OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[Poupou Escobar]

It's worth a shot, but there will be plenty of losers and they won't be 'big business', 'the rich' or 'corporations'.

 

[strider]

FFS

damn straight ffs

*hurt

 

[strider]

It's worth a shot, but there will be plenty of losers and they won't be 'big business', 'the rich' or 'corporations'.

well thank god I'm a rich big business corporation

 

[hindy111]

well thank god I'm a rich big business corporation

I would of went with a big rich corporation. That just sounded weird

 

[strider]

I would of went with a big rich corporation. That just sounded weird

ffs, pou said "big business", so it has to say big business

 

[Gary Gutful]

All of our climate change conversations are symbolic of what is happening in the real world. Two very polarised views that are both unhelpfully extreme.

The "do nothing because we are a small contributor" argument is geniused. Cannibalising the very industries that do so much to support our comfortable existence is also geniused.

Politically, I understand ScoMo's reasoning for not wanting to do anything meaningful. However, there is a way to do more without alienating marginal electorates in the region. Because let's face it, they are more important than the majority that Gronk often quotes. Just ask Bill Shorten!

Unfortunately, it's a long term issue and those often don't play out well in politics. Here's what I would do if I was ScoMo:

1. Work with the states to get a clearer and more unified policy position nationally. Most states have gotten frustrated with the Feds and forged their own path. This has resulted in major policy inconsistencies throughout the country. This isn't a good thing.

2. Change my language immediately. Use what's happening globally to build a narrative relevant to Australia. Even if we wanted to, we won't be able export thermal coal forever. It's going to be replaced in the next 30 years. If that's the case then we need to prepare for a world that is trying to decarbonise.

3. Get out of the way and let Industry do the hard work that will ensure we transition to renewable, biofutures etc over time.

4. Stop supporting the f**ken Sharks.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

Argh. How about showing some global leadership ? How about being the champions for change ? FMD if every country puts their feet on the desk and opts to do f**k all, what's going to happen ?

As many have said before, being the Saudi Arabia of coal should not be our aspiration.

Very disappointing.

The IPCC itself has said there is no link between increased atmospheric carbon dioxide and extreme weather events.

 

[strider]

All of our climate change conversations are symbolic of what is happening in the real world. Two very polarised views that are both unhelpfully extreme.

The "do nothing because we are a small contributor" argument is geniused. Cannibalising the very industries that do so much to support our comfortable existence is also geniused.

Politically, I understand ScoMo's reasoning for not wanting to do anything meaningful. However, there is a way to do more without alienating marginal electorates in the region. Because let's face it, they are more important than the majority that Gronk often quotes. Just ask Bill Shorten!

Unfortunately, it's a long term issue and those often don't play out well in politics. Here's what I would do if I was ScoMo:

1. Work with the states to get a clearer and more unified policy position nationally. Most states have gotten frustrated with the Feds and forged their own path. This has resulted in major policy inconsistencies throughout the country. This isn't a good thing.

2. Change my language immediately. Use what's happening globally to build a narrative relevant to Australia. Even if we wanted to, we won't be able export thermal coal forever. It's going to be replaced in the next 30 years. If that's the case then we need to prepare for a world that is trying to decarbonise.

3. Get out of the way and let Industry do the hard work that will ensure we transition to renewable, biofutures etc over time.

4. Stop supporting the f**ken Sharks.

But will 3 happen without government? .... industry will mostly chase the easier options ... government needs to help make things more appealing to industry

 

[Gary Gutful]

But will 3 happen without government? .... industry will mostly chase the easier options ... government needs to help make things more appealing to industry

True. That's item 1.

 

[Gronk]

But will 3 happen without government? .... industry will mostly chase the easier options ... government needs to help make things more appealing to industry

True. That's item 1.

Greenhouse emmissions dropped markedly when labor put a price on carbon. As soon as Abbott repealed tbe carbon tax, emmissions started to go up.

 

[Gronk]

The IPCC itself has said there is no link between increased atmospheric carbon dioxide and extreme weather events.

Do tell. Don't cherry pick mate.

https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch3s3-4-3.html

 

[Twizzle]

ScoMo is right tho, what we do makes f**k all difference, but if every country in the world said the same thin (except America, China and India) it would make all the difference.

