The Climate Change Thread
- Thread starter Scotty
- Start date
- Status
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
Only if you plan on dying in a the near term Rassie. I went "home" to visit my parents this week and saw my home beach again for the first time in about 12 months.
In my previous post on the last page of this thread I mentioned becoming convinced about sea level rise by observing the impact on the dune structures of that beach. This beach was a classic Primary, Secondary and Tertiary dune structure with the three zones clearly and prominently defined. Since the 80's the primary and secondary dunes were eroded so that about half of the secondary remained on my prior visit. On this visit the secondary dune is now totally gone and the tertiary dune with its mature forest is now being eroded.
To those who state that such things as beach erosion is cyclic, and I was told this on many times as a youngster in the 80's and a Uni student in the 90s, the destruction of this mature forest is absolute proof that such an event has not occurred at any time since European arrival on this continent since the trees being now inundated were present from first settlement of the area, it having never been cleared or logged.
With so much of our population in Australia being on the coastal fringe, and much of that land being close to sea level, I am left wondering what planning steps our governments at all levels are making to address issues of relocations of dwellings, infrastructure and/or prevention of inundation of areas. We only have to look to New Orleans, the Netherlands and some other well known such as Venice to see what measures will need to be taken and assess what the costs will be. Another question that needs to be asked, how will those costs be funded, and how do we determine what areas get the remedial works?
Rassie
Trevor Allan (34)
Gnostic I do not disagree with you. Not because I don't know anything about Climate change or gasses or how destructive and violent humans can be but the simple fact that nothing lasts forever.All good things come to a end. But its not at the end yet so ask yourself when it does come all crashing down have I enjoyed my life so far that I accept my fate without fear?
Remember
Some of the more environmentally aware dinosaurs were worried about the consequences of an accident with the new Iridium enriched fusion reactor. 'If it goes off only the cockroaches and mammals will survive' they said.
Remember
Some of the more environmentally aware dinosaurs were worried about the consequences of an accident with the new Iridium enriched fusion reactor. 'If it goes off only the cockroaches and mammals will survive' they said.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
Rassie nothing is forever, true, in the context that natural systems are always evolving and changing. Indeed the last 10K years have been one of the most stable periods climatically in the history of the earth and many factors have conspired to make it so.
Now that being said, being a sentient being and not one particularly enamoured of fatalistic view points I think we should be at least attempting to minimise our impact on the environment, not only to reduce the changes in the climate, but also other natural systems.
I am not a apocalyptic person, and no matter what happens I think that we will be able to adapt. That adaptation may not be all that pleasant for many, and those impacted the most will as always be the least able to cope, mostly the poor and most likely the third and second world. I have no real fears for the future because of this but just because that is the case I do think that those in leadership roles should be planning and taking steps to ensure that we can cope with the changes as they come. There is however a dearth of leadership in this as in most other aspects of politics in Australia.
Another factor that gets little thought in the main stream media is the fact that as the climate changes more rapidly extinction rates increase exponentially with the rate of change. From a purely selfish POV regarding genetic diversity as a valuable resource the loss of that diversity before humankind can analyse and make use of that resource should be a further spur to those who do not see the preservation of other species as a good cause for no other reason than the preservation of animals other than humans.
Now that being said, being a sentient being and not one particularly enamoured of fatalistic view points I think we should be at least attempting to minimise our impact on the environment, not only to reduce the changes in the climate, but also other natural systems.
I am not a apocalyptic person, and no matter what happens I think that we will be able to adapt. That adaptation may not be all that pleasant for many, and those impacted the most will as always be the least able to cope, mostly the poor and most likely the third and second world. I have no real fears for the future because of this but just because that is the case I do think that those in leadership roles should be planning and taking steps to ensure that we can cope with the changes as they come. There is however a dearth of leadership in this as in most other aspects of politics in Australia.
Another factor that gets little thought in the main stream media is the fact that as the climate changes more rapidly extinction rates increase exponentially with the rate of change. From a purely selfish POV regarding genetic diversity as a valuable resource the loss of that diversity before humankind can analyse and make use of that resource should be a further spur to those who do not see the preservation of other species as a good cause for no other reason than the preservation of animals other than humans.
Rassie
Trevor Allan (34)
I really enjoyed reading that Gnostic. To be honest I really think we are fighting a losing battle. On the one side we have people that really want to save the rhino the Siberian tiger, the Royal family and Michael Hasselhof'fs acting career.
But on the other side of it we have those certain countries test their nukes in the ocean and just say it was some kind of earth quake as well as strict poaching laws that makes those endanger species even more valuable on the black market.
Then there is the survival of the fittest thing so to speak. I always asked why and try save a white tiger? How is a white tiger going to survive in a jungle? And who was clever one who thought a white tiger will have no problem in hiding itself from its prey? Once a thing start only surviving due to man putting it in a cage and throw it meat its best for nature to take its course.
After we fixed the earth somehow how are we going to fix the sun who will run out of fuel and explode taking everything with it?
