The Forum > Article Comments > There is only one moral, ethical approach to climate change > Comments
There is only one moral, ethical approach to climate change : Comments
By Fiona Armstrong, published 25/6/2009A business-as-usual approach and the continuation of our current levels of carbon emissions will ensure our destruction.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Page 4
- 5
- 6
-
- All
Posted by JBowyer, Thursday, 25 June 2009 7:01:22 PM
| |
The pseudo-skeptics on OLO have made themselves very unattractive and not for any good reason. Hanging out from self-interest, the greed merchants defecate any place they like, ignoring the science, ignoring the fact that a hundred and eighty four countries have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol. And Rudd won office on a climate change platform. It's called democracy!
Australia's top scientists have reviewed Plimer's book, arriving at consensus that the book is fraudulent and a nonsense but the buzzards keep circling.....panicked and afraid. Be afraid deniers for your time has passed. Religious right-wing fascism has no place in an enlightened world and we note they have lost control in the Whitehouse - "stuffed" as they say in Oz. The citizens of the world will no longer tolerate despots who want only to continue plundering the planet's ecosystems and turning them into rubble for a profit. And the topic, seemingly irrelevant to the deniers, is Victoria, which has the dirtiest coal-fired power stations in Australia, and the most polluting in the developed world. Victoria's use of filthy brown coal is driving Australia's carbon pollution problem. Victoria was Australia's worst greenhouse performer across a number of emissions indicators in 2008. Country - Most polluting station - CO2 intensity (Mt/TWh) Australia Hazelwood, Victoria 1.58 USA Edwardsport, Indiana 1.56 Germany Frimmersdorf 1.27 Canada H.R. Milner 1.25 Mexico C. TG. Portes Gil, Rio Bravo 1.18 Poland Belchatów 1.09 Czech Republic Prunerov 1.07 Japan Niihamanishi 1.02 UK Cockenzie 0.99 Italy Porto Tolle 0.78 (Source WWF-Australia) In addition to Victoria’s shameful history on pollution (think Shell)is the matter of the state's bushfires this year, which have released massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (not included for assessment in the Kyoto Protocol.) Hazardous farm chemicals, fuels, asbestos, solvents, plastics etc, burnt in Victoria’s bushfires have also added to the poor state of Australia’s environment. These substances have no respect for geographical boundaries, are persistent in the environment, pollute and destroy ecosystems and contaminate the food chain. But this is nothing for the evasive, guiltless and divinely guided deniers to worry about, is it? Posted by Protagoras, Thursday, 25 June 2009 11:44:44 PM
| |
"Wow I am so pleased we have a time frame. Five to ten years and the Artic (sic) Ice is gone well I am happy to wait and bore these twats senseless when it just dosent (sic) happen."
JBowyer - do please provide a link to support the above claims and let us all know who these "twats" are. And since you are privy to such valuable information on Arctic ice, why can't you spell it? Posted by Protagoras, Friday, 26 June 2009 12:09:15 AM
| |
"Dirty brown coal" tends to emit more particulate pollution, doesn't it. That's bad. However, the soot particles reflect solar radiation, cooling the surface. That's good.
This factoid brings to mind another factoid. As industrialized countries worked to capture pollutants from smoke stacks and auto exhausts, they generally cleaned up their air. Then they noticed fairly rapid temperature rises. Some went so far as to describe this increase, when graphed, as the shape of a hockey stick. You don't suppose that use of emission controls ...of scrubbing pollutants from the air...has not been duly credited with its role in global warming? This brings to mind yet another factoid. Some scientist has recently proposed spreading soot in the atmosphere to reflect solar radiation and cool the planet. If this suggestion comes to pass, we will have gone full-circle. Environmentalists mean well, but all too often their best laid plans produce unintended consequences. "Take the pollution out of the air....now put it back in..." One last factoid. Back in 1975, when global cooling was in vogue, some scientists advocated spreading soot on polar ice to absorb solar radiation. Of course this was never done. But it should amaze us all to discover that it is soot which will either save or destroy the planet! Move over, CO2. There's a new kid on the block! Posted by Daisym, Friday, 26 June 2009 4:05:31 AM
| |
"What should the Victorian Government be doing?"
Well, here's an idea: how about suppressing any study which gives contrary results to the ones you want to hear? http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/obamas_epa_makes_a_mockery_of.html Posted by Jon J, Friday, 26 June 2009 7:56:41 AM
| |
The replies to this thread are interesting, revealing how desperate ideologists are to deny current changes to the environment, ecology and sustainability of the planet will effect it's ability to support life as we are know it comfortably.
If ideological humans had a conscience, which replies here demonstrate they lack any form of care or thought for the sustainable life on this planet, they would be doing all they could to ensure their life was in harmony and enhancing to the planet, rather than gluttonous egocentrically destructive. It's not a fallacy violent and polluting human activities are causing increasing extinctions of those living beings which are essential to the biological food chain of life. Nor is it a fallacy burning fossil fuels at the rate we are is detrimental to life in general, growing evidence on land and in the seas supports that supposition. Does it matter whether the temperatures are rising or falling, something drastic is happening to our planet which can't be denied, if you take the time to actually look around you, outside the illusionary city comfort zones . Where I live we are seeing what appears to be those effects now, as our Cray fish industry has come to a halt this year, because the shells of mature fish are very soft, and Cray's have virtually disappeared. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090625/ap_on_sc/us_sci_size_matters_2 How long do people think they can continue to rip hundreds of millions of tonnes of fish out of the oceans yearly, whilst pouring billions of tonnes of polluting chemicals and waste into rivers and oceans, along with growing large amounts of fossil fuel Co2 and other toxins, which is acidifying the seas. Even if we are not seeing climate change, we are still destroying the planets ability to support us and other life forms, by greed filled ideological crimes against life on the planet and ideologists insane belief that they are always right, no matter the evidenced facts to the contrary. http://www.watoday.com.au/environment/rising-ocean-temperatures-near-worstcase-predictions-20090619-cmtn.html Posted by stormbay, Friday, 26 June 2009 10:09:17 AM
|
I collect stories like these as I know these pumpkins will reemerge later probably as politicians and this can be used against them then lol.