Discussion in 'Australia, NZ, Pacific' started by garry17, Oct 8, 2019.
Isn't the point that the fire was started by arson? And it was the activists who started it?
No the thread is on Extinction Rebellion and Australia looks like being even worse than the US at keeping up with its responsibilities.
sorry, I didn't notice what you were replying to. Do you have evidence that one person or more deliberately started this catastrophe?
I was horrified when I looked at the extent to which G20 countries are not following their commitments to the Paris agreement - and it, it is already known, will not be sufficient for us to be able to maintain life as we know it.
It is not just Australia which is experiencing exceptional weather at the moment - and these fires are exceptional being the worse ever, raging on lands suffering from years of draught and coming I hear before the bush fire season even begins.
In the UK the North of England is suffering floods.
In the US extreme cold.
The big question is why are our Governments not acting with sanity.
Seems part of the answer comes from the cries from the 'far right' that the climate emergency is a desire for socialism. My Gosh. Well there does seem to be some twisted truth in this. Neo Liberal Capitalism is dead. It died in 2008 though this has not been acknowledged and those benefiting from it appear to be trying to get the last drops out of it.
Here's the thing. At the moment we appear to have a choice. There is 4 trillion dollars of assets invested in carbon production. The choice is this. We let that continue and the world burns and life ends or we give that up and that money and indeed Capitalism becomes worthless. The first person I heard saying this was Paul Mason but I checked and he is correct that this information came, not from some socialist, but from the boss of the Bank of England.
We really do need to start thinking anew.
Thinking needs a brain, the right wingers want to become richer (many people actually want that) and are the modern creator of fear. You can have the best ideas, however if they cost money, forget it.....
Jobs, jobs, jobs, money and more money, mining rules our nation....
Some very interesting contributions but let us ignore the embellishment in the field.
1. It is not a case that people don’t believe in climate change… Just because they do not believe or accept the cause and affect being made does not automatically mean they oppose the science of climate change.
2. No matter what direction is taken, change will be expensive, will not happen overnight and will not make the acclaimed political changes. That is to say, projection is supposed to be (now) 3 degrees increase, yet if man can cut it’s 1% emissions contribution to the planet it will cut the increase by almost half. Flat out wrong…
So we argue about these very points of matter, understandable. However, the point I am questioning (and others do) is public disobedience and violent protests promoting destructive action in many areas.
Alexa, makes interesting points but the point has been raised that this strategy of protest has potential to create disdain for the message that is being pushed while possibly promoting people to (as stated) demonstrate the results being claimed, lighting bushfires.
I think everybody agrees that when people die, property burns and dangerous situations occur. That when they hear somebody lit those fires they call for huge penalties. So why would even the most ardent climate group be calling for caution???
People talk about comparing to women’s suffragette, in isolation this would be true. BUT we talk about climate crisis by one group, animal cruelty by another, human rights and so on. You have to stop driving about, using coal energy, eating meat, punishing crime and so on. Don’t people stop and think, people don’t like change??? Just what issue is the greatest???
Isn't the issue here, people are getting sick of all the protesting???
Minimising climate change or pretending it is not man made all fit denying.
Yes it will be expensive but we waste money on things like giving subsidies to fossil fuel. I admit I have not looked too much into the expense as yet. What little I know is that regarding money stopping us working to save the planet -well it may be from the point of those supporting the 0.01% but all that is needed is the will of Governments who are supposed to be serving the people. That requires people be educated as to what the situation really is and why XR ask Governments to 'Tell the Truth'. Labour, if they are elected, intend on working on getting things in order by 2030. Your money will be no use to you in the future you appear to be supporting. Renewables are the cheapest once going. They can be up and running within 2-5 years. Problem is your Government has its head in the sand and its hand out to fossil fuel bribes and is among the very worst in the world at working on this problem. In 2014 you were outed as the worse
I saw a list of where countries are at the moment in putting in their fair share of work. If I remember correctly the ones who are working the hardest and reducing their emissions are India, Russia, Japan and China (regardless of it still being with the US the two worst polluters)
Countries like the EU come in the middle and even the UK who likes to boast it is the best is not on target of 1.5.
The worst countries are yourselves, Saudi Arabia and I think the US. Unfortunately cannot find the paper but that is roughly what I can remember.
It really is a big WAKE UP! I don't believe anyone would genuinely want to do this to themselves and children being born today, so it must be ignorance....there does seem though that there is another reason and that is the one that has resulted in us far from reducing our emissions since we knew what a dire situation we were in in the 8O's, massively increasing them and that is the belief that it will not happen 'in my lifetime'. Too late. There is no one under 70 who is not going to experience drastic change and just how bad that is going to be depends on what we are doing now.
I understand Australia has a history of neglect of the environment. You apparently are responsible for more extinctions than anyone else.
