My flabber is well and truly gasted!! The Federal Government has totally abdicated it's leadership role in forming a climate action policy. I'm disgusted and disillusioned and I'm making plans to leave this planet ASAP. Anyone willing to accompany me? Have a look at these media responses to the policy launch speech yesterday: http://wotnews.com.au/news/climate_change/
ALP's Climate Inaction Policy is a Joke of the Highest Order!
(35 posts) (12 voices)-
Tweedledum & tweedledee are back in business. Or should that be back in inaction.
We already have community consensus on what needs to happen, what we don't have is a leader who will make it happen.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2962349.htm
Some good comments.
Posted Friday 23 Jul 2010 @ 9:48:29 pm from IP # -
swanning_it
MemberI'm disappointed we've had to put up with a disasterous Labor Gov't and STILL failed to achieve any meaningful positive change on renewable energy production (in fact I believe we actually gained negative change), but I fear no government will make any real positive change whilst we still foster the belief that Australia needs to continue to export coal, oil and uranium as fast as we can dig it out of the ground, to bolster our trade balance.
Where's the spending to foster not just a credible renewable energy market, but a world-leading R&D centre to position Australia to capitalise on future developments? Why do most people with a reasonable idea, have to fight tooth and nail overseas for venture capital?
Posted Friday 23 Jul 2010 @ 11:45:54 pm from IP # -
CunningPlansDept
MemberOne potential positive
http://www.auses.org.au/category/solar-flagship/Posted Saturday 24 Jul 2010 @ 9:55:57 am from IP # -
chorrylan
Memberre: One potential positive http://www.auses.org.au/category/solar-flagship/
umm didn't they just rip 220 million out of that to pay for the trade-in-a-rustbucket scheme? (very disappointing)
Posted Tuesday 27 Jul 2010 @ 1:05:10 pm from IP # -
Frateco
MemberThere is no doubt that we will see little action from either party. You saw how the mining tax caused such a reaction that no party will ever penalised the resources nor the big polluters again.
Whether or not climate change is happening, it cannot be questioned that we will be in a better place if pollution is reduced and the environment is healthier. swanning_it is right ... why don't we have an R&D centre for sustainable solutions? Why is it so difficult to get any Government support?
The Greens have lost my respect sun2stream. Bob Brown has bitched & whinged about Labor's inaction yet now there's an election they give them the Green preference. How about the Greens standing up and having a real go at politics? Not give my vote to labor!!
Posted Tuesday 27 Jul 2010 @ 10:55:00 pm from IP # -
Frateco,
A preference deal is an unfortunately element as part of our election system. A preference deal however is just what it is: a deal to make recommendations on how the preferences flow from the election. Essentially it tells how to print the how to vote cards. It is in no way a coalition contract.And I prefer Greens preferences being given to the ALP than flowing to the Liberals.
Besides everybody has the right to (and should as Bob Brown said) decide on the preferences for him/herself.
Posted Tuesday 27 Jul 2010 @ 11:33:26 pm from IP # -
Buzzman
MemberFrateco
Apologies in advance, but it's time for a reality check....Bob Brown and the Greens operate in the political near-vacuum of Federal Parliament, within the existing framework of methods and procedures that form and enable govts....if they DON'T do a preference deal they run the risk that many less informed or less committed voters will find the whole Senate above-the-line/below-the-line thing 'too hard' and simply not vote for the Greens, which the Greens simply cannot afford to let happen.
Hence they are, by the nature of the beast, forced to make a deal with somoen that wil assist the Greens getting members elected.
Bob is himself on record as saying that he had nothing to do with the process (hmmmm...) and that it was done by the admin people andthat he personally hates the whole preference deals thing. This was on ABC tv a few nights ago.
He urged ALL voters, not just 'Greens' voters, to vote below the line and direct their preferences how each as an individual felt they should be directed.
Can't get much more honest than that.
Hypothetically, if the Green candidate you vote for did NOT get enough votes to get over the line, who would you RATHER got elected instead? The Labor candidate, or one of the Mad Monk's miserable cronies?
This is what "preferencing" means.
What it comes down to is not "who would you like to punish" but rather "which of the morons will do the LEAST damage".
Sad, but true.
And, for the record, Labor tried to get it's pretty badly compromised carbon trading scheme up and was knoicked back by the Senate. Frankly, I supported the Greens stance on this as the old CPRS legislation was a biut to 'business weighted'.
