Guest Harry Hope Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Our Government, and the Bush Administration, have done more to subvert serious action on climate change, and to endanger energy security, than anyone else on the planet. http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/climate-change-is-a-war-that-we-must-fight/2007/10/22/1192940982674.html October 23, 2007 Climate change is a war that we must fight Ian Dunlop The planet's ability to absorb the impact of humans is at its limits. BEFORE casting their votes next month, Australians should reflect long and hard on the real priorities the nation faces. These are not tax cuts, industrial relations, the economy, interest rates or the stockmarket, but the very survival and sustainability of our society and the planet. With the global population heading from 6.5 billion today towards 9 billion by 2050, we are already exceeding the ability of the planet to absorb the impact of human activity. The immediate sustainability priorities are water, climate change and the peaking of global oil supply. But our leaders, having supposedly crossed the threshold of accepting that sustainability, in particular climate change, is a serious issue, seem to believe it can be solved by minor tweaking of business as usual. That is demonstrably not the case. In Australia, the drought is worsening, capital city water supplies are deteriorating and the beginning of the bushfire season does not bode well. The latest CSIRO assessment highlights the risk of continuing climatic deterioration. Arctic sea ice is melting more rapidly than even the highest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecasts. This has serious implications for the warming of northern waters and global climate in general. Extreme weather events are growing worldwide, from widespread flooding across Africa, to intense storm activity in the US, Europe, India and China. The oil price heads north of $US90 per barrel, yet peak oil is barely on the agenda in this country, despite the first, grudging, official admissions, from the International Energy Agency and the US National Petroleum Council, that it may soon become a reality. These trends make it blindingly obvious that we cannot continue conventional economic growth and rampant consumerism without destroying the planet. The electoral focus has been on the importance of having a government that can manage the economy, but this misses the point. True leaders think in the long term, face up to and honestly articulate the big issues, then actively build a consensus for change, however unpalatable, uncertain and difficult. Management has its place, but the world we are now entering demands leadership of the highest order. There is no evidence that the Government, or the business community (with some notable exceptions), has the slightest idea what this means. We now face nothing less than a global emergency. We must rapidly reduce carbon emissions and encourage alternative energy sources, far faster than either government or opposition are prepared to acknowledge, and begin preparations for a global oil shortage. This is not an extreme view; the extremists are those in government and business who have been in denial for the past decade, and in the process have frittered away our ability to plan a timely response. Our Government, and the Bush Administration, have done more to subvert serious action on climate change, and to endanger energy security, than anyone else on the planet. They continually regurgitate the mantra that technology is the answer. It is undoubtedly critical, particularly the renewable energy technologies that have been deliberately suppressed, but technology alone is not enough. There must be a major change in our values. These challenges are daunting but with sound leadership we can successfully design a sustainable future. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting in Bali in early December is the crunch point. "Aspirational goals" must be banished for the fiction they are and serious binding commitments made to tackle climate change. In preparation, an Australian government should take the following immediate steps: -----Ratify the Kyoto Protocol and propose that the second commitment period be brought forward from 2012 with binding emission reduction targets for all nations. The objective is to limit temperature increase to two degrees, which will require global emissions to fall by at least 60 per cent by 2050. -----Show international leadership by proposing the adoption of equal per capita carbon allocations globally by a date to be agreed, say 2040. This will provide the circuit-breaker for the developing world to accept binding commitments. ----- Accept that Australian emissions under this scenario must be reduced by 50 per cent by 2025 and 90 per cent by 2050. ----- Accelerate the introduction of a national emissions trading system, incorporating these reductions. ----- Impose a national moratorium on all new coal-fired power stations and new coal export projects until their carbon emissions can be safely sequestered. ----- Set a national mandatory target of 30 per cent electricity from renewable sources by 2020. ----- Implement world's