I do not know where you get the idea of projection being 3 degrees and for when it is but I have read scientists saying that if we stay as we are we will be at 8 degrees by 2100 - end of life on earth. Indeed many believe a 4degree rise will be the end of life on earth. You may not be aware but more and more scientists are believing the situation is hopeless. We are entering near time human extinction. We may have a chance if we manage to get our Governments moving pronto. We may be able to keep our societies working fairly much as they are now, certainly in some areas. If we do not it will be the end of civilisation as we know it. That is just the first phase. After that we probably could make changes and still save the planet. From when we first heard about this in 1770 right up to around 2000, we had the opportunity to make changes which would still allow us a good standard of living. We chose against. There is nothing now which will allow our children to live as we did. That is over. All that is in question now is how bad things are going to get. That is our choice. It always has been.
Here are some graphs on the temperature situation
XR is totally against violent activity so you are most certainly not talking about them here,
The strategies used by XR are ones which after much study they have found to be the most effective. They have already had a massive effect. Yes, people may be disturbed but a little disturbance is irrelevant to the ability to have a future. Anyone who only thinks of their own immediate needs or wants may have a good neo liberal personality but is not what will save the planet.
Pretending it is XR activists starting bush fires is just the norm of the extreme right. I have been following your fires. While the police are definitely investigating some fires believing they could have been started deliberately. They were not started by XR. To suggest that is malicious gossip by climate denyiers.
You with the rest of the world have until 2030 to make sufficient change to allow those who come after you to have similar opportunities to that which you have done. I would suggest those who complain have a death wish and are working for ecoside.
I noticed a few days ago that New Zealand has made a legally binding commitment to net zero Carbon emissions by 2050
May's commitment to 2050 almost certainly came as a result of the actions of XR in the UK.
How legally binding all this is though is questionable certainly in the UK. The UK was doing as well as it needed to until cuts from the 2010 coalition government for renewables, going on to engaging in fracking and designs to build new airports. Further in his short time in office Johnson has removed money for climate needs and put it into other things. There is a strong belief in some quarters that if he gets a majority Government the UK will be joining the US and Australia and we can say goodbye to the earth.
Scotland is claiming it will be at net zero emissions by 2045. All of that is a good beginning if carried through. However there is one big problem in it. It is not enough. The IPCC says we need to be at net zero by 2030.
It should be remembered that to date outcomes have always been worse than the IPCC's worse predictions.
We need also to find a way of reducing the effects of the carbon gasses in our atmosphere which are currently reducing the effect of all the damage we have done but will eventually hit even if we reduce our emissions to zero. This is called 'masking'. Work is going on to find the solution. It is estimated that the cost of this will be astronomical. Some people have suggested we get the fossil fuel trillionaires to fund it.
So making a commitment to net zero carbon emissions by 2045 or 2050 is very much a step in the right direction but it is not enough. If we want life as we know it to continue on earth then we need to get this done by 2030. In addition to this we need to find away to deal with the emissions hiding in our atmosphere.
Many people have described what is needed is the same commitment as countries had when faced with a world war. The reality is we are facing the same possibility - our destruction.
The Labour Party of the UK is I think the one party in the world who is taking this on at the level which is needed. They have pledged to do everything they can to get the UK down to net zero by 2030. We are however all in this together. It requires us all to work on this.
Sadly the majority of people still seem to be sleeping. Thar is why XR is trying to wake people up.
This is a recent video By Roger Hallam co founder of Extinction Rebellion. It is anything but a professional video but gets a bit better after the beginning. He is talking about hypocrisy and Extinction Rebellion and don't be put off joining because of your past. At first I thought this was because of all the right wingers wanting to know if people still use their cars, an argument which has never had an effect on me but I am not sure if he is talking about people being or scared of joining Extinction Rebellion in case they are accused of that. It seems to have begun when he met or was speaking to an American who was rich and famous and who wanted to be involved but felt possibly people would see him as a hypocrite.
What is interesting if you listen is that he is most certainly describing the character of XR to be what is called Snowflake by the Far right though he mentions neither them nor that word. He does however see that as the strength of XR and it was interesting listening. Paul Mason says he is proud to be called a snowflake but listening to this I really did hear for the first time the poignant difference between the psychology of the far right and in this case XR
So if I don't agree with YOU I am denying climate change??? That is exactly my point, this is factually incorrect...
We could argue about the rebates you point at, (subsidies) and the costs, however, that would clearly just enter your dwelling of idealistic utopia. Clearly you are trying to suggest that nobody will have to pay because the government can.
Renewables are cheapest once it is set up??? Listen, it is abundantly clear your arguing the idealist line devoid of reality.
You saw a paper, I saw a paper and frankly neither agree. China, Doing the most??? Was that paper a Chinese paper???
