Opinion Politics (warning, may contain political views you disagree with)

[dockerfemme]

So when I said you are angry and most of that is fair and then sited what you would be willing to do... your response in anger and name calling without knowing anything about my situation?

Who is it that is greedy? Who isn't self-interested? Another phrase sprouted about that means nothing as by definition we are all 'self-interested'.

I am saying we should do something... I personally am giving funds from my tax return and franking credits to sponsor scientists with a 1% chance of a pittance in return. While saying we should do something I am asking the same question over and over that no one here is answering... what are we willing to sacrifice in order to make the change? What government programs exactly?

See how I am able to answer without righteous indignation and ask questions? Now you try.

I can’t comment on govt programs etc that could be sacrificed.

I would not be against legislation to reduce electricity use, similar to the water restrictions we have gotten used to. No air conditioning between 9pm and 9am, or air cons set to 25degrees. In the same way that water restrictions have options for those with new lawns, this sort of legislation may require getouts for certain situations. Water restrictions works on the basis of general honesty and neighbourly whistleblowing.

i have no idea whether this would make even a tiny dent in electricity needs and emissions but it is my thoughts for the moment.

 

[poshman]

I can’t comment on govt programs etc that could be sacrificed.

I would not be against legislation to reduce electricity use, similar to the water restrictions we have gotten used to. No air conditioning between 9pm and 9am, or air cons set to 25degrees. In the same way that water restrictions have options for those with new lawns, this sort of legislation may require getouts for certain situations. Water restrictions works on the basis of general honesty and neighbourly whistleblowing.

i have no idea whether this would make even a tiny dent in electricity needs and emissions but it is my thoughts for the moment.

This would be interesting - I wonder how they could get commercial clients on board and what temp would need to be set in large commercial buildings.

It would be a small step but a step.

Would people just use fans more? I wonder what the net benefit would be? It would be positive in some way surely...

The gov programs are where we need to get serious if we want to create new industry or invest heavily in renewables. I think we have to look at the lot starting with the pension and social programs. Services cost money sadly and as much as it would be great to have all the services available it isn't wise long term.

 

[dockerfemme]

This would be interesting - I wonder how they could get commercial clients on board and what temp would need to be set in large commercial buildings.

It would be a small step but a step.

Would people just use fans more? I wonder what the net benefit would be? It would be positive in some way surely...

The gov programs are where we need to get serious if we want to create new industry or invest heavily in renewables. I think we have to look at the lot starting with the pension and social programs. Services cost money sadly and as much as it would be great to have all the services available it isn't wise long term.

Yes, I imagine commercial buildings would need different measures.

I use a fan overnight and find it quite satisfactory. I have my aircon set at 25 and find that fine too. If I am sitting quietly I even put it up to 26 or 27 And am quite comfortable. I am a middle aged woman and tend to feel hot.

 

[Cesoir]

I have always been anti nuclear, but am much more open to it now.

Re your comments on transmission lines - our wide open spaces are both a blessing and a curse. It means we can absorb the footprints of wind and solar more readily, and have access to wide ranging weather at all times. The long transmission lines for a national grid are challenging it seems.

Do you know any sites that explore the issues in Australia factually and fairly?

To be honest, I doubt such a site exists - pretty much everything is written by people with an agenda of one kind. I try to read a lot, ignore those that are obviously bullshit, then weigh up those that seem plausible. Pretty much the way I read opinions in here

 

[Cesoir]

I know that legislation is changing or has changed (lost track) in WA to ensure that regional towns don't have to be part of the grid. They of course will need to have their own independent power supply but this will be cheaper/more efficient than maintaining the infrastructure associated with a state/national grid.

I think this is the other way to go about it - rather than interconnecting everything, have smaller, decentralised power hubs. It seems Horizon is at the forefront of this "micro-grid" movement; at Kununurra 99% of the grid's energy is provided from renewable sources.

Funny how the wheel turns, it was always about centralising to save cost, now it would seem decentralising might just be cheaper and better for the environment.

 

[salim malik]

So when I said you are angry and most of that is fair and then sited what you would be willing to do... your response in anger and name calling without knowing anything about my situation?

Who is it that is greedy? Who isn't self-interested? Another phrase sprouted about that means nothing as by definition we are all 'self-interested'.

I am saying we should do something... I personally am giving funds from my tax return and franking credits to sponsor scientists with a 1% chance of a pittance in return. While saying we should do something I am asking the same question over and over that no one here is answering... what are we willing to sacrifice in order to make the change? What government programs exactly?

See how I am able to answer without righteous indignation and ask questions? Now you try.

The old mate didn't go down so well, condescending to the extreme.
Why was that necessary?

 

[salim malik]

Have you taken any personal measures to help with climate change?

None of your business.

 

[Purpletown]

I can’t comment on govt programs etc that could be sacrificed.

