Juliar betrays australia, destroys our economic future (7 Viewers)

[qawe]

Exactly, why quite smoking, ya gunna die anyway.

This is a false analogy to what im suggesting, which is a global (including china, india, us, eu) binding agreement.
the carbon tax in fact can be likened to: smoke "light" cigarettes, its better than nothing

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Exactly, why quite smoking, ya gunna die anyway.

the arguement is that this carbon tax is not making us quit smoking at all, ITS DOING NOTHING, all the economics is behind us on this one (and if you have to ask read the last 10-15 pages, you know which ones to read), there will be little to no reduction in energy consumption due to this tax. would have been better to cut back on stupid gov programs and use that money to invest in a giant mother fucking wind farm.

All this tax will do is make prices higher and hurt the middle class.

 

[Lentern]

the arguement is that this carbon tax is not making us quit smoking at all, ITS DOING NOTHING, all the economics is behind us on this one (and if you have to ask read the last 10-15 pages, you know which ones to read), there will be little to no reduction in energy consumption due to this tax. would have been better to cut back on stupid gov programs and use that money to invest in a giant mother fucking wind farm.

All this tax will do is make prices higher and hurt the middle class.

You and I both know that is a weak, proxy argument for the real argument which is fighting this ETS right now, which torpedoed the Copenhagen negotations and which has torpedoed Obama's majorities and that is simply that you do not want to make short term sacrifices to stave off an event you are sceptical is even occurring, particularly when you believe its possible that we can do nothing and other countries will pick up our slack as indeed many are already doing.

 

[Garygaz]

besides the point; india, china, the US


we don't make a fucking difference. our emissions are nothing on a global scale. we are making a idealistic statement which will cost us and not improve anything apart from helping some intellectually malignant greenies sleep easier at night.

i'm okay with taking an economic hit to reduce emissions AS LONG as the major emmitors are doing something too. if you're going to adopt the arguement, 'oh well we are sending a message to the world', you are either a) spouting out shit which you know isn't true or b) really misunderstand the workings of international politics

 

[Lentern]

besides the point; india, china, the US


we don't make a fucking difference. our emissions are nothing on a global scale. we are making a idealistic statement which will cost us and not improve anything apart from helping some intellectually malignant greenies sleep easier at night.

i'm okay with taking an economic hit to reduce emissions AS LONG as the major emmitors are doing something too. if you're going to adopt the arguement, 'oh well we are sending a message to the world', you are either a) spouting out shit which you know isn't true or b) really misunderstand the workings of international politics

In the first instance India has a carbon price already and China has one in the legislative pipelines. But more importantly your argument is counter-logical,if there was a concerted global effort from all the major emmiters then our reductions would make negligible difference. It is in this climate of hesitation and mistrust which currently engulfs the international negotations where our contribution would make the most significant difference. I don't know where this absolutist view of global warming came from: "Either we have to completely stop it or its pointless doing anything" It's absolutely wrong, read any of the published papers, every reduction will make a difference and naturally, the lesser the reductions of other countries the greater the impact of our reductions.

Edit: I've never adopted the mantra of sending a message, I have consistently said that it is about personal responsibility. We need to be accountable for the damage that we are inflicting.

 

[Garygaz]

Edit: I've never adopted the mantra of sending a message, I have consistently said that it is about personal responsibility. We need to be accountable for the damage that we are inflicting.

well in that case its a philosophical issue, i don't believe in the power of the individual. sure you can show a few instances of where individuals have fought the corp's and won, but 99% of the time, they don't, and you don't hear about it.

i understand that the stance of 'well if they don't do it too, what's the point?' is counter productive, though that's why agreements like kyoto exist so that multilateral discussions and agreements can take place. what we are doing is akin to staying on the titanic while it's sinking, plugging a tiny hole with a cork and saying 'well we're doing our bit'. maybe what we're doing is morally right, but logically and economically - nope.

 

[Lentern]

well in that case its a philosophical issue, i don't believe in the power of the individual. sure you can show a few instances of where individuals have fought the corp's and won, but 99% of the time, they don't, and you don't hear about it.

i understand that the stance of 'well if they don't do it too, what's the point?' is counter productive, though that's why agreements like kyoto exist so that multilateral discussions and agreements can take place. what we are doing is akin to staying on the titanic while it's sinking, plugging a tiny hole with a cork and saying 'well we're doing our bit'. maybe what we're doing is morally right, but logically and economically - nope.

I regret bringing analogies into it, they never ever help. Ever. To call this economically flawed shows a failure to comprehend the sheer magnitude of the climate threat, yes Australia would benefit more from global action (which is occurring all over the place, even in some Amercian states and commonwealths) but the extent to which reductions now, however small they are, will mitigate the effects of climate change is greater than the cost of implementing the reductions. There would be no point even in a global agreement if that were't the case.

