“The planet’s burning you idiots!’. But hey, at least your negative gearing and franking credits are safe. (Image: HBO)
On Saturday morning I wandered down to my local polling booth to exercise my voting power. I have more of this than the average Australian because South Australia has a low population, yet the same number of senators as other states. But my power pales in comparison to that of Tasmanians who have more than three times my senatorial voting influence. If you shake a Tasmanian’s hand you can feel them thrum with barely suppressed electoral power.
If you go by kilogram I actually have considerably less voting power than the average Australian, but that doesn’t change the fact the Senate isn’t very democratic. We could alter the Constitution to change that but there are probably a couple of things that are more important to add first, such as:
- Thou shalt not fuck around with the planet’s climate.
Actually, I think I may be confusing the Australian Constitution with the Kama Sutra. But we should probably change that too while we’re at it. Especially passage 6,969. That could prevent a lot of injuries.
Waiting To Vote
When I got to the polling centre at 11:42 I was all fired up and ready to do my bit to make the world a better place. Unfortunately, there was a line and I was told I would have to wait around 20 minutes, so I left. I wasn’t going to wait 20 minutes to vote. That’s just ridiculous.
I came back at 2:48 and still had to wait 14 minutes and 18 seconds to vote. That’s twice as long as my previous personal record of around 7 minutes. I got so bored I actually spoke with the person next to me. What is democracy coming to in this country when we’re reduced to talking to our fellow citizens?
Jokers Are Wild
While waiting in line a man with nine fingers put some democracy sauce on his stump and claimed a dog had bitten his finger off. It didn’t strike me as funny because I could think of so many politicians who deserved the finger more. But at least this made me feel as though I was back in Queensland.
Perhaps It’s Best You Don’t Know My Preferences…
I won’t go into how I ordered my preferences for the House of Representatives. Partly because I want to avoid stupid arguments, but also because, in addition to placing value on voting for who I want to win, I also put weight on the small amount of funding a political party receives for every first preference they get. I also place value on expressing contempt for whoever I put last. My contempt level can vary from minute to minute, so after voting I often am left wondering if I have preferred in the optimal way.
I also won’t go into the details of my below-the-line Senate vote, but I will mention the Greens did well. I’m not thrilled with the Green Party. They seem just as stupid as any other political groups but with less cunning. Political bandits — I mean pundits — are saying their campaigning has hurt Labor, and helping the Coalition that way is not something you should do if your goal is to cut emissions. However, since no one in this election has put world peace or an end to all disease on the table, I’ll settle for some senators who are against cooking the planet.
Labor also did well in my senate preferences. They came out strongly in support of the environment this time instead of playing the political game of “catch the centre” where they only bother to be one step better than the Coalition. It’s nice to see a bit of backbone this time instead of just pelvis. I’m really tired of them coccyxing it up.
Award For Most Contemptible
I’ll leave it to you to decide who was the most contemptible person or party this election. But I’ll give special mention to Clive Palmer for going full Trump and suggesting we’re about to be invaded by China. He apparently thinks China may attack to take over mines that are currently exporting to China. I don’t really see what China would gain from that, but I don’t try to guess what’s going on in Trump’s mind — if anything — and I’m not going to try to guess what’s going on in Palmer’s.
In case you were wondering, a Chinese invasion is not on the cards. It doesn’t matter what you think of the Chinese government, their navy is simply not suitable for supporting a long distance invasion. It’s not even designed to support a short distance one — just in case you’re concerned they may invade somewhere closer to home.
Waiting, Waiting…
Before I went to bed at about 9:00 I checked the results and saw the Coalition was a little ahead. Normally they start off behind and then catch up, but I was going to see what things were like in the morning.
Whatever was to happen, Tony Abbott had already conceded defeat. He was clearly let down by neglecting to eat enough raw onions. Also, his failure to use the campaign slogan I suggested, “Some men just want to watch the world burn” probably hurt him badly among the psychopathic clown demographic.
The People Have Spoken! (Stupidly!)
I woke up to a dark and cloudy Sunday morning and saw the Coalition had a clear majority. Yay for you, Coalition. You are now my government. Please try to cause less damage to the radiative balance of the atmosphere than you have been. Tony Abbot is no longer around so you don’t have to be scared of him and Craig Kelly is so cute and cuddly — like a big koala — there’s no way anyone could ever be afraid of him! (Although I do hear he can go full drop bear on you.)
On Saturday I voted for the planet and lost. On the other hand, if I did win I wouldn’t know where to keep it anyway.
About Ronald Brakels
RSS - Posts
This is what happens when the AEC is too week to crack down on lies by the parties and a gullible public that don’t understand what was happening was a classic scare campaign and fell for it.
I watched Insiders on Sunday morning. Barry Cassidy raised the lies thrown out about a Labor “Retiree Tax” and explained to Frydenberg that it’s not a tax but simply a concession that was to be discontinued yet he still kept insisting it was a tax.
You should be watching the outsiders instead of the insiders -much more fun
And don’t believe the lie from Barry Cassidy-If you pay more tax during the year than you own, you will get it back through a refund as a TAX refund–If I get get a TAX refund back because the firm I invested in already has paid the tax due by me and that is more than I own I get a TAX refund–It is not a concession refund it is a TAX refund—So Frydenberg is 100% right and Cassidy 100% wrong
It is a CONCESSION that provides you with a TAX refund for the tax the company paid. But arguing over what it should be called is pointless. Whatever you call it, it has the same effect on people. You can argue about whether or not it is a fair change to the tax system, but getting hung up on what it is called is a bit pointless from either side.
The fact remains that it is the shareholders who own the company, and distribution of _tax_paid_ income should not be taxed again in transit from central office to the distributed owners – except where the individual company owner’s tax bracket exceeds the corporate rate paid.
If the individual owner’s tax liability is zero, then the up-front corporate tax levied in error can only be returned as cash, as there’s nothing to offset it against. Simples.
That said, I too figured the planet was worth the sacrifice to Chris Bowen’s dogmatic class warfare, and voted for them in both houses. The BBC article:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48337629
reports a 5% chance of 2m sealevel rise by 2100, with 200 million displaced.
I have for some years had the horrible premonition that the probability is very much higher than that, as system non-linearity and feedback effects feed the accelerating rate of climate modification, now beyond stopping and amenable only to amelioration. May we all have watertight gumboots.
Yeah, it’s a shame that “Let’s address this serious issue and pay for it by ending unfair advantages” loses against “That guy is going to steal your money and end your weekend”. Sigh.
They say every people gets the government they deserve and apparently we deserve a burning planet.
A burning planet? You’ve got to be joking
Have to agree “Burning Planet” what a joke. I live in Karratha which can get pretty hot but burning – I don’t think so. It’s this type of stupidity that ensured we had a Coalition victory.
For the record, I had 3 bets on the coalition winning the first was at the start of the campaign & was just a bit of opportunity with good odds. But I had another 2 as the campaign progressed because I could see no reason why the majority of Australian’s would vote for what Shorten & the ALP had to offer. Especially on climate change.
I am in sales for a company that sells solar & have not sold a system yet where the main concern was the environment, it has been a consideration, but the main concern always is the hip pocket. Especially here where power bills can be over $1,000 in summer.
