The coalition is pretty much ignoring Climate Change

.... and then Adanii is approved for the next stage by the Federal Gvmnt - not listening again

 

Sounds like a religious argument and logic.

 

Science (including climate science) is the opposite of religion. You come up with a falsifiable hypothesis.
Religion is faith in the absence of evidence.

There is a tiny tiny chance that man made climate change isn't real. Who would be stupid enough to take a gamble like that though? The risk vs reward massively favours action over inaction, even if you were to incorrectly assume that climate change is unlikely.
Further, even if it wasn't a real thing, action to abate "climate change" would STILL be the right course of action, because I would assume that even climate change deniers would not deny the facts of ocean acidification and smog.
Then again perhaps I'm giving them too much credit...

 

Have you tried debating anyone deeply religious ? They will put the same ideas toward you.

Anyway.

Of course humans, and animals, have some impact, the problem is, who is going to volunteer to be culled?, and just who in any western society is actually willing to give up everything, because any modern life contributes, yet no one really looks at that nor will they actually give up anything.

And, even with reasonable logic, you are still left in a position without knowing for sure either way, and no one will be around to actually know all the changes and why, we could be heading for an ice age or the opposite, we think we are smart enough to know exactly, We think.

So, this, like religion, is a futile debate, stop doing things that are obviously poisoning us or waterways due to very obvious effects, fine, and I think we have all been doing this for some time.

Lets face it, you have a computer, a phone, prob a car or use public transport, all these things pollute and contribute, and who knows what exactly developing countries are doing, but it is a mess and they wont stop. They are not having these debates en masse from a warm house or workplace via latest technologies in developing countries. To develope by definition means leave backward, manual, safe practices behind it seems, and start using throw away modern ideas with max comfort and convenience.

All political parties rely on votes from people who like to be comfortable, indeed my observation is the more demanding and ridiculous people are in regard to some of these things are the very people who often seem to demand the most comfort, including comfort in a mental sense.

 

Yes.... because pollution levels in non 1st world hovels are non existent! They are clean and green bahahahaha

 

Would I sacrifice a relatively small amount of wealth for the future of my children and grandchildren, along with that of everyone else's children and grandchildren?
Very tough decision indeed!

 

You clearly don't understand the point I raised

What is more important ?

OUTCOMES based improvements to the environment?

Or idealistic political posturing?

The latter is your average nouveau environmental socialist with not so witty pious statements

What actually would reduce global environmental impacts is policy that creates positive overall environmental outcomes globally rather than ship carbon production offshore and blithely pretend it doesn't exist anymore

One such example is the promotion of cost effective cleaner coal/gas technologies in 1st world countries like australia to ensure industrial productive businesses are kept competitive which not only has the added economic benefits but also ensures environmental standards are kept at a 1st world standard

 

You present these "ideas" as if they are the only options, this is called a false dilemma.

There are plenty of solutions available that allow us to have a modern life and that don't cost much now, compared to what they will cost later. The debate isn't about solutions, they exist. But certain vested interests and misinformed people want us to stay at this stage of the process.

So lets see, where we are....I've summarised from:

The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report | Dana Nuccitelli

Stage 1: Deny the Problem Exists
Often when people are first faced with an inconvenient problem, the immediate reaction involves denying its existence.

Stage 2: Deny We're the Cause
Once people move beyond denying that the problem exists, they often move to the next stage, denying that we're responsible.

Stage 2b: Consensus Denial
Some vested interests took a different approach to deny that we're the cause of the problem, attacking the expert consensus on human-caused global warming.

Stage 3: Deny It's a Problem
Once they've progressed through the first two stages and admitted global warming is happening and human-caused, contrarians generally move on to Stage 3, denying it's a problem. Eg, won't plants grow more? Yes they will but their nutrient content is reduced.

Stage 4: Deny We can Solve It
In this stage of climate denial, people claim that solving the problem is too expensive and will hurt the poor.

Stage 5: It's too Late
Stage 5 global warming denial involves arguing that it's too late to solve the problem, so we shouldn't bother trying (though few climate contrarians have reached this level). Unfortunately this stage can be self-fulfilling. If we wait too long to address the problem, we may end up committing ourselves to catastrophic climate change.

Solutions are there, we just have to decide to get on with it.

 

... and - regardless of whether you believe it is happening or not - we have the ability to put less pollution into the air and oceans and landfill so why not take the opportunity and make the transition

 

Your false equivalence of religious fanaticism to a concern for our future lifestyles is a little confusing.

Anyway, even if us consuming computers/phones/whatever is a problem, this won't change in the foreseeable future, you can't tell people what they want to consume, consumption is literally a basis of modern day economics/capitalism.

What we do have the power to change, is our methods of getting energy. Its a transition type thing, it won't happen overnight. Its hard getting real progress when it requires removing those gold plated blindfolds from those in positions of power.

Anyway, on topic, neither party is great, though one is focusing on ostensibly pushing factoids to keep their base going... "Clean coal", lol.. I can't, in good faith, pick a party that chooses to act so poorly about such a major concern.

Hard to do that when the primary argument against it devolves into "but its all lies and exaggeration, and even if it isnt, then blame China and India, but even if we don't blame China, then its all propaganda, its overblown.

Its a shame short sightedness is so common. As much as I love Western Ideologies, the biggest flaw is this entrenched myopia and lack of responsibility for actions, or attempt to progress and develop on new opportunities while weaning off the previous ones.

 

Both sides greatly exaggerate .
Both.

If you don't see that I'm sorry your blindsided.

For the left/greens it's a money making machine.

I Just don't want to punish ordinary Australians when they can have the cheapest electricity in the world while we transition. Our elderly should not have to yhith if they can arfoaf to heat their homes.

We produce sweet nothing in Australia just over 1%.

Yet our power prices are almost X2 US.

We are shutting down existing generation with no ability to store renewables.

 

Yet none of what you said is a reason why we shouldn't make the conversion

 

Asides from all the inland countryside factors I pointed out earlier (indicating that our climate is changing) ... the mullet are running earlier this year ... and I forgot to mention the cyclones that came around 4 weeks later than normal

Ignore mother nature at your peril ... and it helps if you get in touch with her

 

My baby boomers parents had solar power in the 70s, composted everything and we got in trouble for wasting food or power. Sometimes this meant we had cold showers but I'm glad for the values they instilled.

 

Emphasis is mine..

Yes supporting efforts to curb rapid warming is a money making machine in the long term. A present value analysis of a world where we can exist in harmony for another 80+ years (most voting adults can expect to live up to 80 years) will give you more cash than a world that gradually becomes more chaotic. I guess you're right, they're interested in the financial benefits.

I'd rather choose the side that is looking for long term profit and sustainability for our current lifestyles over the side that is choosing short term profit at all costs. I am a die hard capitalist as well

If elderly cannot afford power, that is a different problem, maybe these people could get assistance? Utilities like power can have a baseline power use that is free and paid for by the taxpayer if this is such a problem.

 

Maybe you should analyse who needs what?
As a society we support the weak and the strong , the rich and the poor. The young and the old.

Than cost it.

Than create a plan .

Militant approach will not have my support and I assume many , many others.

 

You don't negotiate with the laws of physics. We need to do what needs to be done. If that means a bit of pain now, rather than unsolvable problems later, surely that is what must be done.