Labor has NOT given up on this policy PLATFORM, they have simply shelved the previously presented legislation that was unsuccessful. Recognising that there was a bit of dithering in the community, they have offered to hold a more representative 'people's assembly' in which to debate the issues of carbon trading and come up with a 'new' consensus that can form the basis of new legislation which will then go to the Parliament and the Senate.
Gillard, Wong and Plibersek have in recent days all confirmed they are still keen to get SOME kind of CPRS happening. But given the nature of the 'fear factor' are, understandably, unwilling to nail their colours to the mast with it as an election issue for fear that the Mad Monk's "Great Big New Tax" will scare off voters who otherwise might have voted Labor.
If you analyse the motives and the issues, it's quite easy to see where they are coming from and where they will go. We will get a CPRS but not until the 'assembly' gives the govt a 'mandate' they can hold up to the REST of the community and say 'see, this is what you asked for'.
But to ensure it is in some way better than the previous proposal the Greens will need to hold the balance of power.
Posted Tuesday 27 Jul 2010 @ 11:36:59 pm from IP # -
Perhaps the theme song for this election should be Geldof's Great Song of Indifference.
Quote:
"I don't care if the goverment falls, implements more futile laws
I don't care if the nation stalls, and I don't care at allI don't care if you tear down trees, I don't feel the hotter breeze
Sink in dust in dying seas, and I don't care at all"Posted Wednesday 28 Jul 2010 @ 12:15:11 am from IP # -
termite
MemberI have sometimes considered that if you complain about the quality of candidates then you need to stand for election yourself. This is true to the extent that we tend to get the quality of representation that we deserve (for example, the NSW electorate proved that it could be bought when it landed Bob Carr the job on the promise of refunded M4/M5 tolls).
However at a federal level, whatever our local member may be, we still need to effectively lobby the elected government, whichever side they turn out to be.
We have to stop speaking only to the already-converted, and try to turn those who disagree with us. We have to understand why people resist the call to sustainable living.
Case study:
My brother considers himself to be an "environmentalist", but isn't the brightest spark.Importantly, his unrelated fear of losing his job has been used by those who spread the scare tactic that 'replacing oil with renewable energy will cost jobs' (actually, it will do the opposite). He has also been convinced by a friend who worked at the ACF that anthropogenic global warming is a myth spread by people with a malicious desire to keep the world in poverty (ludicrous, but he's stubborn about it).
This attitude is common. I see it in blogs: the deniers who claim that climatologists are trying to frighten them. Well, I'm not frightened by science. I think one of the key differences between those who deny the need to replace fossil fuels and those who don't is the amount of fear they have (due to the subconscious feeling that they inherited their prosperity, didn't earn it, and couldn't replicate it if they had to start from scratch).
I think that the biggest thing we need to overcome in arguing for fossil fuel replacement is fear. The fear of losing jobs. The fear of a depressed economy (whatever that really means). The selfish fear of losing a profligate lifestyle. Get an effective argument, support it with examples (which is why Cuba is useful), and you might be able to weaken the hold that fear has on those who are easily led by it.
Posted Wednesday 28 Jul 2010 @ 1:06:58 am from IP # -
Thanks termite,
you've got a very good point.I also wander what I can do instead of only preaching to the converted. I have decided to give courses about solar cooking in my community. Not so much for the cooking as such, but more in order to show 'normal' people on a simple and nearly emotional (food) basis that there is sufficient energy around. We only need to use the right means to harvest it.
My apologies for side tracking. If there is more on this subject I will open a new thread.
Posted Wednesday 28 Jul 2010 @ 4:45:13 am from IP # -
IAEA,
Do you ask about the course or the solar cooking?
The course has no problems building cookers at night.
With solar cooking it depends.
- In some countries (like for instance Vanuatu) they don't eat hot food. Not everybody is as spoiled as we are.
- In most countries people may need to change their habits. This will be supported by substantial savings on money or labour and increased health.
- Stews, soups and similar can be kept hot in insulated containers.
- There are a few options to store the heat for instance in phase change materials and use it later (expensive).Posted Friday 30 Jul 2010 @ 1:23:55 pm from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
Member@termite
I always say to my kids: "the only reason why your're scared is because you do not know what will or could happen". To get rid of the fear you need to investigate what brought about the fear and obtain truthful information on how/what/when/if it will or could occur.
