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 inaction on carbon emissions > Comments

The cost of inaction on carbon emissions : Comments

By David Leigh, published 19/7/2011

Australia needs to get on with the job of bilaterally tackling climate change and leave the politics out of the discussions.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Mr Leigh, you write that, "Australia needs to get on with the job of bilaterally tackling climate change and leave the politics out of the discussions".

That is impossible to do because the issue of "climate change" is an entirely political one. The introduction of a so-called "carbon tax" is purely a political invention having a next to zero effect on Australia's carbon dioxide output.

You strongly suggest that lack of action to bring about this political action is due to Mr Tony Abbott, who you say has set about to "destroy the work of the MPCCC".

Well, you see Mr Leigh, that's what he's supposed to do. That's his job - to represent the will of the people who elected him and his party to carry out his declared intentions prior to the last election. It's democracy in action. Those who voted Liberal/coalition gave Mr Abbott the mandate to act in exactly that manner. That's how the system is supposed to work.

Unlike, the Labor position, who were elected to minority government, also on a platform, of "No carbon tax", and who were given a mandate by the people who voted for them to do just that - have NO carbon tax, but who are now not carrying out the will of the people that voted for them. That's why there are so many folks upset and annoyed with Gillard's switch, The Labor/coalition isn't observing democracy, isn't carrying out their mandate for "no carbon tax", in fact they're doing the exact opposite. Something for which they have no mandate for.

Is it any wonder that dislike for Gillard and Labor, and their not mandated carbon tax is so widespread, according to opinion polls?

Please stop accusing Mr Abbott for doing what he is morally obliged to do and stop the advance of a carbon tax. He has the will of the majority of Australian voters behind him and a mandate to do exactly that. It's democracy in action.

It is the Labor party who should bilaterally tackle climate change as mandated, without a carbon tax.
Posted by voxUnius, Tuesday, 19 July 2011 11:01:21 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
So called "Climate Change" is speculation at best-out right fraud at it's worst! The claims of "proof" are laughable, if it was as serious as some people claim, action would have been implemented without a "carbon tax" and people like Tim Flannery would not need to be paid $180000, he would SPRING into action with no thought of extra monetary gain to stop "dangerous" climate change. There are people who will gain monetarily in many ways by selling so called "clean" alternatives. Unfortunately there are zealots born in every generation and they just, must save everyone from themselves.
Posted by lockhartlofty, Tuesday, 19 July 2011 11:54:35 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
David Leigh writes;

< The U.K. is so far ahead on alternative energy because instead of arguing against the science and the price of action, business leaders considered the cost of doing nothing, not just to the environment but also to business. >

YES!

We really need to consider the cost to business, economic health, social coherence and quality of life, as well as the environment, if we take no action, or pifflingly little action as is now the case with the carbon tax.

Basing this carbon mitigation business on the climate change motive is SCREWEY!!

There is a much bigger and more immediate and more obvious and more publicly acceptable motive. The achievement of a sustainable society, instead of blundering forth with rapid continuous growth based on ever-increasing demand on finite resources, especially oil.

It is all going to come unstuck, big-time, in the very near future if we don’t develop renewable energy sources and get the bejeezus away from our oil addiction. This affects the business community as much as anyone else.

So even the traditional supporters of continuous growth and business-as-usual, along with those who denounce AGW, should be agreeing with this motive and hence supporting carbon tax strategy or whatever else might work.

If our political leaders could just tackle the issue along these lines, we’d be heading in the right direction.

The advantages for climate change would be pretty much incidental, but they would DEFINITELY be much more substantial than they will be with the current approach in Australia.
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 19 July 2011 1:07:14 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
People please! The debate as to whether climate change exists or not is a non-event; 2500 scientists from 179 countries are not wrong. Read all the reports online or download them. http://www.ipcc.ch/

The cost of inaction is the loss of natural habitat, not just for other animals but also for humans. We need a climate that will sustain us and feed us. The other, more immediate costs are in employment and business.

The US report, Sizing the Clean Economy: http://www.innovationpolicy.org/61483867 is a US National and Regional Jobs Assessment. It explains that market challenges and national policy uncertainty are hindering the clean energy sector’s ability to keep pace with other nations. This is what happens when people continue to argue about what has been scientifically proven and what has been given the green light by economists. Jobs are lost in what appears to be possibly the biggest global economic change since the industrial revolution that created the changing climate we now live in.

It is predicted that 88,000 new green jobs will be created in the UK marine and wind energy sector alone by 2021 http://www.bwea.com/media/news/articles/pr20110707-1.html

I was asked what wind farms existed in the UK: There are currently 292 onshore wind farms in operation in the United Kingdom and 14 offshore. http://www.bwea.com/statistics/

The 14 offshore facilities combine the use of 487 turbines producing 1,524.8 megawatts. There are another 6 under construction and 5 more approved. That will add another 937 turbines to the mix of power in the UK. This link will show you where they are: http://www.bwea.com/ukwed/google.asp

Another factor, which should be pencilled in to the equation is the amount of running cost jobs that will be created by wind farms. The turbine blades suffer wear on the leading edge from salt and sand erosion. The tailing edges suffer from fatigue caused by insects and ice. Thousands of new jobs, building the composite blades and repairing those in operation, will become another reality. http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/view/18954/meeting-the-challenge-of-wind-turbine-blade-repair/

It is also estimated that Europe could be spending an annual 2-Billion pounds (AUD3-billion) on composites to make blades by 2020: http://www.compositesworld.com/news/europe-could-spend-2-billion-annually-on-offshore-blades-by-202
Posted by David Leigh, Tuesday, 19 July 2011 3:15:44 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 have read AR4 from the IPCC.

Have you read the IAC review into the policies and processes of the IPCC from here: http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/

A summary of its recommendations and important statements is here: http://tome22.info/IAC-Report-Overview.html

You will find that the highest academic body in the world (the IAC) finds the IPCC riddled with conflict of interest, political interference, bias, improper treatment of uncertainty and incompetent management. The IPCC is a joke.
Posted by Peter Bobroff, Tuesday, 19 July 2011 3:44:50 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
People please!

David please! Stop doing research and finding the thousands of scientific papers that are contrary to the scientific consensus, stop learning about the real world empirical evidence that refutes my opinion, follow my ideological preferences, accept the links I provide showing that my opinion is right, stop accessing research that destroys the illusion that wind farms are cheap, beneficial and are not as “some people” say, eye wateringly inefficient and expensive, stop being contrary to my self serving and prejudicial opinion as you are not worthy of your own opinion.

Yep David, we get it. Agree with you or else!

Please David, please. Get one of your own, they are great. (a life of your own that is). Your half cocked, over egged, ill conceived, badly researched and ignorant ideological rant has “bombed”, as it should.

Must try harder, 3 out of 10. Get back to us when you have finished primary school.

Sorry GY but this sort of guest writer is not OLO caliber.
Posted by spindoc, Tuesday, 19 July 2011 4:35:34 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. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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