Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 5
Send Topic Print
Other issues besides the "climate" debate (Read 5558 times)
Phemanderac
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male
Other issues besides the "climate" debate
Oct 3rd, 2013 at 8:16am
 
I have long been of the view that the only thing the ongoing debate about Climate Change (regardless of the "science") has been to close eyes/minds to the very real, present and easily observed ongoing degradation of our environment through continued pollution, thus, enabling industrial polluters (in particular) to keep raking in money, whilst destroying that which our species relies on for life.

Regardless of who eventually wins the AGW debate, the environment is still being trashed.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/environment/gaia-just-turned-40-and-she...

Back to top
 

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Other issues besides the "climate" debate
Reply #1 - Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:08am
 
There are many things that are being overlooked, however our Environmental regulators have a lot more power these days.  I gave an example in the Coal Generated power thread.

I like James Lovelock's Gaia Theory.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
ImSpartacus2
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6913
Re: Other issues besides the "climate" debate
Reply #2 - Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:21am
 
muso wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:08am:
There are many things that are being overlooked, however our Environmental regulators have a lot more power these days.  I gave an example in the Coal Generated power thread.

I like James Lovelock's Gaia Theory.

I can't accept this sorry. Environment regulators are a toothless tigers often stacked by former industry players. They're just there to give the rest of us a warm feeling inside that somethings being done.  The Mexican gulf spill, Fukashima and you say you have confidence in our regulatory system. Please!!!! You have any idea of the enormity of the disaster at Fukashima. How many of those do you think that we as a species and our planet can bear?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Other issues besides the "climate" debate
Reply #3 - Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:35am
 
ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:21am:
muso wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:08am:
There are many things that are being overlooked, however our Environmental regulators have a lot more power these days.  I gave an example in the Coal Generated power thread.

I like James Lovelock's Gaia Theory.

I can't accept this sorry. Environment regulators are a toothless tigers often stacked by former industry players. They're just there to give the rest of us a warm feeling inside that somethings being done.  The Mexican gulf spill, Fukashima and you say you have confidence in our regulatory system. Please!!!! You have any idea of the enormity of the disaster at Fukashima. How many of those do you think that we as a species and our planet can bear?


Now we're going to start a thread about Fukushima again. I don't see the point in that. It's a regional or even local issue, but let's leave it at that.

My comments on the Environmental Regulator come from working in Industry. I have noticed the tiger grow a few teeth in recent years (the last 10 years or so), although prior to that it was quite inept in most States except Victoria. 

The pressure on Hazardous Industry from the regulator is now enormous, but that's not necessarily from the environmental regulators.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Phemanderac
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male
Re: Other issues besides the "climate" debate
Reply #4 - Oct 3rd, 2013 at 10:03am
 
It seems to me that regardless of whether or not this particular tiger has teeth or not, rampant pollution continues in short.

It also seems, as per the OP that our ongoing AGW debate only serves one thing, big polluters do not have to take any significant action to curb their polluting. Hence whether the tiger has teeth or not, the polluting continues.

The other "message" to my mind is the oft overlooked/ignored or possibly just misunderstood idea that we live in a closed system, hence, ongoing destruction of said system will, at some stage, have a tipping point. That is a direct relationship to human interaction with our environment.

It seems to me wholly ironic the feet dragging that goes on in respect to making significant change all due to money. Once said tipping point is reached, no amount of money will fix that. I think it demonstrative of extreme short sightedness of our species, which is of course, contradictory of our overblown concept of ourselves being the paragon of animals.
Back to top
 

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Other issues besides the "climate" debate
Reply #5 - Oct 3rd, 2013 at 10:44am
 
Good post. Of course coming from industry, I know that discharge and emission licences are treated with a great deal of respect by Industry. I would have been hauled over the coals if I hadn't reported the most minor of excursions. Of course, the bigger the player, the more room for negotiation.

I don't believe that I was complicit with any serious environmental damage (apart from greenhouse gases) at any of the major industries I've worked for. In fact I have a clear conscience in that respect.

There is always a cost-benefit argument. Nothing we do in civilisation is totally risk free.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Ajax
Gold Member
*****
Offline


CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male
Re: Other issues besides the "climate" debate
Reply #6 - Oct 4th, 2013 at 10:23am
 
Hey Phemanderac

Carbon pricing will not stop corporations polluting our rivers, creeks and estuaries.

Or land fill or any other form of pollution.

