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 > Let's be fair about climate targets > Comments

Let's be fair about climate targets : Comments

By Nicholas Gruen, published 28/12/2007

The only way to allocate the right to emit carbon is where each person, whether from China or Australia, has equal value.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Nick,
I suppose the notion of solving climate change without considering the economy has not entered your brain yet. The sad thing is if we don't do as much as we possibly can individually and collectively we won't have a planet capable of supporting an economy, we have approximately 14 years to arrest the slide.If we don't the planet begins to deteriorate which is the best advise from the best and brightest of Earth's scientists.

We can bicker about who does what as you are, or we can embrace sustainable energy in an attempt to save ourselves, the only choices are these, act and exist, or inaction and perish, I know which option I will be backing.
Posted by SHONGA, Friday, 28 December 2007 9:44:09 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
Different fairness criteria provide different results. If you use cumulative emissions the Brits are the worst offenders having invented the Industrial Revolution, but I don't see how a young British child is to blame for the sins of his great grandfathers. There is total national emissions lead by China and the US compared to per-capita emissions with Australia at or near the top. You could have a 'could do better' prize for Indonesian deforestation and Canadian tar sands. Then you have inefficiency, excessive population and offshoring of heavy industry ('pollution exports'). Resource endowments differ so Japan is energy frugal while Dubai creates indoor snowfields with cheap gas.

I suggest everybody starts now putting in a somewhat matching effort. Thus we'll cut domestic coal but help Bangladesh with solar energy. Since Australia exports coal and LNG I think we could also put our export customers on a carbon diet, perhaps with promises of more yellowcake as a sweetener. I'm not confident this will happen. Realistically I think it is more likely that economic downturn, physical shortages and lags in clean technology will achieve the carbon cuts that politicians cannot.
Posted by Taswegian, Friday, 28 December 2007 10:51:26 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 nicely argued article.

Shonga, what use do you think our efforts in Australia will be if the emissions of the world’s largest emitters continue to grow as they are? If Australia ceased emitting altogether, it would reduce global emissions by about the amount that China’s emissions increase in a single year.

Devising a fair, workable and acceptable way of bringing developing countries into a global emissions reductions regime is the only way we’ll achieve the emissions reductions necessary.

I doubt that “the notion of solving climate change without considering the economy” has "entered the brain" of any serious policymaker trying to devise ways of addressing climate change that will actually work.
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 28 December 2007 1:31:40 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
If that's the case we all go down together because of our own stupidity.
Posted by SHONGA, Friday, 28 December 2007 2:41:46 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
My greatest disappointment is that in another 100 years. I will not be alive.

I reckon the science textbooks will contain examples of how science misled people into believing that climate change was man made, rather than a part of the natural cycle of this planet.

I suppose I could find a bookie and have my descendants inherit the bet.
Posted by JamesH, Friday, 28 December 2007 2:57:27 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
There is an obvious and simple way that the developing world can be brought into the cooperative effort to reduce global warming emissions.

The way is to bring in "work for your foreign aid".

However this would not be enough, as global emissions are only a symptom of the real problem, which is the population explosion in the third world.

So, what should we do? Simple. We say to the third world, that if they wish to continue to receive aid, trade and tourism, they must:

(a) Permit a program of education of young girls to be implemented. Education has been shown to be the best way to reduce the number of children a woman has.

(b) Stop forest clearing and similar activities that add to global emissions.

I continue to be amazed that people still entertain the fanciful idea that economic equality an achievable aim. In one way they are correct; it could be achieved by reducing the living standard in the West to that in Bangladesh, but I doubt that voters would countenance that. Any other way is mathematically impossible, as can be realised by noting that for the whole world to enjoy the US standard of living, you would need to produce 550 million barrels of oil per day, when we are struggling to produce 88 (and that is running out).

This idea of equality is obviously powerful; let us hope it is not achieved in the only practicable way.
Posted by plerdsus, Friday, 28 December 2007 4:32:20 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
Plerdsus
It seems unreasonable to blame global emissions on the developing world when their per capita emissions are so much less than the developed world, and their total emissions about the same as ours.

I don’t think the article is arguing for (or against) economic equality. The equality Nicholas is advocating is an equal “right” to emit as the starting point for global emissions controls, followed by global permit trading. That seems a far fairer starting point than, say, the Kyoto benchmark of countries’ 1990 emission levels, which in effect rewarded the worst polluters.

