Australian Politics Forum - What will Greens stand for when CT is repealed?

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: What will Greens stand for when CT is repealed?
Reply #30 - Sep 5^th, 2012 at 12:34am

Lets assume for one moment the Greens can prove that humans reducing their carbon emissions will reduce global temperature.

The argument here is - should the human race be accountable for it or is it a nationality (per capita) issue?

Can the atmosphere tell the difference between an Asian carbon emission, an American carbon emission, an Indian carbon emission etc.

As I see it - a carbon emission is a carbon emission whether it's come from a Ferrari or an Eskimo's butt.

If the issue is carbon emissions then why are we fighting over a "per capita argument".

If the ship it sinking do we say that only left-handers get to bail out and the rest sits by? Or does everybody bail?

Even if you have women and children - they too must bail even though they can only carry smaller buckets. If there are 5 men on board carrying 5L buckets and 200 women and children carrying 500mL buckets - I wonder which group could achieve greater expulsion of water??!!

The argument from the less developed countries (weaker) is that they are in their developing phase therefore should be given a fair go in getting to where the developed countries (stronger) are before they look at their emissions.

Its like the 200 women and children saying - lets wait until they grow bigger muscles before they should be made to bail water.

If urgent global action is needed then everyone should act. Facts are - it's not!!!

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

MOTR Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6646	Re: What will Greens stand for when CT is repealed? Reply #31 - Sep 5^th, 2012 at 4:59am Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 9:46pm: So if you use this logic, the Falkland Islands, Netherlands Antilles and Qatar are our biggest problems to fix. We would leave China, building several power plants every week.... Yes this seems sensible? That doesn't in any way follow, Avram.
Back to top	Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings "What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions." IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: What will Greens stand for when CT is repealed?
Reply #32 - Sep 5^th, 2012 at 5:30am

Maqqa wrote on Sep 5^th, 2012 at 12:34am:

Lets assume for one moment the Greens can prove that humans reducing their carbon emissions will reduce global temperature.

No one is making this assumption. Reducing GHGs will limit the amount of the rise. A significant rise is already locked into the system.

Quote:

The argument here is - should the human race be accountable for it or is it a nationality (per capita) issue?

Can the atmosphere tell the difference between an Asian carbon emission, an American carbon emission, an Indian carbon emission etc.

As I see it - a carbon emission is a carbon emission whether it's come from a Ferrari or an Eskimo's butt.

We can agree that it doesn't matter where in the world the carbon is released into the atmosphere it has the same effect on temperature.

Quote:

If the issue is carbon emissions then why are we fighting over a "per capita argument".

If we were locked into a closed system with a fixed amount of rations how would you share out the rations. Would those who had been gorging be allowed to gorge at their old rate. I guess if you were a gorger you might be happy with that outcome. I'm not sure the others in the system would agree with you.

Quote:

If urgent global action is needed then everyone should act. Facts are - it's not!!!

There are plenty of threads that discuss the evidence of global warming. Rather than dilute this thread how about we stick to discussing how we should reduce GHG emissions if that was what we wanted to achieve.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

Armchair_Politician

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 30069
Gender: male

Re: What will Greens stand for when CT is repealed?
Reply #33 - Sep 5^th, 2012 at 7:03am

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 8:55pm:

MOTR wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 8:51pm:

Why should more developed countries be allowed to maintain higher levels of pollution?

Whoah, here come the spanners!

Avram can't deal with a world that requires his exulted race to take a backward step me suspects!

GO GREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED, YOU LITTLE BEAUTY!

yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyY!!

You're an a$$hole, making light of the victims of the worst terrorist attack in history. You're also a racist. You ought to be permanently banned from this forum, you lowlife piece of $hit. I've deleted the picture out of respect for the dead and reported you. If you're not banned, I'm reporting you and your post (along with the forum administrator, who refuses to do anything) to the federal Communications Ombudsman because I'm simply not prepared to put up with any more of your shallow crap.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Sep 5^th, 2012 at 7:10am by Armchair_Politician »

IP Logged

Avram Horowitz

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3153
Australia
Gender: male

Re: What will Greens stand for when CT is repealed?
Reply #34 - Sep 5^th, 2012 at 8:55am

MOTR wrote on Sep 5^th, 2012 at 4:59am:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 9:46pm:

So if you use this logic, the Falkland Islands, Netherlands Antilles and Qatar are our biggest problems to fix.
We would leave China, building several power plants every week....