All it will do is put a price on carbon dioxide and then it will depend on CO2 emissions continually rising for the market to stay healthy.

Now imagine if your super or other investments gets tied up in carbon credit derivatives and they suddenly have a bust.....????

muso you believe in gaia......??

that answers a lot of things................!!!!!!!
Back to top
 

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery &  prison" Regas Feraeos
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Other issues besides the "climate" debate
Reply #7 - Oct 4th, 2013 at 4:38pm
 
Ajax wrote on Oct 4th, 2013 at 10:23am:
Hey Phemanderac

Carbon pricing will not stop corporations polluting our rivers, creeks and estuaries.

Or land fill or any other form of pollution.

All it will do is put a price on carbon dioxide and then it will depend on CO2 emissions continually rising for the market to stay healthy.

Now imagine if your super or other investments gets tied up in carbon credit derivatives and they suddenly have a bust.....????

muso you believe in gaia......??

that answers a lot of things................!!!!!!!



Not the Greek God, but the Gaia Theory, formerly called the Gaia hypothesis.  It might have been controversial in its day, but a lot of people are now thinking that way.

Richard Lindzen's Iris effect would have been a Gaia type mechanism. You might have to do some reading on the Gaia effect. There is nothing mystical about it.

Who was it that brought up the claim that 150ppm carbon dioxide would be slow low that plants would die off? Well it's not absolutely true, because the world has been there on several occasions during a number of glaciations and plant and animal life survived.

At the same time, it has some truth in it. It's a kind of half truth. At low CO2 concentrations, some plants photosynthesise very slowly, but it obviously did not shut down completely because there were still some forests during the coldest part of the glaciation. There were also huge areas of desert.

So yes, the Earth does self regulate to some extent. James Lovelock wrote a sequel to his original book. Do you know what it was called?    - The Revenge of Gaia.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Ajax
Gold Member
*****
Offline


CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male
Re: Other issues besides the "climate" debate
Reply #8 - Oct 5th, 2013 at 10:46am
 
I remind you of how the greens where formed (their roots) and what they stand for.

Quote:
In their 1996 manifesto, The Greens, Bob Brown and Peter Singer identify the origins of the Australian greens movement in two strands..............................

The modern Greens party however had an earlier origin in the green bans applied by the Builders Labourers Federation in the 1970s in New South Wales.[24] Indeed the visit to Australia by the German activist Petra Kelly in 1977 was influential in the foundation of the German Greens.[25] The then leader of the BLF, Jack Mundey, was subsequently invited to conferences in Europe and North America. Mundey, a Communist Party official and candidate, who led the militant New South Wales Builders Labourers Federation, described himself as “an ecological Marxist”.[26] Speaking years after the Communist Party folded, and a New Left party failed to gain support beyond Trotskyist and anarchist groupings, Mundey prophesied that “in the future there is a possibility of … what I’d call a Green Red future of socialism”.[27] In addition to Marx and Engels, Mundey was influenced by the overpopulation jeremiad of Paul Ehrlich.[28]...............................

The Greens operate out of a set of ideological principles and beliefs that extend beyond the warm, cuddly environmentalism they wrap themselves in.[29] While “environmentalism” lies at the core of the Greens’ ideology, their policies, if ever enacted, would radically change the economic and social culture of Australia.......................................

John Black has analysed Green voters over a series of elections. In a recent report, he categorises Green voters.[31] First, those who vote Green as their primary vote:

This is the Don’s Party group that used to be in the ALP in the sixties and seventies: young university students or graduates, frequently working or still studying in academia, no kids, often gay, arts and drama type degrees or architecture where they specialise is designing environmentally friendly suburbs, agnostic or atheist, often US or Canadian refugees from capitalism, but well paid in professional consulting or media jobs.[32]

These groups swung more heavily to the Greens in 2010:

They were led by arts, media or architectural graduate twenty-somethings, atheists and agnostics, Kiwis, the highly mobile university student groups, gays and the Green family group, which is a professional or admin consulting couple with one child attending expensive private schools.[33].............................................

Many descriptions could be applied to the Greens, but none seems more accurate than Jack Mundey’s own description of “ecological Marxism”, which sums up the two core beliefs of the Greens. First, the environment or the ecology is to be placed before all else. This is spelt out in the first principle in the Greens Global Charter, to which the Australian Greens are subscribers: “We acknowledge that human beings are part of the natural world and we respect the specific values of all forms of life, including non-human species.”[34]

Second, the Greens are Marxist in their philosophy, and display the same totalitarian tendencies of all previous forms of Marxism as a political movement. By totalitarian, I mean the subordination of the individual in the impulse to rid society of all elements that, in the eyes of the adherent, mar its perfection........................................ ....

