Well, we've had the debate over whether it was ethical for Julia Gillard's Labor government to instigate a carbon tax after she declared that no government she formed would bring in a carbon tax, and we've heard that regardless they're going to implement it anyway, even if the majority of Australian are against it!
We've heard the climate scientists talk about the future devastating outcomes of a changing climate and we've heard the climate change skeptics disagree, the conclusion now generally accepted is that there is evidence to suggest that climate change has occurred because of human impact upon nature and future prospects for the planet are not good.
We've heard that we have a moral imperative to do something about this, if not for us then for our grand-children and that each one of us can play a part no matter how small.
We've heard that big businesses who produce the most carbon emissions will have to pay and even though they'll undoubtedly pass this cost onto consumers, the government will soften the blow by compensating households so that they will not bear the brunt of this action.
We've heard that in the long run we'll all be better of with renewable energies, but no one has yet told us how.
With all the discussion on the television and in the media about the carbon tax, carbon emissions and climate change, no one will openly discuss how any of this is going to make world-wide impact when we know that China and India are producing 500 times the carbon pollution that we currently do and that they will continue to do so even if we implement strategies to fight against global warming and climate change.
Isn't the government's proposal rather like spitting in the ocean?
Look, I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, all I wish is that a decent debate be conducted so that we all know what's really behind this proposed change in economic/social policy before it occurs. Is there some way that we can use the power of the people to demand that we be consulted on this issue?
We've heard the climate scientists talk about the future devastating outcomes of a changing climate and we've heard the climate change skeptics disagree, the conclusion now generally accepted is that there is evidence to suggest that climate change has occurred because of human impact upon nature and future prospects for the planet are not good.
We've heard that we have a moral imperative to do something about this, if not for us then for our grand-children and that each one of us can play a part no matter how small.
We've heard that big businesses who produce the most carbon emissions will have to pay and even though they'll undoubtedly pass this cost onto consumers, the government will soften the blow by compensating households so that they will not bear the brunt of this action.
We've heard that in the long run we'll all be better of with renewable energies, but no one has yet told us how.
With all the discussion on the television and in the media about the carbon tax, carbon emissions and climate change, no one will openly discuss how any of this is going to make world-wide impact when we know that China and India are producing 500 times the carbon pollution that we currently do and that they will continue to do so even if we implement strategies to fight against global warming and climate change.
Isn't the government's proposal rather like spitting in the ocean?
Look, I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, all I wish is that a decent debate be conducted so that we all know what's really behind this proposed change in economic/social policy before it occurs. Is there some way that we can use the power of the people to demand that we be consulted on this issue?
Google is eating comments again. This is my fifth attempt.
ReplyDeleteConsultations like the one you call for are elections, and in the 2010 federal elections the Australian Green Party, which has various policies to tax polluters available for scrutiny, saw an overall increase in its vote of around ten percent, enough to deliver it the balance of power in Australia's Senate, and significantly a member in the Australian House of Representatives, which is evenly divided between the ALP and Liberal/National coalition. The ALP formed government with the support of Green's MHR Adam Bandt.
ReplyDeleteThe price of power, for Labour, was the adoption of a policy, the carbon tax, which Labour didn't really want.
There is a consultative body called the Climate Commission, which exists to explain policy on climate change. If you organise enough people in your 'hood it will hold a public meeting, at which the aims and objectives of the legislation will be explained and discussed. Alternatively, individuals can obtain the plain language versions of policy and background from the climate commission. Alternatively, getting in touch with the ALP, Liberals and Green parties, attending their forums and so forth will acquaint you with the issues. Alternatively, Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery has written several books on the history of the Australian climate, as has radical sceptic Ian Plimer. Australian Catholic Archbishop george Pell also writes on the subject, from the point of view of theology.
I think Australia should have an election to decided whether to bring in a carbon tax (a tax on everything). Lets see Gillard survive that one.
ReplyDelete"With all the discussion on the television and in the media about the carbon tax, carbon emissions and climate change"
ReplyDeleteUm, I hate to tell you this but virtually every country in the world has dropped the issue. Only Australia is still talking about climate change. When I read Australian news and blogs its like Oz is stuck in 2008. For the rest of the world this is a dead topic.
Cheers
Steve - Sorry Google is eating comments but persistence wins out. Thanks for info, but really, I just want to do what Anonymous has said 'drop the issue' for I was one that was never convinced about so called climate change.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous (1) - I worry about JG's ability to survive another election, selling out is not something I thought she'd do.
Anonymous (2) I feel Australia is stuck in the 1950s, let alone 2008.
There was consensus here on the issue until the big mining companies found they could sway public opinion against action to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions involving expense to them by spending a trifle on TV advertisements. Those advertisements brought down one Prime Minister and two opposition leaders. One of Australia's biggest mining moguls has just purchased 10% of a television network, which immediately scheduled television programs pushing the ideas expressed in this post.
ReplyDeleteRight now the government-in-waiting plans to take seventeen billion dollars from government spending for mitigation, rather than get the miners to pay for it. The money will come from social welfare programs, which are generally viewed by Australians as a waste.
With respect to difficulties I had posting comments from my Google account, I believe there is some setting or other on the account that is causing problems for me. Will look into that.