Oh I see, you just want to insult… Was thinking you wanted to discuss the issues but clearly that is not the case.
Oh 8 degrees, 3 degrees, And I heard the co-chair of the latest UN climate crisis meeting stating such figures. I don’t care where you want to claim your figures are from, the point clearly overshot your narrow vision.
Gee your old, you first heard about it in 1770…
You’re not listening are you???
So which crisis should the world be listening to first???The one YOU think or the one the other group of human rightists think???
Clearly, you don’t listen to discussion. Nobody has suggested that XR are lighting fires. The question is are they being used as motive to light fires. Considering 80% of Australian bush fires appear to be lit by man the question has validity.
I would also suggest that trying to associate bushfires to climate change as being definitive evidence of climate change is also malicious gossip and far more damaging,..
Don’t waffle crap. Perhaps you could tell us just how many deaths you willing to cause with your policies and demands before your happy??? At what level do you believe people should live to accept your little utopia
I see the new tactic is to flood social medai with any message, be it right or wrong to support the XR message. Again, just as many climate activists are saying, such only turns people away from the message.
No, it is abundantly clear you're arguing the Conservative/status quo line devoid of vision.
Technically, we are now close to achieving harvesting of sun, wind, pumped hydro (and only if required nuclear) in sufficient quantities to transit to a global clean green economy.
This transition can begin right now at the fastest rate technically possible, on a job for job basis, ie, as coal/oil jobs are eliminated, they can be directly transferred to the required infrastructure build, in many cases with minimal retraining required (and the remediation and salvaging of fossil energy plants will be a huge industry in itself, which will in itself release considerable resources required for the transition).
Your status quo view IS the problem.
The transition will represent the largest engineering/infrastructure project ever made by humans.... and when it is completed (in say 3 decades, if allotted prime project status) will indeed enrich the global community immeasurably, as the costs of the "fuel" required to generate energy approach zero, and the costs of remediation due to poisoned ecologies are eliminated (whether climate or environmental degradation caused by burning expensive filthy fossil fuels is the issue).
Note: the COST of transition is related to availability of resources, not availability of 'finance'.....see MMT.
I gave you a like for the "Don't waffle crap"
In fact government can fund the transition, because the resources are available.
Unfortunately you are just spouting the ignorant "where's the money coming from?" view that is currently enforcing austerity policies all around the globe (ie governments cutting back on public services, because we can't "afford" them...)
In fact we have a wonderful opportunity to eliminate all involuntary un-and underemployment globally (during the transition), as part of a scheme to transit employment from filthy fossil to clean green jobs, since the transition will require 'all hands on deck' in every country.
The Australian continent is the driest on the planet (that's why there are only 25 million people on a continent the size of the USA).
Bush fires have always been part of the environment. Since European settlement in 1788 there have been many devastating bushfires. In recent years arson appears to be a growing part of the problem, but your 80% figure is ......waffle.
Nevertheless, average temperatures appear to rising in Australia, along with more severe droughts ( according to meteorologists); and obviously this will increase the frequency of more devastating bushfires.
At this point you might be advised to look in the mirror....
It has absolutely nothing to do with whether you agree with me or not. What I said was
We are living at the moment in a climate emergency which it is believed we still have a small window within which we can stabilise things and save life on earth. Clearly minimising that is denying it. Both minimising it and not recognising it is man made deny the ability to make appropriate changes so that our children will have somewhere to live. It is you who are incorrect in your understanding.
Of course this was not what I was talking about. I acknowledged in that post that the police believed that some of the fires were deliberately started. My argument was against you trying to blame this on XR activists when doing such a thing is totally against their non violent position.
You appear to be retuning to your Government denying that they were associated with climate change. I had already put in a link concerning this in post 24
In addition we have the reality that these are the worst fires you have ever witnessed - though the severity has been growing through the years and I hear your official fire season has not yet really begun.
You can see on this link what the people of Sydney woke up to this morning.
No. At this point in time Police have identified a number of fires as having been started by children/teenagers. The rest most likely by adult arsonists/pyromaniacs. One was started by some loser trying to 'back burn' and protect his illicit marijuana crop. Political motives aren't an issue, setting fire to the bush is the antithesis of most climate change activist ideologies.
So again, IF I don't agree with you I am denying. I think it is something extrodinary to say, man can manipulate nature to suite themselves...
Nah, saying it is cheaper once you pay for it is clearly idealist.
Yeah, isn't that nice??? The world is currently enforcing Austerity measures because money is abundant. I notice that the nations who are claimed to be the best at this climate policy are the nations who are making austerity policies. I wonder, is there a correlation???