Vanders,
You say:
“Have to agree “Burning Planet” what a joke. I live in Karratha which can get pretty hot but burning – I don’t think so. It’s this type of stupidity that ensured we had a Coalition victory.”
The WA Government Primary Industries and Regional Development’s “Climate projections for Western Australia” webpage (Page last updated: Wednesday, 1 May 2019 – 1:24pm) begins with:
“Climate projections for Western Australia (WA) are that average annual temperature will increase by 1.1–2.7°C in a medium-emission scenario, and 2.6–5.1°C in a high-emission scenario by the end of the century. Annual rainfall in the south-west is projected to decline by 6% by 2030 and 12% by 2100 (median values) for a medium-emission scenario, and by 5% and 18%, respectively (median values) for a high-emission scenario. In the northern and central parts of WA, annual rainfall remains relatively unchanged. WA’s climate is already highly variable.”
Under the heading “Hot Spells”:
“- Temperature extremes are projected to increase in line with projected mean temperatures.
– The intensity of hot spells is projected to increase over most of WA: the frequency will generally increase in the southern half of the state and the duration will increase in northern coastal areas.
Perth could see the average annual number of days with maxima over 35°C increase from 28 in the recent past (1971–2000 average) to 36 in 2030, and to 40 and 63 in 2090 for intermediate- and high-emission scenarios, respectively.
In Broome, the number of days with maxima over 35°C is projected to increase from 56 currently to 87 in 2030, and to 133 and 231 in 2090 for intermediate- and high-emission scenarios, respectively.”
Under the heading “Fire risk is projected to increase”:
“The greatest projected increases in severe fire days are in the Pilbara and northern rangelands (27% and 331% at Port Hedland, and 50% and 517% at Carnarvon by 2090, for intermediate- or high-emission scenarios).”
See: https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/climate-change/climate-projections-western-australia
It looks like Karratha will likely be more at risk of burning in future. Or is this all ‘fake news’? Do you want to risk it for you and your children/grandchildren (if you have any), Vanders?
Bureaucrats – and you believe them! One year there is a hot spell the next is not. I have lived in the Pilbara for over 40 years & the temperature fluctuates from year to year. So I will say it again the country is not burning. You can put up all the data you like & I can put all the counter data that you don’t like. The planet has been warming since the ice age.
I could go on but it is getting boring – Greenland has its name because it used to be green a couple of hundred years ago or more. There was talk that it was going to be green again but the trend has reversed. Glaciers that were once shrinking are now growing again.
Al Gore former VP of USA – the world was going to end – the hysteria is just unbelievable from the trendy left liberals.
The hysteria is fake news – action is being taken but it is measured action, not the claptrap that lefties go on about. My kids & 21yo granddaughter who goes to uni has more brains on what is going on than the fake news being reported.
The last glacial maximum was 26,500 years ago when earth’s temperature was about 5.5 degrees lower than it is now. In the last 50 years the earth’s temperature has risen by around 0.65 degrees. If the earth had been warming at that rate for the 26,500 years since the glacial maximum the earth’s average temperature would now average over 350 degrees.
Yes, well, it’s not just Karratha, Queensland, and NSW which are sunburned.
Over Easter the last dam on our farm in Gippsland went dry – no water on the property anywhere. That’s not happened before in the 55 years we’ve been there. The last dam is 6m down in the bed of a watercourse. The other dams dried up nearly a year ago. We used to count 400 mm of annual rainfall as a severe drought. Last year we had 245 mm. Obviously the farm has been destocked for some time now.
The effect is understood. Climatologists explain that global warming pushes the rainbands further from the equator, i.e. offshore, down here. They’ll return when we cool the planet – so the farm could remain destocked for some time.
Robin Vandenberg (Re your comment at May 21, 2019 at 5:35 pm),
You say:
“The planet has been warming since the ice age.”
No doubt, but if the planet continues to warm, as the scientists are telling us it will if we keep burning fossil fuels and pumping GHG emissions into the atmosphere, then humanity is at risk of extinction – a world too hot for humans (and many other species) to survive in.
See my comment: https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/fuel-efficiency-standards/#comment-438325
You also say:
“The hysteria is fake news – action is being taken but it is measured action, not the claptrap that lefties go on about.”
Scientists are increasingly warning us “measured action” won’t do the job – this existential threat of dangerous climate change now requires emergency action. I’ll re-quote part of Ian Dunlop’s op-ed (referred in my link above, just for you);
“The Paris Climate Agreement voluntary emission reduction commitments, if implemented would lead to a temperature increase of around 3.5°C by 2100 if not earlier – a world which leading national security experts describe as “outright social chaos”. At present, we are on track for around a 4.5°C increase, which would be “a world incompatible with any organised society”, resulting in a substantial reduction in global population.”
Scientists estimate anything higher than a 4°C temperature rise could mean an 80%+ reduction in the global human population.
You finish your comment with:
“My kids & 21yo granddaughter who goes to uni has more brains on what is going on than the fake news being reported.”
The real science (NOT the ‘politically-massaged’ and vested interest propaganda versions, that you apparently seemed to have swallowed) tells us your children and grandchild are facing an existential risk. Humanity ignores these risks at our peril. It seems to me you wish to play the proverbial Russian-roulette (with most of the chambers loaded) with your children’s and grandchild’s lives. Is that what you wish to risk?
Here’s a heads up for you mate.
In the last decade the coast of Australia has seen, in Tasmania a sea surface temperature rise from historical averages of 5 degrees Celsius
due to the strengthening of the east Australian current, which until recently use to head east between Coffs Harbour and Eden. Which has pretty much killed all the Giant Kelp forests down the East coast of Tassie.
The 2 major coral bleaching events that took place in 2016 and 2017 are caused by elevated sea surface temperature adding to other factors that have been impacting the Great Barrier Reef, most of the Northern sections of the Reef are done, some figures put it at 93% majorly impacted. The reefs around Lizard Island now have 2% coral cover. To the top of Australia, along the Gulf Of Carpentaria four years ago a thousand Kilometre stretch of Mangroves died, 10 thousand hectares, due to a wet season that never happened. The Mangroves are not growing back.
To the West coast of Australia a rise of sea surface temperatures has seen the Giant Kelp Forests decimated from Kalbarri to Cape Leeuwin.
That’s just Australia mate, do you want more real info ?
Sadly its because of misinformed righteous people like yourself that bugger all gets done on climate change.
So I get the sense that some folks are blaming The Greens for the ALP polling poorly in Qld, and I further get the sense that your article is not refuting that.
What do you think was the right thing for The Greens to do? Not oppose Adani? Or sit on the spiky spiky fence like the ALP did?
Of course the Greens should oppose the Adani mine. They’d hardly be Greens if they didn’t. The question is whether or not they opposed it effectively. But while I can discuss the likely effects of energy policy, I’m not much better than the average person down at the pub at evaluating campaign politics, so I’ll just say that if what they did ended up encouraging people to vote for the Coalition then it was counterproductive campaign politics.
OK… actually I agree that the tactic of marching up to coal towns in polo necks and rubbing signs in people’s faces was a poor choice. I think that undermined the cause considerably (pun intended).
I don’t think it’s necessary for a gaggle of southerners to come and “help” stop Adani.
The market’s already doing it.
“The market’s already doing it.”
