muso wrote on Oct 19^th, 2011 at 7:06am:



As with everything else in the international domain, this issue would have been addressed effectively a long time ago if it was up to the democracies to make a decision among themselves and act on it. There are no issues of substance that the developed democracies have not been able to tackle effectively among themselves in the past half century. There is extraordinary cooperation on every level even as there is competition. 

The problem is that we have to include the Chinas, Indias, Vietnams and Indonesians of the world and pretend that they are not corrupt and that they have the same outlook as the democracies. This stupid pretence will mean that we will not do anything effective about reducing CO2 but will transfer billions of dollars to these corrupt countries as if that payment did anything environmentally positive. It is a gigantic con in this sense. The corrupt crooks alone will benefit from the well-meaning environmental concerns of people in the west.

ANd then, of course, there are the entirely malvolent forces in the west who want nothing more than to nobble the west in every possible way, AWG being merely the prétexte du jour.

Soren wrote on Oct 21^st, 2011 at 12:43pm:


You might be surprised. China is going ahead in leaps and bounds.  They will eventually end up selling some of the renewable technology to Australia. China already has enough renewable energy to power Australia several times over.

oh yeah?? so Soren.......
Which River would you say is ripe for this??   Hmmm?

Ridiculous!!  We don't have the geography to use hydro effectively. Our rivers are too old, and the land itself too old - ie flat!. for hydro-electric power to be viable. Unless you want to try Tasmania.  And that ain't going to happen.  Nor should it.
Been there decades ago.  Didn't  get the go-ahead then, and won't now.

Dream on fruit loop!

Emma wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2011 at 1:31am:



This is what I mean, Muso, the environment is a political issue for the hordes of mongs, cadres and chancers. And so it is turned into a political issue for all of us. Even if the science was really agreed upon, the politics of the environment is framed in 19th century class war terms, both nationally and internationally.

Agreeing with the 'science' has become an agreement with the loud and unhinged alarmists and screamers who want to use the environment for far wider societal transformation. One is immediatly co-opted for their purposes, whether one likes it or not.

Not entirely but to a large extent this is the continuation of the class war by other means. The sticking point in th entire AGW debate are about politics and the economy (political economy, in other words), not environmentl science.

oh ... and I do agree with you Muso - 'The problem is one of balance.  .......................[i]In terms of risk, the global and regional issues for the next century far outweigh the local.  [/i]'  
Well OK - but individuals need to be engaged, and that can BEST BEGIN locally. Balance requires that LOCAL is as important as regional or global.

'We still need to manage the local and regional issues, but with a holistic viewpoint.
Some tough decisions will need to be made.' - Muso

Oh yes indeed -  tough decisions do need to made. It is the people that make these decisions that concern me. Because the focus is not on long term outcomes, but short term gains.

I'd say my local council was hell-bent on development , with only lip-service to environmental concerns.  The amount of land clearing continues at a startling pace, with two new 'cities' to be in place , in the next 10-20 yrs, and it's underway now. !!
I live in a rural village, which, due to it's closeness to jobs,  is being overrun with housing developments. The infrastructure is rural. Patchy attempts to improve local roads is a good example of the effort put into supporting this proposed increase of 20,000+ people. The work was long overdue anyway, but only got done when more city folk moved out here.


The local POWER - provider-    'supposedly' ..ENERGEX  ...intend to extend a line through more than 5 river crossings - towers etc. ! But the river has recently received a 'fail' in a healthy waterways survey  - locals - council and activist groups are attempting to prevent the rape of the river by Energex, BUT, it seems power co.s are a power answerable only to themselves.  And this 'option' is still deemed to be the 'cheapest'. (MY input) This option is still their unequivocally stated best  choice.!!  

BUT- its NOT good for the river, or the future. If this sort of blindness is allowed to continue - forget about the global focus -
because the battlegrounds are in our own localities. WE are important - Not Energex and THEIR PROJECTED PROFITS.  
If you are interested in this particular LOCAL fight - happening right now, against energy providers- in defense of crucial habitat -   check out VETO.
REGION  -  SEQ  - the LOGAN RIVER.!!

Soren wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2011 at 10:41am:


Take one false premise and you could claim just about anything.  However, I read that post as the usual rabble rousing rather than anything of significance. I would never stoop to such levels as to tease Jalane.  

Get out of it.!

But seriously folks - if people don't care about their own 'backyard' ..they're not going to care about the wider issue.

Which is ???  

10 points out of 10 if you say the 'environment'.

Like the old saying goes  "Look after the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves".

Clear enough??