As developing countries currently emit far less per capita than we do, the immediate results of such a scheme would be that poor countries would sell their surplus trading permits to rich ones, yielding for many a significant windfall gain. Over time as poorer countries got richer they would buy back some of those permits and the price would start to rise, but they would have the same incentives as rich countries to choose low-emissions technologies and production processes.

The benefits of a global emissions trading scheme compared to national caps would be huge, and include encouraging efficiency and least-cost abatement worldwide, removing the opportunity and incentive to shift emissions from domestic industries to foreign ones by importing emissions-intensive goods, and placing a value of global assets such as rainforests which would make it worthwhile for their governments to protect them.
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 28 December 2007 4:53:29 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
Rhian,

I am not blaming the developing world for global emissions. What I am saying is that the real problem is the prospect of a doubling of the third world population over the next 25 years, and that global emissions are only a symptom of the problem. If the population problem is not solved, it will make all efforts to reduce emissions futile, and we will all be doomed. It doesn't really matter who produced the emissions we have, the question is how to lower them. To give all persons in the third world the right to emit at the same per capita level as persons in the west is a recipe for disaster, as emissions would either increase unsustainably, or the western economies would collapse. Any proposal requiring large payments to the third world simply won't work, because the voters in the west wouldn't vote for the required taxes, and if the taxes could be imposed, the people simply wouldn't work. That is why I am suggesting a method whereby the third world can be induced to assist in emission reduction without any increase in the payments they are currently receiving.

What surprises me about this whole subject is that ALL these proposals require a substantial reduction in the current western standard of living, something that will be strongly resisted by voters everywhere, and will not be condusive to any increase in third world aid. Remember that usually when a resource becomes scarce, the usual procedure is to have a little war to see who gets the resource, and who gets nothing. if you have any doubts about this, just follow the current debate about electricity privatisation in NSW.

Over the next five years we can expect:

1. A threefold increase in the price of food.

2. A threefold increase in the price of electricity.

3. A threefold increase (at least) in the price of petrol.

Little wonder that the Howard years will soon be looked back on as the golden age.
Posted by plerdsus, Friday, 28 December 2007 8:26:22 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
Plerdsus, it shouldn't be tax payers buying carbon credits, but the companies with a large carbon footprint;ie comalco, bhp, and yes the electricity suppliers who are -or soon will be- private companies.
Yes, prices will go up in the next five years. What else is new?
Of course all people everywhere should be treated equally. Duh. This is the 21st century, for God's sake.
Just as the UN should be structured on the principle of 1 person 1 vote, instead on 1 nuclear weapon, 1 vote.
The whole push for alternative energy is to supply the equivalent of those other 462 barrels of oil. Again, duh.
The only amazing thing is, it is already doable, with existing technologies.
The only thing stopping us, is Capitalism, and the the tunnel vision which absolutely requires constant economic growth.
The Lord commanded, "Go forth and multiply".
When can we say:"We have gone forth and multiplied"?
Posted by Grim, Saturday, 29 December 2007 4:54:59 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
Plerdsus “A threefold increase”

I agree with your assessment.

Some of that increase will be offset by falling housing prices / rentals as marginal investors withdraw from their investments to support their unavoidable consumption.

I have just written on another thread “Krudd will preside over a recession”. For him it is unavoidable and down to the attitude of socialists of “knowing best” and irresistible compulsion to “fiddle with the economy”.

But the big crunch will focus on the inability of Krudd & Co to produce the environment to encourage “confidence” and thus investment and jobs.

Grim “The only thing stopping us, is Capitalism,”

Back in 1985, a Czech dog met a Polish dog when things Poland were particularly tough and the dead hand of communist repression was at its height. To ameliorate the difficulties the Poles were approved, by Moscow, extra rations, better than the Czechs.

So the Czech dog asked the Polish dog “what does meat taste like?”

The Polish dog replied, “fine but what sort of dog would choose to eat when it is forbidden to bark?”

The point – like “democracy”, “capitalism” is the worst sort of economic model except for all the other models which have been tried and spectacularly failed.

Capitalism prevailed over socialism because socialism not simply ignores but represses the individual.

