Australian General Election November 24

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by trev

yes the economy is a slightly important issue, just not as important as these other issues. it's about priorities.

and i'm not saying that the solutions are easy, or inexpensive. the previous government had 11 years, and on many of these issues made no progress, if not made them worse.

i know industrialization is a reason for our high emissions, but it's not an excuse. using that logic excuses most environmental damage, and sooner or later people, coutries, leaders need to suck it up and take responsibility for the unfairly high damage they are causing wqyually to the world and it's total population

.there are alternatives. not dreams, real, here now, alternatives that can be implemented right away, and has been that way for many years. it's got to the point where they've only done the absolute minimum required and nothing more (because they truly don't care, not as much as votes or money)

You might have different priorities if Australia went into a massive recession, yes? It's easy to say 'things are fine now, so we can just completely focus on other stuff', but it takes effort to keep things running well, especially when you're talking about taking measures that will actually work against that. Politicians can be notoriously glib about this stuff, and it sounds like you're doing the same to be honest. The environmental issue needs tackling as soon as possible, but it's ridiculous to say 'pff assholes talking about THE ECONOMY and shit' as though the stability of your country should be completely secondary.

And industrialization doesn't excuse environmental damage, but a sizeable number of the global population produce basically no carbon emissions because they live in third-world countries with little industrial and power production. Even if the biggest carbon producers severely cut down their emissions they'd still be producing disproportionate amounts of carbon compared to the people who produce none, so waving percentages around doesn't tell the story. See what I'm saying?

[trev]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

You might have different priorities if Australia went into a massive recession, yes? It's easy to say 'things are fine now, so we can just completely focus on other stuff', but it takes effort to keep things running well, especially when you're talking about taking measures that will actually work against that. Politicians can be notoriously glib about this stuff, and it sounds like you're doing the same to be honest. The environmental issue needs tackling as soon as possible, but it's ridiculous to say 'pff assholes talking about THE ECONOMY and shit' as though the stability of your country should be completely secondary.

And industrialization doesn't excuse environmental damage, but a sizeable number of the global population produce basically no carbon emissions because they live in third-world countries with little industrial and power production. Even if the biggest carbon producers severely cut down their emissions they'd still be producing disproportionate amounts of carbon compared to the people who produce none, so waving percentages around doesn't tell the story. See what I'm saying?

honestly, if australia went into a recession AGAIN no i wouldn't, but i don't expect you or anyone to believe me. as i said, i would rather have the worst of the economy and the best of the other issues than vice versa. i'm not saying it would be great, but it is selfish that a lot of voters don't think past their own spoilt lifestyles to see what is fair. and that is taking the WORST scenario, i really don't think any left wing government is going to let it get that bad. regardless, it's at least worth a try, the fact that nothing much has even been attempted in most other ethical issues / areas is really piss poor. if they try, and it really starts to fail, then maybe we can discuss if it's not a practical idea anymore. the economy is a lot easier to reverse than the environment or individuals human rights.

what you say about industrialization is very true, and i'm not claiming to be an expert. i'm looking, but struggling, to find accurate stats about the percentage og the worlds population that is either first world, or first/second world, or industrialized, or that produces carbon emissions so we could get an accurate figure of the percentage of damage australia is doing once you filter out all the innocent populations of the world.

but i'm pretty sure that 1.5% is still way too high for what australia's fair share should be (even if that figure is accurate, it was after all sourced from the liberal policy page) if you can find the stats please post it here.

but remember, whatever the "fair share" or each population happens to be, if all of the currently 0 level emission countries started producing this fair share amount the environment just could not take it. the total world levels need to come down fast. the fact that a smaller proportion of the world (first world) is overusing on behalf of the total population shouldn't excuse that.

[DeviousJ]

All right, let me put it another way: making the changes we need to make costs money, especially in the short term - and a weakening economy makes that harder, both in a financial sense and in terms of people's priorities. And we're not talking about the number of ivory backscratchers people buy

[yoshinobu's revenge]

no government wants to "let it get that bad", but that's how piss poor labor's economic management has been in the past.

1.5% might be high (and it might not - i'm not sure), but australia is still a high growth country amongst the "developed" economies of the world, especially compared to europe or japan. australia also has a lot of industrial/mining facilities and produces a large percentage of the world's alumina (probably other minerals too - i just know that one because i used to work at one of the plants), and steel. if you want to give those industries up in order to reduce emissions i don't think you'll get much support.

honestly, i see no reason why the coalition couldn't have apologised to aboriginals or instituted better equality for homosexuals, i really have no problems with those and they don't cost much money. i'm not sure why they were so stubborn on some of those social issues but i guess that's why one reason they lost - i would prefer to think they lost on those rather than kevin rudd's electioneering and talk about visions and values. i don't identify with labor as being any stronger on social liberties, maybe they will prove me wrong - but i do identify them mostly as being economically dated.

[trev]

well i haven't found any actual data to support my theory that australia produces more emissions than it should per capita, however this article does support my claim:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow...06/1658637.htm

"Australia has the highest per capita emissions of greeenhouse gases in the world, the major cause being coal-fired electricity generation. A study undertaken by Dr Mark Diesendorf and his colleagues shows that clean and renewable alternatives are available now. He compares the cost of fossil fuels and nuclear power with sustainable energy sources.

.....

Mark Diesendorf: Australia has the biggest per capita emissions of greenhouse gases in the world. Australia's biggest single source of emissions is burning coal to generate electricity."


and also it is great to see some positive changes so soon after the change of governement:

(from wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol)

"The previous Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, declined to ratify the Agreement, arguing that the protocol would cost Australians jobs,[20] due to countries with booming economies and massive populations such as China and India not having any reduction obligations. By way of example, industrial growth within China is expected to increase pollution within 9 months, and even if Australia were to shut down all of its coal fired power stations it would not negate this increase.[citation needed] Further, it was claimed that Australia was already doing enough to cut emissions; this previous government has pledged $300 million to reduce Greenhouse gas emissions over three years.[citation needed] In October 2007 it emerged that this outgoing Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull had argued in favour of ratifying the Agreement but that he had failed to convince Cabinet.[21]

Australia's new government formed by the Australian Labor Party fully supports the protocol[22] and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd signed the instrument of ratification immediately after assuming office on 3 December 2007 and will take effect in March, 2008.[23] Whilst still in Opposition Kevin Rudd commissioned Professor Ross Garnaut to report into the economic issues of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Professor Garnaut's report is due to be handed to the Australian Government in September 2008, with a draft in June 2008."

[The Melty Man]

Rudd's actions on Kyoto are tossycock. He comes to office, the first thing he does is sign the protocol, then joins the group of countries seeking non-binding targets.

We have to use nuclear power to eliminate coal. There is no other alternative if we are to cut out our carbon emissions.