Sure, our population can't just continue to increase without major problems, but for the moment I think the world's problems come from people's behaviours rather than their number.
There aren't many of us in the first world, but our decadent, unsustainable lifestyles wreak incredible amounts of havoc worldwide. For the rich, it seems that damage caused just increases with wealth, rather than number.
I kind of discussed this a little in a previous post... We do need to work as a team internationally, and I don't have a problem with Aus pegging its emissions reductions on commitments from other similar countries. (As long as it's not a stupid 'you first!' sort of scenario.)
However, Australia isn't doing its bit on international scene, the CPRS would have set a pitiful upper limit on the amount we were willing to reduce emissions, regardless of the actions of others.
We are in there holding hands with Russia and other rich countries of the 'umbrella group' at Copenhagen, doing our best to drag standards down and keep fossil fuel profits high for just a few more years. Nobody is close to starving here in Aus, we have no excuse at all not to at least do our part internationally.
There will always be some contrarians, crackpots and unscrupulous parasites looking to gain fame and fortune over such an important and inherently complex issue.
Should I now dump the abstracts of twice the number of papers written by reputable scientists and scientific organisations, confirming man-made global warming below?
If you're going to 'do your own research' you should be careful about your sources... I find this quote from co2science.org particularly laughable:
'"Where do you get your funding?" This is a common inquiry we frequently receive. Our typical response is that we never discuss our funding. Why? Because we believe that ideas about the way the world of nature operates should stand or fall on their own merits, irrespective of the source of support for the person or organization that produces them.'
If you think that's reasonable I have any number of bridges for sale with your name on them...
The little that is known about co2science's funding points to Exxon:
It's obvious that they "never discuss their funding" because they're a blatant front group for the fossil fuel industry. I'm sure you can trust Exxon to 'tell it straight' on global warming.
If you do have a lot of time to spare and want to learn some basics about the science, and how easily the layperson can be mislead by unscrupulous, well funded groups, I recommend
No, it's really not... science progresses. Scientists have spend those decades learning things. Now that we know the earth's round, we're not about to start calling it flat again. (Though the coal lobby and Andrew Bolt would give it a good crack if profits depended on it.)
Oh, right.. the top scientists decided to make up irreversible destabilisation of our climate so they could employ one or two more junior researchers... Of course that's why they put their huge brains toward science in the first place rather than becoming investment bankers. It was all for the money and the thrill of scaring everyone into thinking their children are going to suffer!
Science is competitive stuff and a lot of time is spent hacking down other scientists... there is no global conspiracy.
And though it's in many wealthy people's interests to hype it up, one or two emails doesn't bring down decades of scientific consensus.
I think the science of global warming is complicated... and the layperson has little chance of 'seeing all the arguments' let alone understanding them.
There are some seriously brainy guys out there who dedicate decades of their lives to understanding the science. When the overwhelming majority of a scientific profession says global warming is happening and we're causing it, we sensibly should take their word for it - as the governments of the world are doing.
I think this is a pretty complex topic, and I'm sure I won't do it justice here, but here's my two cents anyway.
It's incredibly disappointing to see how many people view the CPRS as environmentally responsible. I view it more-or-less as a scam designed to make Australia/Rudd 'look' semi-responsible while doing nothing of environmental or national worth. There's good reason why Kevin hasn't gone to any lengths to explain its inner workings.
Just recalling from memory, the CPRS is environmentally useless because:
1) The reductions in Green house gas emissions (about 5-25%) below 1990 levels are inadequate to stop global warming. If all developed countries set such pitiful targets we would not avoid catastrophic climate change.
2) It restricts how high the price of carbon can go for a number of years. This price is too low to drive any real change in Australia
3) It allows unlimited international offsetting of emissions. This means that polluting companies here in Aus don't have to stop polluting, they can just pay a lot less money to someone in a poor country to say that they're reducing emissions by a certain amount. International offsets are notoriously dodgy. This also means that domestically Australia will be left flat-footed in future years greenhouse pollution is restricted more strongly - it takes time to change.
4) The legislation would essentially create pollution 'property rights' for powerful multinationals who pollute the most. This means that the country could get sued in future if we actually decide to take real action on the climate.
Sure Aus only emits 1.3% of the world's total.. but we are also one of the world's major exporters of coal. The emissions our coal exports cause aren't presently counted towards our total. Even without them, we are essentially the worst polluters on the planet per person. I'm not sure if somehow people think that the rest of the world is going to act responsibly on the environment while letting Australia pollute without consequence - just won't happen.
As much as I hate to mention politics, there are essentially two parties in Australia when it comes to climate change: The Greens and 'the other two'.
In summary, I was incredibly relieved to see the CPRS voted down. At least now there's a tiny chance of doing something effective in future - otherwise, why bother?
The grammar's a little wrinkled here... but you seem to think I'm "not wishing their [the average punter's] response"? How on earth did you come to that conclusion?
The poll is more-or-less tracking my own opinion at present, though perhaps I shouldn't have included the "H**l no!" option as it doesn't give much info.
I certainly think big business is not well regulated right now - and have serious doubts about whether effective regulation is possible without a major overhaul of the Australian democratic system. (That's not to be taken as a plug for socialism.)
simplestuff Forum Posts (14)
RE: do u often drink milk ?
I've stopped for environmental reasons.