The Forum > Article Comments > Climate policy not even treading water > Comments
Climate policy not even treading water : Comments
By James Norman, published 14/4/2009Australians are not doing enough to help nations faced with climate-induced calamities.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
-
- All
Posted by Raredog, Tuesday, 14 April 2009 11:43:15 AM
| |
See submission number two at senate committee on climate URL
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/climate_ctte/submissions/sublist.htm The same article is number 140 at URL 1. http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/economics_ctte/cprs_09/index.htm path to economics list Also a worthwhile article is at 1. http://www.csiro.au/news/Aerosols.html path to CSIRO press release feb 11 09 Posted by robert k, Tuesday, 14 April 2009 11:55:14 AM
| |
Well, touche. I think the writer ought to reply to that as I ran to my books and found that the comment is true.
One of the problems many Australians have is that the notion of climate change and carbon emissions gets mixed up with the 'hole in the ozone layer'. It's a narrative ripe for spin. Many, many years ago, when I was a whipper snapper, I went to Chesil beach in England and it was pointed out to me by my teacher, as we examined the rock structures, how the climate had changed (sometimes very quickly) over the past three million years. And it had nothing to do with carbon emissions and everything to do with the sun. I sometimes wonder if there's not a strong anti-scientific push in some of these articles, born from a latent misanthropism, eg, all humans fault, too many babies, we're killing the planet, etc. Posted by Cheryl, Tuesday, 14 April 2009 12:00:41 PM
| |
Inteesting. This bloke earns his quid by spruiking this rubbish, & many of those on here fall for it.
Y2K anyone? Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 14 April 2009 12:40:36 PM
| |
Typical ACF bleat: "Somebody should do something!"
But it's nonsense. See here: http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/maldive.htm And here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/19/despite-popular-opinion-and-calls-to-action-the-maldives-is-not-being-overrun-by-sea-level-rise/ Greens run these scare stories to frighten small children, then hold out their hats to profit from it. Posted by KenH, Tuesday, 14 April 2009 12:58:48 PM
| |
A lot of you people don't seem to get it. Climate change/global warming or global climate disruption is but a symptom of two major issues that neither the ACF, Greenpeace, etc. on the left and the right-wing blogocracy even acknowledge. The elephant in the room is overpopulation (and over-consumption). Comments above mentioned that in both cases the islanders were blasting the reefs for both building materials and for fishing - a demonstration of both of the problems I cited.
Want to fix the overall problem? Let's start with free condoms. As Sir David Attenborough has said "Instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, maybe we should control the population to ensure the survival of our environment." Posted by jimoctec, Tuesday, 14 April 2009 1:58:54 PM
| |
jimoctec,
The problem with population control freaks is that they are arguing that what they have - life, for example - should not be available to others, as yet unborn. Who decides who is to be allowed to breed? You? The UN Human Rights Committee? Or are you suggesting that the entire human race be elminated for Gaia's sake? I presume that, to be consistent, you have already deleted yourself from the gene pool in some way. Posted by KenH, Tuesday, 14 April 2009 2:44:56 PM
| |
Inspired by this article I hereby pledge to fart less and eat more tofu (blindly presuming the two aren't mutually exlcusive). I know it's a small gesture but if we all do our own little bit then all together we will achieve greatness. Can we please henceforth move the discussion to flatulent free tofu recipes?