Yup. And when we start hearing rumours about ScoMo and his troupe of coal juggling clowns wanting to restrict further installation of rooftop solar power, eg by requiring a Federal licence to add new panels or batteries, that will be the proving of that particular pudding.
Better start buying now while you are still able to. 😉
A political post?
Greed and self interest are at the forefront of votes.
With no policies (except distant tax cuts – and necessary cuts to public services), and a dancing potato sack, the Australian population have voted, American Style, for the biggest idiot on screen, rather than their local representative.
Huzzah!
Not me Daniel!
Given a decade of where Labor and Liberal have been unrepresentative for ACT-arians, particularly for Military and Commonwealth retirees, I have no compunction to state emphatically here, as I have elsewhere, that I voted for local Independents Anthony Pesec (Senate) and Jamie Cristie (Reps) here in the ACT.
These blokes had fair dinkum policies on climate … not ideologically driven party hacks having an each way bet … but blokes who had strong policies that fundamentally prosecuted the case that we just need to clean up our act.
As it turned out the biggest idiot [As you put it ] the Americans voted in Trump as their president—Like him as a person or loathe him as a person-He has turned out to be one of the best president America has had for a very very long time
Most Australians realise that unless US, China, Europe and India take real action on emissions big climate change is unavoidable and so Australia should be as good a global citizen as them and campaign for global change but otherwise pursue our own self interest. We are powerless to save the reef by ourselves.
I started voting around 1960 -At every election since then I have been told the Barrier reef is dying and if we don’t do anything in the next 12 months it will be gone forever -It is now 60 years later and it is still doing just fine, according to some scientists –But must admit a scientist can be sacked for producing
facts, not in tune with the alarmist belief
Yeah, I think your memory is a bit faulty there, Paul. Either that or you’ve been living next to “The reef will be dead in 12 months” guy for 50 years.
Sounds like Paul is about 80 years old if was voting around 1960, no offence but most ppl around that age have very a poor memory recollection in my experience. Maybe Paul can provide some citations to back up his comments?
I dunno. My first visit to the reef was in the early nineties from Townsville. It looked pretty ordinary then
By reflecting away 30% of the incoming solar energy the atmosphere/albedo make the earth cooler than it would be without the atmosphere much like that reflective panel behind a car’s windshield.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6503085690262216704
Greenhouse theory has it wrong…
I think it is raising the concentration of molecules in the atmosphere that absorb short wave infrared that is increasing the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere. But don’t let that stop you from claiming your Noble Prize.
“… much like that reflective panel behind a car’s windshield.”
So Nick, can you explain why even with a reflector behind the windshield, my friend’s car still heated up inside, whereas when I put the reflector OUTSIDE the windshield (using aluminium foil with magnets to hold it in place) the car heated up much less. (It’s a simple experiment, anybody can try it out. No need for fancy mathematics or diagrams.)
I know, I know, it’s now winter time and cloudy, not conducive to conducting heat experiments. But even with the overcast skies I can presently see that the (internal) venetian blinds on my east facing windows, BEHIND double glazing, are still about 2 degrees C warmer than the ambient internal temperature (using a non-contact thermometer – infra-red), yet when I pull the external shade cloth blind down, the temperature difference is barely measurable. After several minutes to stabilise, it actually dropped to BELOW ambient temperature by roughly half a degree. As Pauline Hanson once said “Please Explain”.
Dear Nick citing a reference from the esteemed journal LinkedIn has me totally convinced – thank you.
Those who don’t learn their history are doomed to repeat it, in 1993 Fightback was a large policy agenda that included the GST. Golden rules No. 1 is never propose a new tax or a tax increase from opposition, so John Houston leading the Iiberals in 1993 lost the unloose able election and then labor party made the same mistake this year. So as we know franking credits only effect a very small percentage of retirees but a percentage of the population is dis-engaged with the details and just saw the “retirees tax” scare slogans of the Liberals and somehow thought it would effect them. What a disaster this is for the country and the world, my daughter would not talk to me yesterday blaming my generation for fucking up her future.
Hi Ronald, we are all about to burn, and turn to ash. I am a proud supporter of renewables, but I am NOT a supporter, for the UN and the UNFCCC BRAIN WASHING MACHINE. I am absolutely stoked that we did NOT end up with the labour fuckwits, who will not only let in illegal imagrints. but legal imagrints just to bolster their voting numbers.
It is a sad say, when we have to rely upon, paid, unlawful, and incorrect, data produced by biased corrupted scientists, that have an agenda, for funding, that they want for other reasons, of their own.
History has shown that CLIMATE CHANGE is the greatest money making venture designed for one thing, and that is to bleed more money from u, as tax payers, so that the UN can attain to their one world government.
Regards Ray
From the Australian Electoral Commission:
“The only non-Australian citizens who are eligible to vote are British subjects who were on the Commonwealth electoral roll immediately before 26 January 1984, at which time the eligibility requirements were altered.”
The AEC is quite strict about this.
Are “imagrints” related to Rupert Grint? The Harry Potter actor?
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1947&bih=997&ei=zwriXIa9LZucvQT24aCwDg&q=rupert+grint&oq=rupert+grint&gs_l=img.3..0l10.1144.4668..4783…2.0..1.640.3239.0j6j2j1j1j2……1….1..gws-wiz-img…..0..0i10.WMeGW_tAc1I
‘Cos if they are, we should totally let them in ‘cos they can do magic! Boyakasha! Respec’
Great bottom line, Ronald: “I voted for the planet and lost. On the other hand, if I did win I wouldn’t know where to keep it anyway.” 🙂
Also appreciated your comment: “I’m not thrilled with the Green Party. They seem just as stupid as any other political groups but with less cunning.”
We utterly agree. Their stubborn refusal to take Death Taxes from their manifesto cost them (and Labor) crucial votes.
On the credit side, the demise of that lying budgie-smuggling ex-PM was, at least, some icing on the cupcake. Well deserved. Thanks, Get Up!~
Whats wrong Ronald bit close to the bone for the truth is it mate
The irony of a xenophobe whose name is obviously that of a migrant. I’ll let you work it out for yourself.
Ronald, no matter one’s political persuasion, Labor fundamentally failed because they presented themselves with a grab-bag of unrelenting austere policies that would have hurt people financially.
They also had an each way bet on climate, YEP THAT”S RIGHT! … because on the back of a 2030 threshold date, they turned around and equivocated on Adarni, whilst also proposing to allow the Fracking of 1500 NG wells in the NT.
I think Juice Media sums up the issue of Fracking quite nicely, as can be viewed here:
https://youtu.be/cuQZ6rALub8
Finally, Australians who think they have dodged a bullet at this election might want to think twice … and remain hyper vigilant to an embolden Government that is well known for austerity measures. On this note, for those who have short memories of the ‘Debt & Deficit’ propaganda, then you may wish to read my 2015 paper here:
http://bit.ly/2IuwujJ
Yeah, that was the straw I clutched at too:
Tony ‘the health risks of windmills have to be investigated first’ Abbott gone.
Uber budgie-smuggler hyper macho man and climate-crazy Abbot is gone. Yay.
Terrifying Koala-bear reminder-like and climate-crazy Craig Kelly is still here. Alas.