best practice energy efficiency and conservation standards. ----- Develop contingency plans to handle the peaking of global oil supply. Australians must demand that all political candidates clearly set out their climate change policy. We need to know the detail now, not take it on trust until after the election; we have been let down too badly already and it cannot happen again. In the event that real leadership does not emerge, we must place these issues outside the political sphere, to be handled independently on a quasi-war footing. It is that serious. _________________________________________ Harry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest It's Americans OR Democrats Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Projected cost to the World of bringing C02 levels down to 1990 levels, $23-$27 TRILLION. That is 1/4 of the GDP of the entire Earth. To save some coastal cities and perhaps some frigging polar bears. No thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kT Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 It's Americans OR Democrats wrote: > Projected cost to the World of bringing C02 levels down to 1990 > levels, $23-$27 TRILLION. The value to a society of a technology capable of pulling that off is? This kind of future technology doesn't just appear out of nowhere, it must be created, by new science, new industries, new scientists, new technologists, new educational systems, entirely new paradigms. All I see in this future is : jobs and profits - for somebody. We certainly have enough somebodies to fill that void. That certainly won't be you; you're ineducable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 3831 Dead Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:13:48 -0700, It's Americans OR Democrats <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote: >Projected cost to the World of bringing C02 levels down to 1990 >levels, $23-$27 TRILLION. That is 1/4 of the GDP of the entire >Earth. To save some coastal cities and perhaps some frigging polar >bears. No thanks. What an amazing number. I don't suppose you would like to tell us where you got it from, would you? -- What do you call a Republican with a conscience? An ex-Republican. http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c) "I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has become. I just can Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rita Refugee Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 "It's Americans OR Democrats" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1193102028.514496.243440@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > Projected cost to the World of bringing C02 levels down to 1990 > levels, $23-$27 TRILLION. That is 1/4 of the GDP of the entire > Earth. To save some coastal cities and perhaps some frigging polar > bears. No thanks. One of the things that the Gullible warming fanatics have tried to keep from disclosing is just what the so-called solutions would be. They talk about miracle technologies ( that have all the same credibility as perpetual motion ) being just around the corner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kT Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Rita Refugee wrote: > "It's Americans OR Democrats" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1193102028.514496.243440@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> Projected cost to the World of bringing C02 levels down to 1990 >> levels, $23-$27 TRILLION. That is 1/4 of the GDP of the entire >> Earth. To save some coastal cities and perhaps some frigging polar >> bears. No thanks. > > One of the things that the Gullible warming fanatics have tried to keep > from disclosing is just what the so-called solutions would be. They talk > about miracle technologies ( that have all the same credibility as perpetual > motion ) being just around the corner. I know, these scientist types are ridiculous. Solar panels, rockets, man walking on the moon. Rubbish. Utter bilge. If god wanted man to add up numbers really fast, and have instant access to all human knowledge, he would have invented computers and networks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shrikeback Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 "Rita Refugee" <Rita oneword Refugee@gmail.com> wrote in message news:p9cTi.4704$c9.471@bignews8.bellsouth.net... > "It's Americans OR Democrats" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1193102028.514496.243440@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> Projected cost to the World of bringing C02 levels down to 1990 >> levels, $23-$27 TRILLION. That is 1/4 of the GDP of the entire >> Earth. To save some coastal cities and perhaps some frigging polar >> bears. No thanks. > > One of the things that the Gullible warming fanatics have tried to keep > from disclosing is just what the so-called solutions would be. They talk > about miracle technologies ( that have all the same credibility as > perpetual motion ) being just around the corner. Actually, the solution to CO2 emissions is our biggest problem: the decreasing supply and increasing cost of fossil fuels. There isn't anything we need to force anyone to do to cut CO2 