I would not be against legislation to reduce electricity use, similar to the water restrictions we have gotten used to. No air conditioning between 9pm and 9am, or air cons set to 25degrees. In the same way that water restrictions have options for those with new lawns, this sort of legislation may require getouts for certain situations. Water restrictions works on the basis of general honesty and neighbourly whistleblowing.

i have no idea whether this would make even a tiny dent in electricity needs and emissions but it is my thoughts for the moment.

Load shedding achieves this outcome quite brilliantly in South Australia. Load shedding is a much nicer word than blackout too.
Some of the points you raised in your earlier posting regarding transmission and availability need to be resolved as people get very unhappy when there is simply no electricity rather than a restricted supply.

 

[Kram]

None of your business.

I'll take that as an absolutely nothing.

 

[Stuart88]

At the end of the day something like 100 companies cause 70%+ of global emissions. It's these companies that donate and lobby the major political parties (legal bribery). Until money is taken out of politics nothing will be done.
I get that it's normal people that use a lot of what these companies produce but really there's not a lot we can do at a personal level other than vote out the corrupt politicians and that's not going to happen all the while massive corporations also control the majority of the media. We're basically doomed.

 

[poshman]

The old mate didn't go down so well, condescending to the extreme.
Why was that necessary?

Sorry mate - I didn't mean it as condescending. In my family and in my circle it is an affectionate thing we say about people we like of all ages. Please accept my apology.

 

[stax on the mull]

Lol, what?

1. Source on the no arson claim. I can't find that, and there's definitely a significant arson element in NSW and other states.

2. Source on the funding cuts? Fact checks have already said that's bullshit. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-05/fact-check-are-nsw-firefighters-facing--budget-cuts/11747396

3. Are you talking about the John Howard who set the original Renewable Energy Target in 2001? Tony Abbott who signed us up to the Paris Climate Agreement? Those guys?

4. Let's say Howard in 2001 instead of setting a reasonable target instead shut down every carbon emission overnight. How on earth does that 1% change in carbon emissions stop whatever impact climate change has had on our bushfires?

There were severe funding cuts to the NSW Parks and Wildlife services, reducing staff specifically trained in identifying fire risk areas.

"$121 million was cut from NSW national parks in the 2016-17 budget, shedding about 100 ranger jobs
In the latest NSW budget, $80 million has been cut from the department overseeing parks"

Australia's national parks are reaching an environmental tipping point, rangers warn

Former rangers, traditional owners and conservationists say Australia's national parks are reaching an environmental tipping point, with funding cuts at both a state and federal level leaving them in poor condition.

www.abc.net.au

Parks and Wildlife funding cuts in the spotlight as NSW Nationals play the blame game

The New South Wales deputy premier and the agriculture minister both say the National Parks and Wildlife Service did not do enough in the lead-up to the bushfire season, but the public sector union says the government has "crippled" the agency with budget cuts and restructuring.

www.themandarin.com.au

Another one here from " The Australian" (if that's a more trusted source for you) about the impact of those cuts on fire management

NoCookies | The Australian

www.theaustralian.com.au

 

[poshman]

So - all articles on funding above say it is a state issue... is that correct?

Why all the hate at the PM for budget cuts specifically?

 

[holybishop]

So - all articles on funding above say it is a state issue... is that correct?

Why all the hate at the PM for budget cuts specifically?

Twitter is still upset Scomo won the election

 

[poshman]

Twitter is still upset Scomo won the election

It doesn't make sense that the PM is getting the flak if the budget cuts weren't federal. One of the articles above mentions cuts over the last decade which would cover both state-level parties... I don't understand the level of the blame game, especially in a crisis.

 

[poshman]

Woah, Joose - I didn’t realise the “Facebook Grandad” area even had a Freo section.

Not meaning to open padoras box or anything but... why does that post make it a grandpa post and what in the post do you disagree with?

 

[Dale147]

Ignore the thread then. It's self contained. You can go back to listening to Nova and watching Married at First Sight.

Oh it’s ignored, but listening and watching that, I’ll leave that to your good self.

 

[SiempreFreo]

You want to do something tangible and meaningful in regard to climate change?

Quit eating meat.

Agriculture consumes more freshwater than any other human activity, and nearly a third of that water is devoted to raising livestock. One-third of the world’s arable land is used to grow feed for livestock, which are responsible for 14.5 per cent of global greenhouse-gas emissions. Razing forests to graze cattle—an area larger than South America has been cleared in the past quarter century—turns a carbon sink into a carbon spigot.

If cows were a country, their emissions would be greater than all of the E.U., and behind only China and America. The way contemporary agriculture works, every two kilos of beef you eat contributes to as much global warming as flying from New York to London.

It's pretty simple.