The capitalist gain / socialist loss is easy to identify, the individual is the motivating force which drives all and every development which occurs on earth. Deny the individual and you destroy the motivational force which produces solutions to current problems and advances to improve the ‘lot’ of future generations.

As for the notion of “equal right to produce carbon emissions”,
The future trading in the “carbon rights market” will ensure that the any right to produce “emissions” will become vested with those most able to pay for that right.

That is Capitalism at its worst, because “socialism” has no answer.

That displays the obvious superiority of capitalism over socialism, where the poor solution outclasses the non-solution
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 29 December 2007 12:07:40 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
Thanks Nicholas Gruen, another step in the road to sensible policy.

-

Plerdsus, 'western aid' is merely our glorious leaders discrete way of rewarding their benefactors, check out who are the leading shareholders of Ozs biggest foriegn aid providers. Check out too the actual balance of payments of aid versus repayments, we've been draining the colonies for many years whatever our pretentions to 'christian charity'.
http://www.jubileeresearch.org/jubilee2000/news/imf0904.html
http://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article371
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=787

The idea of punishing the Majority World (before it becomes a problem) for the consequences of the Wests actions to date is Kafka at his best, no doubt it gets approval at the Melbourne Club along with the strippers and the brown collar servants but it doesn't work elsewhere. I suspect 'Blame China' is so big in Australia cos most Anglo aussies are still racist to some degree.

Similarly Col Rouge's rehash of neoliberal propaganda is dated and silly, as if Australia's dig-it-ship-it plutocracy is really capitalist and carbon trading is by definition socialist (then why does it have a trading market at its centre?). I know RightThink has had some setbacks (without Howards taxfunded bankroll) but y'all are risking relegation!
Posted by Liam, Saturday, 29 December 2007 3:26:35 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
Col, it's interesting that you compare capitalism and democracy in such a way, however it is exactly because we have democracy that it is highly unlikely we will ever see anything like the brand of capitalism that you prefer, with the government taking as little responsibility as possible for the continued functioning and stability of society and the economy. It's inevitable that there will always be a significant class of people who are happy to outsource what you would see as personal responsibility to "the state", and it's also inevitable that there will be a significant class of people that are left behind in a system that insists that each man is responsible for his own welfare. The latter is of course why conservatives such as Bismarck and Disraeli championed the welfare state - to ensure that the working classes would be at least partially protected from the hazards of capitalism, and not rise up against it.

(Apologies for being off-topic - I do have some thoughts on the article itself, but waiting to see how the discussion develops).
Posted by wizofaus, Saturday, 29 December 2007 4:23:36 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
A lot I agree with. But I think the idea of an economic nexus between emissions and population size is fundamentally flawed. One of the major causes of environmental problems is population size and population growth. To configure any kind of system on a per capita base is thus fundamentally inimical to the objective of emission control and reduction. If absolute limits to emissions were set and enforced, nations might strive to reduce populations as a way of reaching their goals, if the limits are set per capita this could be an incentive to expand populations.
Posted by Fencepost, Saturday, 29 December 2007 5:05:03 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
Now let's see.The industrial revolution began in the West and poor countries benefited from better food technology and medicines so their populations exploded.They are still growing expodentially!

How is it our problem that they have not taken responsibility for their own pop excesses when we have negative pop growth?We could have chosen not to share any of our new technologies with poor countries and let disease and wars curtail their pop growth.

There has to be a population factor introduced into agreements like Kyoto because it will be in the interests of poor countries to encourage the growth of a poor underclass,so they can gain economic advantage by having lower energy to pop ratios.India and china will continue to pollute at will and we devolve into poverty.The left would be very happy with this outcome.

Nicholas is also assuming that the present consensus about CO2 being the main culprit is correct.I do not.
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 29 December 2007 11:14:52 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
Col Rouge: assuming that if one is not an unqualified fan of the existing Capitilist system, one must therefore be a Socialist, is about as intelligent as the cow in the movie "Babe".
"The way things are, is the way things are".
I freely concede there are many things the free market system does well. But not everything.
Mega huge companies with billions of dollars tied up in existing -and outdated- technologies are resistant to change. There is no mystery here.
In a democracy, if the people don't like something, they should not have to put up with it. All they need is the will, and the understanding of their own power.
The looming crisis will supply the will, and education and the internet (and sites such as this) will provide the understanding.
viva the revolution.
grim@thecomensality.com
Posted by Grim, Sunday, 30 December 2007 6:20:39 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
Grim,
A clarification please–you say:
“Just as the UN should be structured on the principle of 1 person 1 vote”
Did you mean one nation one vote – or did you really mean one person one vote?

