I'd probably reply with the generic answers which accept a human contribution to climate change.

But actually sacrificing anything at all of personal value is a totally different kettle of fish.
If you expect governments to sacrifice very much in the way of "real change" then expect them to never be elected.

Amadd wrote on Jan 31^st, 2012 at 7:22am:

I'd probably reply with the generic answers which accept a human contribution to climate change. But actually sacrificing anything at all of personal value is a totally different kettle of fish. If you expect governments to sacrifice very much in the way of "real change" then expect them to never be elected.

Yes, exactly. Herein lies the problem.  It's a pretty deadly Catch 22 situation. Some time ago I was harping on aimlessly and saying that any carbon tax should be applied at the point of extraction. A mining tax on coal makes sense because it's doing no more than our competitors already do and the impact is on the overseas buyers as opposed to the domestic market.

The proceeds of the short term coal mining boom (that has to happen) should be put towards the establishment of a renewable energy infrastructure in Australia. With renewable energy, it's like any other technology - once you actually start implementing it, the implementation costs start to drop for future projects.

The question of sacrifice is a moot one.  Would it actually be a sacrifice if we can still take our four wheel drives fishing and still watch our HD LED TV's?  I mean would it really be a sacrifice if we change nothing in our lives? - If the only change was the source of the energy was from the Sun instead of from a process that releases greenhouse gases. If the Four Wheel drive used electrical energy sourced from the sun in whatever form?

(We could always use a digital recording of an internal combustion engine roaring for those people who worry about the size of their penis if they don't hear an engine noise. )

Would it be a sacrifice if we had virtually boundless renewable energy instead of worrying about where the next oil or coal discovery was?

I suspect that the real sacrifices lie in continuing our current "Don't change anything" approach. The problem is that most people don't really realise this.

Quote:

The question of sacrifice is a moot one.  Would it actually be a sacrifice if we can still take our four wheel drives fishing and still watch our HD LED TV's?  I mean would it really be a sacrifice if we change nothing in our lives? - If the only change was the source of the energy was from the Sun instead of from a process that releases greenhouse gases. If the Four Wheel drive used electrical energy sourced from the sun in whatever form? (We could always use a digital recording of an internal combustion engine roaring for those people who worry about the size of their penis if they don't hear an engine noise. )

;D Yeah, maybe that would help, but the initial change is a big problem.
If a government mentions the words " short-term economic pain", you can bet that voters will be switching off left, right and centrist.
There's probably little hope on real change until the alternatives become economically viable for the punter.

Then there's always the problem of the pollutants caused by batteries. I hear it's becoming a big problem in China.

Amadd wrote on Jan 31^st, 2012 at 3:51pm:

Quote: The question of sacrifice is a moot one.  Would it actually be a sacrifice if we can still take our four wheel drives fishing and still watch our HD LED TV's?  I mean would it really be a sacrifice if we change nothing in our lives? - If the only change was the source of the energy was from the Sun instead of from a process that releases greenhouse gases. If the Four Wheel drive used electrical energy sourced from the sun in whatever form? (We could always use a digital recording of an internal combustion engine roaring for those people who worry about the size of their penis if they don't hear an engine noise. ) ;D Yeah, maybe that would help, but the initial change is a big problem. If a government mentions the words " short-term economic pain", you can bet that voters will be switching off left, right and centrist. There's probably little hope on real change until the alternatives become economically viable for the punter. Then there's always the problem of the pollutants caused by batteries. I hear it's becoming a big problem in China.

Depends on the battery I suppose, but most are recycleable if you want to spend the money. They have a plant in Canada  that does that. There's nothing to prevent the Chinese doing the same.

If they stopped subsidising diesel and petrol for major industries and farmers, renewable energy would be pretty close to parity, especially large scale solar thermal, and the storage issue can be solved.  They have some pretty neat solutions in the US. 

- but I hear what you're saying. It's the pain of giving birth. 

Quote:

- but I hear what you're saying. It's the pain of giving birth.

Yes it is. And unfortunately we are requiring our governments to be our mummy and daddy, where we, as a democracy, should be dictating terms to our present and future governments.

All that we have shown so far is that we don't want to hear the words "economic pain" ....la la la, not listening, and certainly not voting.
That seems to be the attitude of even some of the most ardent believers in man-made climate change.

IMO, real change is generally not really wanted atm.

Quote:

Change occurs when the pain of change becomes less than the pain of remaining the same.

Whoever originally coined that phrase was quite correct.

Yes it was quite a good survey....needed a couple of more questions though, but still well worded for what it was...