this, which includes long established and basic physics of gas molecules, several Surface Air Temperature data sets (all show decadal variability overlaying a clear multidecadal warming trend, see GISS, CRU, MSU), ocean heat content (University of Colorado showing a clear warming trend with very little decadal variability over the past decade of alleged cooling), sea level rise (CSIRO from tide gauge and satellite telemetry showing a clear continuing rising trend), accelerating icesheet loss in Greenland and Antarctica (Gracesat, Icesat data), a fast warming Arctic with clear trend of loss of summer ice (NSIDC), continuing glacial retreat, rising borehole temperatures...all during a period that would, if the sun was primary in this, be showing clear cooling.

For all the volume, there's little or no significant content in the ongoing attacks and calls to doubt climate science. Whilst I believe most of those opposing action on emissions are simply misinformed and mistaken, there remains a deliberate, funded campaign attacking the institutions, practitioners and conclusions of climate science. Even if the argument that adaptation is preferable to mitigation has a legitimate place, attacks on science are not the legitimate tools of political debate; these are attacks on the fundamental institutions that have underpinned the prosperity we are enjoying and seeks to overturn reasoned debate based on best available knowledge.

If these were buildings being attacked rather than scientific understandings and ideas those doing so would be Terrorists. To my mind that's exactly what that campaign is; Terrorism against the very institutions that have provided us with timely warning of the long term consequences of our past and future energy policies. Not merely mistaken but deliberately destructive of those institutions and understandings.
Posted by Ken Fabos, Wednesday, 21 July 2010 12:36:48 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
I infer that the last post is a rejoinder to mine, so my words here are for both the original author and Ken Fabos.

I suggest that you go to the following website: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/07/dr-roy-spencer-open-to-possibility.html

There you will see a graph of trends over the period 1998 to 2010 in CO2 levels (rising), PDO (falling), satellite global temperatures (falling) and solar activity (falling sharply). Now you mightn't like the location of the data, but the data are sound nonetheless.

A little further down, below the graph, you'll find an excellent summary by Roy Spencer, who is an absolutely kosher climate scientist. It is really worth reading (it deals with all of Ken Fabos's points), and note that Spencer emphasises 'we can't all be right' (there are many, many views) and 'we don't really know'.

As for sea ice, Spencer points out that freezing and thawing are characteristic of the Arctic and that Antarctic ice has been growing over the past 30 years, not melting. Yes, you can point to alarming news stories about accelerating warming in the Antarctic, but the data don't show that.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Wednesday, 21 July 2010 3:56:24 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
Ken Fabos "If these were buildings being attacked rather than scientific understandings and ideas those doing so would be Terrorists."

Are you suggesting anyone who is skeptical of AGW should be treated as a terrorist?

People disagree, science is about skepticism and questioning, not about defending an idea to the death and even lying and subverting the system to do so.

If you want someone locked up, it should be the CRU chaps .. fortunately for them and unfortunately for science, they were just outside the law since their FOI deception was too old to be prosecuted. They admitted they deceived and lied, they are criminals, they should be run out of the scientific community. The fact they are not just shows you can be rewarded for deception, and that is the worst possible result for science - fraud being rewarded, that's why Phil Jones still looks so awful, he knows he will never be trusted again.

I see the US Government is withdrawing funding of CRU now, they are not deceived by the whitewashing of this hideous group.

If you are looking for terrorism in science, then possibly people like yourself who threaten anyone different, who are hysterical doom sayers and insisting the world change because you believe a particular thing, might go look in a mirror.

By the way, the constant allusion to "funding" from dark forces to question AGW, is just self delusion.

It's typical form of paranoia to suspect that anyone different, must be paid to be so, since clearly anyone reasonable (to you) would not think that way.

The ATCC is a club of young people who all want to "belong", they have found a common platform, the problem is that it is crumbling since interest and science do not continue to support the goals.

I do not agree that the world needs to change or I have to pay more taxes to justify your belief system. The climate changes, and will continue to do so, paying taxes will not change that.
Posted by rpg, Thursday, 22 July 2010 5:35:58 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
Hello Ken .. are you there, come on in.

Are skeptics of AGW, terrorists?

Should they be treated as criminals?

I'm not going to let this one go Ken, you've put it out there and it needs to be pursued.

I believe you've crossed over from reason to religious belief.

Tell me I'm wrong ..

Sorry but it's attitudes like Ken's that scare me very much, that people get so caught up that they suspend reason and want to punish people for not believing, make it a crime not to believe what they do.

You see Ramya, this is exactly why some of us worry about letting the leash of the hysterics and doom sayers of our community. I can imagine in your club you have a range of attitudes so you have probably some wild types like our Ken who would happily burn heretics at the stake for "not believing", this is medieval thinking, not modern science.

I see no AGW believers are about to temper Ken's enthusiasm either, remiss by their absence .. or do you all agree with Ken, that's interesting.
Posted by rpg, Friday, 23 July 2010 9:06:43 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 body of scientific knowledge is both pinnacle of human achievement and foundation of past and future prosperity for a modern techno-civilisation and understanding of climate is something beyond price; make no mistake, the campaign attacking it isn't this vicious because science is wrong, but because it's right.

Most of the attackers are misinformed and mistaken and probably sincere but this is an ongoing campaign to subvert reasoned debate by undermining public confidence in our fundamental institutions and their practitioners. Not by showing climate science is wrong; but by convincing the public it's wrong when it isn't. The most it's shown is that a leading scientist handled a flood of hostile FOI's from such implacable attackers badly.

I advise everyone to look to NCAR, NASA, NOAA, CSIRO, BoM, WMO, the tier one Universities and National Academies - that actually do science - for real science. Are they are all completely incompetent as well as lying, dishonest, deliberately deceivers? Utter nonsense. Even the world's Security and Intelligence services have failed to find any conspiracy, although I have no doubt political leaders have made such requests.

Seems it's okay for climate science disbelievers to call for practitioners of science to be criminally charged - even with crimes against humanity - for no more than doing their important jobs well, yet the real story is that AGW is absolutely real and the impacts will in time kill people in large number. This campaign to prevent action on this will mean that number will be far larger, so it goes beyond mere academic disagreement. The disbelievers are happy to dish it out but can't take it; one more sign of the weakness of their position.

This ongoing conspiracy to undermine reasoned discourse, distort democratic processes and eat away at the foundations of our most valuable institutions may not rate as legally criminal but to my mind it goes far beyond being merely irresponsible and has crossed into culpable. From those amongst them who know full well the science is sound it's despicable.
Posted by Ken Fabos, Friday, 23 July 2010 10:19:15 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
to summarize Ken's response to rpg

rpg "Are skeptics of AGW, terrorists?"

Ken "bluster bluster bluster rant rant rant" translation "no".

Ken backs down from demanding punitive measures against non-believers, withdraws personal fatwah and jihad.

Bullies pretty well always back down when challenged
Posted by Amicus, Friday, 23 July 2010 11:00:02 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
Ken Fabos “If these were buildings being attacked rather than scientific understandings and ideas those doing so would be Terrorists.”

Yes, the Church of Rome held a similar attitude toward Cathar’s back in the 13th century and later again toward the Huguenots.

Of course, the inquisition was obsessed by any challenge to its power and perceptions of its own omnipotence.

I feel a return to those dark days for anyone who dares challenge the authority of climate science

May well be in the best interests of the zealots of global warming but

it is certainly not in the best interests of mankind in general.
Posted by Stern, Friday, 23 July 2010 2:04:01 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. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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