emission because scarcity will force it on us all anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ThePhisherKIng Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 It's Americans OR Democrats <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in news:1193102028.514496.243440@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > Projected cost to the World of bringing C02 levels down to 1990 > levels, $23-$27 TRILLION. That is 1/4 of the GDP of the entire > Earth. To save some coastal cities and perhaps some frigging polar > bears. No thanks. > > Gonna be a lot more costly and do much more damage than that if we don't do something to address the problem, moron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Neolibertarian Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 In article <ahhqh3h5jeq4cuu8cfue8j2egkephmfbmc@4ax.com>, Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > Our Government, and the Bush Administration, have done more to subvert > serious action on climate change, and to endanger energy security, > than anyone else on the planet. No one has yet proposed "serious action" on climate change. How can anyone be said to 'subverting" something that no one has even proposed? -- NeoLibertarian "The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." ---Ronald Reagan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rita Refugee Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 "Shrikeback" <hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3UcTi.3538$0l4.950@trnddc08... > > "Rita Refugee" <Rita oneword Refugee@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:p9cTi.4704$c9.471@bignews8.bellsouth.net... >> "It's Americans OR Democrats" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1193102028.514496.243440@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >>> Projected cost to the World of bringing C02 levels down to 1990 >>> levels, $23-$27 TRILLION. That is 1/4 of the GDP of the entire >>> Earth. To save some coastal cities and perhaps some frigging polar >>> bears. No thanks. >> >> One of the things that the Gullible warming fanatics have tried to >> keep from disclosing is just what the so-called solutions would be. They >> talk about miracle technologies ( that have all the same credibility as >> perpetual motion ) being just around the corner. > > Actually, the solution to CO2 emissions is our > biggest problem: the decreasing supply and > increasing cost of fossil fuels. The problem isn't decreasing supply, it's increasing demand as countries like China and India are using more. > There isn't > anything we need to force anyone to do to > cut CO2 emission because scarcity will > force it on us all anyway. So you agree that all of the solutions that the Gullible Warming fanatics want to force us into are all bogus and unnecessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest serebel Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 On Oct 22, 8:54 pm, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > Our Government, and the Bush Administration, have done more to subvert > serious action on climate change, and to endanger energy security, > than anyone else on the planet. > > You go ahead and fight it Harry, I'm goin' surfing. It's so nice out today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kT Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Neolibertarian wrote: > In article <ahhqh3h5jeq4cuu8cfue8j2egkephmfbmc@4ax.com>, > Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> Our Government, and the Bush Administration, have done more to subvert >> serious action on climate change, and to endanger energy security, >> than anyone else on the planet. > > No one has yet proposed "serious action" on climate change. How can > anyone be said to 'subverting" something that no one has even proposed? Sure we have. I have proposed colonizing space (to give the masses something to do besides fight over dwindling resources), exploiting extraterrestrial resources, educating our children in sex and science (in order to reduce the birthrate), and reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to around 300 ppm (to fend off any future ice ages). That pretty well covers everything except the conservation of energy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Neolibertarian Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 In article <0QdTi.291$Wa5.53@newsfe05.lga>, kT <cosmic@lifeform.org> wrote: > Neolibertarian wrote: > > > In article <ahhqh3h5jeq4cuu8cfue8j2egkephmfbmc@4ax.com>, > > Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > >> Our Government, and the Bush Administration, have done more to subvert > >> serious action on climate change, and to endanger energy security, > >> than anyone else on the planet. > > > > No one has yet proposed "serious action" on climate change. How can > > anyone be said to 'subverting" something that no one has even proposed? > > Sure we have. I have proposed colonizing space (to give the masses > something to do besides fight over dwindling resources), exploiting > extraterrestrial resources, educating our children in sex and science > (in order to reduce the birthrate), and reducing atmospheric carbon > dioxide levels to