TAKE A LOOK AT YOURSELVES! The Worrying rise of a conservative youth! (7 Viewers)

[Deathcoil]

Money isn't being used practically to fix the problem though! There are many indigenous communities in australia living in third-world conditions....yet continually nothing is done!
And this is in lieu of the trillion dollars we continue to spend on a bloody war.
600,000 Iraqi deaths and counting...

This guy reminds me of that American hippie protestor that was like "ay John Howard get ya troops outa Iraq" ah good times... Hazaar you have got to ask yourself, not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your county.

 

[hazaar]

Be realistic not idealistic, nuclear power is clean energy lets use it.

Do you not think the idea of nuclear power is slightly idealistic.

For one, contrary to being seen as the cheap alternative energy option, nuclear power is incredibly expensive. To set up a large-scale nuclear power industry in Australia would be very expensive, and furthermore we have never done anything like it.
For it to work we'd have to put alot of money into research and waste disposal.
You say that it is clean!
I find it hard to believe that someone would say this. Far from being clean, the bi-product is an extremely hazardous waste product that is costly to dispose of.
So why are we placing so much emphasis on nuclear energy when Australia has so little experience in the effective disposal of its waste and in the production of it.
Surely to set up any form of nuclear industry in Australia, vast amounts of money would have to be invested. And even with the advancements that have been made concerning this 'clean' energy source....there is always the possibility for catastrophic disaster.


To another matter, the Stern repost was released around the world today.

For those that are unaware of it, i reccomend you read the following article:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/stern-warning-on-climate/2006/10/30/1162056926610.html

And for the few remaining sceptics on global warming, not only is this yet again confirmation of the effects of greenhouse gas pollution on the global climate, but it is one of the first economic analyses of what global warming/climate change means for us in our everyday lives. Stern says the costs of not taking action far outweigh those of doing nothing.

***************************************************************
I've been hearing alot about 'clean coal' and 'carbon sequestration,' yet it is interesting to note that contrary to the belief of many, that it is the only way forward, scientists interviewed on Virginia Trioli's morning prgram this morning comprehensively stated that the technology has yet to be developed. And of those that have already tried to develop carbon sequestration systems, all have failed completely. It's not to say that in an age where today's scientific problems are tomorrow's old news, the technology won't be developed in the future. Yet it is once again frustrating to have a government, whose focus seems to be on unfounded and untested technologies for environmental and climatological sustainability.

I have hope that yes, these technologies will be developed in the future, yet climate change is real and requires practical solutions, as apposed to more money for research.
Although as people have said before in this post, Wind, solar and hydroelectric energy will not be able to support australia's base load of power in the future. For now at least all our efforts should be on reducing our reliance on dirty coal, and building a network of green energy technologies that are currently available.

In many european countries such as germany, france and sweden, wind power constitutes 40% of the required energy. Britain has also just announced that they are aiming for the same target of 40%.

Frankly the governement's environmental policy is founded on smoke and mirrors, and if it does not listen to the desires of big business (who in fact WANT the introduction of a carbon trading scheme and the transition to an alternative energy market) and the growing public sentiment, the 10-15 year window for change will be closed before we know it, and we will be left to bare the brunt of catastrophic economic and environmental mismanagement.

***************************************************************
All that's needed now is for open minds and change. 1% of global GDP would fix the problem now. Twenty years from now, if left unabated, the task of salvaging the Earth from global warming could cost 20% or more of global GDP.


Howard needs to wake up to what needs to be done. And if he can't, it's our job to find someone who can.

 

[hazaar]

There's no need to freak out.

How long would it take to set up a fast-breeder reactor energy industry?

How much would it cost?

I'm just saying that we need to use what we've got at our disposal now.
Over the next decade, as new, more efficient technologies are developed we will then be able to build a portfolio of alternative energy sources. Including nuclear and 'clean carbon' technologies. But for the moment those things aren't options.

 

[loquasagacious]

Well perhaps rather than building things like the ludicrous monstrosity 'thermal stack' thingo in rural victoria (costs a ton, makes little power) we should start building breeder reactors.

Oh and also why would we need to reinvent the wheel? Why do we need to research waste storage, etc etc. The french, japanese, etc have already done the research and come up with the techniques we just have to copy.

Sure we should try and make what we have cleaner, eg coal. But we should also remember that coal is actually a fairly clean energy. As an FYI the 'smoke' billowing out of the fat stacks is infact steam. The actual exhaust gases go through 1km+ of filtration and they emerge from the tall skinny stacks.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

To another matter, the Stern repost was released around the world today.

For those that are unaware of it, i reccomend you read the following article:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/stern-warning-on-climate/2006/10/30/1162056926610.html

And for the few remaining sceptics on global warming, not only is this yet again confirmation of the effects of greenhouse gas pollution on the global climate, but it is one of the first economic analyses of what global warming/climate change means for us in our everyday lives. Stern says the costs of not taking action far outweigh those of doing nothing.

The media, of course, happily ignored another report this week from the British House of Lords committee on Economic Affairs, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12i.pdf
which said

Research suggests that, in terms of percentages of world GNP, monetised damage is relatively low, even for warming of 2.5oC. The damages are not evenly spread. In general, developing countries lose more than developed economies. Some models suggest no real net damage to rich countries.