Unless the Coal-alition decides to start sacrificing solar power enthusiasts to the Dark Horsepersons of the Apocoalypse, being “Particulate Matter”, “Sulphur Oxides,” “Carbon Dioxide,” and, of course, everyone’s favourite, “Death” (he’s quite the big anthropomorphic personification on the scene right now owing to all the mass extinctions and whatnot. His overtime bill must be huge!), their election isn’t going to make a difference to climate change mitigation and adaptation at all.
Nope. The Modern Day Capitalist Jedi have seen to that. The “Market Force” be with them. And, oh boy, it is it powerful. Since about the first half of 2018, the levelised cost of electricity from newbuild solar and wind is less than the cost electricity from an existing, fully-depreciated, coal-fired plant. The cost of battery storage and frequency control services are cheap and getting cheaper ever since Jedi Master Elon Musk used his midi-chlorians to magic a giant battery into South Australia. And, there are existing pumped hydro facilities around the country. With one of the biggest about to be built, which is Snowy 2.0. Conceived by the Bull that is called Turn, the final investment decision was given in Feb this year by none other then the coal-brandishing-in-Parliament Prime Muppet (hey, he called it a Muppet show, not me). Prof Blakers (engineering and energy expert) reckons Snowy 2.0 will a power generation capacity of 2GW and energy storage of 350GWh. That’s enough storage for about half of our national energy needs. Chuck in Tasmania’s Battery of the Nation along with existing pumped hydro a Wivenhoe, Shoalhaven etc and we’re most of the way there. We’ll be at 100% renewables before we know it. And what’s happening in Aus will happen around the world too. I feel sorry for anyone in QLD emotionally, financially, operationallly or in any other way invested in coal. Voting for the Coalalition won’t stop the energy transition. The Jedi Capitalists have used their Market Force. Sooner or later, coal is doomed. I just hope humanity as a whole isn’t doomed too.
I just posted my comment and Gods of Coal ate it! Where is my poor lost comment? Anywho… summary… coal = expensive. Solar and wind = cheap. Solar and wind = end of coal and gas. But we may be all doomed anyway if market forces are too late. Happy Monday everyone!
It’s there. It can just take some time.
I used to accept the line that the Libs/Nationals were better money managers than Labor which got the country into debt. About 1/3rd down in this comment by John Lord re whether the Coalition does really handle money as well as they say they do is a list of wasted money. I am still shocked at the $444 million gift to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation whilst I give my pensioner $5 to the Australian Marine Conservation society. Also the $80 million signed off by Barnaby Joyce benefiting Angus Taylor MP. Here’s the link. Thanks.
https://theaimn.com/john-lords-election-diary-no-10-no-policies-so-lets-talk-about-the-climate-and-money/
It’s nothing to do with the AEC. Their job is to run the ballot, not to police what candidates can and can not say.
It is up to the voting public, and the consciences of the candidates, and perhaps a higher power to judge whether candidates speak truth or lies.
As I said, they (AEC) are too week to act:
https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/can-a-politician-straight-up-lie-to-you-in-their-ads/10990230
Obviously this needs to change as it’s just got completely out of hand. You can’t just expect the average voter to determine if it’s BS as so many of them are just too stupid to make rational decisions and these are the ones the BS is aimed at.
Yeah, that reply was supposed to be for you. It’s nothing to do with the AEC.
Regardless of time scale.
At a BBQ recently the question was raised -What would be the effect on the temperature on the world be if Australia disappeared beneath the waves tomorrow morning
The answers varied from absolutely nothing -to the same effect as turning off
the strip heater placed outdoors to keep us warm during the BBQ
There were many reasons Labor lost last Saturday-most of them can be found in today’s -The Australian – But mainly every fool should know -one cant spend more money than is earned, that goes for the individual person, household or country and being a typical Australian it does not work going to your neighbour telling them -You earn more than me -give me some of yours
Sure — the atmosphere looks at CO2 molecules and decides whether or not they’ll contribute to global warming based on if they came from a large country or a small one. Paul, do you just throw your litter straight out your car window because there are 25 million people in Australia and whether you litter or not has no significant effect on the amount in the country?
I agree with you Ronald. The line of argument that says ‘The amount of CO2 we produce is so small (in total) compared to everyone else’s it wouldn’t matter if we even produced 2, 5, 10 or 20 times more because it would still be insignificant’ is really just the typical rationalisation ploy used by those who don’t really want to do anything. at all about a particular issue at the moment.
I don’t know how we would stack up internationally on a ‘per capita’ comparison, but suspect it would put us somewhere near the ‘worst offenders’.
But quite apart from that, it simply reflects the inability of our Governments to ‘plan ahead’. Our population is not going to remain at its present levels but will likely increase. The insignificant’ problem will thus get ‘bigger’ until it reaches a crisis level, then finally, we’ll make some hasty ill-considered decisions with all sorts of negative social and economic consequences
Many readers will no doubt know the old adage of ‘a stitch in time saves nine’. Because through ineptness the country has kept putting off various ‘stitches in time’, the number of stitches now needed to fix things is perhaps 900 compared to the original 1, and our ability to ‘fix’ the whole 900 is probably approaching zero
To claim that Austalia’s 1.3% contribution ought not be ameliorated because it is too small to make a difference wilfully disregards reality. Taken together, the countries with 2% or less global contribution make up 40% of the total. If one survivor in a lifeboat can piss in the bilge, then all the others of the same size can too. So let us please keep our thought processes real-world and aware of the whole.
Even if a part of going under is due to an occasional wave over the gunwale, then that’s just one more reason for improving emission hygiene.
Paul,
You say:
“At a BBQ recently the question was raised -What would be the effect on the temperature on the world be if Australia disappeared beneath the waves tomorrow morning
The answers varied from absolutely nothing -to the same effect as turning off
the strip heater placed outdoors to keep us warm during the BBQ”
Ian Dunlop’s op-ed published on May 2, headlined “Stopping Adani is a National Necessity, Economically, Financially and for our Survival” includes:
“Conventional wisdom has it that Australia is such a small player in the emission stakes, our domestic emissions being only 1.3% of the global total, that anything we do domestically, such as Adani, is irrelevant to addressing the global problem. Utter nonsense. As LNG exports increase, we are about to become the fourth largest carbon polluter in the world when fossil fuel exports are included, as they must be given that the climate impact rebounds on us irrespective of the point of consumption. What Australia does matters where climate change is concerned.”
See: file:///E:/downloads/JohnMenadue-Com/JohnMenadue-20190502-IAN%20DUNLOP.%20Stopping%20Adani%20is%20a%20National%20Necessity,%20Economically,%20Financially%20and%20for%20our%20Survival.pdf
In 2017, Australia was the world’s third largest coal producer (7.9% global share), after China (46.4%) and USA (9.9%); and was the eighth largest gas producer (3.1% global share), after USA (20.0%), Russian Fed. (17.3%), Iran (6.1%), Canada (4.8%), Qatar (4.8%), China (4.1%), and Norway (3.3%) – see BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2018.
In November 2018, Australia surpassed Qatar as the world’s largest LNG exporter.
See: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-qatar-lng/australia-grabs-worlds-biggest-lng-exporter-crown-from-qatar-in-nov-idUSKBN1O907N
It seems to me there were many ill-informed people at the BBQ you reference.
