Looking forward to buy your book: "Better Tricks for Clumsy Swindlers".

Since when did plastic bags “break down”? They are still used ever day,and there is no stopping them, no matter what the tail chasers and bed-wetters say about them. Most probably go into land fill, where they are at least out of sight, instead of stuck up against fences as they used to be. On a scale of one to ten, they would be at the very bottom given the real problems we have in this country.

'Activists' have been crying 'wolf' for so long, and the wolf has never turned up: why would anyone take any notice of them?

“It's time environmental activists took a step back and majored more on how to communicate their message and less on highlighting the sheer scale of the global problem and trying to shame people into action.”

I would prefer them to crawl back into their caves and stay there.

If activists shared the facts they'd be out of business and we could worry about the real environmental problem - lack of mild burning. Koalas are declining off a completely unnatural high. Like anything else that gets sustenance from trees they breed up when trees get sick because the soil changes with lack of fire and their roots deteriorate. That's why we have plagues of koalas, psyllids, bellbirds, mistletoes, cherries, phytophthora, armillaria etc. When the trees start dying so do all the pests including koalas.
Explorers didn't see koalas because they are naturally rare because of shortage of sick trees in healthy forests and woodlands. They bred up in thick new growth of young trees and declining old trees after we disrupted Aboriginal burning and established improved pastures. They bred up again in SE Queensland when hobby farms and suburbs replaced grazed and burnt native pastures.
Read Firestick Ecology published by Connor Court!

King scammer wants more money.

Al Gore’s New Group Demands $15 Trillion To Fight Global Warming

A group of executives who want to fight global warming has published a new report calling for countries to spend up to $600 billion a year over the next two decades to boost green energy deployment and energy efficiency equipment.

The Energy Transitions Commission’s (ETC) report claims “additional investments of around $300-$600 billion per annum do not pose a major macroeconomic challenge,” which they say will help the world meet the goals laid out in the Paris agreement

ETC is made up of energy executives, activist leaders and investment bankers, including former Vice President Al Gore, who would no doubt get a piece of the trillions of dollars they are calling for.

The group says an “explicit, predictably rising, forward price curve for carbon, resulting from policy, reaching approximately $50 per tonne in the 2020s and rising to around $100 per tonne in the 2030s – is essential to drive decarbonization beyond power, to reinforce regulatory-driven improvements in energy productivity and to prevent falling fossil fuels prices from undermining the pace of the energy transition.”

Oh god, & dummies like this bloke get into the ministry. Heaven help us.

The plastic bag scam must be about as bad as the global warming scam, & he appears to have fallen for both, & a few others along the way. Perhaps this piece is just electioneering, & trying to pick up some pale green votes, but I doubt it.

On the plastic bag front, try hanging one on a fence for a few months. In less than 3 months ultra Violet light has so degraded the plastic that they are breaking up into small hard brittle pieces. In 6 months it is turning to dust, & having no more effect on the soil it degrades into than grains of silica sand.

How some people fall for every con job documentary made is a mystery to me. Why those with a wish to rule are the most gullible is an even bigger mystery, but it does seem to be a fact.

For year they have had the technology and do it, that can make plastic bags that disintegrate over a roughly predetermined time one year or whatever they want.

Silly article. Surely you're not so idiotic that being informed of the global plastic problem is deterring you from changing the way you use plastic bags because of the local problem in Moreton Bay? Do you seriously think anyone is?

A quarter of a century ago, environmental activists were warning of the possibility of methane release from melting tundra if we failed to address the problem. We did fail to address the problem, and now it's happening - and yet people like ttbn are claiming "'Activists' have been crying 'wolf' for so long, and the wolf has never turned up"! Surely it's important to inform the public of what's really going on, otherwise they're going to keep dissing environmentalists for making predictions that turn out to be true!

And (ttbn please take note) plastic bags do break down. Not fast enough to avoid harming the turtles which mistake them for jellyfish, but exposure to UV does gradually break them up into flakes. And they do biodegrade in the ocean, albeit very very slowly. If Seath had kept watching instead of switching off, he might have discovered that the amount of plastic in the Pacific Gyre has started to stabilise, and if we take more care with our use of plastics we will probably be able to start reducing the problem.

BTW ttbn, you won't find environmental activists living in caves. Caves are for dinosaurs like you!

The answer lies in your second final paragraph.
Responsibility in that us humans must reduce our out of control population.
Our only problem.

For all the fools and gullible who religiously believe the scientific research to be correct.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/paper-about-how-microplastics-harm-fish-should-be-retracted-report-says

Paper about how microplastics harm fish should be retracted, report says

It took more than 10 months, but today the scientists who blew the whistle on a paper in Science about the dangers of microplastics for fish have been vindicated. An expert group at Sweden’s Central Ethical Review Board (CEPN) has concluded that the paper’s authors, Oona Lönnstedt and Peter Eklöv of Uppsala University (UU), committed “scientific dishonesty” and says that Science should retract the paper, which appeared in June 2016.

