Australia Is Committing Climate Suicide(nytimes.com) |
Australia Is Committing Climate Suicide(nytimes.com) |
Murdoch's ownership of the media is extremely effective.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/04/the-australian...
[0] https://www.npr.org/2019/09/18/761591604/bolivia-is-fighting...
I would guess a combination of winds and high fuel load means a small fire can become an uncontrollable roaring blaze very quickly. I guess also a lot of fires could be started in areas that are not easily accessible to fire fighters so it might not even be an option to stop them while they are small.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-08-19/australia-co2...
Additionally Australia actively dismantles action amongst other countries. Your comment comes off as knowing the pond in the ocean of the problem. It also exports coal on a gigantic scale, read top of the world so other countries do her polluting.
People can call is climate claim denial all the want, but that is mostly down to them not understanding economics, and the economic realities
The climate issues can not be solved by banning things, taxing things, or regulating things. It can only be solved in the same way every other human problem has been solved. Innovation, we need to innovate our way out of the problem.
Looking to government solutions to the issue will always result in disappointment and no solution
How did we innovate around lead in petrol or pipes? Or the health consequences of smoking? Adulteration of food?
CFCs?
Seems like appropriate use of regulation, punitive taxation and banning has a long history of working well, despite your economic dogma.
The others are more of the same, some of it is misappropriation to how much the government actually impacted things vs normal market pressures, the government has the habit of coming in after society has already starting phasing out a product or practice then "regulating" the last few companies that have not changed yet as the pressure of the market leaders, it is form or protectionism to put competition out of business.
But continue to believe the government work for you, and not Large Multi National corporations. All evidence speaks to the contrary...
It caused inflationary pressures of just under 1%, and cost the average household about $550 per year in additional costs
There were also reports of factory closures due to cost increases, with resulting job losses. One one company reported that they had to pay AUD8 million a year for the carbon tax and was forced to close as a result with all employees losing their jobs
But who needs an economy or jobs, right... the government will provide
- Jevon’s paradox. Much of our heavy use of energy is because of increasing energy efficiency
- population growth. We continue to increase the food supply to increase the already ridiculous population size.
- materialism. In the absence of a culture for many people to fit in, we demand toys, gadgets, international travel, non seasonal food, etc.
- relentless pursuit of economic growth at all costs. The belief that the only solution to the distribution problems in our capitalist economy is to grow.
i.e the "Electric prices have to sky rocket to save the planet" which impacts the poorest families the most and will cause massive human suffering.
So you want suffering today to prevent the possibility of suffering in 100 years completely discounting any possibility of the technological solution
Sorry I can not get behind that, but if you believe in that so much why don't you start with your own life, stop using Computers, cars, electricity, Refrigeration, and every other modern life convenience.
Go to a pure 10,000 years ago life style, no medicine, no power, and only food you can find or grow with your own hands no machines, no modern fabric's.. nothing
If coal prices increase it strengthens the case everywhere, for switching to alternative fuels. More solar, wind, hydro schemes will start, and some will replace coal with gas -- which although fossil is, at least, a step in the right direction. Of course mines may reopen, but if the world is ever to be serious about solving the problem that should be restricted, regulated or taxed by the nation with the reopening mines.
Economic progress cannot ignore the current disaster. Renewable energy creates jobs. We can print money out of thin air but we cannot print The Great Barrier Reef which creates thousands of jobs. Today we are destroying it.
Digging coal to put more money in the pockets of the elites is causing this (from the article):
>>Australia today is ground zero for the climate catastrophe. Its glorious Great Barrier Reef is dying, its world-heritage rain forests are burning, its giant kelp forests have largely vanished, numerous towns have run out of water or are about to, and now the vast continent is burning on a scale never before seen.
>>thousands driven onto beaches in a dull orange haze, crowded tableaux of people and animals almost medieval in their strange muteness
Not sure if Orica is the one you meant. But if it is, the links really do tell a story about the kind of information presented in the media as an immediate and memorable headline, versus the backstory which plays out over a number of years.
TLDR: This company got more in rebatement that they spent, any actual losses were as a result of poor enviromental and safety practices, and they also got caught for some $30m for tax avoidance.
https://www.australianmining.com.au/news/orica-to-pay-8-mill...
https://www.afr.com/companies/financial-services/carbon-tax-...
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/orica-gains-from-past-as-...
https://www.orica.com/ArticleDocuments/301/2013_Full-Year-Re...
https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/orica-announces-19...
https://www.smartcompany.com.au/finance/economy/orica-fined-...
https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/orica-profits-hit-...
edit: Here are some links for Penrice Soda. Turnover $137m, claimed they had to pay $8m in carbon tax, actual bill was $1.9m, never paid. Closed their plant, went into administration a year or two after. Company was trading insolvent.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-18/penrice-soda-pulls-pi...
https://www.news.com.au/tablet/carbon-tax-hurts-say-ailing-f...
http://www.ferret.com.au/c/Ferret-www-ferret-com-au/Penrice-...
https://www.smh.com.au/business/penrice-soda-goes-into-admin...
https://www.smh.com.au/business/penrice-soda-traded-while-in...
No market pressures were affecting adulteration of food or tobacco until governments started acting. Post war the vast majority of adults smoked thanks to US marketing led campaigns to promote wider adoption, and their "torches of freedom" campaign to get adoption started among females. Nor was lead in any way declining, quite the contrary it was constantly increasing as car use spread. Asbestos was being used profligately until regulation came in. Thalidomide was outlawed in developed nations, yet those multi nationals quite happily sell it to the developing world, off script. There is no evidence for their being on the side of the public interest whatsoever, yet countless, endless examples of their working against, from disinformation campaigns on smoking, fire retardants, DDT, lead in fuel, Bhopal, enough to fill a book. Capitalism needs, absolutely needs constraining.
If governments today do not work for us, as they did in the fifties, sixties and seventies, it is because they have been mainly captured by the cult of neoliberalism and small laissez-faire hands of governance, and the libertarian think tanks and lobbyists, such that even the "left" is right leaning...
Electric prices could sky rocket when generated from fossil sources, and be left alone or get cheaper from neutral sources. Which one is the poor family going to sign up for?
If that doesn't go far enough, simply take the proceeds of the carbon tax or levy and use some of it to assist the poorest -- to insulate, to afford generation until the country has enough sustainable sources, or more generally just to rebalance the impact.
It is perfectly possible to have a developed, sustainable life. Perhaps without monthly flights, or the worst of consumer excess and unrepairable shite, but something we'd all recognise as a modern, comfortable, developed life. Government can help with public transport, regulations of fuel use, bike lanes and all the rest.
It's perfectly possible to educate and reduce birth rates, potentially globally without need of genocide, death squads or even one child policies. We have to do it at some point, or we'll end up with everyone packed in like sardines and nowhere left to grow food. Then there would be a mass die off... Far better to promote it as policy and aim for a sustainable amount, low enough that there's headroom for any unforeseen crises, and to keep a decent amount of wilderness, forest and wildlife that everyone enjoys for a holiday.
Bombing ourselves back to 10,000 years ago is pure hyperbole.
Let me ask you this, is it humane to do things to increase a population to unsustainable sizes such that they collapse in famine? When for whatever reason, war, interruptions in trade, etc, thousands die of starvation? Why is that ok in your mind?
Did I say electric prices must skyrocket? If you don’t believe these problems can be fixed with gradual change, then you don’t truly believe in the techno utopia.