Dear Ron…………even though you seem to think that even if we reduced our CO2 emissions to zero at huge expense to our economy that it would make one iota of difference to the climate, temperature or Barrier Reef etc. you are smoking something.undesirable.
It seems that on Sat. the majority (with the help of preferences) decided that the ineffective warm fuzzy feeling you would like to prevail has been overtaken by voting in a manner avoiding impending fiscal doom to our static budgets, especially I suspect most on this list currently saving for roof panels for purely economic reasons.
I think the current winning mob will undergo quite enough proportional CO2 reductions for our mere 25 million even though the rest of the world continues to build coal power stations negating our efforts, until there is a massive increase in affordable renewables and we can all move on to gradually closing them down.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, every additional molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels contributes to global warming. The atmosphere does not care if it came from India or Tonga. If you and Naveen in India cause the same CO2 emissions then your contributions to global warming are identical.
Also note global coal consumption is down around 7% from its peak. That’s something members of the world’s largest coal exporting nation should be aware of.
Just to add to Ronald’s comment – what we are currently doing is akin to emptying OUR rubbish bin over our neighbour’s fence while saying:
‘don’t worry dude, you’ve already got the contents of 100 bins splashed all over your back-yard, you won’t even notice my little bit. You’ll get another lot to-morrow. Not running out of space are you?
Oh, I should tell you that this will only be happening for another 25 years or so – so no need to get so flaming aggro mate, you’ll probably be dead before then anyway. Problem solved’.
Clive Edmead,
You say:
“…even though you seem to think that even if we reduced our CO2 emissions to zero at huge expense to our economy that it would make one iota of difference to the climate, temperature or Barrier Reef etc…”
False. What Australia does (in terms of its contributions in carbon emissions to the world) matters. Please see my comment directly above:
https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/climate-change-vote-election/#comment-442815
What huge expense to the economy? Economist John Quiggin says “Not much at all”.
See: https://johnquiggin.com/2019/05/07/how-much-will-it-cost-to-deal-with-climate-change-not-much-at-all/
Renewables are cheaper, faster to deploy, reliable (with adequate energy storage and robust interconnectors), long-term sustainable, cleaner, safer/lower-risk.
You also say:
“…the rest of the world continues to build coal power stations negating our efforts, until there is a massive increase in affordable renewables and we can all move on to gradually closing them down.”
Recent data indicates global coal-fired power capacity is likely to peak very soon, then head into decline. The pipeline of new coal-fired power capacity is rapidly shrinking. In 2018, new-start constructions were being exceeded by existing operating plant retirements. See the bar chart in my Supplementary Submission (#9.1) to the Australian Parliament Senate Select Committee into Fair Dinkum Power:
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Fair_Dinkum_Power/FairDinkumPower/Submissions
Also see: https://endcoal.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/BoomAndBust_2019_r6.pdf
But that’s only part of the story. Utilization rates of global coal-fired power are in decline. Why? Because coal-fired power (even some fully depreciated plants), and nuclear and gas, now cannot compete with renewables on price.
See: http://ieefa.org/ieefa-update-even-as-forecasts-signal-decline-in-global-thermal-coal-markets-australia-courts-new-mines/
Also see: https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/new-wind-and-solar-now-as-cheap-as-existing-coal/
Clive, your comments appear ill-informed. Please avoid the misinformation being propagated by the fossil fuel boosters and you are likely to be better informed.
Greenhouse gas, CO2. My mental faculties are declining as I age and I am confused about the effect of CO2 on climate change. I read all I can on the topic…
Glad to hear you are keeping up on the topic in your old age, Dana. Is there anything on the topic you have personally concluded you would like to share with us?
It’s kind of depressing to read some of the comments in response to Ronald’s post.
So I’m going to attempt to cheer Ronald up. It doesn’t matter who won the election because the timescale is quite small. 4 years. Might not seem like it but the time scale for climate change is quite beyond any politician’s comprehension, even when we accelerate it by pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. So Ronald, don’t worry – in 500,000 years or so, when humans are long gone, the damage will be undone by the Earth’s natural processes. Provided it doesn’t get hit by an extinction level asteroid. Damn it, I’m meant to be cheering him up.
Forget I ever mentioned an asteroid Ronald…
Looking on the bright side, there is at least one less extinction level asteroid around than there was 65 million years ago…
Don’t want to rain on your parade, Ronald and Mondo, but I don’t think the ‘Rebellion Extinction’ group in the UK would agree with you on the time frame. OK, they’re maybe a bit over-the-top, but…. closer to home…
Our cousins in NZ were, not so long ago, a tad agitated…
They’d only just got back home from their sailing trips to gaze in awe at the remnants of the 5,800 square kilometer, trillion ton iceberg, that broke off from the Antarctic ice-berg in July 2017 drifting past their coast, and thought they’d cool down their emotions by doing a bit of skiing. Only to find when they got to the ski resorts there wasn’t that much snow there, and most of the shops were shut because apparently large numbers of ‘sooky’ tourists were a bit worried about being swept away by either an avalanche of loose snow caused by an earthquake, or buried alive in their tourist bus by a million tonnes or so of soil sliding off a mountain on top of them just when they thought they’d escaped.
Undaunted, the Kiwi’s all headed for the beach instead. But 8 metre waves and gale force winds for days on end are a bit too much, and when it all died down there wasn’t any beach left anyway. Which was probably just as well, because a lot of the holiday homes that overlooked the sea had gone too, or were still underwater and there was nowhere to stay.
Deciding that they might as well head back home and be satisfied with just a bit of local fishing in the creeks, (and save heaps of money on petrol costs), they recoiled in shock when they found the rivers had all dried up. Chagrin and sadness turned to outrage when they got back home and realised they couldn’t even make a cup of tea because they couldn’t afford to pay the electricity cost of boiling it,
Like Australia, New Zealanders were a little slow to accept back in 2010 that ‘something’ currently called climate change’ existed, and so too was the Government.
Not any more. ABC News Australia reported on 8th May 2019 that Prime Minister
“Ms Ardern said the country had little choice but to act to avoid devastating climate change.
“We know the climate is changing. People can see that,” she said.
“This legislation makes a start on tackling climate change because the alternative is the catastrophic cost of doing nothing.”
The Government has also promised to plant 1 billion trees over 10 years and ensure the electricity grid runs entirely on renewable energy by 2035.
Unsurprisingly, both consumers, industry, and even the electricity distributors themselves in NZ were already ahead of them, with solar PV systems being installed on the roofs of homes, businesses, schools, etc along with large grid scale projects country wide long before government ever got involved.
This includes places like Dunedin and Invercargill near the bottom of the South Island, where the annual output of a system is 38% less than that of an equivalent system in Brisbane.
Down in Antarctica, before the scientific staff returned prior to the onset of winter, their last task was to set up a large vertical array designed to produce enough electricity to keep some important experiments running and also to maintain the internal temperatures at a critical level.
Previously diesel generators (including back-up) were used, which required large volumes of fuel to be shipped in (approx 6 months worth) so they could run continuously. Shipping that fuel to the Antarctic reduced the ship cargo space available for food supplies, equipment, and people etc and limited the variety and number of experiments that could be carried out. The overall direct cost savings were enormous, and as well, far more research and experimental work could be carried out which sped that side of things considerably. It also reduces fuel requirements when the station is occupied.