 

[cosmo kramer]

i dont get the we cant make a difference argument. its the same sort of rationalisation that you see when people chuck their chip packet on the ground and say it doesnt matter anyway because its just one chip packet from one person. if all the small countries in the world reduced their pollution it would all add up to one massive reduction in c02 emissions worldwide.

 

[Garygaz]

so all the small countries should take the economic burden of reducing emissions and give the super-powers a free-pass?

 

[Garygaz]

besides that is a totally hypothetical argument. you aren't going to get enough small countries to participate to make a difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

china>whole entire european union

 

[cosmo kramer]

so all the small countries should take the economic burden of reducing emissions and give the super-powers a free-pass?

no

 

[qawe]

besides the point; india, china, the US


we don't make a fucking difference. our emissions are nothing on a global scale. we are making a idealistic statement which will cost us and not improve anything apart from helping some intellectually malignant greenies sleep easier at night.

i'm okay with taking an economic hit to reduce emissions AS LONG as the major emmitors are doing something too. if you're going to adopt the arguement, 'oh well we are sending a message to the world', you are either a) spouting out shit which you know isn't true or b) really misunderstand the workings of international politics

+1

 

[Lentern]

+1

Could you possibly condense all your posts into this sort of thing?

 

[cosmo kramer]

x5

 

[scuba_steve2121]

You and I both know that is a weak, proxy argument for the real argument which is fighting this ETS right now, which torpedoed the Copenhagen negotations and which has torpedoed Obama's majorities and that is simply that you do not want to make short term sacrifices to stave off an event you are sceptical is even occurring, particularly when you believe its possible that we can do nothing and other countries will pick up our slack as indeed many are already doing.

ok fine don't read my posts

 

[Lentern]

ok fine don't read my posts

I read it, it was a weak proxy argument to excuse the more sinister argument behind it. Come on mate, you don't even believe there should be a government, much less that one that wants to implement reductions on carbon emmisions.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

I read it, it was a weak proxy argument to excuse the more sinister argument behind it. Come on mate, you don't even believe there should be a government, much less that one that wants to implement reductions on carbon emmisions.

If the government wanted to invest in green energy and subsidize the shit out of it to make it more appealing so that consumers chose it instead of fossil fuel energy, EVEN THAT would be a better idea than what they are doing now.

The current methods aren't helping anything, regardless of my views on the existence of the state

Carbon tax is a poorly devised wealth re-distribution scheme plan and simple

fucking hell we shouldn't even be thinking about climate change, the shit that we have already pumped in so far is going to have catastrophic affects.

should be thinking about food and water security, oil running out, peak phosphorus, deforestation, desertification, over population.

these things are going to fuck the world in the next 30-50 years, why we talk so much about climate change astounds me, when the aggregate form of those above issues are far more important

 

[Lentern]

If the government wanted to invest in green energy and subsidize the shit out of it to make it more appealing so that consumers chose it instead of fossil fuel energy, EVEN THAT would be a better idea than what they are doing now.

The current methods aren't helping anything, regardless of my views on the existence of the state

Carbon tax is a poorly devised wealth re-distribution scheme plan and simple

fucking hell we shouldn't even be thinking about climate change, the shit that we have already pumped in so far is going to have catastrophic affects.

should be thinking about food and water security, oil running out, peak phosphorus, deforestation, desertification, over population.

these things are going to fuck the world in the next 30-50 years, why we talk so much about climate change astounds me, when the aggregate form of those above issues are far more important

As I said, you completely fail to grasp the sheer magnitude of the threat posed by global warming.

 

[SnowFox]

As I said, you completely fail to grasp the sheer magnitude of the threat posed by global warming.

What that thing which is inevitable?

SS has it right, we should worry about immediate threats rather then pumping money (its seems only Aus is doing the pumping), into a scheme which will never work.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

As I said, you completely fail to grasp the sheer magnitude of the threat posed by global warming.

Holy fuck I probably understand better than you the predicted consequences

The governments current policy is not going to work, There are better ways of dealing with one of the greatest threats to humanity than some lame ass wealth re-distribution scheme

Its doing nothing to curb our emissions, its just a tax

get it through your head, we all know its happening, we all know the shit storm that is going to be the result of it, however most of us believe that the current policy propagated by our government will do nothing to alleviate the situation

to sustain our current activities we would need 1.21 earths, we obviously don't have that. So how about we think about sustainable resource management and consumption first and then think about fucking climate change