Science published an editorial expression of concern—which signals that a paper has come under suspicion—on 3 December 2016, and deputy editor Andrew Sugden says a retraction statement is now in preparation. (Science’s news department, which works independently of the journal’s editorial side, published a feature about the case in March.)

The report comes as a “huge relief,” says UU’s Josefin Sundin, one of seven researchers in five countries who claimed the paper contained fabricated data shortly after it came out

The deficiencies are so great, the CEPN team suspects the research wasn’t even performed as stated, and that the scientists fabricated much of the evidence.

I am waiting for someone to write an article on the deaths from the big freeze that Europe has received ever since the warmist claimed an eradication of snow. Oh well it does not fit the flawed warmist narrative.

The author of Poisoned Planet features an essay on this topic:
http://www.sciencealert.com/a-widely-reported-study-on-the-effects-of-microplastics-in-fish-is-about-to-be-retracted

But before all of the usual suspects start cheering I suggest that they check out the two references featured in the 4th last paragraph re the very real problem of plastic in the ocean - especially that of plastic micro-beads

What a load of codswallop.Personal responsibility? What vote with the feet and don't use coal fired power?

Back to cave dwelling and hunting our food down with a stone tied to a stick?

We can do so much better than that! And start by observing the evidence and the proffered solutions, all of them!

With the best walking out the door on simple economic outcome grounds!

And here I'm talking about utilising the most energy dense material in the world. Thorium!

Yes we will need some lead time. But most of our coal fired power stations have got around ten or so years to run, before maintainence costs become prohibitive.

And that's enough lead time to settle on an option, which ideally won't include the great white elephant of an extremely vulnerable, gold plated national grid!

What is wrong with mass produced, walk away safe, molten salt thorium reactors, and carbon free ultracheap power?

And from material so abundant in our dirt, so as to power the planet with carbon free power for the next 1,000 years! And thousands more if we mine igneous rock!

Modules can be trucked virtually anywhere and connected to very local micro grids, to provide the world's cheapest safest cleanest energy. and more modules can be bolted on with demand! To be reticulating power within days!

On a final note, (firebug)cool burning doesn't improve the environment anymore than less harmfull clear felling. At least with the latter, thousands of tons of scarce nutrient and minerals aren't sent skyward with every burn to wind up in our oceans, where they do nothing but harm!
Alan B.

runner, nobody claimed an eradication of snow in Europe. Indeed it was predicted that global warming could, by increasing meltwater from Greenland and hence altering the currents in the North Atlantic, make northern Europe colder. And we have seen some evidence of that already.

Of course reporting what the "warmists" actually said does not suit the ignorist narrative.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Alan B.,

"And here I'm talking about utilising the most energy dense material in the world. Thorium!"
Thorium's significantly less energy dense than uranium - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

"What is wrong with mass produced, walk away safe, molten salt thorium reactors, and carbon free ultracheap power?"
The fact that they don't exist. You are relying on optimistic assumptions about technological development.

This would be a stronger article if it referred to the considerable research largely supporting its contention. For example:

"Doom and gloom won’t do it – here’s how to sell the climate change message": https://theconversation.com/doom-and-gloom-wont-do-it-heres-how-to-sell-the-climate-change-message-31999

"Why Psychology Should Be A Part Of The Fight Against Climate Change
By understanding emotional barriers to action, we may be able to devise better guidelines for communication, advocacy and policy."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/climate-change-psychology_us_5674272ee4b014efe0d52186

Climate Change Is A Major Threat To Us All, But Here’s Why You Might Not Care": http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/climate-change-psychology_us_571ead75e4b0f309baee5b9b

Dear Mark,

Doom and gloom?

The only doom and gloom I can see in this context is, your kind of people from the United-Nations coming to power and rule over us, taking our wealth away and giving it to 3rd-world countries so that they can breed even faster; or for your universities so they develop new technologies to depress us even further.

Even if this "climate change" hoax had any truth to it, I would be more worried about the implementation of measures "against it" then any changes to temperature, sea-levels and all that rubbish that would anyway only affect future generations.

Why would anyone ever be convinced by people who say one thing with their mouth, yet do the opposite with their penis/womb (and also use polluting jets to fly over to meet and greet, perhaps also screw, their friends in international "climate-conferences")?
If that hoax truly concerns you (of course not, your only concern is how to get money, power and sex out of it), then there is a very simple solution: STOP MAKING BABIES!

Had your data been correct and had you been honest about it, then you would know that nothing man ever did at this stage could make any significant change, but if there are to be no future generations, then not only would your self-inflicted-problem be solved, not only there will be nobody here to suffer the "consequences", but also the quality of life would improve for the few who would somehow remain on this planet without your ilk.

While this earth is likely to remain physically habitable for millions of years to come, it becomes increasingly less habitable for spiritual purposes due to human population numbers, ever increasing control and surveillance, ever increasing dependence on electronic gadgets, ever further away from the original purpose for which we acquired a body on this earth to live in. A purifying Tsunami that will wash away this civilisation would be a great thing, but if you can stop it voluntarily first, then no one will be hurt.

Yes it is bad for the whole earth