OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[Chipmunk]

I'm not aware of a study that has addressed that either way. I wouldn't think there any real need.

Common sense will tell you that as a developed economy, if we wish to argue that other economies ( particularly less developed ones ) should take action to mitigate climate change, we would do better pressing that idea if we ourselves have taken and or are taking action.

It's only considered common sense on the left.

Whereas common sense in the real world tells us that unless China, India and the USA are also going to do something about it, then there isn't much point in a small insignificant country like Australia (compared to those three) doing anything without them on board.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Mind you this is a fallacious argument at any rate. An argument that proposes there is a problem, and that it needs be solved, is not any less of an argument because it doesn't propose the means for the solution.

The core of the argument is that there is a problem. The solution is another argument altogether.

Everyone accepts there's a problem. The argument is now about what the problem is exactly, and what different problems might result from any given solution.

 

[Gronk]

This seems to be the standard response from the Left...basically because anyone challenges their argument, they've got ZERO to back up any kind of argument they want to propagate.

I’m not really sure what you are talking about ^^.

Before I go down the rabbit hole of explaining what I think meaningful action on climate change is, I’d like to know your position on the subject for a start.

It intrigues me why climate change seems to be a left vs right politics thing. Do you agree with scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming ? That the need to arrest green house emissions is urgent and that failure to act will be irreversible and catastrophic?

Or are you in the hoax or global-warming-is-part-of-a natural-climate-cycle camp ?

 

[Bandwagon]

It's only considered common sense on the left.

Whereas common sense in the real world tells us that unless China, India and the USA are also going to do something about it, then there isn't much point in a small insignificant country like Australia (compared to those three) doing anything without them on board.

What I've posted there is neither a left nor right position. Tbh your need to frame it that way in order to dismiss it it rather childish.

Setting aside climate policy for a moment, if a Country such as ours sees an issue that it feels needs global co-operation to address, it would be very difficult to argue for any action on that issue, on that level without displaying a willingness to address that issue within it's own borders.

Now that is simply common sense, it's not left / right doctrine.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Mind you this is a fallacious argument at any rate. An argument that proposes there is a problem, and that it needs be solved, is not any less of an argument because it doesn't propose the means for the solution.

The core of the argument is that there is a problem. The solution is another argument altogether.

That is true. I say that because I'm already convinced there is a problem and Greta was speaking at an event that's been gathered by the UN because enough people believe there is a problem. The majority of that event actually focused on solutions.

Interestingly, I did a quick check on global climate change opinion and here's what I found. Plenty of people believe there is a problem, but still some pockets (including Australia) that aren't convinced.

Currently, 61% of people in Africa consider climate change to be a very serious problem.

74% of people in Latin America consider climate change to be a serious problem.

In Europe, there is a range from 88% to 97% of people feeling that climate change is happening and similar ranges are present for agreeing that climate change is caused by human activity and that the impacts of it will be bad.

In Asia and the Pacific, around 45% of people believe that climate change is a very serious problem.

In the Middle East, 38% of people believe that climate change is a very serious problem.

In North America, Mexico is the most concerned about climate change of the three countries in North America. 90% consider climate change to be a very serious problem. Canadians are also seriously concerned, 20% are extremely concerned, 30% are definitely concerned, 31% are somewhat concerned and only 19% are not very/not at all concerned about climate change. 61% of Americans say they are concerned about climate change, which that is 30% lower than Mexico and 20% lower than Canada.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_opinion_by_country

 

[Gary Gutful]

Whatever happened to that invention I saw on Beyond 2000 I think, where someone had designed something that would harness the power of the ocean's movement?

I stole it. Its in my living room.

 

[Gary Gutful]

What I've posted there is neither a left nor right position. Tbh your need to frame it that way in order to dismiss it it rather childish.

Setting aside climate policy for a moment, if a Country such as ours sees an issue that it feels needs global co-operation to address, it would be very difficult to argue for any action on that issue, on that level without displaying a willingness to address that issue within it's own borders.

Now that is simply common sense, it's not left / right doctrine.

I agree with this. Developed nations need to show leadership individually and collectively. Sitting back and waiting for someone to make the first move wont get anything done.

 

[Bandwagon]

That is true. I say that because I'm already convinced there is a problem and Greta was speaking at an event that's been gathered by the UN because enough people believe there is a problem. The majority of that event actually focused on solutions.

Interestingly, I did a quick check on global climate change opinion and here's what I found. Plenty of people believe there is a problem, but still some pockets (including Australia) that aren't convinced.

Currently, 61% of people in Africa consider climate change to be a very serious problem.

74% of people in Latin America consider climate change to be a serious problem.

In Europe, there is a range from 88% to 97% of people feeling that climate change is happening and similar ranges are present for agreeing that climate change is caused by human activity and that the impacts of it will be bad.

In Asia and the Pacific, around 45% of people believe that climate change is a very serious problem.

In the Middle East, 38% of people believe that climate change is a very serious problem.