Yes this seems sensible?

That doesn't in any way follow, Avram.

Those three are among the worst polluters in the world per capita.
So if you use your logic, Qatar is a bigger problem than China even though China represents nearly one third of total world emissions?

It's a stupid logic per capita.

Back to top

IP Logged

buzzanddidj

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 14248
Eganstown, via Daylesford, VIC
Gender: male

Re: What will Greens stand for when CT is repealed?
Reply #35 - Sep 5^th, 2012 at 9:53am

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 5^th, 2012 at 8:55am:

China represents nearly one third of total world emissions?

It's a stupid logic per capita.

BULLSHIT !

If a nation is host to half the world's population, it is common logic they would create half the world's emissions to be a mid-range "average" contributor to climate change

To make LESS than half is to be BETTER than "average"

Unless you are of that SUPREMIST ELITE demographic that would condemn developing nations to ONE LIGHT-BULB per shanty - for all eternity ?

Back to top

'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.
Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.'

- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

IP Logged

Prevailing Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 7169 Stop Men	Re: What will Greens stand for when CT is repealed? Reply #36 - Sep 5^th, 2012 at 9:57am Quote: What will Greens stand for when CT is repealed? The faceless, unelected, central Corporate & Bureaucratic planning committees will decide what the Greens will stand for after the global warming propaganda runs out of steam...
Back to top	I condemn Male Violence Against Women The Government Supports Gynocide There Is Something Dreadfully Wrong With Men IP Logged

Armchair_Politician

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 30069
Gender: male

Re: What will Greens stand for when CT is repealed?
Reply #37 - Sep 5^th, 2012 at 8:10pm

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 5^th, 2012 at 7:03am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 8:55pm:

MOTR wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 8:51pm:

Why should more developed countries be allowed to maintain higher levels of pollution?

Whoah, here come the spanners!

Avram can't deal with a world that requires his exulted race to take a backward step me suspects!

GO GREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED, YOU LITTLE BEAUTY!

yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyY!!

You're an a$$hole, making light of the victims of the worst terrorist attack in history. You're also a racist. You ought to be permanently banned from this forum, you lowlife piece of $hit. I've deleted the picture out of respect for the dead and reported you. If you're not banned, I'm reporting you and your post (along with the forum administrator, who refuses to do anything) to the federal Communications Ombudsman because I'm simply not prepared to put up with any more of your shallow crap.

I see that the post by deathridesahorse has not been removed. Given this, I will be reporting that post to the telecommunications ombudsman tomorrow morning. There is no excuse for such a post and no excuse for allowing it to remain on this forum.

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: What will Greens stand for when CT is repealed?
Reply #38 - Sep 5^th, 2012 at 8:21pm

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 5^th, 2012 at 9:53am:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 5^th, 2012 at 8:55am:

China represents nearly one third of total world emissions?

It's a stupid logic per capita.

BULLSHIT !

If a nation is host to half the world's population, it is common logic they would create half the world's emissions to be a mid-range "average" contributor to climate change

To make LESS than half is to be BETTER than "average"

Unless you are of that SUPREMIST ELITE demographic that would condemn developing nations to ONE LIGHT-BULB per shanty - for all eternity ?

I think you've nailed it. It's pure racism.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

Prevailing

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7169
Stop Men

Re: What will Greens stand for when CT is repealed?
Reply #39 - Sep 5^th, 2012 at 8:24pm

MOTR wrote on Sep 5^th, 2012 at 8:21pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 5^th, 2012 at 9:53am:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 5^th, 2012 at 8:55am:

China represents nearly one third of total world emissions?

It's a stupid logic per capita.

BULLSHIT !

If a nation is host to half the world's population, it is common logic they would create half the world's emissions to be a mid-range "average" contributor to climate change

To make LESS than half is to be BETTER than "average"

Unless you are of that SUPREMIST ELITE demographic that would condemn developing nations to ONE LIGHT-BULB per shanty - for all eternity ?

I think you've nailed it. It's pure racism.

Which Australians are you calling racists...the non communists....? Grin

Back to top

I condemn Male Violence Against Women
The Government Supports Gynocide
There Is Something Dreadfully Wrong With Men

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: What will Greens stand for when CT is repealed?
Reply #40 - Sep 5^th, 2012 at 8:26pm

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 9:11pm:

MOTR wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 8:51pm:

Why should more developed countries be allowed to maintain higher levels of pollution?