around 300 ppm (to fend off any future ice ages). > > That pretty well covers everything except the conservation of energy. Maybe just educating children in logic might be an important start. Obviously. -- NeoLibertarian "The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." ---Ronald Reagan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mg Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 "Neolibertarian" <cognac756@gmail.com> wrote in message news:cognac756-B1B2FE.21433222102007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net... > In article <ahhqh3h5jeq4cuu8cfue8j2egkephmfbmc@4ax.com>, > Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> Our Government, and the Bush Administration, have done >> more to subvert >> serious action on climate change, and to endanger energy >> security, >> than anyone else on the planet. > > No one has yet proposed "serious action" on climate > change. How can > anyone be said to 'subverting" something that no one has > even proposed? > > -- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 14, 2006 Bush Administration Suppressed Global Warming Report, Conservation Groups File Suit Former U.S. climate change official sounded alarm on "the central climate science scandal of the Bush administration" SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. - A coalition of conservation groups filed suit today against the Bush administration for refusing to complete a National Assessment of the impact of global warming on the environment, economy, human health and human safety of the United States. The assessment, due in November of 2004, is required by the Global Change Research Act of 1990. Today's action comes as U.S. representatives complete their participation in the final days of the United Nation's world climate negotiations in Nairobi, Kenya. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth, and Greenpeace. "This administration has denied and suppressed the science of global warming at every turn," said Julie Teel of the Center for Biological Diversity and one of the attorneys arguing the case. "The Bush administration was so threatened by the profound revelations of the 2000 assessment that it killed the 2004 update. They know the update will affirm what the world's leading climate scientists believe: that we need immediate and substantial cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. It is a complete head-in-the-sand approach to a looming global catastrophe." http://www.foe.org/new/releases/november2006/globalwarmingrepor111406.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kT Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Neolibertarian wrote: > In article <0QdTi.291$Wa5.53@newsfe05.lga>, kT <cosmic@lifeform.org> > wrote: > >> Neolibertarian wrote: >> >>> In article <ahhqh3h5jeq4cuu8cfue8j2egkephmfbmc@4ax.com>, >>> Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Our Government, and the Bush Administration, have done more to subvert >>>> serious action on climate change, and to endanger energy security, >>>> than anyone else on the planet. >>> No one has yet proposed "serious action" on climate change. How can >>> anyone be said to 'subverting" something that no one has even proposed? >> Sure we have. I have proposed colonizing space (to give the masses >> something to do besides fight over dwindling resources), exploiting >> extraterrestrial resources, educating our children in sex and science >> (in order to reduce the birthrate), and reducing atmospheric carbon >> dioxide levels to around 300 ppm (to fend off any future ice ages). >> >> That pretty well covers everything except the conservation of energy. > > Maybe just educating children in logic might be an important start. Libertarians : As long as the fascists leave me alone, I'm totally OK with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shrikeback Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 "Rita Refugee" <Rita oneword Refugee@gmail.com> wrote in message news:XvdTi.4755$c9.3947@bignews8.bellsouth.net... > > "Shrikeback" <hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:3UcTi.3538$0l4.950@trnddc08... >> >> "Rita Refugee" <Rita oneword Refugee@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:p9cTi.4704$c9.471@bignews8.bellsouth.net... >>> "It's Americans OR Democrats" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:1193102028.514496.243440@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >>>> Projected cost to the World of bringing C02 levels down to 1990 >>>> levels, $23-$27 TRILLION. That is 1/4 of the GDP of the entire >>>> Earth. To save some coastal cities and perhaps some frigging polar >>>> bears. No thanks. >>> >>> One of the things that the Gullible warming fanatics have tried to >>> keep from disclosing is just what the so-called solutions would be. >>> They talk about miracle technologies ( that have all the same >>> credibility as perpetual motion ) being just around the corner. >> >> Actually, the solution to CO2 emissions is our >> biggest problem: the decreasing supply and >> increasing cost of fossil fuels. > > The problem isn't decreasing supply, it's increasing demand as > countries like China and India are using more. That too, but that merely