And how about funding for the UN, shouldn’t we democratize that as well?
Posted by Horus, Sunday, 30 December 2007 9:24:44 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
We now know with melting of our polar regions that rapid global warming is not just a cyclic change.

So rather than stuffing around with carbon trading helping to still keep our corporate hawks still making billions - using military terms, it is vital that we should be now going into defence mode against rising water tables, etc.

Here in Mandurah we have canals still being constructed only giving housing precincts less than a metre free-board.

From an academic point of view it is so interesting that left-wing loonies as too many of Onliners are still wont to call them, gave warning nearly twenty years ago to the canal construction companies about canal residences being half under water in years to come.

It is also so interesting philosophically that people who were against the original Parry canals in Halls Head were mostly females, making one wonder whether with such worrying climate times ahead we should have more of the feminine gender running society, especially with out present Aussie continuing reliance on quarry economics.
Posted by bushbred, Sunday, 30 December 2007 12:07:33 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
Interesting article. I'm a bit with Fencepost re population growth, but nevertheless it seems a point of argument for developing nations to continue in raising living standards.

Col Rouge, don't you think it a bit hypocritical to damn 'socialism' when obviously you and yours have greatly benefited from 'socialist' policies in this country over the last 50 years or so? Your level of education, health and level of social standing is purely the result of socialist policies.

Once it may have been simple to choose between an extreme. What about a 'middle way' as is shown in countries like Norway or the Netherlands? Growth has always been seen as the hallmark of success. Let's coin some new words, like maintenance and efficiency to mark success.

It is extraordinary don't you think, that a powerful Mercedes Benz car has lower emissions and is more fuel efficient than many small 4 cylinder cars. Citroen is even better.

Technology and the environment are the winners with the proposed 'tax' on fuel inefficient cars in Europe. The Europeans don't care whether climate change is man made or a 'natural' occurrence. They see the effects humans have on the environment by looking at the horizon and at the health of their trees.
Posted by yvonne, Sunday, 30 December 2007 1:30:08 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
Wizofaus” however it is exactly because we have democracy that it is highly unlikely we will ever see anything like the brand of capitalism that you prefer,”

My reality is to work from “what is” to “what should be”

The likes of wizofaus invariably work from the premise of “what should be”, ignoring “what is”.

So whilst I acknowledge my style of minimalist government, small government as Ronald Reagan called it and as was practiced by him and Margaret Thatcher alike, has suffered the fall back into socialist mantras and illusions (that progress is ever made by society as a whole (The only momentum socialism ever produced is when it has dragged society into a hole).

So I prefer small government, rather than some nonsensical and unaccountable all-embracing and controlling politbureau.

As dearest Margaret said “We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.”

Grim (by name and nature I guess)” outdated- technologies are resistant to change.

In a democracy, if the people don't like something, they should not have to put up with it.”

Yes it is called the “consumers prerogative”. The companies with huge investment in outdated technologies are, invariably, monopolies, since where free market competition exists, the competitive edge forces change into the otherwise moribund.

The biggest monopolies are the ones created by government.

As for “vive-la-revolution”,

The business processes I design and install into companies have revolutionised their trading, illuminated opportunities which would otherwise be missed and ensured improved business development. Simply because I do not wear a moustache and sombrero does not mean ones actions are not “revolutionary”, indeed the past 20 years of my business life have been dealing and pursuing constant change of a productive outcome, not the radical / emotional and controlling twaddle of the leftie Che’s and Fidel’s of the world.
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 30 December 2007 2:55:07 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
Col: "The likes of wizofaus invariably work from the premise of “what should be”, ignoring “what is”."

I have no idea what you mean by that. I've stated before that I agree entirely that capitalism is far preferable to socialism, and I even have something of an intellectual soft-spot for libertarian capitalism: the main reason I don't support it personally is because of the evidence that it just doesn't produce a type of society that I would want to live in (there are also good rational and economic reasons why it's unlikely to be successful in the long run).