So, I’d argue that ‘global warming’ is occurring at a much faster rate than originally expected, which in its turn is a significant causative factor in the steady rise in the number of extreme weather events.
Who or whats to blame for the rise in temperatures? Personally, I don’t think we have ALL the answers yet, but its abundantly clear that humankind activities are primarily responsible for some of the changes we see happening around us right at the moment.
Toxic seawater polluted by such things as chemicals and numerous by-products of industrial processes, exhaust fumes from vehicles untreated human sewage, leakage of radioactive water and other by-products from inadequately maintained nuclear facilities, oil spills, used tyres dumped in rivers and streams, the list of those type of things alone is virtually endless. Lets not forget ‘plastic’ either.
It seems obvious that mankind is collectively responsible for those types of things, and self-evident that there will be flow-on effects to other life forms.
it looks to me that the ‘flow-on’ effects are happening much quicker than expected.
–
One thing I have learned over many years without C02 we all die. C02 is not a poluant, just ask any tree they will tell you. !!!!!!
As I keep on saying, advertise it enough, have it said enough everyday, in the media ( As We Hear ), you do the brain washing, eventually everyone will believe what is being said.
I feel sorry for the simpletons that believe this shit.
Don’t worry, Ray. If I ever find someone who is in favor of banning CO2 instead of just preventing its atmospheric concentration from increasing or returning it to a level it was at in the recent past, I will let you know.
“just ask any tree they will tell you.”
You talk to the trees do you? You sound like the type. Actually, since the human race is clearing trees around the world (even Queensland) there aren’t enough trees left to absorb the CO2, and fewer every day, so yes, it IS a pollutant.
Ray, you might try looking at real science.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100503161435.htm
(Cut and paste)
“Plants give off water through tiny pores in their leaves, a process called evapotranspiration that cools the plant, just as perspiration cools our bodies. On a hot day, a tree can release tens of gallons of water into the air, acting as a natural air conditioner for its surroundings. The plants absorb carbon dioxide for photosynthesis through the same pores (called stomata). But when carbon dioxide levels are high, the leaf pores shrink. This causes less water to be released, diminishing the tree’s cooling power. … “There is no longer any doubt that carbon dioxide decreases evaporative cooling by plants and that this decreased cooling adds to global warming,” says Cao. “This effect would cause significant warming even if carbon dioxide were not a greenhouse gas.”
Note that last sentence please.
This article is even more blunt.
https://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/15166/20150615/climate-change-plants-choke-much-carbon.htm
(Cut and paste)
“… according to a study recently published in the journal Global Change Biology,
[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/gcb.12938]
which details how the plants in a number of very different ecosystems appear to actually suffer from too much atmospheric carbon.
Sample crops, grasslands, and forests all seemed to lose some ability to absorb nutrients when exposed to rising CO2 levels in large-scale field experiments held in eight countries across four continents.”
So excess CO2 is even worse than previously thought.
3 Years, actually.
I don’t understand what is meant with climate change! The climate has changed since year dot and always will. Can we not instead of talk about global warming?
No, because the isn’t any new in that either. The globe has warmed and cooled in periods through times,,, again nothing new…
Hi John, I’ll just cut you off there to address this important point you raise.
When people talk about climate change they are almost always referring to human caused global warming which is the result of human activity raising the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is mainly caused by the burning of fossil fuels. This is occurring very rapidly compared to the usual natural variation in the earth’s climate. The World Health Organization estimates the effects of human caused global warming may result in perhaps 5 million excess deaths between 2030 and 2050:
https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/134014/9789241507691_eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
On the bright side, since the rapid increase in global temperature that has been occurring in recent history is the result of human behavior, by changing our behavior we can limit its effects.
Hi Ronald, thanks for your comment. The WHO estimate,,, yes estimate, not fact. There is NO evidence that the less than the one degree global warming in the last century is caused by human activity. It is difficult for me to think that all our activity hasn’t caused any effect on the climate, but there is no evidence. In science, we need a control, where is the control? do we have a similar planet to compare with? I am all for renewable energy but not in panic about global warming. If anyone is concerned then they should think about reducing the global population. When I started school there were 3 billion people on earth not it is about 9 billion, and that is the real pollution.
Cheers and keep up you work and good humor.
john nielsen, Silkwood.
For most people, the fact we don’t have a spare earth to use as a control makes us more concerned about global warming.
“There is NO evidence that the less than the one degree global warming in the last century is caused by human activity.”
On the other hand there is NO evidence to say that it’s not caused (either in whole or in part) by human activity. Many deniers say “So what, the climate has changed in the past”. True, but none, that I can find have seen such a large change over such a short period of time, and the fact that there HAS been climate change in the past is evidence (not proof) of an increased likelihood that we have climate change happening right now, whether anthropogenic or not. Further, at no time in the past has there been (as you point out) such a large number of people being affected.
“There is NO evidence that the less than the one degree global warming in the last century is caused by human activity.”
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
John Nielsen,
You say:
“There is NO evidence that the less than the one degree global warming in the last century is caused by human activity.”
John, are you a climate change scientist? Many climate change scientists would disagree with you. Here’s what NASA says about evidence on “Climate Change: How Do We Know?”:
“The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.[1]
Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.
The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.[2] Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.”
See: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
The “Full Mauna Loa CO2 record” is here:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html
You also say:
“If anyone is concerned then they should think about reducing the global population.”
IMO, it’s an issue that continues to be ignored. But, if humanity doesn’t take rapid, effective action to reduce and eliminate GHG emissions by 2050, then there’s a high probability that dangerous climate change will catastrophically reduce the global human population within this century. It’s one way of reducing the population, but I wouldn’t recommend it. See my comment above:
https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/climate-change-vote-election/#comment-444055
You also say this:
“When I started school there were 3 billion people on earth not it is about 9 billion, and that is the real pollution.”
Current global population is around 7.7 billion (as at May 2019) – not 9 billion.
See: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
Our civilization is faced with ten mega-threats: climate change, human population growth, food insecurity, ecosystem destruction, resource depletion, threat of nuclear war, uncontrolled technology and artificial intelligence, global poisoning, pandemic diseases and, above all, the self-delusion that we can somehow escape the consequences of our actions.
See: https://australia21.org.au/survival-matters/#.XOTfzlIzbIU
I am disappointed in the inappropriate offensive vocabulary in the article.
I stopped reading the Renew Economy thing, when its publishers turned it into an offensive publication and ignored complaints about its offensive nature.
It is a shame for this Solar Quotes blog, which is supposed to be about clean energy, apparently heading in the same direction.
It does not bode well, for us who promote clean energy.
Whilst I doubt that I would be missed, it damages the reputation of people who try to do the right thing, and, it degrades the cause to the same level as the rednecks promoting coal mining and burning coal.
Hi Bret,
I’m sorry that the language on the blog has ratcheted up a notch recently.
Both Ronald & I are getting crankier as we age and angrier as we see things that are upsetting and put innocent people in mortal danger.
But I hear what you are saying – we’ll try to keep our language mostly out of the gutter – and get back to mostly focussing on solar tech as it relates to Australians.
At least until the next election 🙂
I sincerely hope you don’t abandon the good ship SQ – you would be missed.