makes the end of oil that much closer, as well. I think Toyota or Honda projected peak oil production to be... right about now. >> There isn't >> anything we need to force anyone to do to >> cut CO2 emission because scarcity will >> force it on us all anyway. > > So you agree that all of the solutions that the Gullible Warming > fanatics want to force us into are all bogus and unnecessary. Yes, they are. In fact, the market has already done more than Kyoto ever could have to force us into looking for alternatives to fossil fuels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Captain Compassion Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:25:26 -0500, kT <cosmic@lifeform.org> wrote: >Neolibertarian wrote: > >> In article <ahhqh3h5jeq4cuu8cfue8j2egkephmfbmc@4ax.com>, >> Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >>> Our Government, and the Bush Administration, have done more to subvert >>> serious action on climate change, and to endanger energy security, >>> than anyone else on the planet. >> >> No one has yet proposed "serious action" on climate change. How can >> anyone be said to 'subverting" something that no one has even proposed? > >Sure we have. I have proposed colonizing space (to give the masses >something to do besides fight over dwindling resources), exploiting >extraterrestrial resources, educating our children in sex and science >(in order to reduce the birthrate), and reducing atmospheric carbon >dioxide levels to around 300 ppm (to fend off any future ice ages). > >That pretty well covers everything except the conservation of energy. It's not "our" people who are causing increased birth rates. It's those other people. Fighting over dwindling resources is a good way to reduce population. Ice Ages have nothing to do with atmospheric CO2 and the earth has been in an Ice Age foe well over 2 million years. -- The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS Joseph R. Darancette daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest W Spilman Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 "Rita Refugee" <Rita oneword Refugee@gmail.com> wrote in message news:XvdTi.4755$c9.3947@bignews8.bellsouth.net... > > The problem isn't decreasing supply, it's increasing demand as > countries like China and India are using more. That's the stupidest thing I've seen here lately. Read it again and try to realize why you have NO business discussing economics, or any other subject that requires logical thinking. WS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest grinder Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 "kT" <cosmic@lifeform.org> wrote in message news:i%bTi.24$te5.12@newsfe06.lga... > It's Americans OR Democrats wrote: > >> Projected cost to the World of bringing C02 levels down to 1990 >> levels, $23-$27 TRILLION. > > The value to a society of a technology capable of pulling that off is? > > This kind of future technology doesn't just appear out of nowhere, it must > be created, by new science, new industries, new scientists, new > technologists, new educational systems, entirely new paradigms. > > All I see in this future is : jobs and profits - for somebody. > > We certainly have enough somebodies to fill that void. > > That certainly won't be you; you're ineducable. It's amazing how some people complain about the cost while at the same time screaming about manufacturing jobs leaving the country. Those people are losers. The winners are those that look at it as an opportunity to create an industry which is more difficult to be exported. Evidently it does not occur to the losers that the "cost" is the amount of money EARNED and SPENT in this country to achieve the lower levels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jerry Okamura Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 I have posted this before to you Harry, and I have yet to get a response. Will you answer these this time, or will you ignore them once again? If you ignore them, what does that say about your willingness to understand the issue you are promoting? What will be the effects of Global Warming, and when will the effect be the worse? How certain are the predictions of Global Warming (100% certainty, 90%, 50%)? When will it happen, and what will happen and how certain are these predictions? When will Global Warming reach its worst case scenario, and what is that worst case scenario? How certain are the predictions that the worst case scenario will happen? What are the other scenarios of what may happen? If you were to rank each scenario, what is the most likely scenario? How big a reduction of greenhouses gases is required to avoid Global Warming, how much of a yearly reduction is required, how soon do we have the reach the yearly goal, what happens if we are not able to reach the yearly goal, and can anyone guarantee that we can avoid Global Warming, regardless of what we do? How do we know if the yearly goal is met in any one year? If the goal is not met in any one year, what must the next years goal be? If the goal is not met for more than one year, what should we do to catch up? What specific actions do we have to take in order to achieve the yearly goal, as an example, how much of a yearly reduction