However, that's somewhat beside the point, which is that democracy is ultimately the only fair way of deciding what "should be". And functional democracy is never going to support libertarian capitalism for very long. The U.S. is arguably the closest example we have (given that both major parties there are both very strongly pro-free-mark/capitalism), and there are good reasons to be believe that democracy has gone rather horribly wrong in the U.S., where both a) a significant percentage of the population frequently vote against their own economic interests and b) both major parties are so dependent on corporate lobby groups for funding and support that neither can ever do a truly decent job of representing "the people".
Posted by wizofaus, Sunday, 30 December 2007 3:18:00 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
Gee, I wonder if I could think of any outdated technologies that don't -invariably- involve monopoloies?
Oh, I know, what about the internal combustion engine? Or the fossil fuel industry, or coal fired power stations...
Gosh, this could almost be a thread about climate change, and carbon credits.
And as to small government, I fully agree. In the current period of highly restrained wage increases (at the bottom end of town) we are still seeing inflation, which can only indicate we are carrying far too much dead wood -and wage increases at the top, non productive end of town.
Believing in small government doesn't make me a thatcherite, any more than a dislike of unrestrained capitalism makes me a socialist.
Posted by Grim, Sunday, 30 December 2007 7:25:32 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
Simple research on the net shows that the developing world's CO2 cmmissions have now overtaken the developed world's emmissions and that they are growing at 3 to 4 times the rate of the developed world.

Any cutting of emmissions without the developing world is pointless, and the debates about what is fair and historical responsibilities is like the musicians playing on the titanic.

Like the rest of life, that the developing world needs to make sacrifices is not fair. The argument about equal rights to emit needs to be postponed to a time when the battle against climate change is already won.
Posted by Democritus, Monday, 31 December 2007 6:59:18 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
Grim “Oh, I know, what about the internal combustion engine”

So you have a more effective alternative?

Well find an investor and market it yourself.

However, I guess putting your “money where your mouth is” does not stack up with your “idealistic posturing”?

“coal fired power stations” – I have no problem with nuclear.

“we are still seeing inflation, which can only indicate we are carrying far too much dead wood”

Really?

So “dead-wood” is the cause of inflation.

Interesting hypothesis but I bet you could not quantify it into a formula or even express as a rationalized statement of cause and effect, for us all to inspect and objectively criticize.

Personally, I thought inflation was caused by the available market price exceeding the practical supply, historically produced by governments “pump priming” their economies by flooding the market with money or capital works programs which was not funded by taxes (unbalanced budget).

My view sounds a little dull, your view sounds far more exciting or at least “diversionary” so I do look forward to your elaboration on the matter.

“Believing in small government doesn't make me a thatcherite,”

well if it did (make you a Thatcherite), you would not need to rely on the banal jingoism of the ignorant to fill your posts.

Democritus wrote “Like the rest of life, that the developing world needs to make sacrifices is not fair.”

Agree.

If you want to be “fair”, we would all have the life quality and expectancy of some one living in the Horn of Africa.

That is the promise of carbon trading, to reduce your life quality to that of an Eritrean as the carbon market exchange attempts to elevate the Eritrean life quality to that of the Australian.

Somehow I bet the Aussie will equate closer to the position of the Eritrean than the Eritrean will ever be lifted to the life quality of the Aussie.

Carbon trading is mere “Socialism by Stealth”. That educated folk are voluntarily supporting the radical diminution of their and their children’s life quality for a failed political notion is almost beyond belief.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 31 December 2007 9:07:59 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
Folks, just a few more interesting ideas to stir the pot a little.

This problem of CO2 emissions relates to CO2 gas being released into the atmosphere. If one considers the volume of atmosphere (in cubic kilometres) above Australia, and the volume of CO2 that we are releasing into it, you will realise that our rate of emission is one of the lowest in the world. But! You will say, it must be measured per capita! Why! To make us feel guilty? (Always a powerful tactic, practised by religions for thousands of years). The atmosphere doesn't care if 10,000,000 people each emit one gram, or if 1 person emits 10,000,000 grams. But, you say, we must lead by example! What a joke. Anyone who thinks that Australia matters in the world should look at a variety of overseas internet sites on this or any other subject, and you will have a rude awakening.

