A carbon-constrained world : Comments

By Chandran Nair, published 14/7/2008

Energy consumers and producers alike bear moral and environmental responsibilities and cannot neglect future generations.

Pages:
‹
Page 1
›
All

Like most related discussions it appears to be a little too mono dimensional. By that I mean that the article still refers to “Global Warming” which has its limitations as to the true extent of the problem facing the world. This allows the sceptics and the “great uninformed” leeway to see the problem from a single perspective and therefore vulnerable tor a simple denial by what I call “Savant Syndrome Reasoning (SSR.)” usually journalists.

These “nay sayers” are intelligent, skilled in bully debates but a lack of scientific training renders them as merely collectors of selected facts as counter points in isolation. One is entitled to question their motivation, reasons like self aggrandisement and/or selling newspapers ( a variant of talk back radio SHOWS where reason is jettisoned for ratings…profit). Their greatest failing here is that they are either unwilling or unable to see the linkages between disparate facts (the big picture). e.g. Andrew Bolt. in a recent TV appearance in answer to “The melting artic ice howled the scientist down by stating that the total of ice in the world was the same. He didn’t seem to understand that any change in ice location would cause Catastrophic effects for the world.

I would therefore suggest the using the more accurate descriptive term “Catastrophic Climate Change” which rightly implies multi discipline issues.
My point here is that if there is any hope of altering Galloping inertia the debate needs to progress from “preaching to the converted” to that which will not be easily dispelled by the SSR know-it-alls.

Historically the public is frightened by any significant change and are vulnerable to the SSR journalists. BTW pharmaceutically speaking SSR’s are a family of antidepressants. (Apt!)
If the debate doesn’t move beyond the perceived “reasonable doubt” (as supplied by the SSR journalists) in the minds of the greater public we will indeed experience the “Catastrophic”.
The argument needs to go beyond the armchair theorist offering “shoulds” to proposing actual “hows”.
I do however agree with the thrust of the article. Where I differ from the article’s thrust is the political saleabilit

Posted by examinator, Monday, 14 July 2008 7:47:22 PM

Nowhere in the article is any mention made of the need to devise an economic model which results in successfully operating in a non-expanding system. This will of necessity, require that the population decreases as the improvements in the standard of living of the poorer countries will result in an increased per capita energy and food consumption.

The biggest hurdle to be faced in controlling population is at present having a bun fight in Sydney and unless someone in the Holy See can be convinced of that necessity, we will most likely be doomed to extinction sooner rather than later.

David

Posted by VK3AUU, Monday, 14 July 2008 10:39:30 PM

Your premise is a little assumptive. I would suggest to you that population control is a myopic and probably un enable option.
To me its a bit like saying that if there were less people on the Titanic it wouldn't have been a disaster. in truth the problem isn't the number of people in the world IT IS HOW THEY BEHAVE.
You are making fairly massive assumptions about the actual effect of the Catholic church.
I would refer you to my comments on " Greens lose the on population issues" also "morals and ethics". In the latter I poit to the fact that morals (religion) is man made and oare often ignored when the individuals "ehtics" become conflicted. Eg All the Sthn Irish (Catholic country) go to UK for abortions. The issue is making the great unwashed realize that it affects them.
In the population I infered the point that the whole system may need change. More of limited resources must by definition must run out at some time. I would like to see new pracical ideas on what to do.

Posted by examinator, Monday, 14 July 2008 11:20:07 PM

Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 9:34:37 AM

This thread previously contained a message that claimed to be from Ross Garnaut. This was an impersonator, well-known to us, banned here previously, and banned from other sites such as Wikipedia.

Some members have questioned why posts started disappearing, and accusations of bias have already been made.

In summary, the real Garnaut has *not* been here this week: not posting the half-baked ideas about artificial climate control, nor the rant about conspiracies against Pauline Hanson, nor the new thread about "Doctor Who" with links to his own fake web site.

Posted by National Forum Administration, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 4:07:56 PM

I have concerns with Carbon trading/carbon taxes on their own because of the exceptions that will be granted and the ‘local effects’ e.g. A corporation buys a licence to pollute but may then either start or continue with either poor choice of and/or devastating a “local” area, particularly in the 3rd world and/or by effecting sensitive areas. The devil will be in the detail.

In the search of ever greater profits some corporation will simply seek those countries with the weakest or cheapest Carbon trading system or simply use the courts to avoid responsibility or change.

To combat the more ethically challenged Corporations I wonder if strict expanded codes of product energy efficiency manufacture and usage wouldn’t be a better/added approach. Products that aren’t manufactured under appropriate standards or their running cost exceed specific standards COULD be banned from sale. This would use market devices to:
• Use market devices to set the prices.
• Curb profligate consumption for consumptions sake
• Force industry technological energy usage and manufacture change an recyclability.
• Redress the balance between consumption for profit and need. By controlling “Cheapie” marketing of products that simply increase the waste stream.

There is no ONE magic bullet solution and as such we need more lateral thinking about a raft of options on the topic.

Posted by examinator, Wednesday, 16 July 2008 7:39:51 AM

Pages:
‹
Page 1
›
All

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