Cheers,
Finn
You also forgot the heating effects of lighting fires inside your car, and lots of carbon dioxide and light absorbing particulate matter in the cars atmosphere …. with the windows/doors fully sealed.
Just read that The Greens will be gifted around $9 mil for their recent performance:
Greens 2019: $9,010,400 Greens 2016: $2,293,400
Almost $7 mil extra this time… .
Is it likely their intention to sift through our remains may not be such a priority next time around; or will this Lotto win renew their enthusiasm?
Watching Chris Bowen on the ABC News this morning, Bowen referred to the LNP’s false scare tactics re Labor’s Death Tax intentions. In fact, the LNP’s smear worked. Many of us who imagined a hung parliament, in which The Greens might exercise leverage, considered the possibility that the Tomb Raiders might actually pull-off this grave-robbing stunt… .
After repeatedly (and unsuccessfully) attempting to contact our local Green candidate, we relegated them well below Labor in the House of Reps… and second to Labor in The Senate.
There were several reasons Labor lost the election, but The Greens’ possible influence in disinheriting our children, may have been a deciding factor for many… as it was for us… .
“Just read that The Greens will be gifted around $9 mil for their recent performance:
Greens 2019: $9,010,400 Greens 2016: $2,293,400”
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-21/pauline-hanson-clive-palmer-greens-election-taxpayer-funding/11131196
You conveniently neglect to mention the other recipients of this largess.
Party 2019 estimate Increase from 2016
Coalition $33,096,300 $5,448,700
Labor $27,004,800 $3,813,100
Greens $9,010,400 $2,293,400
One Nation $3,033,400 $1,288,000
United Australia Party $656,100 $656,100
Katter’s Australian Party $197,700 $38,400
Centre Alliance $131,500 -$1,113,800
Shooters, Fishers and Farmers $89,800 $72,000
Jacquie Lambie Network $85,900 $11,900
Christian Democratic Party $84,900 -$204,100
Liberal Democrats $63,900 $14,700
Victorian Socialists $41,800 $41,800
Reason Australia $15,600 $9,100
Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party $14,400 -$566,800
Animal Justice Party $12,300 -$22,200
Australia First Party $12,300 $12,300
HEMP $15,000 $8,400
Nothing ‘convenient’ about it, Joe.
My intent is to alert those likely to vote for The Greens that Death Taxes remain a key component of their manifesto.
I’ll do so at every opportunity, until this policy is _removed_ from The Greens’ platform. (Not ‘put-on-hold’ for the 2019 campaign, as it was this time… once the backlash hit.)
While Ronald views The Greens as “…less cunning…” than other parties, this abbottesque sleight-of-hand is less than inspiring. We’ve ceased support and donations to _all_ green causes, until the party drops this grave-robbing, politics-of-envy policy _permanently_. Yes, we let _them_ know, too.
“re Labor’s Death Tax intentions”
I see nothing in your post about “Green’s Death Taxes”, only the “false smear” about LABOR’s death taxes.
You say “in which The Greens might exercise leverage” – MIGHT – Your imagination is running wild. You should perhaps have a look at this link, https://greens.org.au/policies
and show us WHERE the Green’s have a “death tax”.
Otherwise just have cup of tea and a good lie down.
This may be of interest…
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/20/false-election-claims-spark-push-for-truth-in-political-advertising-laws
I think another election should be called by the Governor general.
“..show us WHERE the Green’s have a “death tax”.
Yeah… I’ll do that. I’ll give you direct quotes from their state and federal representatives, if you like. Can even give you the recent history… .*
I’d understand if they’ve already removed or ‘redacted’ the policy.
Smart move.
Re. Labor’s claim that the LNP smear hurt them… Labor had no Death Tax policy. The LNP knew this was ‘guilt by association’. Worked as well as Mediscare.
* Take a Bex and a cuppa while I respond… . 🙂
Hardly know where to start… so much info here. (Did you think I _imagined_ this Green policy, Joe?!)
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/drive/greens-abandon-death-tax-policy/10946236
Note that “…the party has decided to abandon the policy for the 2019 campaign.”
“”There has been a number of media outlets reporting on Julian Burnside’s support of Greens policies to address extreme, intergenerational wealth being passed down untaxed – but ‘death duties’ or ‘estate taxes’ are not a policy we are bringing to this election… (and) …We’re deeply concerned with the intergenerational inequality that allows the very wealthy to avoid paying their fair share of tax, while asking the rest of us to foot the bill for the difference…”
Note that: “‘death duties’ or ‘estate taxes’ are not a policy we are bringing to this election… ”
OK, have a lot more here… but that oughta do for now, but:
1.) Remember that:” Greens supporters are concentrated in the highest socio-economic quintiles with 31% of Greens supporters in the highest socio economic AB quintile in 2018…” Recent Morgan Poll
2.) The Greens are “…deeply concerned with intergenerational inequality…”
3.) “‘death duties’ or ‘estate taxes’ are not a policy we (they) are bringing to _this_ election… ”
4.) The Greens have decided to abandon the policy _for the 2019 campaign_”
I think we’d all accept that most parties attempt to sugar-coat their dogma… or reduce anxiety about their intent.
All we requested was that our local Greens candidate would represent us if elected. We’re still awaiting a response from that candidate… . Difficult for her, of course, as candidates have to toe the party line… .
Well, if you can’t trust the _actual words_ of the state and federal Greens, who responded to my emails (I’ve quoted them, directly) who can you believe, Joseph?
I’ve chosen not to name them OR the Green candidate we attempted to contact.
You’re correct that this divisive gen-wars policy has been removed. They’d be fools to resurrect Death Taxes, given the number of us who would be considered rich by other Aussies. I suspect the backlash other worthy green causes are now suffering is now being communicated to The Greens.
I was saddened to read Timothy’s comment above: “My daughter would not talk to me yesterday blaming my generation for fucking up her future.” Contrast that with a comment to us from our Seattle-based son, who is no longer able to vote in Australia: “Good on you for voting against your own interests because the liberals suck. Labor really needs to get their messaging right, and maybe not do so much all at once. A lot of regular Australians probably felt like they were going to be hit, even if they weren’t. Oh well.”
Gen-wars aren’t new, of course. Back in ’69 The Animals put it quite well:
“It’s a hard world to get a break in, all the good things have been taken.”
It’s difficult to feel any real guilt because I’ve been part of that third of Green voters who constitute the highest socio-economic quintile, or because my great-great grandfather was a small cog in the industrial revolution. Original sin? Sins of the fathers?*
* You bit _that_ apple, or did you tempt Eve?! 🙂
Speaking of “imagination” – I see in today’s news that, like the Green’s “Death Tax”, the Coalition’s “tax cuts” are “imaginary”.
“Hardly know where to start…”
That’s obvious.
https://greens.org.au/policies
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/drive/greens-abandon-death-tax-policy/10946236
How easy is it to confuse these two links?
For those who want some actual and factual data, which summarises the historical record of Australian temperatures over a very lengthy period, and
expresses it simply this link at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-27/extreme-heat-events-increasing-in-duration-frequency-bom-report/7965650
is extremely useful.
The BOM (Bureau of Meterology) doesn’t attempt to attribute ’causes’, it simply details ‘these are the facts’ information based on recorded data weather data.