Our world is driven by popular headlines in the media, not necessarily truthful information, just information that sells. The government is the same, it is voted in according to its publicity, not its capability. The problem arises when the "uneducated" (nothing to do with government/college education!) act out of fear and vote for what all other "uneducated" are voting for, the most popular government.A democracy of the uneducated is always going to be a democracy of fear. It's about time we evolve and use a democracy that governs how/what/when WE do things, rather than installing puppets who we think might do something. After all governments are meant to govern, they are never productive (or produce products/services), and should only assist citizens to be productive. A government can't make a profit, anything it does should be to the peoples profit, not it's own And definitely not make profit for overseas companies who promoted the publicly elected party.
A CTS is nothing more than a tax on life, everything that lives produces carbon. We are carbon life forms. Sustainability is only achievable at the community level, individuals must re-learn to act with responsibility in their communities, must learn that we need each other as much as we need resources and we should source as much as possible locally.
The world we live in 'likes' to protect the rights of the individual, but if every individuals rights are protected who is going to protect the rights of the community? After all we can not survive alone no matter how many rights we have, and many of the rights we have come at the cost of others rights.
We live in a generation of I. IPhone, Myspace are all products of "I want" (preferably right now), and this mentality was the primary cause for the GFC, as people used easily obtainable debt to borrow from our collective future for their excessive consumption now.Maybe we should learn to be more effective at using available, renewable and community based sources of energy rather than industrializing and centralizing energy production so that corporations and governments can install meters to charge and tax people for life. How can research&development grants from government, which are by nature victims of global corporations and the growth of the economy as we know it (as was clearly the case when Rudd got sacked & BP in the gulf) act as if to benefit the countries citizens, if the purpose of such development, is to further increase the profits of corporations through centralization of resources. If corporations are allowed to financially install and support governments of their choice, via a media promoted public election, to feed the economic pseudo boom in order to protect their own interests, who will maintain the rights of the citizens of that democracy?
Posted Tuesday 3 Aug 2010 @ 10:07:45 am from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
Membersun2steam
If you are sincerely interested in what I mean I will gladly explain, we might have to stray away from the subjects normally covered by this forum, but I will try my best to clarify.A good place to start would be democracy and direct democracy (we have a representative democracy) on wiki, follow this up with fiat money on wiki. Check out 18th-19th century chapter for why money IS a bill or note. It is because it is owing (a bill) to anyone cashing it in, it is a note on behalf of our future tax obligations, which a PRIVATE company is only allowed to print bills for in the USA!
Then read corporations on wiki, especially the history, Mercantilism and the British East India Company.
Let me know how you go, question everything, assume nothing, the truth is out there...yes i'm an x-files fan
Posted Tuesday 3 Aug 2010 @ 1:58:55 pm from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
MemberHey sun2steam!
Es scheint dass Ich auch ein Landsmann binn...
How long have you been in AU?Posted Wednesday 4 Aug 2010 @ 4:22:03 pm from IP # -
termite
MemberJeffBloggs: Mankind is a political animal; in my experience, any talk of principle inevitably touches on politics and political systems. But then, I believe in the interconnectedness of everything... (apologies to Douglas Adams).
There was a very interesting Lateline Business segment last night: NZ managed to introduce an ETS, leveraged by a GST increase. The interesting element in my view is the way they investigated 'how to do it' and released progressive information to the public as they discussed it. This means that the electorate could be as well informed as the policymakers when it came to choosing the means to achieve the goal - and even what goal was desirable. If only our policymakers trusted the Australian population with the same sort of information.http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/business/items/201008/s2973766.htm
Posted Wednesday 4 Aug 2010 @ 11:55:24 pm from IP # -
jeffblogs,
Yes, I came from Germany 12 years ago. and this is most likely why the Australian election system looks so strange to me.Not only do we have here an absolute instead of a proportional election system. But you have to give a preferential vote even to your worst enemies. And if you have more than one candidate or party that you really detest, you cannot put both onto the last preference.
Policies (=election promises) are given in tiny bits. One for every day of the campaign; just like advents presents in Germany to children. For the non-Germans here: This is a habit to give children a tiny present each day from the first of December to Christmas to help them to get over the long waiting time. To me it looks like the Australian population is treated like kids. And the worst thing is: most like it! Because it is just a pork barreling competition. And everybody likes freebies. Except as I pay for it with my taxes, it is not really free.
would it not be good to have a party system that respects adults by presenting the complete set of policies at latest when the election has been called?