from the entire car manufacturing process for automobiles and all vehicles do we have to achieve? For instance, do we have to reduce gasoline powered automobiles world wide by what percentage, by what year in the future? Why concentrate on one of the greenhouse gases and not the other greenhouse gases? What is the maximum rise in sea levels can we expect? I would think that answer can be found in determining how much sea levels will rise "if" all of the ice and snow melts. Water on this earth is basically static, because none of it escapes from earth. It is either in the form of water, snow, ice, or in the atmosphere. And eventually, it will be returned to its natural form, which is water. So, what is evaporated, will eventually come back to the ground in the form of rain or snow. Where will it come back to earth? Won't the same amount of water that now returns to earth, be the same, if global warming should occur? One study suggested that the maximum rise in sea levels would be 263 feet, which if that happens would put a whole lot of land under water. Let us for the sake of discussion say that the scientist are right and that if we do not do something to reduce the levels of Carbon Dioxide, global warming will happen. It would just seem to me, then the next question is how can we guarantee that the event will not happen, or can anyone make such a guarantee. What exactly, do we have to do, how fast do we have to do it, would be the next series of questions I would think needs to be answered. Have those scientist who are predicting such an event, know the answers to those questions? If they have the answer, what is the answer? Is there a consensus of what exactly has to be done? If there is no consensus, what should we do, and why is there no consensus? How many tons of C02 is the earth emitting each year,? How many tons is produced by man? "Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:ahhqh3h5jeq4cuu8cfue8j2egkephmfbmc@4ax.com... > > Our Government, and the Bush Administration, have done more to subvert > serious action on climate change, and to endanger energy security, > than anyone else on the planet. > > > http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/climate-change-is-a-war-that-we-must-fight/2007/10/22/1192940982674.html > > October 23, 2007 > > Climate change is a war that we must fight > > Ian Dunlop > > > > The planet's ability to absorb the impact of humans is at its limits. > > BEFORE casting their votes next month, Australians should reflect long > and hard on the real priorities the nation faces. > > These are not tax cuts, industrial relations, the economy, interest > rates or the stockmarket, but the very survival and sustainability of > our society and the planet. > > With the global population heading from 6.5 billion today towards 9 > billion by 2050, we are already exceeding the ability of the planet to > absorb the impact of human activity. > > The immediate sustainability priorities are water, climate change and > the peaking of global oil supply. > > But our leaders, having supposedly crossed the threshold of accepting > that sustainability, in particular climate change, is > > a serious issue, seem to believe it can be solved by minor tweaking of > business as usual. > > That is demonstrably not the case. > > In Australia, the drought is worsening, capital city water supplies > are deteriorating and the beginning of the bushfire season does not > bode well. > > The latest CSIRO assessment highlights the risk of continuing climatic > deterioration. > > Arctic sea ice is melting more rapidly than even the highest > Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecasts. > > This has serious implications for the warming of northern waters and > global climate in general. > > Extreme weather events are growing worldwide, from widespread flooding > across Africa, to intense storm activity in the US, Europe, India and > China. > > The oil price heads north of $US90 per barrel, yet peak oil is barely > on the agenda in this country, despite the first, grudging, official > admissions, from the International Energy Agency and the US National > Petroleum Council, that it may soon become a reality. > > These trends make it blindingly obvious that we cannot continue > conventional economic growth and rampant consumerism without > destroying the planet. > > The electoral focus has been on the importance of having a government > that can manage the economy, but this misses the point. > > True leaders think in the long term, face up to and honestly > articulate the big issues, then actively build a consensus for change, > however unpalatable, uncertain and difficult. > > Management has its place, but the world we are now entering demands > leadership of the highest order. > > There is no evidence that the Government, or the business community > (with some notable exceptions), has the slightest idea what this > means. > > We now face nothing less than a global emergency. > > We must rapidly reduce carbon emissions and encourage alternative > energy sources, far faster than either government or opposition are > prepared to acknowledge, and begin preparations for a global oil > shortage. > > This is not an extreme