muso wrote on Dec 28^th, 2009 at 4:32pm:



At the risk of sounding like a mad uncle, this whole AGW caper has been, to most fellow-travellers, a gigantic opportunity for a shake-down. The old 'means of production' lingo is now used, almost word-perfect, with 'carbon emission' substituted. The 'bourgeoisie' has become the 'developing world'; the 'proles' are 'developing nations (sic)'; the 'means of production' is 'carbon-based energy'. And so on.

Now that the Copenhagen jamboree is over and forgotten, the papers are full of zzzzzzzzzzzzzz again. AGW has always been the 'next pet project' of all those middle class kids who started their march through the institutions in the 60s. It has always been about an ideal to an end.

muso wrote on Jan 1^st, 2010 at 10:50am:



Muso, I think you have become so used to speaking in hyperbole that you do not even realise it. Bush 'controlled' the population? Through religion? And better than the Chinese, who are the most capitalist?

These are glimpses into your fundamental views, not mere misunderstandings of some detail. And they barking mad views, if you prardon my frankness.

Quote:


By population is the only reasonable option out of those 3.

Quote:


None of us have done anything to 'earn' the right to emit GHG's. If anything, the wealthy nations have 'unearned' the right by overexploiting it and creating the problem.

Quote:


They would have that opportunity either way.

Quote:


You seem to be getting awefully hung up on the failed state issue. How many failed states do you know of that are taking part in the scheme? None of them are. No-one would want them to be part of any international emissions trading scheme, because they would destabilise it.

Quote:


This is no more communism than any of the other options you suggest. Either way, the rights have to be handed out to someone. Or do you think we should set up an international body that we have to purchase the rights from?

Quote:


I agree with that Muso. It would bypass this whole problem.

Quote:


No it shouldn't. Reducing our consumption or making it more efficient in terms of emissions is an equally valid way to reduce emissions. We should let the market choose the best option. Renewable energy investment should be judged according to the same criteria of any other research effort clamouring for government funding.

Quote:


Actually, we have a couple of decades to do so. The environment won't care much whether we make the cuts now or make deeper cuts in 5 years time. The arguments in favour of early action are largely economic.

Quote:


India, China etc are not red herrings. They do need to be dealt with. Unilateral action can also make it harder later on, for several reasons. One, the price of coal will go down, giving poorer countries an even greater incentive to burn it. Two, we will have less to offer them in return.

Quote:


It is a far, far more expensive option muso.

Quote:


That's we we are using pricing mechanisms.

Quote:


Do you have any evidence of this DARWIN?

Quote:


Muso, most good geothermal sources in Australia are way out in the desert.

Quote:


But weren't you suggesting we continue with unsustainable economic activity as a way to achieve that sustainable economic activity?

Quote:


It is not necessary in any way, just cheaper.

Quote:


American conservatives like Bush are largely to blame for the many bans on foreign aid going to family planning (ie condoms).

freediver wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2010 at 1:04pm:


Unfortunate choice of words. When I said 'control the population', I should have said 'control the populace', ie limit their freedom. The former phrase was ambiguous.

In terms of his use of religion, a number of American friends tell me that it was a very stifling environment during the Bush Era. Patriotism and Religion were intertwined to the extent that religious freedom was compromised and the separation of (a very specific fundamentalist) Christianity and government, was blurred.

Even if he tried to make the point that it wasn't about fighting Islam, his use of biblical rhetoric went against that initial sentiment.

Quote:
-Freediver

Undoudtedly, I mean, obviously we should not let considerations of trying to minimise the harmful effects of global warming cloud any financial considerations, the market is the only factor that should be considered.
If it is more profitable to ignore it completely, then that is what we should do.


Unfortunately, even though I vehemently disagree, I do accept the reality that we will only see meaningful progress, when businesses and governments can see a profit coming from it.

I completely agree with muso in regard to wasting money by trying to assuage the collective guilt we are supposed to assume with stupid equalising schemes to compensate those countries who did not get on the mass consumption bandwagon early enough, it is just extremist political correctness which would merely divert funds from areas where they could do some good, into areas where it will just be wasted or stolen, and either option would be a shameful waste.

The simple fact is that we need to see emmissions taxed to inhibit unnecessary over use, and to promote development of zero, or low emmission options becoming more economically viable.

We seem to have so many people taking varied stances on this issue, and it is reflective of the degree of importance they place on the whole Global Warming issue.
We have some, like myself, who consider it paramount, the most important issue to face mankind, since the nuclear arms race, which also had the potential for causing catastrophic outcomes for the planet, and mankind, in particular.

We have some who think it is pretty important, but not so much that we should take any drastic measures to try and ameliorate the possible effects. This group has an optimistic belief that even if we do suffer some adverse changes to our climate, we will still have science to help us cope, and private enterprise, and human ingenuity will come to the fore and save the day, somehow.

We have some that think it probably is real, but nowhere near as bad as people make out, and if we get a few slightly hotter summers, who cares. So we should put a little effort into it, but definitely not worth making any tough decisions over, and definitely do not think emmissions should be taxed, because the new SUV is a real thirsty beast, and fuel costs enough already.

Then we have the denialists, who deny it is even real.
We know this lot will resist any action, ever.

So, with such a diverse range of views, and with the probable majority of people fitting into the second category, it will be a tough sell for any government to get any really effective schemes happening, so I guess we are going to have to just hope they are right, and blind dumb luck will get us through this, because good sense and forward planning are anathema to the majority of our species.

As a footnote, I will venture a little prediction here, that when the effects become so obvious, and so negative, that we all are forced into accepting extreme measures, just to survive, then the groups who are most vocally supporting sitting on our hands, will be the most vocal in complaining about why didn't "they" do something sooner, forgetting that "they" were the problem.

Frikin' weak Mozz.
Your idealisms are covered with words. Display some logic to back your words.
Tell me why we must punish the threat of crime as opposed to actual crime.

So why is it Mozz?
Why should the threat of action be regarded as the same thing as committed action in the eyes of the law?

Plaese tell me Mozz. Exert your infinite wisdom upon me and make me believe.