And most of the 'freebies' are not free. They are just moneys taken from cutting some other expenses. Like paying for the removal of old cars more than $200,000,000
And this money is ripped off from the budget that funds solar energy projects!For me there is only one party that is acceptable, and it is green.
Posted Thursday 5 Aug 2010 @ 3:17:51 am from IP # -
rsigmund
MemberUnless I have read this out of context....
"A CTS is nothing more than a tax on life, everything that lives produces carbon. We are carbon life forms. Sustainability is only achievable at the community level, individuals must re-learn to act with responsibility in their communities, must learn that we need each other as much as we need resources and we should source as much as possible locally."
There is lots scientifically wrong in this statement...
"everything that lives produces carbon"
NO - nearly all of the carbon on this planet is thought to come from the stars...
NO - 'produces carbon' not 'carbon' and not 'all'... Much if not all of the animal world oxidises hydrocarbons to CO2 - Much of the plant world fixes Co2 into more complex molecules taking it out of the air
"A CTS is nothing more than a tax on life"
NO - Where to start? A Carbon Trading System is a market based mechanism or attempt to price CO2 emissions. CO2 emissions are increasing global average temperatures. The Literature describes many species thought to have become extinct due to rising temperatures... No its more like tariff protection for life….
Some of the other things you said seem like common sense to me - but just seems like you heard some CTS rubbish through the media and did not do your homework...
Posted Thursday 5 Aug 2010 @ 5:01:33 am from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
MemberTermite
I saw it as well, and at least it is a trading scheme and not a carbon tax scam like the CPRS.Being in the commercial renewable industry myself, I can only imagine a "open carbon market" to actually work in the long term. An ETS allows for both ends of the "environmental candle" to be burned at the same time, by allowing polluters to pay for pollution and non-polluters and renewables to benefit in proportion to each other, without any meddling and diverting by government. We must continue to try, to find a way to live sustainably, if we want to have a prosperous future.
Everyone seems to be getting on the green/environmental bandwagon, but not all for the same reasons. Corporations are making money from the environment. Governments are desperately trying to cope with globalization and international fiat money markets. At the moment I believe they are not creating any solutions, only plugging holes to avoid being on watch when it blows. This "global climate" is without precedent in human history, and likewise there is no real experience/evidence to confirm anybodies theories on how to go about resolving the problems. Historically multiple nations/continents where only governed under empires/kingdoms with very strong leadership (or dictatorship) and mostly under the threat of war and sanctions to hold the citizens in check. War and economic pressures (trade embargoes and even trade agreements) are still used, but the governments have found a new weapon of fear...the environment. It is one they can use to threaten us anywhere on the planet and for anytime into the foreseeable future. I believe the reason for this is that the role of government has been changed from one "for the people" to one "of a few people". The difference is, as Tony appropriately pointed out the other day, (BTW I am not a believer of the Liberal Party either) the current Government is more concerned with itself and its image (and it's corporate support engine), rather than with its constituents and Nation. What started this whole election?...miners? If this is the case then the Government is in danger of becoming illegal itself, under the constitution and Habeas corpus, through the position of the Queen in our government.
We have to get the idea of a "good" centralized government that looks after our individual interests, out of our head, and learn that WE are the government. That means we are all equally responsible and capable of bringing about change for the better. I strongly believe that sustainability is not just energy related phenomenon, it is also a social inadequacy. In fact global warming is purely a social problem, that can only be solved by individuals acting together in a community. We are the polluters through consumption and we no longer have communities of sustainable sizes. We have become centralized, industrialized, monopolised and individualized. There can be no survival in one. Humanity is a combined effort.
Just to finish up on my rant, there is a classic German saying that goes: "Nobody cares about me! Only I care about me!". This is the typical picture worldwide, we need to care about each other more than ourselves, this is the sacrifice life demands to be equitable. Doesn't anyone want to love/be loved anymore?
...The other thing I noticed with the NZ ETS was they increased the GST to curb consumer spending and over-borrowing, and at the same time decrease income tax. This will mean more productivity through less personal tax and people consuming more of what they "need", at least for the short term until inflation catches up. Hopefully this will introduce some real savings into the NZ money market instead of worthless paper bills. Tax is a strange system when it penalizes productivity and yet benefits consumption, who's products are we meant to consume then, if we produce none?