In North America, Mexico is the most concerned about climate change of the three countries in North America. 90% consider climate change to be a very serious problem. Canadians are also seriously concerned, 20% are extremely concerned, 30% are definitely concerned, 31% are somewhat concerned and only 19% are not very/not at all concerned about climate change. 61% of Americans say they are concerned about climate change, which that is 30% lower than Mexico and 20% lower than Canada.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_opinion_by_country

When you look at it globally, the debate on human contribution towards climate change has been well and truly won in the affirmative, the only major western political party that is really bucking that trend is the GOP.

That is not to say there doesn't remain significant pockets of resistance, but they are dwindling, and are more and more becoming the outlier. Those countries with higher acceptance of the issue have well and truly moved past the political debate upon whether or not there is an issue, and are now debating what to do about it.

 

[Bandwagon]

I agree with this. Developed nations need to show leadership individually and collectively. Sitting back and waiting for someone to make the first move wont get anything done.

It's a simple concept that's too often overlooked by those that would argue the "go it alone" fallacy.

We are simply not "going it alone" when we initiate policy towards mitigation of climate change, there are many other nations the world over that are taking action, albeit often in smaller ways.

Again if one was to separate this particular issue from the argument, in any given area of policy very few would argue that Australia has no place in the world leading on policy, and must wait in line behind other countries of perhaps greater influence, as if to say that our international voice on any given issue is meaningless without their support.

 

[hindy111]

I get where you are going with this. Pushing the ocean back with broom etc. No point really. Wait for the effects of climate change to slowly change our way of life. Hope that we’ll be OK. Yeah probably a hoax anyway.

PS it was also about energy security. But that’s a topic for another day.

Boom what?

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

I could just as easily argue, except coal is a pollutant that has killed far more people than Ice ever will.

Coal has removed more people from poverty than anything else in history. It has saved millions of lives.

I'll leave the "pollutant" lie alone, as I've already covered that.

Everyone accepts there's a problem.

Really?

 

[Gronk]

Boom what?

 

[Gary Gutful]

It's a simple concept that's too often overlooked by those that would argue the "go it alone" fallacy.

We are simply not "going it alone" when we initiate policy towards mitigation of climate change, there are many other nations the world over that are taking action, albeit often in smaller ways.

Again if one was to separate this particular issue from the argument, in any given area of policy very few would argue that Australia has no place in the world leading on policy, and must wait in line behind other countries of perhaps greater influence, as if to say that our international voice on any given issue is meaningless without their support.

The role of developed nations like ours is to drive collective change and help set the global agenda.

If we could achieve that it may well result in a more nuanced and reasonable debate about the role of Australia's thermal coal during a transition period. At the moment you have people firmly entrenched on either side (piss it off immediately vs keep it forever) - neither of those positions are particularly helpful right now.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Good shot Jebus!

 

[hindy111]

what makes you say that ?

I have done business with multiple businesses in both countries and from experience the Chinese way of doing business and providing a quality in both service and product if far superior to that of the lazy money grabbing way that the Indians do business.

You bought medication online from those Indian pharmaceutical companies as well?

 

[hindy111]

I look at it this way, we either sell other countries coal or they buy it from someone else. Either way...they're still buying coal.

So do we want to take the money from the countries who want to buy coal or do we not want to take the money from countries who want to buy coal. Either way...they're still going to buy coal.

It's like the cigarettes argument. You can price/tax cigarettes as much as you want to stop people buying them. People are still going to buy them.

Same way drug dealers look at it perhaps?

 

[Bandwagon]

Coal has removed more people from poverty than anything else in history. It has saved millions of lives.

I'll leave the "pollutant" lie alone, as I've already covered that.



Really?

Yes it's true that the cheap and abundant energy coal has provided has indeed been beneficial, however to deny the fact that it is also a pollutant , and has been the cause of many deaths is just plain ignorant.

As for you having covered anything, your claim that the myriad of un-sourced material you have literally bombed this thread with proves anything of note, is delusional.

As I've already mentioned, that argument is lost, you may re-hash to your hearts content, it changes nothing.

 

[hindy111]

My argument is that if Australia went to 100% Renewable Energy tomorrow that the overall impact to global warming will be minimal to negligible and the affects of climate change would not be changed for the world.. What have you got to counteract that?

Yeah but it is mindset. Someone has to take the lead. Eventualy other MAY follow.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Coal has removed more people from poverty than anything else in history. It has saved millions of lives.

I'll leave the "pollutant" lie alone, as I've already covered that.

Unsuccessfully. It has done a lot of great things but if it wasn't a pollutant you wouldn't have people who die when exposed to it.

https://www.dnrme.qld.gov.au/miners-health-matters/what-is-cwp

This is coming from someone who has spent 20 years working in the mining sector and is very passionate about it. Trust me on this.

 

[Bandwagon]

The role of developed nations like ours is to drive collective change and help set the global agenda.

If we could achieve that it may well result in a more nuanced and reasonable debate about the role of Australia's thermal coal during a transition period. At the moment you have people firmly entrenched on either side (piss it off immediately vs keep it forever) - neither of those positions are particularly helpful right now.

It's simply unrealistic for developed economies to deny the global south the opportunities that we have enjoyed. However there needs to be a re-think about what that actually means, and how we need to act.

I very much accept the argument that developing nations can not be denied that which we already have, access to cheap and affordable energy is key to that. But let's not kid ourselves that the status quo is that in affording those nations that very same power, we also are doing very well out of it thank you very much.