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 > Copenhagen's reality check > Comments

Copenhagen's reality check : Comments

By Michael Hitchens, published 6/1/2010

Copenhagen demonstrated that Australia’s emissions pledges have no influence on the world’s advanced countries.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Ozbib,

The point you left out is why is the atmosphere not warming.

Any year eleven chemistry student who has performed calorimetry on melting ice can answer that question and make global warming deniers (anthropomorphic or not) hide in shame.

Any scientist or engineer with access to their CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics could probably tell you very intersting things about what happens prior to the ice melting.

Please note that Russia is hotly contesting rights to previously impassable arctic regions.

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Wednesday, 6 January 2010 9:29:20 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
The key issue in all of this is the polls. It was the poll results (at the time) that caused John Howard and Kevin Rudd (and Malcolm Turnbull) to pursue the ill-fated ETS.

However, what hasn't been recognised is that the polls were flawed, because they asked the wrong questions. Ask the Australian public if they want the government to do something about AGW, and they will of course say yes. However, if you ask them if they want the government to do something about AGW if it is going to cost them $1100 per year per family (through higher electricity prices etc) and I think that you will find that you get a very different poll result.

And if the truth be told, that is, there is a risk that the cost per family per year could indeed by higher than $1100 per year (as it very well could be) it is obvious that the support will decline further.
Posted by Herbert Stencil, Thursday, 7 January 2010 3:06:38 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
Taswegian,

You have posted several porkies:

"our coal exports produce more CO2 than the domestic economy"
Not even close, local consumption of coal is orders of magnitude higher than exports.

"developing countries look to us for leadership"
Really? I regularily read news from the developing world and in all the many pages of coverage on Copenhagen, the US, China, etc, I found only a few brief comments on Australia. There is barely any interest in what we are doing, far from seeking leadership.

"we'll look weak if we don't match words with action."
So when we say we'll do no more or less than the industrialised world, what should we do?

Examinator, I guess that economics is not your strong suit.

Business provides goods and services and jobs. Additional expenses have either to be passed on to the consumer (where the consumer can switch to cheaper imported, non ETS taxed goods) or have to be made up by reducing costs such as wages or jobs.

New business that open seldom offer the wages of the ones that closed.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 7 January 2010 6:45:24 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 symptom of global warming is an increase in (and extent of) extreme weather events."

And since there has been no increase in extreme weather events, that proves...?

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/faqs-and-myths#1
Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 7 January 2010 6:58:12 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
Silly me, I should have referred to ICECAP – the mob that has stories by renowned “experts” and climate change sceptics:

Joseph D’Aleo

Sallie Baliunas

Bob Carter

Chris De Freitas

Vincent Gray

Idso & family

'Ziggy' Jaworowski

et al

Indeed, the heart and souls behind that other think tank – the Heartland Institute.

Most people that research weather would link to sources that actually monitor the weather, not to 'denialosphere' blog-sites that inject their own spin for their own agenda.
Posted by Q&A, Thursday, 7 January 2010 9:07:14 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
SM,

Perhaps not, however, I still defy you to show me how, given the accepted theory of Capitalism, that business en toto will permanently decrease. Given it never has in the past.

The, whole point of entrepreneurialship is based on new opportunities etc. I gave clear historical evidence of the nature of business in that it's based on endless growth.

Our difference appears that current models assume a specific business beyond a certain size has an elevated right to life of its own and simply gets bigger.

The bigger an organization/business the less efficient/productive it becomes. Economies of scale tend to have finite limits beyond which administration negates benefits.

Mega businesses' and their greater power,selfishly/negatively (to big to fail, GM, or stifles public interest, patent abuse) government policy and inhibits/distorts competition. Through unfair advantage it monopolizes/dominates whole industry/sectors i.e. Shopping centre retail, digital entertainment. Arguably it also stifles development.

I contend that as circumstances change so will the employers some "die" other's will naturally fill any unfilled holes in the market (supply and demand).

This process is currently perverted by mega players. Given that most employees work for small and medium size businesses I maintain that business and employment would be better served if businesses remained at the control of the people (elected Governments).

I further suggest that Supply and demand would then begin to reflect the "real" (triple bottom line) value of resources and by this process reduce unnecessary consumption etc.

The implication would potentially offer offer more real benefits to humans and the world in general.
Posted by examinator, Thursday, 7 January 2010 11:47:40 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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