Sun2steam
I completely agree with your position regarding policy announcements and the government treating us as children. But I must add to that, we a treated so because that is how most voters act (myself included!). Respect is a commodity that is earned and not given.Posted Thursday 5 Aug 2010 @ 5:51:11 am from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
Memberrsigmund
Context is key. The subject of this thread is: "ALP's Climate Inaction Policy is a Joke of the Highest Order"In regards to CTS I meant it in relation to the ALP proposed CPRS as this is the subject of the thread. I agree that there is a difference as I explained in my last post above.
In regards to carbon and the science to prove its origin:
you state "NO - nearly all of the carbon on this planet is THOUGHT to come from the stars..." since when is thought, or the belief in another persons theories considered evidence of the truth?Your other comment is: "NO - 'produces carbon' not 'carbon' and not 'all'... Much if not all of the animal world oxidises hydrocarbons to CO2 - Much of the plant world fixes Co2 into more complex molecules taking it out of the air"
Firstly that is completely wrong, unless of course you consume fossil fuel... hydrocarbons is what you produce out the other end in the form of methane..;) sometimes it comes out the top end to...(burp!)
Animals predominately consume carbohydrates (CHO), not hydrocarbons (CH), and oxidize these to carbon dioxide and water (vapour) through respiration.
chk this out: http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?mid=61Plants and animals live in symbionic cycle called the "carbon cycle" chk this link and picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle
Feel free to let the governments/corporations insert a meter in every part of this cycle to control life...they've already got a good stranglehold (pun intended)Plants emit carbon dioxide at night...
During daylight, plants are undergoing a process known as photosynthesis. Where the plants take up carbon dioxide and in the presence of light use it to manufacture carbohydrates or sugars (CHO). From these sugars they can manufacture all other organic molecules. A by-product of this reaction is oxygen, which is released by plants.However, all living things need to respire and the general equation for respiration says that glucose (Carbohydrates) and oxygen give carbon dioxide and water. Plants are also living and do respire. In the day time, they have sunlight and drive their energies into making food for themselves from carbon dioxide. At night, there is no sun, so, photosynthesis cannot work. However, the plants do have to respire and therefore produce CO2. I remember learning this in 8th grade.
The official biological "theory" (unproven but generally accepted perceivable truth) for life defines that the mass must have certain properties like:
Homeostasis (i'm hot(!) and sweat alot, therefore I stink)
Organization (I dream of getting my life in order, by organising everyone else's)
Metabolism (I breath, I eat)
Growth (after the first 20 years, I continue to eat, and grow horizontally)
Adaptation (if I were to believe in the theory of evolution, I mature to my environment)
Respond to stimuli (disagreement forces the truth)
Reproduction (the reason for life..ahemm I mean children of course!)Life...be in it! :p
(PS Pardon my lame attempts at humor, but it is a part of the subject of the thread)Posted Thursday 5 Aug 2010 @ 7:39:54 am from IP # -
termite
MemberEarlier, sun2steam wrote: "Besides everybody has the right to (and should as Bob Brown said) decide on the preferences for him/herself".
I take great delight in voting below the line for the upper house. The only trap is making sure I don't skip or repeat a number, or leave a box empty. Makes it a hassle for the counters.
As Heinlein wrote: "you may not know who to vote for, but it's highly likely you know who to put LAST".
Right now, I'm saddened by the cynicism of both parties' platforms, though Labor is the greater disappointment, given its tradition of environmental protection. The current crop of Labor politicians are lacking in conviction about anything. Even worker protection, their raison d'être, has been watered down (not that it affects me directly, it's just indicative of a lack of principle).
Sadly, this is what we asked for. By being unprincipled ourselves, we ensure that those of principle will fail to be preselected or even elected, unless the candidate is exceptional (usually a high-quality independent).
Can we form a union with NZ and use their government?
Posted Thursday 5 Aug 2010 @ 11:53:10 pm from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
MemberI'd vote to secede WA from the rest of Australia and join NZ any day
That way we can keep our mining profits to ourselves and live the good life.
Sweet as bro'...Posted Friday 6 Aug 2010 @ 1:19:05 am from IP # -
Buzzman
Membertermite
Missing a number or getting them out of sequence is what "exhausts" preferences.Essentially, if in numbering below the line you make a mistake and number two "4"s, then only down to your 3rd preference is counted and, if necessary, re-distributed.
Your ballot paper then goes to the "exhausted" pile and takes no further part in the count.
By the same token, if, by some inadvertent mischance, you placed two "2"s in a couple of boxes, then only your 1st preference would be counted, and your ballot would then exhaust with no further re-distribution possible.