view; > > the extremists are those in government and business who have been in > denial for the past decade, and in the process have frittered away our > ability to plan a timely response. > > Our Government, and the Bush Administration, have done more to subvert > serious action on climate change, and to endanger energy security, > than anyone else on the planet. > > They continually regurgitate the mantra that technology is the answer. > It is undoubtedly critical, particularly the renewable energy > technologies that have been deliberately suppressed, but technology > alone is not enough. > > There must be a major change in our values. > > These challenges are daunting but with sound leadership we can > successfully design a sustainable future. > > The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting in > Bali in early December is the crunch point. > > "Aspirational goals" must be banished for the fiction they are and > serious binding commitments made to tackle climate change. > > In preparation, an Australian government should take the following > immediate steps: > > > -----Ratify the Kyoto Protocol and propose that the second commitment > period be brought forward from 2012 with binding emission reduction > targets for all nations. The objective is to limit temperature > increase to two degrees, which will require global emissions to fall > by at least 60 per cent by 2050. > > > -----Show international leadership by proposing the adoption of equal > per capita carbon allocations globally by a date to be agreed, say > 2040. This will provide the circuit-breaker for the developing world > to accept binding commitments. > > > ----- Accept that Australian emissions under this scenario must be > reduced by 50 per cent by 2025 and 90 per cent by 2050. > > > ----- Accelerate the introduction of a national emissions trading > system, incorporating these reductions. > > > ----- Impose a national moratorium on all new coal-fired power > stations and new coal export projects until their carbon emissions can > be safely sequestered. > > > ----- Set a national mandatory target of 30 per cent electricity from > renewable sources by 2020. > > > ----- Implement world's best practice energy efficiency and > conservation standards. > > > ----- Develop contingency plans to handle the peaking of global oil > supply. > > > Australians must demand that all political candidates clearly set out > their climate change policy. > > We need to know the detail now, not take it on trust until after the > election; we have been let down too badly already and it cannot happen > again. > > In the event that real leadership does not emerge, we must place these > issues outside the political sphere, to be handled independently on a > quasi-war footing. > > It is that serious. > _________________________________________ > > Harry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jerry Okamura Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 "Neolibertarian" <cognac756@gmail.com> wrote in message news:cognac756-B1B2FE.21433222102007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net... > In article <ahhqh3h5jeq4cuu8cfue8j2egkephmfbmc@4ax.com>, > Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> Our Government, and the Bush Administration, have done more to subvert >> serious action on climate change, and to endanger energy security, >> than anyone else on the planet. > > No one has yet proposed "serious action" on climate change. How can > anyone be said to 'subverting" something that no one has even proposed? > good for you!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alanmc95210@yahoo.com Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 On Oct 22, 8:53 pm, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote: > Neolibertarian wrote: > > In article <0QdTi.291$Wa5...@newsfe05.lga>, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> > > wrote: > > >> Neolibertarian wrote: > > >>> In article <ahhqh3h5jeq4cuu8cfue8j2egkephmf...@4ax.com>, > >>> Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >>>> Our Government, and the Bush Administration, have done more to subvert > >>>> serious action on climate change, and to endanger energy security, > >>>> than anyone else on the planet. > >>> No one has yet proposed "serious action" on climate change. How can > >>> anyone be said to 'subverting" something that no one has even proposed? > >> Sure we have. I have proposed colonizing space (to give the masses > >> something to do besides fight over dwindling resources), exploiting > >> extraterrestrial resources, educating our children in sex and science > >> (in order to reduce the birthrate), and reducing atmospheric carbon > >> dioxide levels to around 300 ppm (to fend off any future ice ages). > > >> That pretty well covers everything except the conservation of energy. > > > Maybe just educating children in logic might be an important start. > > Libertarians : As long as the fascists leave me alone, I'm totally OK > with them.- Hide quoted text - The AGW fascists want to control what I buy, how I get to work, how much time I spend watching TV, what lighting I use in my bedroom. - A McIntire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.