The Forum > Article Comments > Vested interests shaping government policy > Comments
Vested interests shaping government policy : Comments
By Simon Roz, published 24/4/2008Climate change: focusing on economics alone is to suggest that the market can sort it all out. But clearly it hasn't, can't and won't.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
-
- All
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 24 April 2008 2:41:44 PM
| |
'Rooting out the climate skeptics' is not the answer. Intelligent skepticism is fine and necessary. Rooting out stupidity is more important and the underlying stupidity is an economic model that is intellectually and conceptually bizarre. The Productivity Commission seems to operate under several of the assumptions characteristic of the more extreme economists: that resources are infinite; that externalised costs don't exist; that if you can't quantify an effect it doesn't exist; and that the economy works in a logical, systematic and predictable fashion. Until we root out these delusions, we will continue to get economic policies that bear little relationship to reality.
Posted by next, Friday, 25 April 2008 8:51:28 AM
| |
We are each a “vested interest”. I vote on the basis of what I believe is best not just for the country but for me.
As for “You have to hand it to the Greenhouse Mafia,” Opening an article with a sledge at those who do not comply with a seemingly God-given view is typical of the ardent environmentalist zealot, blinded by his own faux-compassion and of course his own “vested interest”. It comes down to this, when socialism failed in the late 1980s the Trotsky maggots crawled for cover in to the environmentalist movement – the agenda, not to save the environment but to undermine the functioning of the private enterprise system, thus creating the environment for another revolution. I would not suggest Simon Roz is a Trot but he could well be one of the gullible acolytes who feel, because of their own in adequacies, that others, more capable than themselves should not be allowed to advance beyond them. Making him a good warrior, not for environmentalism but for the real agenda Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 25 April 2008 12:13:20 PM
| |
Col, what crap. You obviously know next to nothing about the environment movement, who occupies it and how they operate, think or feel. The environment movement is incredibly diverse - and incredibly supportive of each other despite views that in other circumstances would bring people into conflict. If you don't like the opinion expressed, fine, but leaved the ad hominen stupidities under the bed.
Posted by next, Friday, 25 April 2008 5:39:32 PM
| |
'...root out any remaining bureaucracies infected with climate sceptics - such as those in the Productivity Commission'
Trouble is, Simon, the number of sceptics is growing every day. Little inconvenient facts like natural temperature increases during centuries with no anthropogenic CO2, a decline in global temperature over the last ten years, increasing levels of ice around the poles -- see for instance http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/27/antarctica-ain%e2%80%99t-cooperating/ -- have a way of shaking a rational person's faith in the global warming hypothesis. Sorry and all that, but the big bad capitalist machine is still the most effective way to promote everyone's long-term health and happiness, because it relies on enlightened self-interest, not ideological axioms. Posted by Jon J, Saturday, 26 April 2008 9:00:13 PM
| |
Simon Roz could learn a lot from Christopher Pearson:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23597729-7583,00.html Posted by Chris Schoneveld, Sunday, 27 April 2008 3:22:11 AM
|
Absolutely! Nothing could be clearer. And not just with climate change, but with the whole environmental / sustainability arena.
Market forces are blatantly taking us in the wrong direction, with the complicity of governments.
And sadly, organisations such as the Australian Conservation Foundation and Greenpeace, have failed to even really try to get governments to uphold their responsibilities. They’ve been reasonable at expressing the need to reduce consumption, find alternatives to oil and toxic chemicals, etc, but they have been completely dismal at expressing the need for us to stabilise our population and pressure on the environment and resource base. In short, their message has been terribly one-sided.
So I’ve got to ask, are the ACF and/or Greenpeace in the same position as governments? That is; totally under the thumb of big business.
The market’s not going to sort out our climate change / peak oil / sustainable future issues. Government ain’t gonna do it and non-government organisations apparently aren’t gunna either.
How terribly depressing.