Let me expand. According to the Greens’ ideology, human dignity is neither inherent nor absolute, but relative.[35] Humans are only one species amongst others. As Brown and Singer write: “We hold that the dominant ethic is indefensible because it focuses only on human beings and on human beings who are living now, leaving out the interests of others who are not of our species, or not of our generation.”[36] Elsewhere, they equate humans with animals:

The revolutionary element in Green ethics is its challenge to us to see ourselves in universal terms ... I must take into account the interests of others, on the same footing as my own. This is true, whether these others are Victorians or Queenslanders, Australians or Rwandans, or even the nonhuman animals whose habitat is destroyed when a forest is destroyed.[37]

What is revolutionary about this statement is not that the interests of another should be considered in an ethical judgment. Judeo-Christian belief extols consideration of others, as does Kant’s Golden Rule. Burke wrote of society being a compact across generations. What is revolutionary is the equation of humans and animals.

Peter Singer expands these notions in his other works on animal liberation. He charges that humans are guilty of “speciesism”, that is, preferring their own species over all others.
It leads him to argue in favour of infanticide and doctor-assisted suicide on one hand; and bestiality on the other, provided there is mutual consent![
38]

Peter Singer’s influence is evident in the Greens’ ideology. The author of a series of books, including Animal Liberation, Singer not only co-authored the Greens’ manifesto with Bob Brown, but stood as a candidate for the party in the Kooyong in 1994, and subsequently as a Senate candidate.[39]

Read more here
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2011/1/the-greens-agenda-in-their-own-...
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 5th, 2013 at 1:21pm by Ajax »  

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery &  prison" Regas Feraeos
 
IP Logged
 
Phemanderac
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male
Re: Other issues besides the "climate" debate
Reply #9 - Oct 5th, 2013 at 5:07pm
 
Ajax wrote on Oct 4th, 2013 at 10:23am:
Hey Phemanderac

Carbon pricing will not stop corporations polluting our rivers, creeks and estuaries.

Or land fill or any other form of pollution.

All it will do is put a price on carbon dioxide and then it will depend on CO2 emissions continually rising for the market to stay healthy.

Now imagine if your super or other investments gets tied up in carbon credit derivatives and they suddenly have a bust.....????

muso you believe in gaia......??

that answers a lot of things................!!!!!!!



Um I don't think at any point have I indicated anything about carbon pricing. In point of fact, my entire driver in this thread was to look at the far more obvious reality that if we continue to pollute then there will be a tipping point. Will that be carbon, will it be climate related or simply just slow poisoning? I make no claim.

The simple reality is that debates about AGW, global warming and/or carbon pricing in effect change nothing. Just a lot of hot air (see what I did there?) amounting to no significant positive change.

We do live in a closed environment.

Consequently it is base stupidity and gross ignorance to continue soiling it. Worse still is the delicate balancing act that life (in general) plays in a somewhat hostile Universe. Bottom line, if we get this wrong, which to my mind we are excelling at (getting it wrong) then we won't get an option b, in short there is no PLANet B.....

By all means argue about a tax if you like, if it makes you feel better, but, bare in mind, it is our species that is the single worst destroyer of the natural environment.

Back to top
 

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..
 
IP Logged
 
Phemanderac
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male
Re: Other issues besides the "climate" debate
Reply #10 - Oct 5th, 2013 at 5:13pm
 
Sorry too mate, Quadrant is just a wee bit too ideologically based for me to have any confidence in it.

Just being up front with you. I think the point that Singer (who I don't totally agree with) is making, by the way, is that there are more than enough humans on the planet, so a few dying off won't be that cataclysmic in the big picture. If that equates to arguing in favour of infanticide (which actually occurs in nature) or the other charges so be it. Bottom line is, and the argument that Quadrant appears to be opposed to is the idea that we (humans) are simply animals. Tough break, but we are just that, animals and apart from our own over inflated egos telling us otherwise, we are no better, worse, more or less important than other species. Yet, we behave otherwise.

Back to top
 

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..
 