The most wonderful thing about Australia is that it doesn't matter. Shut away in our little corner of the world, we can give thanks that we are protected from most of the problems of the world.

Two other interesting statistics that should interest people:

1. Only 11% of the world's population live in the southern hemisphere.

2. Only 4% of the world's pollution is generated in the southern hemisphere.

This means that again, Australia doesn't matter. This problem of CO2 pollution will be resolved (if it is) by the major countries of the northern hemisphere, and what we think or do doesn't matter a bit.

The inescapable conclusion from all this is that the third world will NEVER be developed. The resources to do this simply don't exist. If they did, and were applied as desired, we would all promptly choke to death on the pollution.

It is clear to me that many socialists and other do-gooders simply can't come to terms with these facts, driven as they are by an overwhelming urge to improve the lives of others.
Posted by plerdsus, Monday, 31 December 2007 11:56:45 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
It seems some people think the atmosphere or troposphere is bounded by borders – yeah, with that kind of evaluation maybe Australia was the joke under the now defunct Howard years.

Global problems require global solutions, but hey - plerdsus can shut himself away in his own little corner, or bury his head in the sand – not much difference really.

He's right about one thing, the planet hasn’t got the resources to live the lifestyle of the “developed” world – we would need five Earths.

The consumerism driven greed society that plerdsus emulates is typical of unsustainable development – a view that Australia doesn’t matter is, well – crap. Australia can pull its head out of the sand and start to live in a more sustainable way - with or without plerdsus.
Posted by Q&A, Monday, 31 December 2007 12:56:38 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
Been under fire from fanatical pro-progressives in another thread, thought I'd have a lash at this one.

Probably not so precious to some who never take time away from the city, but one who has cleared wheatbelt land to see wild turkeys and mallee hens, fluttering over strange mini-kangaroos, to finish the last of their lives around saltlakes ever growing wider and whiter.

Out there we find we have not overcome the above problems, only fenced them off and passed them by in a land of so-called plenty.

Here in Mandurah now as well as low-lying canal houses due to be swamped by rising tides, we have now seen the last of the unique tuart forests, the few trees left looking not so strong and stately, but ever so lonely.

Yep, reckon some city dwellers have got a lot to learn, especially when we have some saying man has not done harm to this planet, and in any case is quite capable of surviving on technology alone if the worst comes to the worst.

Under accusations that Australia has now become a country mostly relying on pitstock politics and quarry economics, the answer is that modern technology is capable of going miles down, but please to remember that most of our precious ores and feedstocks are not far down anyway because like coal and oil, iron ore and bauxite aluminium are produced originally by surface exposure to forms of solar heat on surface rock.

So as in other more settled Western-type countries, most precious feedstocks under the greedy grasp of modern business and technology will not last long.

But it seems under tne spell of this new/old corporate culture we have educated persons who do know better, but as Adam Smith father of Laissez-faire warned so long ago, human greed under competition may even overpower sanity
Posted by bushbred, Monday, 31 December 2007 5:53:48 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
col rouge, (by name but definitely not by nature, I guess),
"banal jingoism of the ignorant". What a wonderful phrase. Pity there's been no mention of patriotism, of any kind.
"Idealogicol posturing". Did I tell you the one about the Polish dog, Col?
Alternatives to the internal combustion engine? electric cars are already being produced, and we can reasonably expect to see more of them. An even more exciting development is the compressed air car
http://www.theaircar.com/howitworks.html; I may just take your advice on that one, Col.
As to the inflation thing (I'll try to keep it simple).
Let's say the widget factory employs 7 people at $10. They ask for a $2 pay rise. This puts pressure on prices.
Management decides to employ a management consultant, instead. At $14. an hour.
Exactly the same pressure on prices.
Interestingly, only a few years ago, the highest paid worker at CSIRO was a scientist. Now the top five highest paid are all business management types.
Incidentally, I'm in basic agreement with you about the carbon trading thing. I just like the idea that if we are going to fall for this crap, we should at least fall for it equally.
Posted by Grim, Monday, 31 December 2007 8:49:02 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
Nicholas I find it interesting that you have needed to write this article. In my naive way I had assumed that all the negotiators had the same objective of equal emissions for all as the underlying assumption. I would have thought that the issue of negotiations was how best to get there and what the amount per person was going to be.