ReplyDeleteAt 9.52 am my son Erin sent me the following email in response to this blog post:
ReplyDeleteI love statistics to prove an argument however incorrect. This does not prove
anything but is an interesting statistic.
Australia is listed as the worlds 15th most carbon polluting country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
yet we are the listed as the worlds 13th biggest economy by GDP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29
If we look at our carbon emissions vs our GDP then we are ahead of any other country
for our efficiency of GDP vs carbon output.
However, I realize that if you looked at our population vs carbon output it wouldn't
look so good. No one seems to take into account our land size and transport requirements and the
fuel taken to travel our big land.
If Australia's states were broken up into separate countries, would there be such a
big issue with our meagre 1.35% of worlds carbon dioxide output?
Divide that by 7 states and territories and then we have about 0.1928% of worlds
total output per each state. I realise that's not quite how it works. If each State
of Australia was its own country would anyone be saying anything about 0.1928% of
worlds total output? I don't think so.
I realise that the statistics listed above have been misinterpreted to put across my
point, however somewhat right or wrong. It's a bit like this whole climate debate
and the effects of a carbon emissions trading scheme, a whole lot of misinformation
being passed around.
The fact of the matter is that if world population continues to rise, even with
greater efficiency of our transport, manufacturing and power generation systems,
carbon output is going to increase above current levels.
The only way to prevent this is to have a massive change in the way humans live on
this world. A carbon emissions trading scheme won't change the worlds overall carbon
output, however it will increase the cost of living for everyone.
Its highly likely, if not absolutely certain, that one day in the future, the world
will run out of coal, oil and gas. What will we do then? Governments need to plan
for this situation! Which is something that a Carbon emissions trading scheme does
not do at all. I wish the governments of the world would just admit that they have
no idea how to deal with the situation.
And, at 10.25 sent me another one - here it is:
ReplyDeleteIf we look at waste in our society we would come to the root cause of our carbon
emissions problem.
There seems to me to be two major causes.
Firstly there is just too much cheap stuff. The cheap stuff does not last as long and so needs to be thrown out because it breaks faster. This applies to cars, electronics, clothes and even kitchen crockery.
Once upon a time stuff was built to last. The lure of cheap stuff is too strong for most of us to resist. The cheap stuff killed off our local manufacturing - which made the quality stuff!
Now that our quality stuff is gone, we need to buy thrice as much cheap stuff. This negates the financial saving in the first place. Buying three times as much cheap stuff adds three times if not more carbon output.
There is another problem. The "quality" stuff these days is not really the same "quality" as it was 20 years ago. Quality stuff of yore was actual quality, and was built to last 20 + years. Quality stuff of today is built to last about 5 years at most. All this cheap stuff has made it harder for the quality stuff to be genuine
quality, unfortunately here we come to the second cause. Human desire fed by advertising makes us want the 'latest' toy. Even if our stuff lasted for 20 years, electronics companies conspire to give us a "slightly" better picture and sound
every 3 years, so that we must keep upgrading to the newest model. Causing more carbon output. Where does the old model go? Usually to the tip! The electronics companies could quite easily have given us the 'studio' quality equipment 10 years
ago, but they chose not to, as if we had the studio quality picture and sound, delivered to us on a genuinely 'quality' TV and audio system that lasts for 20 years, then they won't be able to sell you another one for 20 years! This interferes
with their business model.
Humans have a complex psychology which renders us relatively powerless against advertising, because even if we "ignore the ad" our peers still buy the latest gadget or fashion, and we are subjected to the "new" thing anyway. We get used to the "new thing" and then we want it for ourselves. It's human nature. The big companies with their advertising, creating artificial desire, have more to do with the worlds carbon output than individuals themselves.
Erin, I take your point, but some would argue that commodities are produced cheaply to keep people employed and, or, so that we can can exchange goods that other countries produce, such as those produced in China. Indeed, I was only having a conversation with a woman in the tram this morning about how a 3 year old mobile phone is considered 'old', whereas people my age consider things to be 'old' when they no longer work - not when they are out of fashion. Maybe part of the problem is generational - my generation runs on the maximum 'make do', we don't necessarily need the 'new' just for the sake of having the new. I would also argue with you, in that, although I agree that human beings have a complex psychology, I believe that they are capable of discriminating and have a free will to purchase or not to purchase articles advertised. And, just to be humorous, isn't that what the remote is for? We don't have to watch adds on the TV and most of us are savvy enough not to play into advertising that uses 'sexy' imagery to try and seduce us into purchasing things we don't really want or need. However, having said all of that, I agree with your overall premise, which is, that in order to reduce carbon emissions we must consider human behavior and in particular the amount of waste generated.
ReplyDeleteOf course we all have free will as individuals, but the problem of mass media consumer culture is that if it is advertised enough, people buy it. Perhaps not you or I, but there is enough people owning the newest gadget to prove the idea, and the companies that continue to advertise, wouldnt do it unless they saw the reward in sales.
ReplyDeleteYou are right of course. I suppose the 'follow the leader gene' is alive and healthy in many individuals and over-rides any free will they might have had to resist temptation to purchase things that others have.
ReplyDeleteSo what is the difference, then, between being big and being great? Great enough to abandon consumerism might be one part of an answer.
ReplyDelete