But on the other side of it we have those certain countries test their nukes in the ocean and just say it was some kind of earth quake as well as strict poaching laws that makes those endanger species even more valuable on the black market.
Then there is the survival of the fittest thing so to speak. I always asked why and try save a white tiger? How is a white tiger going to survive in a jungle? And who was clever one who thought a white tiger will have no problem in hiding itself from its prey? Once a thing start only surviving due to man putting it in a cage and throw it meat its best for nature to take its course.
After we fixed the earth somehow how are we going to fix the sun who will run out of fuel and explode taking everything with it?
Bruwheresmycar
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
One thing I've been thinking about is just how unskeptical the large majority of armchair global warming critics, or "skeptics" are.
They only have a basic, dumbed down understanding of this complex issue like the rest if us, so why do they feel they are in a position to understand the scientific concept well enough to criticize it? (seems pretty unskeptical...)
You see, the most important part of skepticism is critiquing your own thoughts and ideas. A point that is clearly lost on these people. The standard they hold to professional researchers in this field most certainly does not get applied to their own claims. This is the implicit rejection of skepticism and critical thinking.
Then again, proclaiming yourself to be a skeptic without ever bothering to check what the word actually means, or ever reading any material on what skepticism actually entails, is the exact sort of embarrassing behavior you would expect to see from anyone who rejects the process if critical thinking in the first place.
They only have a basic, dumbed down understanding of this complex issue like the rest if us, so why do they feel they are in a position to understand the scientific concept well enough to criticize it? (seems pretty unskeptical...)
You see, the most important part of skepticism is critiquing your own thoughts and ideas. A point that is clearly lost on these people. The standard they hold to professional researchers in this field most certainly does not get applied to their own claims. This is the implicit rejection of skepticism and critical thinking.
Then again, proclaiming yourself to be a skeptic without ever bothering to check what the word actually means, or ever reading any material on what skepticism actually entails, is the exact sort of embarrassing behavior you would expect to see from anyone who rejects the process if critical thinking in the first place.
It would seem that repealing the carbon tax is going to be impossible until the new senate commences in July 2014.
I can't see how it has a chance of getting up before that. The ALP and Greens will surely block it.
After 1 July 2014, the LNP will need to convince 6 of the 8 minor party candidates to back them to get 39 votes. It would seem highly likely that John Madigan and the two PUP senators will back the LNP. You'd imagine that the Family First and Motoring Enthusiasts guy both back the LNP as well.
Xenophon could go either way and it remains to be seen what the Australian Sports Party senator or the Liberal Democrats will do. As a libertarian I'd guess that Leyonhjelm would support legislation to remove a tax.
I can't see how it has a chance of getting up before that. The ALP and Greens will surely block it.
After 1 July 2014, the LNP will need to convince 6 of the 8 minor party candidates to back them to get 39 votes. It would seem highly likely that John Madigan and the two PUP senators will back the LNP. You'd imagine that the Family First and Motoring Enthusiasts guy both back the LNP as well.
Xenophon could go either way and it remains to be seen what the Australian Sports Party senator or the Liberal Democrats will do. As a libertarian I'd guess that Leyonhjelm would support legislation to remove a tax.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Isn't it even more complicated: Dear Leader's policy is to scrap the carbon tax and bring in his direct action policy (whatever that is).
These right wing nut jobs that have secured single senate seats are likely to be all in favour of the abolition of the, so called, carbon tax but unreceptive to any other policy intended to achieve the common (To Libs and ALP) policy goal of a 5% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 (based on 2000 levels).
So he could repeal the tax but not be able to get his alternative policy through the senate.
Those may be crocodile tears up ahead.
Bruwheresmycar
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
That's surely been the plan all along IS? "We REALLY wanted to implement direct action (cough cough), but we couldn't get it through the senate, blame the greens blame the greens!"
As for the Liberal Democrats, from their own website.
That's right, corporations can deplete the ozone and cause a massive imbalance of energy in the atmosphere, and it's up to future generations to adapt. It's immoral to cut down on CFC and GHG emissions if there are short term problems facing us today!
Lmao who actually voted for these people?
As for the Liberal Democrats, from their own website.
That's right, corporations can deplete the ozone and cause a massive imbalance of energy in the atmosphere, and it's up to future generations to adapt. It's immoral to cut down on CFC and GHG emissions if there are short term problems facing us today!
Lmao who actually voted for these people?
A libertarian ideology doesn't really work for addressing long term problems.
boyo
Mark Ella (57)
Numbskulls and illiterates?
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Albert Einstein
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
This seems to be a reasonable discussion of the matter.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ep/09/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-delusions
Meanwhile, how often are bushfires a problem in September?
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Every year....in colorado
lewisr
Bill McLean (32)
Firstly, I want to state that I am of the belief that Climate change is not the sole environmental issue that our planet faces and hastily patched Carbon taxes are narrow minded in terms of what we need to be doing in Australia. The concept of reducing our carbon emissions by 5% by 2020 and forgetting everything else boggles me, especially when there are so many other issues that need to be considered when we discuss the future of the planet.