Instead of people spending too much time on emissions why not concentrate on ways to generate energy without emissions. Sooner rather than later we have to have a negative emissions world economy.

Fortunately we can do it with existing technology and it can happen quickly and rather than cause an economic meltdown actually increase our wealth. The rough numbers to show that this is possible are shown in figures from the solar thermal and the geothermal technologies. Remember these technologies are the same as fossil fuel burning technologies except we have a different heat source so it is a well known way of producing usable energy.

Depending on the discount rate you apply to the investments these renewables are currently competitive with building fossil fuel plants because while the capital costs are 2 to 3 times the cost of building fossil fuel burning plants the running costs are about half. Today the breakeven point with a discount rate of 5% is about 20 years.

It will cost about 600 billion to build enough solar thermal or geothermal generating capacity to supply enough energy for all the energy needs of Australians. Spread over 10 years this is $3,000 per head per year which is achievable considering that at the end of 10 years we produce energy at half its current price. If it was all solar thermal it would cover a land area of about 1/10th the size of Tasmania and if geothermal a whole lot less. Of course we will still build wind stations and still put photo voltaics on our roof tops, still create synthetic biofuels and still reduce our energy consumption.

We should simply do it because in the long term we are better off.
Posted by Fickle Pickle, Tuesday, 1 January 2008 2:54:25 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
Grim “Pity there's been no mention of patriotism, of any kind.”

Of course not, I would leave matters of patriotism to folk like you.

Afterall, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

“electric cars are already being produced”

so too the hybrids.

I hold high hopes for hydrogen fuel cells one day.

The point I would make, all development is funded by existing production and entreprenurial risk funds. The developed result only funds future development and dividends to risk takers.

Give an entrepreneur an opportunity and he will find the funds to provide the product.

Governments fiddling with grants and tax breaks for “alternatives” are merely pretending to do the entrepreneurs job and lets face it, government have been notoriously incompetent when it comes to funding grandiose projects with tax payers funds (although not an Australian example, I would suggest the Anglo/French Concorde was a classic of governmental incompetence and waste, well, almost as bad as institutionalized public transport).

Good projects will always find funds, wannabe spoofs and bodgy schemes are what unscrupulous carpet baggers put up to government bureaucrats to throw your and my taxes at.

As for “the highest paid worker at CSIRO was a scientist. Now the top five highest paid are all business management types.”

Doubtless if the “scientists” were worth more they would earn more and if they could actually run organizations, they would be heading them.

As one of those “business management types”, I would observe scientists are "specialist technicians".

I can think of millions of reasons why CSIRO needs more than a “technician” at its head. The benefit of “business management types” is they appreciate the management imperatives required of organisations and not just the “technical nicities”.

As for “I just like the idea that if we are going to fall for this crap, we should at least fall for it equally.”

Because you admit foreseeing yourself being up to your neck in crap is insufficient an argument to compel me to follow.

Further, it would be inequitable of you to deny my sovereign choice not to follow you in your foolishness.
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 2 January 2008 2:39:55 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
Government regulation can bring about the rapid deployment of clean energy in every country. Such regulation needs to be bold and focussed at actually achieving or exceeding ambitious gas reduction targets.

Ideally, regulation should be based on world treaties on climate change. The treaties require some effective international standards that deliver powerful economic incentives and disincentives, favouring clean energy technology whilst rapidly phasing out carbon emmitting technologies. The standards should also cover economic incentives for achievements in meeting population control milestones.
Posted by Quick response, Wednesday, 2 January 2008 11:32:23 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
A clarification on a previous post: the reason I don't believe in carbon trading is not because I think a free market trading scheme is "socialism by stealth" (?); rather it's because there's no sign of it actually working.
Since in our glorious capitalist system no scheme may be allowed to impede hinder or even slow down the great God 'Growth', European governments have handed out billions of dollars of carbon credits, -allowing for at least 3% growth; even to companies who have no immediate plans for expansion.
These companies immediately have a tradable commodity, allowing for considerable wind fall profits, -which in turn stimulates growth, which inevitably increases the country's carbon footprint.
I do not believe the Capitalist's classic first reaction to any event -"how do I make a buck out of this?"- is the most effective response to a global crisis.
Posted by Grim, Thursday, 3 January 2008 3:17:40 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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