The Forum > Article Comments > The low-tech, no-tech solution > Comments
The low-tech, no-tech solution : Comments
By Eric Claus, published 30/6/2006Some solutions are just so simple - drastically reduce immigration to Australia.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Page 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
-
- All
Posted by Angelo, Monday, 10 July 2006 4:59:35 PM
| |
Dalma says “Your presumptuous claim " aussie's produce about 28 tonnes of greenhouse gas per person per year " defies research by the CSIRO.”
Yet the AGO website says “Australia's net emissions across all sectors totalled 564.7 Mt of carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt CO2-e) in 2004.”, or about 28 tonnes of greenhouse gas per person per year. [http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/inventory/index.html] Dalma also claims that Australia needs to import skilled workers to satisfy a huge demand, and uncharitably says this of Australian youth: “Kids are leaving school in droves without Education, work experience or Apprenticeship's to fall back on. We have a generation of School-leaver's[sic] who are illiterate, lack work ethnic, prefer to surf, spine-bash, smoke pot, commit petty larceny, or beat up defenceless[sic] geriatric old women in shopping Malls. This permanent underclass of dysfunctional dropout's couldn't work in the proverbial ' iron-lung '. It's unlikely, the Army would accept this flotsam, cleaning dunnies, let alone subject them to discipline / basic training they couln't[sic] comprehend ?” Substitute Jews for Kids and School leavers and you would have comment worthy of the most fervent of jackbooted nazis. Again, I would point out the Productivity Commission's report, which suggests a very marginal benefit from immigration: [http://www.pc.gov.au/study/migrationandpopulation/finalreport/index.html] Dalma might also consider that without high immigration a considerable skilled workforce currently engaged in the construction of buildings and infrastructure necessary to cope with an increasing population would potentially be available for the mining industry. Posted by Fester, Monday, 10 July 2006 7:52:30 PM
| |
Response to Ludwig:
"Australia would be doing extraordinarily well to lower its per-capita GHG production to anywhere near that of NZ or UK, countries." Yes, it would be great! Let me again summarise my points, as it will answer your questions (q1 to q7 of your post 9 July 2006), although not exactly sure what q1 and q2 refer to. If Australia is the worlds worst per captia polluter (q3) then the only "lesson" we can give the rest of the world, is how we worked hard to alter this characteristic of our economy (q1 and q2.) Changes to immigration do not affect this (q4 and q6) however adopting sustainable practises will (q5.) This article is not about changing the number of consumers but about immigration (q6.) 20 million people can produce CO2 the same as 200 million (q3 again), so the Greenhouse Gas issue is ultimately a question of technology and economics (q7). We are told Australia is an island. When it comes to the atmosphere, Australia is NOT an island. I'd like to add another string to my refutation. If migration to Australia is bad, then migration from Australia is good. Response to Fester: So you think my arguments are corrupt? I am very proud of all my above posts, my rigorous analysis and critique of this article. It has been honest, sensible and positive, backed up with good research and a rigourous commitment to staying with the real issues, rather than making insinuating remarks. Your second paragraph does not represent my argument and again confuses population with immigration. Unlike the Titanic, there are no "lifeboats" for planet Earth. Are you expecting to be rescued by aliens? Australia cannot isolate itself from global warming! No surprise you cannot accept the flaw in this article. Posted by David Latimer, Tuesday, 11 July 2006 2:41:50 PM
| |
David Latimer might note that I have pointed out a flaw in his reasoning. The flaw is quite real and not an insinuation. I don't doubt that DL could prove himself, judging by his self-assessment, but I would guess that his commitments would not permit such an indulgence, as has been the case for many of my questions.
