Greenhouse Gases, Rising Sea Levels & Australia's Economy

There's a lot of debate on this matter, particularly rising sea levels, it's very emotive.  There is one thing that is true without question, and that is it doesn't make sense to pollute the environment we live in. It's a “No Brainer”. So for this reason, if no other, we should endeavour to reduce pollution. I think anybody who is a reasonable person can agree with that much.

In Australia and other parts of the first world, the strategies toward this aim that have been common recently, such as a carbon tax or similar, is intended to incentivise industry to reduce levels of pollution and therefore clean up the environment. Sounds fair doesn't it? This is on top of  existing heavily regulated environmental controls with the same aim, to reduce pollution.

Unfortunately, this approach has not and will be unlikely be adopted internationally There will always be a country somewhere in the world that is available and happy to introduce manufacturing to improve their economy and most likely without too many environmental controls. What does this really mean in an economic sense? It means it's cheaper to produce in countries where these sort of strategies don't exist.

Have a think about what we hear on the news every few days? Another industry is moving their production out of Australia. Toyota, Ford, Holden, Metal Industries etc etc. Of course, this production is being moved to countries without carbon taxes, excessive power prices or heavy environmental controls. Usually also cheap and sometimes impoverished labour is another draw card. In effect we are converting clean efficient production into dirtier inefficient production.

Corporations are pushing production offshore to cheaper and less environmentally regulated countries. They appear (in their actions) not to be concerned about the environment or the low living standards of their new employees. They may even be forced into this move to survive in their own right against their competitors who will make the move.

What does this mean for the environment? Well, given that consumption remains the same and production is “dirtier”, the total carbon and greenhouse gas emissions are increasing for the same amount of product, thus further increasing total world pollution.

Whilst the increased environmental damage is bad enough, the “side effect” of course, is that Australians are heading for the dole queue in larger numbers while we have an ever shrinking manufacturing base and a fast shrinking economy with less basis for wealth. Meanwhile governments, state and federal are busy selling off public resources to mask the effect of their reduced tax revenues. This further stresses future revenue streams after the funds from the initial sale of public assets are spent on fat politicians and their short term interests. Obviously, eventually we'll be dead broke and picking cotton on farms until we become the next cheap labour source.

Folks, it's time to wake up,  look, hear and see what's happening. When you do, consider this;

It's time to implement a carbon and standard of living levy on imported goods. For example, goods produced in country's with poor environmental controls and or poor standards of living, according to an accepted international standard and rating system, would incur a levy. Goods produced in country's with strict environmental standards (that are adhered too) and good standards of living for employees would be rewarded and have a lower levy and thus “levelling the playing field”. This would have the effect of taking away the incentive for large corporations to pollute the planet and take advantage of people in poorer countries.

This should not to be confused as a simple across the board “Tariff” that used to be applied on imported goods, every country can reduce their levy by implementing sensible environmental controls and rewarding their workers fairly for their efforts. The end result being a cleaner environment and fair conditions for workers.

If this sort of approach is not implemented very soon, the planet's environment is doomed and so is our economy.


Thanks for reading... By the way, these are my personal opinions and are in no way the opinions of my employer, the local butcher or anyone else.

Some good points there, Lutz.

Yes a lot of manufacturing has sought out less regulated environments which is not good for anybody.
But here's the thing....sea level rise has decelerated by 44% since 2004 and actually fell in 2010.
This was not consistent with dominant AGW theory so off they trundled leaving no stone unturned looking for reasons why it would be opposite to what they expected. Had the results come back in line with their "predictions" or worse no such investigation would have taken place. I think the answer they came up with was they thought it was probably because more rain than usual fell in Australia... Can't argue with rigorous methodology like that...

namnugenot wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 2:06pm:

Yes a lot of manufacturing has sought out less regulated environments which is not good for anybody. But here's the thing....sea level rise has decelerated by 44% since 2004 and actually fell in 2010. This was not consistent with dominant AGW theory so off they trundled leaving no stone unturned looking for reasons why it would be opposite to what they expected. Had the results come back in line with their "predictions" or worse no such investigation would have taken place. I think the answer they came up with was they thought it was probably because more rain than usual fell in Australia... Can't argue with rigorous methodology like that...

Hence I didn't want to argue about whether or not sea level rise was a valid theory. The thing is to get the right drivers in place such that business is not benefited by moving production to less regulated production.

