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 > Mayans and the end of the world > Comments

Mayans and the end of the world : Comments

By Malcolm King, published 11/12/2012

Neither side of the global warming ‘debate’ has been well served by the media.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. 10
  10. All
"Why do the hardline environmentalists have such a monopoly on virtue?" Sounds a little paranoid Malcolm. Personally, I find the great thinking majority of - so called - "Warmists" are also thinkers and people who produce or invest. Nobody really wants to see an end to capitalism, especially in favour of communism. What the vast majority of people I have spoken to want is a restructuring of existing business models to protect resources, lock up carbon and prevent the planet from warming. There is already far more evidence than not that climate change is occurring and not, as many would like, at some convenient time next century. Look around and see what has already occurred globally and what other countries are doing to mitigate these impacts. The debating finished years ago and the world is getting on with the job of surviving and, dare I say, prospering from the new incentives. Australia has more sunshine hours than just about any country on earth and yet we still burn and export coal. Even the poor bankrupt Spain has a massive solar-thermal power station. Time to move before we get left behind... Oh! but then, that is business as usual I suppose.
Posted by David Leigh, Tuesday, 11 December 2012 9:39:47 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
I agree with much of this article. This statement is worth highlighting:

"Anyone who opposes the new guard is a right-winger and a neo-conservative. In other words, these are not propositions to be debated in a rational way, but are seen as self-evident truths with the infallibility of religious dogma."

My interest is in rational policy. I believe we've been trying to implement bad policies to mitigate CO2 emissions for the past 2 decades (starting with Australia's commitment in 1992 to the 'Toronto Targets' - i.e. Australia commits to cut its CO2 emissions to 20% below 1988 levels by 2005).

There is enormous uncertainty about climate science. Uncertainty about the problem is a given. Uncertainty about the proposed policy is inexcusable.

But that is exactly what we have. Enormous uncertainty about whether the proposed polices will make any difference to the climate. Most people do not believe that carbon tax and renewable energy will make the slightest difference to the climate. Most people also realise it is virtually impossible to get world agreement to penalty schemes like carbon pricing and emissions targets and timetables.

Bad policies:
- Penalty schemes
- Targets and penalties
- Taxes, penalties and restrictive trade policies
- Carbon pricing
- Renewable energy
- Smart grids
- Aid/bribes

Good policies:
- Reward schemes
- 'No Regrets'
- Free trade
- Globalisation
- Wealth creation for whole world
- Adaptation
- Remove impediments on low-cost nuclear
- Developed countries develop low-cost, low-emissions alternatives to fossil fuels
- Produce them commercially and compete to produce them for the world – competition to bring costs down and improve the technologies

Adaptation is the main component – it will improve conditions almost immediately, whereas good mitigation policies may have an effect beyond 50 years.

Developing countries need free trade and infrastructure strengthening (e.g. improved governance), not aid. Giving underdeveloped countries aid is equivalent to giving an unemployed person the dole rather than skills development and a job. We give out aid while restricting trade. And we block development of the least cost way to reduce emissions. We have it backwards.
Posted by Peter Lang, Tuesday, 11 December 2012 9:40:32 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
Rationality is in short supply these days yet it seems that everyone claims a slice of that pie. Someone has to be right or less wrong.

The behind the scenes machinations of the anti-populationists has come to the fore just a few minutes ago as Sandy Kanck from the Unsustainable Unpeople Collective has been caught trying to merge the SPA with the poor old Democrats.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-11/former-democrat-expelled-by-party/4420564?section=sa

They REALLY need those numbers to get party status. Now there really are a couple of Mayans there.
Posted by Cheryl, Tuesday, 11 December 2012 9:50:33 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 writer is so clever he is difficult to understand, however the main problem with the climate debate is that there is simply no achievable solution that is acceptable to the greens.

As the recent meeting at Doha demonstrated effective international action just is not going to happen in a time scale of less than decades, if it ever happens at all. Although other posters have talked about completely overhauling the capitalist system, this also isn't going to happen. If we can't limit emissions internationally we aren't going to switch to other systems or ways of thinking, whatever they may be.

The only possible solution is to dump all the emissions limiting stuff as a distraction - most of it is ineffectual anyway - and switch to adaptation, if and when any of this global warming thing actually affects how we live.. By the time any effect is noticeable (assuming it occurs) the economy will be much stronger and better able to cope with change, than if we stuck to efforts to limit emissions.

This isn't a matter of agreement, it is now the only solution. Anything else would simply be harmful.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Tuesday, 11 December 2012 9:53:47 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
Alas, no Curmudgeon, we need to create the market forces to drive adaptation and new technologies. The Greens won't like anything anyone does so you might as well go full steam ahead with wind power, solar, electric cars or whatever.
Posted by Cheryl, Tuesday, 11 December 2012 10:12:14 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 says:

"There is already far more evidence than not that climate change is occurring and not, as many would like, at some convenient time next century"

There is no evidence; AGW has been disproved:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14179&page=0

Generally AGW and renewable energy supporters oppose capitalism which is a merit based system where ideas and effort which are better get better rewards; neither AGW is true or renewables work so any money given to AGW and renewable supporters is at best crony capitalism but mostly obsecene waste based on ideology.
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 11 December 2012 10:33:44 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
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. 10
  10. All

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