To restate, DL claims that “The flaw is where Eric multiplies the following numbers: - 1,200,000 new immigrants after 10 years - 28 tonnes of greenhouse gas per Australian per year and claims that we would save 34,000,000 tonnes per annum if those immigrants were not accepted. The calculation is nonsense as rejected migrants would use fossil fuels in their own countries and the gasses[sic] would be distributed across the atmosphere. This has been pointed out in several other posts. The formula of 1 less migrant = savings of 28 tonnes of Greenhouse Gasses[sic]/yr is wrong. The formula is wrong, so the resulting value of 34,000,000 tonnes/yr saved is wrong.” But by concluding “This resulting value is wrong, so the other claims and general argument fails.”, and more expansively in a later post “As I am able to restate, the article is based on the flawed assumption that one less migrant = 28 tonnes saved of greenhouse gases (GHG). As this is wrong, the rest of the article, its arguments and claims are equally flawed.” , DL contradicts himself, as his first statement is based on the truth of EC's claim that with 1.2 million fewer Australians, Australia would have lower GHG emissions than it would do with 1.2 million more immigrants. To give a specific example, is EC's claim that Australia with 1.2 million fewer immigrants would have a lower demand for electricity false because the would be immigrants would be responsible for GHG emissions in other countries? Posted by Fester, Tuesday, 11 July 2006 7:17:00 PM
| |
David
Thanks for addressing my questions. “so the Greenhouse Gas issue is ultimately a question of technology and economics (q7).” You clearly don’t think immigration is a factor. Well, all I can say is; you can’t be serious. You haven’t questioned the veracity of the figures quoted by Eric, which show that per-capita GHG emissions in immigration source countries are indeed quite a lot lower than in Australia overall. And you haven’t questioned the fact that evermore consumers can only lead to GHG emissions, or at least to a dilution or cancelling out of efforts to reduce emissions. But you continue to say that immigration to Australia doesn’t affect GHG emissions. Obviously it does, very much so on the national scale and also to a small extent on the global scale. We need to think about GHG emissions on two scales here – national and global. You seem to be only thinking on the global scale. It is very important that Australia sets an example for the world, which will at the same time ‘train’ our citizens and leaders to live comfortably with much-improved efficiencies of fossil fuel usage and waste production. It is in fact less important on the global scale that we actually reduce our level of emissions. Crikey, with China booming we are insignificant. If the US improved efficiency by even a few percent, it could make more difference than Australia’s entire emissions. So the important thing really is for Australia to set an example and follow the various examples being shown by Sweden, Brazil, etc. So, from our perspective here in Oz, it is more a national issue than a global issue, yes? And immigration is most definitely a major part of it. Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 11 July 2006 11:21:04 PM
| |
Response to Fester:
Thanks for repeating my main arguments. There is no contradiction. The latter posts are summaries of the first. Also you are confusing electricity with greenhouse gases (GHG). Electrical demand affects the local grid, while GHG's are distributed across the atmosphere. Response to Ludwig: I am not always serious. My first two posts to this thread where a bit of a parody, eg "may I present the solution of everyone in Australia migrating overseas." I do not question and am alarmed by Eric's post where he presented the comparative figures. My response was in the post 7 July 2006 10:00:57 AM. I believe you when you say "GHG emissions in immigration source countries are indeed quite a lot lower than in Australia overall." That's a consequence of being the worst. Migrants come from other countries and every other country is doing better than Australia by this pro capita measure. You say, that I "seem to be only thinking on the global scale". That's true and the only reasonable position. The atmosphere is global. Sea-levels are affected globally. If Australia is the worst per capita producer of GHG's, and not joining the Koyoto protocol, then we set a poor example. Fortunately there are some good things we are doing, such as the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. There are many smaller initiatives, to numerous to mention. I would love to see the Solar Tower project begin construction. But this is not a national issue. It can only be resolved at a international level, specifically with resolute American support. Still have faith that immigration would set an example to the world? Let's imagine that it was the United States giving this "lesson" to the world and they stopped immigration to supposedly solve climate change. What signal would that send to Australia? I'd guess it'd be like telling us to build a very, very, very long dyke. Posted by David Latimer, Wednesday, 12 July 2006 1:36:17 AM
|
Someone mentioned before Australians don't oppose high immigration. If that is so, how come Pauline Hanson was jailed?
Hmmm, sweet smelling democracy and a immigration lobby that acts like the Ku Klux Klan!