Posted by HarryC, Tuesday, 14 April 2009 5:36:25 PM
| |
KenH,
A little work with a scientific calculator and some numbers from the CIA world factbook show that at our current Australian population growth rate of 1.8% we have 711 years to standing room only, one person on every square meter of Australian desert or coastal swamp. The global population of 6.7 billion at the same growth rate would have 3890 years and 6 months, if it were physically possible, to a solid ball of people (assuming 50 kg per person) with a radius equal to that of the solar system (the average distance of Pluto from the sun). When do you suggest that we stop worrying about the rights of potential people, given that world food stocks are now at their lowest level in 50 years, most of the 6.7 billion people we have already are living in dire poverty, and climate change is only one of the factors indicating that we are degrading and depleting our environmental life support systems? Or are you one of those people who think that God will intervene with a miracle or that the end of the world is imminent, so that it won't matter? Posted by Divergence, Wednesday, 15 April 2009 12:10:03 PM
| |
“And it had nothing to do with carbon emissions and everything to do with the sun -"
Cheryl Is the sun responsible for Britain being accused of underestimating the health risks from shipping pollution where one giant container ship can emit almost the same amount of cancer chemicals (carbon based) as millions of cars? Is the sun responsible for the Irk River in the UK which is so polluted it is currently completely covered in a white foam? What about in Minnesota US alone, where 37,000 miles of rivers and streams are so polluted, the water is unfit for human consumption? Did the sun do that? Or the massive number of drums of toxic and radioactive waste washed up from the Indian Ocean onto 15 beaches in Somalia after the tsunami, where the villagers, who attempted to open the containers were killed, burned or contaminated by the waste? Were these drums dumped by France, the UK, the US, elsewhere or by the sun? Why would you hold the sun responsible for some 200 de-oxygenated dead zones of areas where algal blooms have been triggered by nutrients from sources including carbon based fertilizer run off, sewage, animal wastes and atmospheric depositions from the burning of fossil fuels, which has removed oxygen from the water? Is the sun responsible for several of Australia's rivers now on life support – or is it a result of carbon based fertiliser run-off, farm wastes, fossil fuel depositions, dioxins and heavy metals from pollutant industries? “Rock structures?” - “anti-scientific push?” - "the sun?" Please explain. Posted by Protagoras, Thursday, 23 April 2009 7:55:33 PM
| |
I read so often comments for and against climate change. The comments can be pretty vitriolic from those who are better off, even in our own country.
I see answers perhaps more simplistically or pragmatic if you like. We taught our children that we are not the owners of our planet, merely the present users of the resources and therefore must practice good husbandship (farming practices) and leave the planet in better shape than when we enherited it. Destroy it and you fail our future generations. Sadly, due to greed, this has not happened. Self interest rules our societies. If we seek methods, etc. that will reduce waste and conserve resources then we have the opportunity to leave the planet in good shape for our future generations. We can help those who are located in vulnerable countries to obtain a better quality of life, but we need to change our attitudes to those who need help. Vested interests worldwide are not interested in long term initiatives, merely short term gains. We all need to work together for the common goal of safegarding the earth's resources, whether water, minerals or the environment. regards professori_au Posted by professor-au, Tuesday, 28 April 2009 9:12:21 PM
| |
Divergence,
You're obviously nutter with a calculator and a swag of moronic assumptions about what might happen in the next 700+ years. I'll bet you're a climate modeller. Posted by KenH, Friday, 15 May 2009 4:48:57 PM
| |
Divergence,
You're obviously a nutter with a calculator and a swag of moronic assumptions about what might happen in the next 700+ years. I'll bet you're a climate modeller. Posted by KenH, Friday, 15 May 2009 4:49:13 PM
|
His claim that the Carteret Islanders are amongst the world's first environmental refugees, the result of a process of forced migration due to rising sea levels, is wrong - they were, in recent times, economic refugees. The Carteret Islanders, occupying a low-lying atoll long subjected to tropical cyclones and storm surges, experienced overcrowding in the 1930s, and severe food shortages since the 1960s. The food shortages were a result, in part, of international fishers occupying their traditional fishing grounds, and the practice of dynamite fishing, which destroys the fringing coral reefs that help protect the atoll from sea erosion. The erosion allowed salty sea water to penetrate the freshwater-based gardens in which they once grew taro, their staple crop. To counteract this the islanders attempted to build a sea wall and plant mangroves, to little effect. In other words they could no longer support themselves on the atoll and have been moved to the PNG mainland.
Given that sea level rise in the vicinity of the Carterets is measured in mere millimetres, and may possibly be due to slow atoll subsidence (a known dynamic of atoll systems) then the author, without explaining the real reason for their leaving the Carterets is, unwittingly or otherwise, misleading the readership of his article.
Furthermore, his reference to the Maldives, another atoll island group, as now literally fighting for its life, may well be true but not for the reasons given by the author. On overcrowded atolls, such as the Maldives, the only building material is coral, dynamited from the coral reefs that protect the atoll from sea erosion, resulting in inundation. The Maldives problem is not one of anthropogenic CO2 supposedly raising temperatures and sea levels but one of unsustainable practices by the islanders and others. For the author to suggest otherwise suggests a profound ignorance of the actual dynamics at work in these two situations.