Its not all man made as some is natural and the cows need to stop farting but if we all did our bit we can make the world a better place to live.

 

[hindy111]

ScoMo is right tho, what we do makes f**k all difference, but if every country in the world said the same thin (except America, China and India) it would make all the difference.

Its not all man made as some is natural and the cows need to stop farting but if we all did our bit we can make the world a better place to live.

 

[Gronk]

ScoMo is right tho, what we do makes f**k all difference, but if every country in the world said the same thin (except America, China and India) it would make all the difference.

Its not all man made as some is natural and the cows need to stop farting but if we all did our bit we can make the world a better place to live.

The fact that us making changes on our Pat Malone will do little on a global scale is never denied. However to use it as an excuse to do nothing (waves to @Delboy ) is a soft cock cop out. Countries need to be proactive and join together in a coalition to force others to take meaningful steps towards change.

Recently (before our election) the NY Times published details of the countries that have a price on carbon. The highlighted our position by saying.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/02/climate/pricing-carbon-emissions.html

In 2012, Australia’s Labor Government rolled out a cap-and-trade program that essentially set a price on carbon of $23 per ton. Emissions fell nationwide under the program, but the policy faced a fierce political backlash from industry groups and voters. When the more conservative Liberal Party swept into power in 2013, it quickly repealed the program.

Australia currently has a far more lenient carbon pricing program in place, called the Safeguard Mechanism, in which large industrial polluters that exceed a pollution baseline can buy carbon credits to compensate. In 2017, only a handful of companies, including several coal mines, spent about $6 million buying credits. Australia is currently on track to miss its overall goals for cutting emissions.

Carbon pricing could still make a comeback. Australia is expected to hold federal elections in May, and the Labor Party has proposed bringing back a scaled-down version of cap-and-trade for the nation’s largest polluters. Still, carbon pricing remains a contentious issue in the country, which has been hit hard by global warming but is also the world’s biggest exporter of coal.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

Do tell. Don't cherry pick mate.

https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch3s3-4-3.html

All from AR5:

* Low confidence in the sign of drought trends since 1950 at global scale;
* There is low confidence due to limited evidence, however, that anthropogenic climate change has affected the frequency and the magnitude of floods;
* In summary, streamflow trends since 1950 are non-statistically significant in most of the world’s largest rivers;
* Numerous studies towards and beyond AR5 have reported a decreasing trend in the global number of tropical cyclones and/or the globally accumulated cyclonic energy;
* there is only low confidence regarding changes in global tropical cyclone numbers under global warming over the last four decades;
* There is consequently low confidence in the larger number of studies reporting increasing trends in the global number of very intense cyclones.

Once again - all from the IPCC's on AR5.

 

[Gronk]

All from AR5:

* Low confidence in the sign of drought trends since 1950 at global scale;
* There is low confidence due to limited evidence, however, that anthropogenic climate change has affected the frequency and the magnitude of floods;
* In summary, streamflow trends since 1950 are non-statistically significant in most of the world’s largest rivers;
* Numerous studies towards and beyond AR5 have reported a decreasing trend in the global number of tropical cyclones and/or the globally accumulated cyclonic energy;
* there is only low confidence regarding changes in global tropical cyclone numbers under global warming over the last four decades;
* There is consequently low confidence in the larger number of studies reporting increasing trends in the global number of very intense cyclones.

Once again - all from the IPCC's on AR5.

Well the topic in this thread was how climate change impacts us, the drought and bushfires. From the ^^^ link.

A warmer climate, with its increased climate variability, will increase the risk of both floods and droughts (Wetherald and Manabe, 2002; Table SPM2 in IPCC, 2007). As there are a number of climatic and non-climatic drivers influencing flood and drought impacts, the realisation of risks depends on several factors. Floods include river floods, flash floods, urban floods and sewer floods, and can be caused by intense and/or long-lasting precipitation, snowmelt, dam break, or reduced conveyance due to ice jams or landslides. Floods depend on precipitation intensity, volume, timing, antecedent conditions of rivers and their drainage basins (e.g., presence of snow and ice, soil character, wetness, urbanisation, and existence of dikes, dams, or reservoirs). Human encroachment into flood plains and lack of flood response plans increase the damage potential.