Government cannot fund transition because government doesn’t have any money. They gather and spend the money they get from the public. But I notice you willing to suggest that “government can find it, so you don’t have to pay” Talk about ignorance.
and there is the lie. There has been no increase in bushfires due to natural causes. Claiming that fires that are fuelled by increased dry resources (because of the policies of not being able to manage land as necessary) as being any indication of climate change is what makes the majority turn away from the entire issue. As stated by the government themselves, 80% of bushfires are caused by man…
Nah, still the same…
Some, I consider 80% (from government statistics) little more than ‘SOME’.
Again, not blaming XR for anything except existence and rhetoric. However, As states, politicians and people who proclaim civil disobedience as being good, should consider that ramifications of how this could be used in such a manner. I also point out (as many in the climate activism realm also state) that this type of issue needs to have support of the people and that such activities and rhetoric actually works against bringing the people along.
Nothing to do with the issues raised but will say, the claim of increased bushfires as any indication of climate change is flat out lie. Just as the water management in Australia has left a lot to be desired so too has rural policy which is created and managed by people who have never seen what rural Australia actually is.
But hey, only those Coogee bay, latte sipping greenies have the rural sector in mind. Those people who rely heavily on rural sector to provide the coffee beans for their lattes are just rich profit seeking destroyers, we get it…
The worst fires I have witnessed??? Actually, no, but I am talking personal experience so cannot speak for other areas. Apparently the only measure that has exceeded past events is the size of destruction. We had this last Brisbane floods that record breaking floods that only breach monitory value that when compared to past be relatively less.
Yes, and if it doesn’t happen in Sydney, it doesn’t happen. Dust storm hits Sydney and the world is ending. Forget just over the hills they experience dust storms regularly. Nothing about the rest of the nation who have been witness it for quarter of the year. When poor farming practices have people burning stubble off paddocks.
Your close. as in the OP, one of the Victorian Ash Wednesday was lit by a person who stated, it because his girlfriend slept around. While some people may use the movement as some motive proclaiming the rhetoric of trying to make people feel the inconvenience (real nuts), the proclamation by Australian politicians that it should be OK, or excusable to commit some civil disobedience as long as the cause is great enough should be chastised.
When Rhetoric opens to excuse anything, there is a certain amount of people who then consider it right to impress their ideal of what that excuse is. Just as Dav said, he didn’t consider the outcome… And his motives had nothing to do with climate, activism or anything associated but he still lit a devastating fire…
I couldn't help myself...
so many people trying to derail the thread by building strawmen...
Well, clearly not...sunshine is free....so let's look at the real issues re funding/cost of the transition.
There's your first mistake. The world is currently enforcing austerity because governments were forced into indebtedness to bail out the financial sector casino (fancy derivative trades) during the GFC, to avoid a repeat of the Great Depression. (AKA privatising the gains and socialising the losses).
Examples please....but no need, read on....
I used the word ignorance first, so I guess I need to point you in the right direction....
You like most are fooled by the current financing arrangements associated with our free market, "invisible hand" competitive, neoliberal economic system, in which government must raise revenue from the private sector via taxes or bonds.
But other arrangements are possible, eg, national governments can raise funds directly through their currency issuing capacity. In effect they can complement private sector activity eg during a downturn, to ensure continuous sustainable utilisation of available resources including labour, at stable prices - since in a downturn there are unused resources available.
That's your introduction to MMT. You should be hearing about it in the mainstream media soon; central bank governors are becoming aware of it, as are all tertiary macroeconomics faculties.
[There is an almighty fight going on in academia, but Keynes recognised that old ways of thinking are very difficult to change, as he noted in the preface to his famous work (in 1935): General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money].
eg, here is a recent article by professor John Harvey refuting orthodox economists such as Krugman, Summers and Rogoff:
So governments can indeed 'create money", just as private banks currently do (when they write loans to credit worthy customers; the money does not need to come from deposits). The only constraint to money creation is the availability of resources, whether associated with creation of consumer goods in the private sector, or in provision of infrastructure in the public sector.
Think about that for a while, and you will understand the lie about government austerity, bearing in mind the purely profit-driven private sector alone cannot necessarily achieve the resource usage required in all circumstances.
eg re climate change: if the scientists are correct, governments will simply have to supplant large sections of private sector activity, as required, eg by non-market mechanisms to produce the solar/wind farms and pumped hydro required for a zero emissions economy.
In any case, environmental degradation and negative health effects due to chronic exposure to poisonous particulates (eg in high traffic areas) associated with the filthy fossil industry calls for a transition to clean green.
Nevertheless, av. temperatures have risen by 1 degree in the last 50 years (as shown in the graph linked in my previous post, and several November temp records (maxima) have been broken this past week.
No lie there.
So are some of the climate activists so...
Yet temperature rate of rise has noticeably slowed while CO2 rise hasn’t. The hysteria time and again is based on a computer model and the worst case, least likely model at that.
As are we all to some degree, no?
Separate names with a comma.