Surely the Green's and Labor will support any action on climate change that is passed through to the senate... Regardless of whether it is as effective as floating price or not. So, logically (is that word in the political dictionary?), Tony will get his direct action plan through with no problems.
I also think these two comments highlight the conundrum that we face at the moment. How willing are we all to play our part in reducing an impact on the environment? You can talk about 'those big evil corporations' all you want, but at the end of the day, I bet you're buying their fridges, using their plastic cups at the footy, driving your petrol car to work every day or sitting on their computers typing these forum posts. We can talk about how fantastic carbon taxes are, and how we NEED to do so much to protect future generations, but unless we want to suffocate our already resource reliant economy, it simply isn't practical to go all out.
This isn't a matter of 'short term problems' its a matter of how can we achieve both in a balanced and sustainable way. Although we may not realise it, the basic economic principal of supply and demand has led to a 90% reduction in waste in manufacturing since the 1990s. That's right, we're 90% more efficient at making things than we were 20 years ago. Our cars are SIGNIFICANTLY more fuel efficient. We recycle more than ever and our ability to harness renewable energy continues to grow.
Contrary to what some might think, we aren't stagnant in our treatment of the planet. To claim that 'we're destroying the planet, we're all evil, future generations are screwed!' is ignorant of what we have, are and will achieve(d) as a race. Unless we seriously think the solution is to scrap everything and return to the stone ages hoping that natural selection keeps the population down, there are going to be consequences for Earth and it's inhabitants, no matter what we do.
I'm all for reducing our carbon emissions, but not at the expense of economical growth that could very well lead to the progression of our ability to protect the environment.
And in my opinion, the only way to achieve that is by using Nuclear Power. But that's opening another can of worms....
Surely the Green's and Labor will support any action on climate change that is passed through to the senate... Regardless of whether it is as effective as floating price or not. So, logically (is that word in the political dictionary?), Tony will get his direct action plan through with no problems.
I also think these two comments highlight the conundrum that we face at the moment. How willing are we all to play our part in reducing an impact on the environment? You can talk about 'those big evil corporations' all you want, but at the end of the day, I bet you're buying their fridges, using their plastic cups at the footy, driving your petrol car to work every day or sitting on their computers typing these forum posts. We can talk about how fantastic carbon taxes are, and how we NEED to do so much to protect future generations, but unless we want to suffocate our already resource reliant economy, it simply isn't practical to go all out.
This isn't a matter of 'short term problems' its a matter of how can we achieve both in a balanced and sustainable way. Although we may not realise it, the basic economic principal of supply and demand has led to a 90% reduction in waste in manufacturing since the 1990s. That's right, we're 90% more efficient at making things than we were 20 years ago. Our cars are SIGNIFICANTLY more fuel efficient. We recycle more than ever and our ability to harness renewable energy continues to grow.
Contrary to what some might think, we aren't stagnant in our treatment of the planet. To claim that 'we're destroying the planet, we're all evil, future generations are screwed!' is ignorant of what we have, are and will achieve(d) as a race. Unless we seriously think the solution is to scrap everything and return to the stone ages hoping that natural selection keeps the population down, there are going to be consequences for Earth and it's inhabitants, no matter what we do.
I'm all for reducing our carbon emissions, but not at the expense of economical growth that could very well lead to the progression of our ability to protect the environment.
And in my opinion, the only way to achieve that is by using Nuclear Power. But that's opening another can of worms....
I would say a lot.
Why would a person decide that incorporating a minor tax to help encourage the reduction in our impact on climate change to being a worse option than accepting that humans will just adapt to a far inferior global environment in the future?
It beggars belief.
lewisr
Bill McLean (32)
What is 5% going to achieve at the expense of our international competitiveness and industry jobs?? THe 'big polluters' that the hopelessly designed policy was designed to tax make up 5% of our total emissions output. And don't start telling me that the power plants are also taxed because the ALP subsidised a majority of the Coal power plants to ensure the price of electricity didn't rise too dramatically.
Seriously, it achieves next to nothing until an ETS is introduced globally and there is a real market for the carbon credits which forces prices up and affects everyone.
If we really want to make an impact, our electrical generation, of which makes up 36% of our CO2 emissions, must be reduced. Why not drop the whole 'nuclear is bad' bullshit that the media and the greens spew on a daily basis and realise that its super cheap and more efficient than ever. The Generation 3+ available in a few years and the Generation 4 reactors expected to be completed by 2030 use up to 96% of the nuclear waste produced by existing reactors.
Things like Fukushima are used to run a scare campaign when the plant was 40 something years old. The reality is that Nuclear power plants, when run properly in a 1st world nation like Australia, produce less ambient radiation than the average coal power plant simply because the restrictions on them are so insanely strict.
I hate the fact that we are so scared of what is essentially a super clean stepping stone to super efficient renewable energy and/or possibly fusion.
- Status