We have until 2035 to just ******* kill the livestock industry and arrest climate change. While the shortsighted and greedy mess around with the evil c-words in charge of fossil fuel and dirty industry, there is something that we can actually do.

I am Gen X and will miss the real devastation and I loved me some red meat like teenage boys love hefty bazoongas, but I gave up. Because you kind of have to.

Kangaroo meat is one feasible alternative.

 

[stax on the mull]

So - all articles on funding above say it is a state issue... is that correct?

Why all the hate at the PM for budget cuts specifically?

My impression is that most of the criticism seems to be as a result of there being more people realising that as a leader, he's a bit of a dill, and that the only thing he offered during this crisis were his Hillsong style "thoughts and prayers".

 

[wayToGo_]

I would not be against legislation to reduce electricity use, similar to the water restrictions we have gotten used to. No air conditioning between 9pm and 9am, or air cons set to 25degrees. In the same way that water restrictions have options for those with new lawns, this sort of legislation may require getouts for certain situations. Water restrictions works on the basis of general honesty and neighbourly whistleblowing.

Why'd you have to go and bring up water restrictions? Triggered

That'd have to be up there as one of the most short sighted environmental policies in history.

On the surface we absolutely should be legislating against wasting water. And I get we had an immediate need way back at the time which is why they were brought in. The problem is we've just lumped everything in together in defining what is "wasting water" and never really matured the conversation past a big stick if you use your sprinklers on days you shouldn't.

Busy lives and other priorities has already meant people were less keen on having gardens, and now with water restrictions you have to be pretty motivated to try and do what you want with 2 days of water or 3 if you have a bore.

Lush gardens bring temperatures down, provide natural insulation, filter toxins/C02 out of the air, produce oxygen, provide habitats for native fauna, attract bees/birds, provide a place to compost kitchen scraps, produce food (fruit and vegetables)... and on and on and on and on. So many benefits - including recycling the friggin water they use which evaporates back into the atmosphere (naturally cleaned and filtered) ready to be rained down!!!

Just as well they've got that special clause for lawns though #sarcasm. Next they'll be telling us to cut down trees because they are thirsty bitches.

 

[salim malik]

I'll take that as an absolutely nothing.

As usual you have no idea, clueless is your middle name.

 

[salim malik]

For some reason I,'ve been singled out and questioned for my response to climate change by a non entity in kram but I will respond anyway.
We have no lawns or gardens, we only have one vehicle now a small sedan which we use rarely. We have water savers on the showers and toilets, we do not use plastics under any circumstance, we are now vegans mainly eating raw foods so avoid using heat to cook We have purchased a property close to shops so we walk to do our shopping, we live on the ocean so don't use air con the sea breeze is enough.
We have ceased air travel.

 

[salim malik]

Why'd you have to go and bring up water restrictions? Triggered

That'd have to be up there as one of the most short sighted environmental policies in history.

On the surface we absolutely should be legislating against wasting water. And I get we had an immediate need way back at the time which is why they were brought in. The problem is we've just lumped everything in together in defining what is "wasting water" and never really matured the conversation past a big stick if you use your sprinklers on days you shouldn't.

Busy lives and other priorities has already meant people were less keen on having gardens, and now with water restrictions you have to be pretty motivated to try and do what you want with 2 days of water or 3 if you have a bore.

Lush gardens bring temperatures down, provide natural insulation, filter toxins/C02 out of the air, produce oxygen, provide habitats for native fauna, attract bees/birds, provide a place to compost kitchen scraps, produce food (fruit and vegetables)... and on and on and on and on. So many benefits - including recycling the friggin water they use which evaporates back into the atmosphere (naturally cleaned and filtered) ready to be rained down!!!

Just as well they've got that special clause for lawns though #sarcasm. Next they'll be telling us to cut down trees because they are thirsty bitches.

Gardens are great if they are native
Water guzzling lawns and non natives should be banned

 

[Vintage]

Why'd you have to go and bring up water restrictions? Triggered

That'd have to be up there as one of the most short sighted environmental policies in history.

On the surface we absolutely should be legislating against wasting water. And I get we had an immediate need way back at the time which is why they were brought in. The problem is we've just lumped everything in together in defining what is "wasting water" and never really matured the conversation past a big stick if you use your sprinklers on days you shouldn't.

Busy lives and other priorities has already meant people were less keen on having gardens, and now with water restrictions you have to be pretty motivated to try and do what you want with 2 days of water or 3 if you have a bore.

Lush gardens bring temperatures down, provide natural insulation, filter toxins/C02 out of the air, produce oxygen, provide habitats for native fauna, attract bees/birds, provide a place to compost kitchen scraps, produce food (fruit and vegetables)... and on and on and on and on. So many benefits - including recycling the friggin water they use which evaporates back into the atmosphere (naturally cleaned and filtered) ready to be rained down!!!

