| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | Just keep in mind that Australia's contribution (in a total sense not per capita) is miniscule. 1.19% of total word wide CO2 production. |
^ This is a rubbish argument. You really ought to be able to do better than that, Stui. In fact, Australia's contribution is very significant indeed, as we not only generate carbon pollution on our own soil, we also export vast amounts of very, very bad stuff (coal - it doesn't get much worse than coal). Australia is the biggest coal exporter in the world. And we import vast quantities of high-embedded-carbon consumer goods - in other words, our actual carbon footprint is way, way larger than you say.
But even if none of that were so, the argument that "we are a small country so our contribution does not matter" is morally and logically absurd. If we all followed that flawed and stupid logic, the Good Friday Appeal would raise zero dollars (cause the gift of any single contributor is tiny, way way way less than 1%); and we would never mend a pothole in a road (because that one pothole is 0.000000000001% of the total road repairs required in any given year, so it's obviously completely useless to fix the pothole); and we would never, ever prosecute a domestic violence incident (because that particular brutal bashing of a woman is some tiny fraction of the total crime rate and arresting the perp would make no difference at all to the overall problem of violent crime).
In short, the "we are small" argument isn't just wrong in fact; it is utterly irresponsible, stupid, and self-defeating in practice, and flies in the face of almost every other thing we do in both personal life and on the big stage of national action.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
 |
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Bald Facts, your mandate argument is complete nonsense. If there really was a mandate, then the numbers in parliament would be such that the Direct (in)Action legislation would pass. It hasn't passed, and the reason it hasn't passed is that a majority of Australians voted for parliamentary representatives who do not support it and - as they are obliged to do - voted it down.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Dr Pie wrote: | | The problem, my hairless and factless friend, is that direct action is nothing. It won't help the environment, it just bribes the polluters (with taxpayers' money) to make ineffectual token gestures. As a Green voter I would regard it as a betrayal if the Greens politicians encouraged voters to believe Abbott's lies about his non-existant climate policy. |
Well said, Dr Pie.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | Just keep in mind that Australia's contribution (in a total sense not per capita) is miniscule. 1.19% of total word wide CO2 production. |
^ This is a rubbish argument. You really ought to be able to do better than that, Stui. In fact, Australia's contribution is very significant indeed, as we not only generate carbon pollution on our own soil, we also export vast amounts of very, very bad stuff (coal - it doesn't get much worse than coal). Australia is the biggest coal exporter in the world. And we import vast quantities of high-embedded-carbon consumer goods - in other words, our actual carbon footprint is way, way larger than you say.
But even if none of that were so, the argument that "we are a small country so our contribution does not matter" is morally and logically absurd. If we all followed that flawed and stupid logic, the Good Friday Appeal would raise zero dollars (cause the gift of any single contributor is tiny, way way way less than 1%); and we would never mend a pothole in a road (because that one pothole is 0.000000000001% of the total road repairs required in any given year, so it's obviously completely useless to fix the pothole); and we would never, ever prosecute a domestic violence incident (because that particular brutal bashing of a woman is some tiny fraction of the total crime rate and arresting the perp would make no difference at all to the overall problem of violent crime).
In short, the "we are small" argument isn't just wrong in fact; it is utterly irresponsible, stupid, and self-defeating in practice, and flies in the face of almost every other thing we do in both personal life and on the big stage of national action. |
It's not an argument to do nothing, while our contribution may not actually matter, taking action is still a good thing.
Where the argument stands up is when people claim that getting rid of the carbon tax somehow dooms the world.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Getting rid of the carbon tax does doom the world in exactly the same way that losing a wicket dooms your team, Stui. It's not final, it's not fatal, but it's bad news.
Last week we (the world) were on 5 for 64 chasing 600 declared. Absolutely no reason we couldn't have a couple of good partnerships and get the runs, but at 5 for, it wasn't looking all that good for us.
Now we are 6 for, with 537 still to get ......
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Hey, it ain't cricket season, shhhhhh
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
thebaldfacts
Joined: 02 Aug 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | Getting rid of the carbon tax does doom the world in exactly the same way that losing a wicket dooms your team, Stui. It's not final, it's not fatal, but it's bad news.
Last week we (the world) were on 5 for 64 chasing 600 declared. Absolutely no reason we couldn't have a couple of good partnerships and get the runs, but at 5 for, it wasn't looking all that good for us.
Now we are 6 for, with 537 still to get ...... |
With respect what a load of nonsense, even by your usual standards. If you really believe this nonsense you may as well slash your wrists now.
Without any meaningful action from China, India, the US etc. Australia's actions are token at best. We contribute 1.4% to total global emissions. Abolishing the carbon tax makes no difference in the bigger scheme.
Hence the hypocrisy of the Greens. They support one token useless measure which makes no difference but refuse to accept another token useless measure which will make no difference.
Simple fact, if you really believe in global warming, then some action is better than none. |
|
|
|
|
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| No, hypocrisy would be supporting a policy that they strongly opposed prior to the election and which runs counter to their member's wishes. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
You mean like:
- No cuts to education
- No cuts to the ABC
- No cuts to the pension
- No cuts in healthcare
- Honest, open government
- No new taxes
- No nasty surprises
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Baldfacts, let's get off the topic of global warming (on which you're clearly a sceptic) for a moment and answer these questions:
1. Do you believe in pollution?
2. Do you believe that reducing pollution is a good idea?
3. Do you think the Carbon Tax was a lesser or equal mechanism for reducing pollution than Abbott's 'Direct Action' scheme?
4. Do you in general think that supporting ineffective policies is a good idea when better policies are achievable, or just on this issue?
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
thebaldfacts
Joined: 02 Aug 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| nomadjack wrote: | | No, hypocrisy would be supporting a policy that they strongly opposed prior to the election and which runs counter to their member's wishes. |
Opposing the only action that is being proposed by the Government to fight global warming is not hypocrisy? Guess they must think that global warming is a myth after all. Sure that their members agree. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I can't guess. Tell me. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I think of all TBF's contributions in this thread can be summarised as 'na na na na na na I can't hear you'.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The government is not proposing any action. Abbott's mob are proposing to do nothing at all. They have no hope of reaching even the piddly, near-useless target they pretend to support, and no policy to get even close to it.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | I think of all TBF's contributions in this thread can be summarised as 'na na na na na na I can't hear you'. |
Oops. Too much data. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