As the major contributors to the problem shouldn't they carry a larger responsibility for fixing the problem.

That's the Australian way, Avram.

I am talking about fixing the problem - the problem is fixed when you bring down the pollution of the world's worst polluters.

China, USA and India make up half the world pollution. Everyone else is the other half.

From the 3 there, only 1 is reducting or even trying to reduce.

You fix the problem - you hit the ones who is making the most of the problem.
THAT is the Israeli way,

I take my way over yours.

No -that is not really correct.

The USA and EU are responsible for the majority of historical emissions. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for about 100 years. It is these that is causing the problem now.

China and India are certainly a problem for the future - but the problem must be addressed now - and China and India are not the ones that caused it.

Until those responsible - USA, EU, AUSTRALA etc start to take action - how can anyone expect fo those with a fraction of the per capita emissions to take notice

Back to top

IP Logged

Prevailing Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 7169 Stop Men	Re: What will Greens stand for when CT is repealed? Reply #41 - Sep 5^th, 2012 at 8:30pm Already the seed of regime change in the West are being laid as faceless unelected central planning committees become more corrupt, extreme, violent and unhinged ensuring that in their weakness, a new leadership will assume power....
Back to top	I condemn Male Violence Against Women The Government Supports Gynocide There Is Something Dreadfully Wrong With Men IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: What will Greens stand for when CT is repealed?
Reply #42 - Sep 5^th, 2012 at 9:22pm

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 5^th, 2012 at 8:55am:

MOTR wrote on Sep 5^th, 2012 at 4:59am:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 9:46pm:

So if you use this logic, the Falkland Islands, Netherlands Antilles and Qatar are our biggest problems to fix.
We would leave China, building several power plants every week....

Yes this seems sensible?

That doesn't in any way follow, Avram.

Those three are among the worst polluters in the world per capita.
So if you use your logic, Qatar is a bigger problem than China even though China represents nearly one third of total world emissions?

It's a stupid logic per capita

.

Counting coin your whole life is a stupid logic Wink

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: What will Greens stand for when CT is repealed?
Reply #43 - Sep 5^th, 2012 at 9:25pm

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 5^th, 2012 at 8:10pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 5^th, 2012 at 7:03am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 8:55pm:

MOTR wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 8:51pm:

Why should more developed countries be allowed to maintain higher levels of pollution?

Whoah, here come the spanners!

Avram can't deal with a world that requires his exulted race to take a backward step me suspects!

GO GREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED, YOU LITTLE BEAUTY!

yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyY!!

You're an a$$hole, making light of the victims of the worst terrorist attack in history. You're also a racist. You ought to be permanently banned from this forum, you lowlife piece of $hit. I've deleted the picture out of respect for the dead and reported you. If you're not banned, I'm reporting you and your post (along with the forum administrator, who refuses to do anything) to the federal Communications Ombudsman because I'm simply not prepared to put up with any more of your shallow crap.

I see that the post by deathridesahorse has not been removed. Given this, I will be reporting that post to the telecommunications ombudsman tomorrow morning. There is no excuse for such a post and no excuse for allowing it to remain on this forum.

softys vote for ______________________ !!! Grin

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

Avram Horowitz

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3153
Australia
Gender: male

Re: What will Greens stand for when CT is repealed?
Reply #44 - Sep 5^th, 2012 at 10:06pm

MOTR wrote on Sep 5^th, 2012 at 8:21pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 5^th, 2012 at 9:53am:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Sep 5^th, 2012 at 8:55am:

China represents nearly one third of total world emissions?

It's a stupid logic per capita.

BULLSHIT !

If a nation is host to half the world's population, it is common logic they would create half the world's emissions to be a mid-range "average" contributor to climate change

To make LESS than half is to be BETTER than "average"

Unless you are of that SUPREMIST ELITE demographic that would condemn developing nations to ONE LIGHT-BULB per shanty - for all eternity ?

I think you've nailed it. It's pure racism.

Rule -

When you are losing argument, shout "Racist!" at the top of your voice several times.

I remind you i am not a white aussie of yours, i dont have a racist view.

Back to top

IP Logged