The term drought may refer to meteorological drought (precipitation well below average), hydrological drought (low river flows and water levels in rivers, lakes and groundwater), agricultural drought (low soil moisture), and environmental drought (a combination of the above). The socio-economic impacts of droughts may arise from the interaction between natural conditions and human factors, such as changes in land use and land cover, water demand and use. Excessive water withdrawals can exacerbate the impact of drought.

A robust result, consistent across climate model projections, is that higher precipitation extremes in warmer climates are very likely to occur (see Section 3.3.1). Precipitation intensity increases almost everywhere, but particularly at mid- and high latitudes where mean precipitation also increases (Meehl et al., 2005, WGI AR4, Chapter 10, Section 10.3.6.1). This directly affects the risk of flash flooding and urban flooding. Storm drainage systems have to be adapted to accommodate increasing rainfall intensity resulting from climate change (Waters et al., 2003). An increase of droughts over low latitudes and mid-latitude continental interiors in summer is likely (WGI AR4, Summary for Policymakers, Table SPM.2), but sensitive to model land-surface formulation. Projections for the 2090s made by Burke et al. (2006), using the HadCM3 GCM and the SRES A2 scenario, show regions of strong wetting and drying with a net overall global drying trend. For example, the proportion of the land surface in extreme drought, globally, is predicted to increase by the a factor of 10 to 30; from 1-3 % for the present day to 30% by the 2090s. The number of extreme drought events per 100 years and mean drought duration are likely to increase by factors of two and six, respectively, by the 2090s (Burke et al., 2006). A decrease in summer precipitation in southern Europe, accompanied by rising temperatures, which enhance evaporative demand, would inevitably lead to reduced summer soil moisture (Douville et al., 2002) and more frequent and more intense droughts.

As temperatures rise, the likelihood of precipitation falling as rain rather than snow increases, especially in areas with temperatures near to 0°C in autumn and spring (WGI AR4, Summary for Policymakers). Snowmelt is projected to be earlier and less abundant in the melt period, and this may lead to an increased risk of droughts in snowmelt-fed basins in summer and autumn, when demand is highest (Barnett et al., 2005).

 

[Gronk]

Murdoch says one day that there are no climate change deniers in his ranks. Nek minute The Australian peddles the usual bullshit.

 

[hindy111]

The fact that us making changes on our Pat Malone will do little on a global scale is never denied. However to use it as an excuse to do nothing (waves to @Delboy ) is a soft c**k cop out. Countries need to be proactive and join together in a coalition to force others to take meaningful steps towards change.

Recently (before our election) the NY Times published details of the countries that have a price on carbon. The highlighted our position by saying.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/02/climate/pricing-carbon-emissions.html

In 2012, Australia’s Labor Government rolled out a cap-and-trade program that essentially set a price on carbon of $23 per ton. Emissions fell nationwide under the program, but the policy faced a fierce political backlash from industry groups and voters. When the more conservative Liberal Party swept into power in 2013, it quickly repealed the program.

Australia currently has a far more lenient carbon pricing program in place, called the Safeguard Mechanism, in which large industrial polluters that exceed a pollution baseline can buy carbon credits to compensate. In 2017, only a handful of companies, including several coal mines, spent about $6 million buying credits. Australia is currently on track to miss its overall goals for cutting emissions.

Carbon pricing could still make a comeback. Australia is expected to hold federal elections in May, and the Labor Party has proposed bringing back a scaled-down version of cap-and-trade for the nation’s largest polluters. Still, carbon pricing remains a contentious issue in the country, which has been hit hard by global warming but is also the world’s biggest exporter of coal.

Well I reckon all individuals need to. Small things like car pool, walk when can and not being lazy with power consuming. It then becomes a lifestyle and filters through the generations.

I'm sure if businesses can see what consumers want they will then change their business approach to target them.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Murdoch says one day that there are no climate change deniers in his ranks. Nek minute The Australian peddles the usual bullshit.

Conflating the fact of climate change with the correlated fact of increased carbon emissions is fine, but questioning causality is not the same thing.

 

[Gronk]

Conflating the fact of climate change with the correlated fact of increased carbon emissions is fine, but questioning causality is not the same thing.

FFS

The UN define "climate change" as a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

Hence if you are disputing Anthropogenic Climate Change you are disputing the concept of climate change (as per the accepted definition). Ipso facto, a denier.