For those so inclined, they can go to the BOM site and download the more detailed report, which will explain how they analysed the figures, what regression method they used to arrive at ‘trends’, what the margin of error is, the ‘confidence level’ of the regression analysis etc. .
It’s worth the effort to do both the above, as you’ll then have some factual information on which you can begin to derive your own conclusions from, and then relate that to other information both now and in the future..
Climate change is only one part of it. We should not forget about the polluted air we are forced to breathe in. So regardless of the cause of climate change there are other important aspects to it.
A friend of mine is reading a book, it is a true story, it relates to the paddles steamers, on the Murray River & Murray Darling Basin, Back in the early 1900s the river would dry up, and would stay dry, sometimes at a two year stretch. Then it would rain again and the paddle steamers would re float and everything would be normal again. This event happened every so many years, There was NO CLIMATE CHANGE to blame back then, the weather is cyclic. As the brain washers would have us believe, its CLIMATE CHANGE…
And when that happened the government would restrict pumping of water for irrigation and the Murray would start to flow again.
Ray just out of curiosity do you have a Solar company by any chance?
Yes i do why does that matter. ?? Just because I do not believe in the HOAX called climate change, anyway if you want to reply to me Stewart Im happy to faciliatate any questions that you have.
Ray Meeuwisse,
You say:
“…I do not believe in the HOAX called climate change…”
Hoax meaning:
1. noun: a humorous or malicious deception;
2. verb: trick or deceive (someone).
Ray, are you suggesting various scientific organisations in Australia and around the world, and the probably hundreds of thousands of people within these organisations and in climate change research/inquiry are engaging in a huge deception? IMO, that would be a preposterous notion. It would only take a few people to ‘spill the beans’ – do you see that happening, Ray? Do you think all these people are all stupid/”simpletons”, or worse – malicious, Ray?
Ray, has it occurred to you that, like the well-funded tobacco industry that wilfully and vigorously deceived and misinformed the public for decades by saying tobacco products weren’t detrimental to health, the even better-funded fossil fuel industry is perhaps also engaging in a campaign of misinformation and deception to delay for as long as possible the transition away from fossil fuel use? IMO, the fossil fuel industry is on a nice little earner here and they don’t want that to end any time soon, so they’ll use any trickery to maintain the status quo. That’s where I think the deception is originating from, and it seems to me you have been duped by their apparently carefully crafted and long-running campaign of misinformation, deception and duplicity.
Below is a link to a YouTube video of an event (that I attended) sponsored by Engineers Australia in 2016, titled “The Big Conversation: Our climate and energy dilemma – the case for emergency action”.
Beginning from time interval 0:29:15 is the best graphical presentation I’ve seen so far of tracking our CO2 in our atmosphere.
Beginning from time interval 0:34:30 is David Hood introducing eminent speaker, Ian Dunlop. I recommend you view Ian’s presentation – that’s if you haven’t got a wilfully closed/ignorant mind to new information.
Beginning from time interval 1:35:30 is the panel discussion, followed by a brief Q&A with the audience.
Hi Geoff Miell, The UN & UNFCCC, and Al Gore, only have one thing in common, and that is, HOW MUCH WEALTH THEY CAN BUILD, FOR THEMSELVES, with the climate change, brain washing machine. If we really want to become serious about all this climate B.S. then we need to have the largest polluters, in the world, to cease and desist immediatley…
The United States, Australia, and Canada are the three developed nations with the highest emissions per capita.
Ray Meeuwisse (Re your comment at May 23, 2019 at 1:11 pm),
You keep repeating a mantra that “I do not believe in the HOAX called climate change”, and “all this climate B.S”, and it’s apparently a great big conspiracy by the “UN & UNFCCC, and Al Gore” to build wealth for themselves. But I observe that you offer no proof/evidence/data – we just take your word for it, do we Ray?
Yet you clearly reject the overwhelming scientific evidence that humanity is the major contributor to the observed global warming record since pre-industrial age. Apparently, all the scientists involved in studying various multiple lines of inquiry are all in on the “HOAX” (capitals no less) – have I characterized your “beliefs” correctly, Ray? Apparently NASA (and many other scientific organisations too) must be in on the “HOAX”, eh Ray? Have you really thought about how preposterous that notion is, Ray?
And you apparently dismiss the notion that the very well-funded fossil fuel industry “is perhaps … engaging in a campaign of misinformation and deception to delay for as long as possible the transition away from fossil fuel use”. They couldn’t possibly be in it for the money/profit, unlike as you say the “UN & UNFCCC, and Al Gore” apparently are, eh Ray? How absurd is that?
As for your comment:
“If we really want to become serious about all this climate B.S. then we need to have the largest polluters, in the world, to cease and desist immediatley…”
Australia is one of them – a major carbon emissions contributor (in both absolute and per capita terms) – what Australia does matters. Please see my comment above:
https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/climate-change-vote-election/#comment-442815
Below is a YouTube video of Neil deGrasse Tyson scolding cherry picking of climate science. What will it take for you, Ray, (and apparently many other climate change science deniers) to wake-up to the overwhelming scientific evidence? Will your descendants (if you have any) pay the ultimate price for your wilful ignorance, eh Ray? That’s what’s a stake – do you care, Ray?
“Just because I do not believe in the HOAX called climate change,”
The problem you face is that what you BELIEVE is utterly irrelevant. Science does not require faith. Many people used to believe that the Sun went around the Earth – but that belief was utterly shattered by science.
Like religion, I feel that people can hold whatever beliefs they like – as long as they don’t try and force them onto other people.
What’s your thoughts on the 1969 landing on the moon by NASA? Is that a HOAX too?
Climate has and does vary naturally. Of course it does. Who is arguing that it doesn’t? Anyone? Can you name someone who says it doesn’t? The problem is, humans have made the earth significantly warmer what it would be, regardless of natural variation, by increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mainly through burning fossil fuels.
OK then.So now I can now put away my solar powered mower and bring out the old 2 stroke Victa from the back of the shed. 10 to 1 petrol, sump oil and coal dust mix and go for it. Do my bit for the fossil fuel industry. I live in central Queensland so my labor green vote is irrelevant.
For the benefit of those new to the ‘climate change’ debate, here’s the link to a summary booklet published in 2015 by the Australian Union of Scientists regarding the subject.
https://www.science.org.au/learning/general-audience/science-booklets-0/science-climate-change
It provides a general picture of the world-wide situation, then links that to the Australian situation.
One often not fully appreciated aspect is that Australian commerce and industry operate in an international environment. ‘Climate change’ related extreme weather events in OTHER countries can end-up severely disrupting the entire economy of those countries.
That in turn can have major flow-on effects for their international supply chains of products and components of all kinds, including firms in Australia that import those seemingly ‘unrelated to climate change’ items. There is much more at stake than simply food crops.
If people are demonstrating or even rioting in the streets because of food shortages or very high food prices, then obviously they are not at their normal day job, and other stuff is not being manufactured either.
“There is much more at stake than simply food crops. ”
https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2019-05-15/australia-approves-grain-imports/11113320
Australia will be importing wheat from Canada thanks in part to a drought in the Eastern States linked to climate change.
“”Due to the worst drought in 116 years, high protein wheat is in short supply which is critical to the Shoalhaven Starches wheat-processing plant,” Manildra Group said.”