Cheers,

Lutz ;D

Lutz wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 4:24pm:

namnugenot wrote on Feb 22nd, 2014 at 2:06pm: Yes a lot of manufacturing has sought out less regulated environments which is not good for anybody. But here's the thing....sea level rise has decelerated by 44% since 2004 and actually fell in 2010. This was not consistent with dominant AGW theory so off they trundled leaving no stone unturned looking for reasons why it would be opposite to what they expected. Had the results come back in line with their "predictions" or worse no such investigation would have taken place. I think the answer they came up with was they thought it was probably because more rain than usual fell in Australia... Can't argue with rigorous methodology like that... Hence I didn't want to argue about whether or not sea level rise was a valid theory. The thing is to get the right drivers in place such that business is not benefited by moving production to less regulated production. Cheers, Lutz ;D

You mean like tariffs?  :o

I kind of agree with Mr Lutz.

The reality is we are going to have to learn how to live with an altered climate because no one is listening to the Lutz of this world

The great thing about it is if you do a little independent research you will quickly realise that the climate isn't even changing at all, thats just a figment of the global warming cults fertile imagination.
So in fact theres nothing to worry about anyway.

I used to think that recycling and saving water wasn't relevant on the individual level, as I thought industry and agriculture were by far the largest polluters; therefore my individual contribution was merely a drop in the ocean. I also considered this an argument against the idea of a carbon tax for Australia, as we are a relatively small part of the overall problem.

But now I am looking at it differently, in that we may each get the world we deserve. I have begun to seriously consider the possibility that what each of us percieve in the greater picture, is in fact a reflection of what we do as individuals. If we make the smallest improvements to efficiency in any area of our smaller picture, the results may be greatly magnified.

The argo bouys would have detected sea level rise..??!!

would they not...???? all 3000 of them across the globe.

Sorry sea level rise is a good tactic by the alarmists to scare you sh!tless.

They are dishonest and will use any dirty tactic to convert the unsuspecting citizen.

I agree we should clean up mans pollution like chemicals in our creeks and rivers, household rubbish in the oceans and all other ways greedy corporations have found to save costs at the expense of the environment.

But CO2 is a natural gas that is produced by nature herself, I don't consider CO2 pollution.

Its the bubbles in our beer and soft drink, we breath it in and out all the time.

CO2 is NOT pollution but a natural gas.

and CO2 DOESN'T control the temperature here on Earth.

Never has Never will.....!!!!!!!!!!

I had been wondering what the state of the sea level was in regard to Kiribati with the news of trade winds being responsible for sea level variations.

Here is the graph from Colorado University. It seems natural variability has more effect than climate change.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/cgi-bin/create_plot.cgi?q=content%2Finteractive-sea-level-time-series-wizard&dlon=-168.739&dlat=-3.37&map=v&fit=n&smooth=n&days=60

I've tried to post the graph as image but it doesn't work. So I've given the url.

Winston Smith wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2014 at 5:27am:

I used to think that recycling and saving water wasn't relevant on the individual level, as I thought industry and agriculture were by far the largest polluters; therefore my individual contribution was merely a drop in the ocean. I also considered this an argument against the idea of a carbon tax for Australia, as we are a relatively small part of the overall problem. But now I am looking at it differently, in that we may each get the world we deserve. I have begun to seriously consider the possibility that what each of us percieve in the greater picture, is in fact a reflection of what we do as individuals. If we make the smallest improvements to efficiency in any area of our smaller picture, the results may be greatly magnified.

When I see global mandated measures without weightings, exceptions or allowances then and only then you will have my attention.

Ajax wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2014 at 10:27am:

The argo bouys would have detected sea level rise..??!! would they not...???? all 3000 of them across the globe. Sorry sea level rise is a good tactic by the alarmists to scare you sh!tless. They are dishonest and will use any dirty tactic to convert the unsuspecting citizen. I agree we should clean up mans pollution like chemicals in our creeks and rivers, household rubbish in the oceans and all other ways greedy corporations have found to save costs at the expense of the environment. But CO2 is a natural gas that is produced by nature herself, I don't consider CO2 pollution. Its the bubbles in our beer and soft drink, we breath it in and out all the time. CO2 is NOT pollution but a natural gas. and CO2 DOESN'T control the temperature here on Earth. Never has Never will.....!!!!!!!!!!

Your local heartland institute representative

namnugenot wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2014 at 2:20pm:

Winston Smith wrote on Feb 23rd, 2014 at 5:27am: I used to think that recycling and saving water wasn't relevant on the individual level, as I thought industry and agriculture were by far the largest polluters; therefore my individual contribution was merely a drop in the ocean. I also considered this an argument against the idea of a carbon tax for Australia, as we are a relatively small part of the overall problem. But now I am looking at it differently, in that we may each get the world we deserve. I have begun to seriously consider the possibility that what each of us percieve in the greater picture, is in fact a reflection of what we do as individuals. If we make the smallest improvements to efficiency in any area of our smaller picture, the results may be greatly magnified. When I see global mandated measures without weightings, exceptions or allowances then and only then you will have my attention.

===>> the world turns!  :o