Scaremongering as usual.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/29/nclimate129.xml

 

[hazaar]

The media, of course, happily ignored another report this week from the British House of Lords committee on Economic Affairs, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12i.pdf
which said

Scaremongering as usual.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/29/nclimate129.xml

It's real alright!

The majority agrees, so just admit that there's a problem and that it's going to effect our lives as we know them. The cost will be even greater than it already is if we don't act now.

Scaremongering eh! Well i'm afraid it's the truth. Unfortunately sometimes it has to hurt before anyone takes notices.

 

[imaginarylife]

A few explanations on the authenticity of the man-made climate change that is occuring, from noteworthy scientific journals, not sensationalist media reports with vested interests.


http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Science/Skeptics.asp

 

[Captain Gh3y]

So you mean David Suzuki doesn't make any money from what he's doing?

 

[gerhard]

Research suggests that, in terms of percentages of world GNP, monetised damage is relatively low, even for warming of 2.5oC. The damages are not evenly spread. In general, developing countries lose more than developed economies. Some models suggest no real net damage to rich countries.

Doesnt this mean that the problem we are facing is worse than if it effected everywhere evenly?

I dont see why it effecting the most fragile communities instead of the strongest means there is no problem.

 

[hazaar]

So you mean David Suzuki doesn't make any money from what he's doing?

oh come on!
He's a man who cares for the message and action, not money.

 

[hazaar]

What are comments like that supposed to mean?

 

[hazaar]

.................

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Well, whenever any report comes from someone who was funded by an oil company you're willing to ignore all the science because of who paid for it. But it's not as if the global warming doom preachers aren't making money either.

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

Well, whenever any report comes from someone who was funded by an oil company you're willing to ignore all the science because of who paid for it. But it's not as if the global warming doom preachers aren't making money either.

Maybe they are making money out of it. Everyone has to earn a living. But I don't see what the advantage is of 'making up' global warming. Life is a lot easier if we can just go along with what we've always done.


Just because most of this probably won't affect yours and my lifetime too much doesn't mean we should just leave the problem alone.

Why switch to renewable energy sources, a least partially like in the 40% quoted for Germany- common sense. Coal runs out. Oil runs out. Wind doesn't. The sun doesn't.

Or we could massacre/sterilise 3 billion people. That would solve the resources problem for another 500 years

 

[loquasagacious]

Congratulations are due to user: Dieburndie. He wins a prize, it's a prize for being a whiny lefty fuckwit.

Congratulations dieburndie you issued an ultimatum, I stepped up and damned if we know what you've done, because you've disappeared. Or did I make a mistake? I know I forgot to add a friendly little: 'please attack this logically' at the bottom of my post.

Oh noes I attacked you logically and now you're missing in action presumed lame. Have you ever wondered if the problem with the left on BoS is that when confronted by opposition they disappear? This of course fits very neatly with my little bandwagon theory. Dieburndie you are on it and like all your fellow passengers you're just along for the ride, you don't have a real opinion of your own so you can't argue a case.

 

[gerhard]

fuck i hate people who are convinced they are correct

 

[dieburndie]

Ok.
You miss the point, there generally aren't people with a strong knowledge of economics on the left because economics does not agree with the left, which is to say that there aren't economists on the left because the left economically makes no sense. As an example an earlier poster stated their dissillusionment with the left after a semester of studying economics.
So what you're saying (again) is that the left does not argue well?
Provide examples from the right, preferably fairly recent ones as opposed to: 'well you thought children working in coalmines or colonising Africa was a good idea'.
There's been a lack because, it doesn't work. It doesn't work in both the sense of it simply doesn't get off the ground legislatively and that once it does it isn't abided by. As opposed to 'right' alternati... hey conservatives look at all this cool stuff I'm saying make me part of your crew I know a good yoghurt place

Not even. Fuckin' goof.
I'm not going to argue each point because I don't feel like typing a novel after an exam where I had to write about the Arab-Israeli conflict neutrally.

I'll just say a couple basic things.
In what ways does economics in general not agree with the left? (I'm not arguing that it does, I just would like to know why).
How can you prove that environmental legislation doesn't work if it doesn't exist?
Something doesn't necessarily lack merit because it isn't accepted by the mainstream. That's an appeal to majority.
You threw the bandwagoner tag right back at me, motherfucking hypocrite.
I'm not on any bandwagon. I reject a whole bunch of 'leftist' ideals. For example, I support nuclear power and I don't think people should be paid to refuse work. Iraq, and all muslim majority states are a lost cause either way.

I'm not going to argue about this anymore, I don't find it particularly interesting or productive. Label me whatever the fuck you want.

 

[_dhj_]

Surely some of us are overemphasising Economics.

It's just a discipline it doesn't tell you the meaning of life.

 

[ElGronko]

If you take a step back and look at things rationally, 99% of people are in the situation they are in due to their own choices.

If everything is based on the choices we make (eg. choice to study at school, choice to stay in school, choice to go to uni thus leading to higher income) should some people be getting government benefits while others who have made the correct decisions and done the hard yards go without?

Am I selfish because I get pissed off that it is my tax dollars going to people who fucked around while I was busting my arse studying, and at the same time i get nothing?

People shouldn't be financially rewarded for laziness.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Because where you were born had nothing to do with it, right?