Just as well they've got that special clause for lawns though #sarcasm. Next they'll be telling us to cut down trees because they are thirsty bitches.

I love my garden, but I don’t kid myself into thinking that the lawn does anything good for the environment - purely aesthetic.

the natives, succulents etc that are more than happy with 2 waterings a week are different though.

 

[Beak_A]

Said every generation...

I haven't heard many good ideas from my generation (millennial Born 83) and not much that stands up to scrutiny from anyone saying we need a younger generation voted in.

The serious questions that need answering are not answered:

- If climate change is the number one priority, what services are we willing to cut in order to make a change. Before that, we need to identify what needs to change and how much. But let's say it is the existential threat that has been proclaimed so loudly recently (although the world was ending in ten years for each of the last four decades...) and proceed on that basis.

- Would we be willing to not have cars? Plane travel? Air con? TV's?

Ban mining? All mining? And the million-plus jobs (statistically jobs upstream and downstream from mining wouldn't exist without mining, therefore a conservative percentage of those jobs has been accounted for) in resources or related to resources? What happens to them? How do we cover the tax hole created by not receiving the income from the taxpayer and the companies? You could assume an extra burden on the government due to unemployment. Put a hole in the budget the size of the action you are willing to take on climate change and then make the requisite cuts to the services provided.

Then you have to acknowledge that if we ban mining in Australia the demand for the goods will not suddenly disappear. Other countries will source the product from elsewhere. Would there be less mining if Australia stopped providing the resources? We would also face a population drain as people in those industries move for the jobs. If this was a long term situation many of those employees would become a citizen of another country for tax purposes and we would lose that income as well. Generally, the best talent will move so we will also face an intellectual/talent drain. We need our best engineers, leaders etc to be here to help solve the problem. If they haven't got work they won't be here to help. People need to earn to achieve a standard of living.

I haven't seen a very good answer yet. We have some of the best living conditions in the world. I doubt that many would be willing to forgo general comforts let alone government services to pay for the change they are demanding. It should not be lost on anyone that people in the countries with the best living conditions in the world are the ones who have the time to complain/criticise. If we can start with gratitude that recognises that fact and then look for solutions that will not put future generations in massive debt we will get somewhere.

Let's say that we stop all mining and for some reason, all demand stops internationally. No new houses, no new buildings etc nothing. Then ask the following questions honestly:

1. What would you cut from the budget to pay for the hole created by cutting out mining?

Dole?
Age pension?
Medicare?
Employment services?
Housing services?
Emergency Services?
Defense?
Government departments?
Roads?
Water?
Border?
Government rebates?
Arts grants?
Business grants?
Technology and innovation grants?

2. How would we look after all those who lost jobs? (the effect would reach almost every industry)

3. How do we maintain a standard of living without the income to pay for it?

Would love an honest, open conversation without personal attacks or wild fanaticism.

For the record - anyone with anything genuine to add - I am part of a group of business owners who are looking to fund innovation in some key areas, if you are truly serious please contribute and I will contact you directly for further conversation. Funding commitments are significant and we are aware that we do not have all the answers. If you are someone or know someone who is passionate in this area, while there is a rigorous selection process, opportunities are in the marketplace.

There are many questions I haven't asked. The problem is so deeply layered that even when we answer the above questions we have many times the amount than above before we have arrived at a conclusion.

Great post poshman I agree we need to be asking the question ‘how do we make the changes needed’. The science is done and we’re currently getting a taste of what it’s been telling us for some time now unfortunately.

I think the biggest barrier to real change and climate action in this country is your point 2 - how do we provide certainty for those in jobs that will be impacted by the transition away from fossil fuels. Those discussions are underway at the community level like in Collie but there’s a long way to go. The liberal government got back into power through whipping up fear on exactly this point with cheap catchphrases and fearmongering IMO

The climate policy Labor put up, while by no means perfect would only have had about a 3% impact on GDP in 2030 at most according to the financial modelling that was done,

Shorten’s climate policy and why we don’t need to fear the Coalition’s ‘big scary numbers’

Scott Morrison wants voters to think that Bill Shorten is risky and reckless – but no one needs to grab the smelling salts

www.theguardian.com

So I don’t think the spending cuts needed are that drastic, particularly if everyone (ie big business and incidentally big polluters) were to pay their fair share of tax

https://www.marketforces.org.au/campaigns/subsidies/

Great to hear you’re part of the proactive business community, it’s a time of real opportunity for genuine entrepreneurial thinking. I like the Climate-kic program

About us - Climate-KIC Australia

Climate-KIC Australia inspires and enables climate action by catalysing systems change. We work with our collaboration network, drawing on our Systems Innovation Framework, to accelerate Australia’s response to climate change.

climate-kic.org.au

Not sure if you’ve seen it, happy to chat more


Official Buddy of The Cam 2020