IP Logged
 
Innocent bystander
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4220
Gender: male
Re: Other issues besides the "climate" debate
Reply #11 - Oct 5th, 2013 at 6:04pm
 
Big polluters LOL, there are no big polluters, just lots of little ones some of which try to assuage their guilt by claiming their are big polluters  Grin
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Phemanderac
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male
Re: Other issues besides the "climate" debate
Reply #12 - Oct 6th, 2013 at 7:46am
 
Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 6:04pm:
Big polluters LOL, there are no big polluters, just lots of little ones some of which try to assuage their guilt by claiming their are big polluters  Grin


LOL, wrong.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-15-worst-companies-for-the-environment-200...

At least the "guilt" part was partly correct.

What was particularly disturbing here is the number of "big" polluters who go to great lengths to mislead the public into the false belief that they are not big polluters and are actually environmental protectors.

A great demonstration of guilt, and an excellent piece of evidence that it is widely known (Particularly amongst the big polluters) that what they do is harmful, dangerous and at some point will be unrepairable. Yet a twat brained debate goes on and on to little or no effect whilst they continue their destructive (but highly profitable) practices unabated.

Clearly, they do not need to go to such lengths of deception (these big polluters) because there are plenty gullible enough to believe that everything is ok and we could not possibly damage our environment.
Back to top
 

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..
 
IP Logged
 
Chimp_Logic
Gold Member
*****
Offline


πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male
Re: Other issues besides the "climate" debate
Reply #13 - Oct 6th, 2013 at 8:25am
 
Phemanderac wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 5:13pm:
Sorry too mate, Quadrant is just a wee bit too ideologically based for me to have any confidence in it.

Just being up front with you. I think the point that Singer (who I don't totally agree with) is making, by the way, is that there are more than enough humans on the planet, so a few dying off won't be that cataclysmic in the big picture.



Depends which few die off. There is a huge discrepancy between citizens of different countries with respect to carbon footprints and damage to the planet.

Take for example the USA, it makes up about 5% of the global population and yet consumes about 1/3 of the worlds resources and generates about 30% of the worlds pollution and waste.

Distribution and access is not equal and has always presented problems for human civilizations.

As finite resources become scarce, humans can either adapt their social structures and technology to exploit renewable and more equitable systems, or they can perpetuate wars and shrink, maybe even vanish.

Interesting to note that a planet with about 1 billion Americans has a similar ecological foot print as about 9 billion average Africans or about 6 billion chinese.

So when people refer to population explosions and global problems they tend to view each global citizen equally which they aren't.
Back to top
 

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness
 
IP Logged
 
Phemanderac
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male
Re: Other issues besides the "climate" debate
Reply #14 - Oct 7th, 2013 at 7:41am
 
Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 6th, 2013 at 8:25am:
Phemanderac wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 5:13pm:
Sorry too mate, Quadrant is just a wee bit too ideologically based for me to have any confidence in it.

Just being up front with you. I think the point that Singer (who I don't totally agree with) is making, by the way, is that there are more than enough humans on the planet, so a few dying off won't be that cataclysmic in the big picture.



Depends which few die off. There is a huge discrepancy between citizens of different countries with respect to carbon footprints and damage to the planet.

Take for example the USA, it makes up about 5% of the global population and yet consumes about 1/3 of the worlds resources and generates about 30% of the worlds pollution and waste.

Distribution and access is not equal and has always presented problems for human civilizations.

As finite resources become scarce, humans can either adapt their social structures and technology to exploit renewable and more equitable systems, or they can perpetuate wars and shrink, maybe even vanish.

Interesting to note that a planet with about 1 billion Americans has a similar ecological foot print as about 9 billion average Africans or about 6 billion chinese.

So when people refer to population explosions and global problems they tend to view each global citizen equally which they aren't.


The unfairness of the divide between rich/poor, access/non access I think will always be there. However, that is the way things are, no, the way we (our species) have made them. I make no claim as to what is fair, but, the harsh reality of the comment is, as an entire species we are prolific and, as such, can apparently afford some losses.

The point still stands, a few dying off won't be cataclysmic.

Your point is valid to, as there is bound to be some inherent unfairness in who dies off. Let's face it though, no matter who, some would claim unfairness anyway....

What my concern is though, that rampant destruction of our environment (the only environment that we can be sustained in) may cause far more wide spread loss of life. Not only human life, but the other critters that we seem to think exist for us to mess with. We will be the arrogant architects of our own demise and many other species to boot. We overstretch our rights a wee bit in this.
Back to top
 

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 5
Send Topic Print