So if you DON'T want this to happen, it is important that you carefully and sequentially number all the boxes.
....Or not, as the case may be..!!!!
But it IS vital that EVERY box has a number in it, or the vote/ballot paper is declared "informal" and is NOT counted at all, and you wouldn't want THAT to happen....!!
...or would you..????
Posted Friday 6 Aug 2010 @ 2:26:31 am from IP # -
rsigmund
MemberJeffbloggs
So you are arguing that plants produce CO2?
Plants emit CO2 at stages of their life cycle of which nearly 100% came from the atmosphere (and that is the important bit) and when they decompose some large percentage will be released (still some stored in the soil etc). But to simply say that plants (or all life) produce CO2 or ‘carbon’ in the context of CTS -as you first stated - is at best misinformation.
CTS/CPRS
I would agree to something like this: CPRS proposed by labor with massive subsidies and the ability to buy unlimited permits overseas which does not limit Co2 emissions is not in the general interest of the biosphere…
Carbohydrates/ Hydrocarbons
Yes specifically respiration involves Carbohydrates as opposed to Hydrocarbons but if you know chemistry you would realise that Carbohydrates are a type of Hydrocarbon
Posted Friday 6 Aug 2010 @ 3:27:40 am from IP # -
termite
MemberActually, Buzzman, it depends on whether preferential voting is mandatory or optional. It is my understanding that in a Federal election, it is mandatory. In which case, any error invalidates the entire vote (bummer).
At a state level, it depends on the state. In NSW, preferential voting is optional, in which case your scenario holds and the vote is exhausted at the first error or omission. I've been a scrutineer (not a counter) at NSW state elections; I know the rules. At state level, a 1 (or even a tick) in one box and 'X' in each of the others is valid, as it clearly indicates the first choice. However, it is more likely to be exhausted. Number them all sequentially, folks!Jeffbloggs - rsigmund is right; plants may sometimes release CO2 at night, but this is overwhelmed by photosynthesis during daytime. Otherwise they wouldn't store carbon. Building your house with a timber frame and floor, and timber furniture sequesters carbon. House construction can be made carbon-neutral or even carbon-negative if trees are used and trees regrown on the source site - but only if you wait till the new trees have recaptured any carbon released by construction, which can take many years. And yes, carbohydrates (such as sugar) are hydrocarbons - they're fuels, just not fossil fuels.
Actually, we must remember that 3/4 of the Earth's surface is ocean. Phytoplankton is potentially a bigger consumer of CO2 than land-based plants. I have heard that if the balance tips over too much to warming, that the resulting algal blooms will deposit the next layer of sediment that will eventually turn into oil... millions of years down the track. It wouldn't be much fun for us in the meantime, though.Posted Friday 6 Aug 2010 @ 4:28:27 am from IP # -
Jeffbloggs
Memberrsigmund
Just like they're both a type of molecule? I disagree, hydrocarbons only have carbon and hydrogen molecules, carbohydrates have carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. They are quite different.Plants and animals and humans are part of the carbon cycle. They do not add or diminish the mass of carbon on the planet. Carbon dioxide (or carbon and oxygen) is a part of that cycle of life, the problem is that it "supposedly" causes global warming when carbon is captured in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Please read this so I don't have to post common knowledge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon
CPRS/CTS:
You state: "I would agree to something like this: CPRS proposed by labor with massive subsidies and the ability to buy unlimited permits overseas which does not limit Co2 emissions is not in the general interest of the biosphere…"Does this mean you would support a Labour CPRS with massive subsidies, unlimited permits etc. regardless if it had any benefit to the biosphere/environment? Why?!? Are you getting paid to promote Labour on forums or something? (Sorry I couldn't resist
This is where I object to let life become dictated by government. By what government ability did a government create life? None. It would be foolish to let something that has no authority, apart from the authority we give it, determine how life should be controlled via a dead mans ideology, that we have construed to facilitate our uncontrolled and economy driven rape of the earths resources, without any consideration of the effects caused by these destructive human activities on the earths fragile ecology.
It would seem that the planet is responding and treating us humans for how we act, as if we were a virus, by raising its temperature to get rid of the vermin! Good luck trying to find a solution in a government party for that, the earth will not even shrug at a CPRS or CTS or whatever other acronym you want to throw at it, the solution is much deeper than that, its in our "human nature".Posted Friday 6 Aug 2010 @ 4:48:54 am from IP #
