• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

The Climate Change Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Another coal mine on fire. This time Hazelwood Open-Cut Coal Mine.

Bg8tuMWCUAASR23.jpg
 
Runner

Runner

Nev Cottrell (35)
boyo said:
The Senate didn't pass it, no matter how much TA huffed and puffed.
Click to expand...

If they don't then we may get another election mid to late next year with heaps of triggers all pointing back to ALP.

Perhaps in the budget they just won't fund that department
 
boyo

boyo

Mark Ella (57)
TA doesn't have the guts to call a DD, despite his bluff and bluster.

He would't like the unintended consequences.
 
Runner

Runner

Nev Cottrell (35)
boyo said:
TA doesn't have the guts to call a DD, despite his bluff and bluster.

He would't like the unintended consequences.
Click to expand...

Agree if he had it now.

But wait till year 3 and it is a different game with problems still being able to be sheeted home to ALP/Greens? and the RSPCA escaped PUP if they have not pasted all the legislation Libs put up.

I can see it now.

"Send a clear signal to ALP they didn't get your( the peoples) message last time"
 
boyo

boyo

Mark Ella (57)
Bruwheresmycar

Bruwheresmycar

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Anyone see Clive Palmer on Lateline last night (in a debate against economist Ross Garnaut)? He was saying the carbon tax is unfair because it only focuses on the 3% of human co2 emissions, compared to the 97% of natural emissions. He said we should develop a policy that aims to reduce co2 of both natural and man made sources instead of using global carbon taxes or emission trading schemes to reduce the world co2 pollution (because they only focus on human sources).

This is the man who will ultimately decide the carbon price future as of tomorrow. What is his idea? Is he going to plug volcano's with fat mining directors? Or maybe he'll consume the entire quantity of co2 lost to the ocean for lunch on Monday?

By the end he was saying he thinks the emissions reduction target should be "optional". As in, they should be targets for induvidual households and businesses rather than a nation-wide target enforced by actual policies. "Hi everyone, your goal for this year is to reduce your household emissions by 5%, while my own company decides not to opt in, good luck - Clive."
 
Runner

Runner

Nev Cottrell (35)
Bruwheresmycar said:
Anyone see Clive Palmer on Lateline last night (in a debate against economist Ross Garnaut)? He was saying the carbon tax is unfair because it only focuses on the 3% of human co2 emissions, compared to the 97% of natural emissions. He said we should develop a policy that aims to reduce co2 of both natural and man made sources instead of using global carbon taxes or emission trading schemes to reduce the world co2 pollution (because they only focus on human sources).

This is the man who will ultimately decide the carbon price future as of tomorrow. What is his idea? Is he going to plug volcano's with fat mining directors? Or maybe he'll consume the entire quantity of co2 lost to the ocean for lunch on Monday?

By the end he was saying he thinks the emissions reduction target should be "optional". As in, they should be targets for induvidual households and businesses rather than a nation-wide target enforced by actual policies. "Hi everyone, your goal for this year is to reduce your household emissions by 5%, while my own company decides not to opt in, good luck - Clive."
Click to expand...


Nuts!!
40% is bush fires. I know lots who would make him King he he could rid us of that.
 
boyo

boyo

Mark Ella (57)
"we've had the rational debate, time and again. Those who have followed the subject and claim to remain 'sceptics' are immune to evidence.
And besides, why do they keep crying out for debate? Why can't they be independent learners and seek information from reputable science organisations? This constant crying out for debate labels them attention-seekers or trouble-makers.
As for waiting for others to go first, that's a great way to come last. There are opportunities in the transition away from fossil fuels that can be grasped by the early-movers. This is not a slow bicycle race where last place is the winner."
​
Commenter
Alice
Location
Sydney
Date and time
April 02, 2014, 6:11AM


"Ah, you've gotta love global warming for the way it's brought all those closet scientists and geniuses into the light. Without the whole idea of GW and AGW we would never have got to hear from the deniers and sceptics, part of the rich tapestry of human talent.
My personal favourite is the dazzling, tour de force argument from our glorious leader. Reduced to its essence, or I should say sound bite, it's this:
Climate Change is real; but it doesn't affect the climate.
Such insight! Such clarity!"
​
Commenter
RichardJ
Location
Sydney
Date and time
April 02, 2014, 2:15PM


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/why-were-having-the-wrong-climate-change-debate-20140401-35w1p.html#ixzz2xtLXaaBB
 
Ruggo

Ruggo

Mark Ella (57)
Runner said:
Nuts!!
40% is bush fires. I know lots who would make him King he he could rid us of that.
Click to expand...

Yep and most bush fire emissions come from the Woodland Savannas of Northern Australia. Big pitty that carbon abatement through altered fire regimes was actually worth something financial with carbon a commodity. I guess the ongoing research into the practice is also in limbo given the job cuts in CSIRO with them at the front of the practice. It is a big shame about the TO's who were achieving culturally palatable revenue streams and employment opportunities.
 
Gnostic

Gnostic

Mark Ella (57)
The funny thing about the destruction of Aboriginal culture and stewardship of the land has altered fundamentally the fire regime which maintained a balance in the Australian ecosystems. Have a look at the art works of early paintings of Australian scenery and you will note a significant lack of heavy under brush and significantly less immature trees. Have a look at any "Old Growth" area now and it is over run with under brush and immature trees. The fire regimes of the first Australians removed the fuel for wildfires and maintained the habitats for the animals and plants that they relied upon to survive. It went further with the individuals of each totem/skin being responsible for the maintenance of the habitat for their totem. The loss of that management has resulted in the wildfires we see now which destroy the old growth trees canopy and irrevocably changed the ecosystems which have suffered such fires. Part of the loss of our wildlife and plants species is due to ironically the loss of the human impact.

Not burning, as they still do to some extent in the north and west of the country, would be counter productive and just result in the further degradation of the natural environment.
 
Ruggo

Ruggo

Mark Ella (57)
That is a pretty spot on cultural analysis of the situation Gnostic. The notion of protecting the wilderness is false on many levels. First being that the construct of a "wilderness" excludes prior human influence which many aboriginal people find offensive. I can't say I blame them for feeling that way. Second being that fire for far to long has been regarded as a destructive force, rather than a natural event with many beneficial biodiversity effects and maintaining an equalibrium within the ecosystem.

A sticking point in land management has been the vast differences between Western science and Aboriginal custom is in the fundamentals of how both knowledge's function. It is often very hard for each side to understand and accept the other point of view. There has been some good work in bringing the two together done in Northern Australia in recent years. A vast stream of proven historical and practical knowledge has been combined with enhanced technology to apply that knowledge on a far greater scale.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top