Global Warming? Nope, Now it's Global Cooling

[fskimospy]

In terms of reversing the industrial age, there is no efficient process. People enjoy electricity.

Efficiency is measured as to how much unneeded materials, effort, etc is expended to achieve a desired outcome. Just because something is costly does not mean it is inefficient.

 

[fskimospy]

Sensationalize much? Even though it may be a threat (and no more a threat to them as any other nation), exactly what is Australia going to be able to do about it by taxing their own people? Even if man were the cause of the climate change, any mitigation efforts that Australia does is like pissing in the ocean.

Any honest person is going to look at that as wasteful spending since it will do absolutely nothing to directly benefit Australia. Now if they were contributing to a global effort, perhaps it might be a different story. But how in the hell is anything that Australia does for global climate change going to affect Australian climate.

Climate change is not a binary variable, it is a continuous one. Australia is one of the larger carbon emitting countries out there. (#16)

There are numerous benefits from climate change mitigation efforts from the development of new technology that you can export, to other environmental benefits, etc, etc. Any actual solution to climate change will likely involve dozens, hundreds, or thousands of small steps. The idea that we should do nothing until a comprehensive framework is established is simply irresponsible and is yet another excuse used to justify inaction.

 

[xBiffx]

Climate change is not a binary variable, it is a continuous one. Australia is one of the larger carbon emitting countries out there. (#16)

There are numerous benefits from climate change mitigation efforts from the development of new technology that you can export, to other environmental benefits, etc, etc. Any actual solution to climate change will likely involve dozens, hundreds, or thousands of small steps. The idea that we should do nothing until a comprehensive framework is established is simply irresponsible and is yet another excuse used to justify inaction.

Most people want to be reassured the money they are investing is going to go somewhere else other than straight into the fire. Sorry, but playing people's heartstrings rarely changes that.

 

[fskimospy]

Most people want to be reassured the money they are investing is going to go somewhere else other than straight into the fire. Sorry, but playing people's heartstrings rarely changes that.

Again, climate change is not a binary variable.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

One word: Nuclear

 

[fskimospy]

One word: Nuclear

Yes, nuclear will almost certainly need to play a big role in climate change mitigation. One of the biggest failures of the environmental movement is fighting against nuclear power when it's the clearest answer to bridging the gap between carbon emitting power and renewables.

 

[xBiffx]

Again, climate change is not a binary variable.

But our involvement is. That is are we doing anything to cause it and can we do anything to prevent/reverse it. The latter surely isn't dependent on the former and even then can we really make an impact.

Big questions that a lot of people don't want to gamble on.

 

[palehorse]

Of course they won't do that. Climate change is an enormous threat to Australia. Doing the right thing would be to intensify climate change mitigation efforts, which is what the Australian government will likely do going forward.

It's quite telling just how clearly unserious you are about this issue. They have one climate change mitigation program that you dont like because OMG TAXES. When it's mentioned that it's being replaced with something that lacks taxes but will be more expensive and less efficient, you then embrace a less efficient process and advocate for cuts from unrelated entitlement programs.

It's funny that you're willing to embrace government inefficiency so long as it cuts programs for poor people. Actually, replace funny with sad.

I haven't seen any quantitative analysis that indicates their replacement plan will be both "more expensive and less efficient"... is that simply your opinion, or can you quantify that position based on something more than random Australian bloggers' opinions?

"Omg moar taxes" is pretty much my largest criticism of any/all new government programs, let alone those involving pointless efforts to curb climate change.

And yes, I'd personally love to see most entitlement programs completely dismantled, as well.

I would worship a politician as my new personal God if they actually ran on the simple platform of "No new taxes, no new programs, and we're going to eliminate most of each of those that currently exist," and meant it.

 

[fskimospy]

I haven't seen any quantitative analysis that indicates their replacement plan will be both "more expensive and less efficient"... is that simply your opinion, or can you quantify that position based on something more than random Australian bloggers' opinions?

Of course I can quantify that position.

http://www.tai.org.au/node/1747

"Omg moar taxes" is pretty much my largest criticism of any/all new government programs, let alone those involving pointless efforts to curb climate change.

And yes, I'd personally love to see most entitlement programs completely dismantled, as well.

I would worship a politician as my new personal God if they actually ran on the simple platform of "No new taxes, no new programs, and we're going to eliminate most of each of those that currently exist," and meant it.

Well thankfully that position is so enormously unpopular that no party will ever achieve power on it in our lifetimes. Therefore, the rest of us will be spared the consequences of your irresponsibility. This sort of nonsense is what people think before they actually look into policy.

 

[palehorse]

Removed, see below

 

[palehorse]

Of course I can quantify that position.

http://www.tai.org.au/node/1747

- "The Australia Institute is the country’s most influential progressive think tank"
- "...the Institute is in a position to maintain its independence while advancing a vision for a fair and progressive Australia."

LOLOLOL, please tell me you have a second source?

Besides, their "analysis" doesn't even compare the new plan with the old. Instead, it's full of conjecture (guesses) and progressive propaganda meant to tear up the new plan.

Well thankfully that position is so enormously unpopular that no party will ever achieve power on it in our lifetimes. Therefore, the rest of us will be spared the consequences of your irresponsibility. This sort of nonsense is what people think before they actually look into policy.

Actually, it's the type of "nonsense" that people think once they've grown tired of the "spend more, tax more, give out more free stuff, and ignore the debt" bullshit we've witnessed over the last 80 years...

 

[sandorski]

Maybe the threads moved on? Here's a Video discussing the topic.

 

[fskimospy]

- "The Australia Institute is the country’s most influential progressive think tank"
- "...the Institute is in a position to maintain its independence while advancing a vision for a fair and progressive Australia."

LOLOLOL, please tell me you have a second source?

Besides, their "analysis" doesn't even compare the new plan with the old. Instead, it's full of conjecture (guesses) and progressive propaganda meant to tear up the new plan.

Except it is referencing Australian government reports on similar plans. Did you even bother to read it?

Actually, it's the type of "nonsense" that people think once they've grown tired of the "spend more, tax more, give out more free stuff, and ignore the debt" bullshit we've witnessed over the last 80 years...

Nah. It's the type of nonsense that people who don't understand policy spout because it makes them feel good emotionally. It's not a real plan, just childish ranting.

 

[palehorse]

Except it is referencing Australian government reports on similar plans. Did you even bother to read it?

Your original claim was that the new plan is both more expensive and less efficient than the previous plan that involved increased taxes.

The progressive "study" you linked does not include a comparison of the two plans, so it does nothing to prove your point.

Nah. It's the type of nonsense that people who don't understand policy spout because it makes them feel good emotionally. It's not a real plan, just childish ranting.

When all else fails, just point and say "you just don't understand. You don't get it!"

Yeah...

 

[fskimospy]

Your original claim was that the new plan is both more expensive and less efficient than the previous plan that involved increased taxes.

The progressive "study" you linked does not include a comparison of the two plans, so it does nothing to prove your point.

It's called rational conjecture. Try it sometime. I'm absolutely certain that you opened that link with the goal of finding a reason not to believe it.

When all else fails, just point and say "you just don't understand. You don't get it!"

Yeah...

Nothing failed, your opinion is just facile and I'm letting you know it.

 

[werepossum]

It's called rational conjecture. Try it sometime. I'm absolutely certain that you opened that link with the goal of finding a reason not to believe it.

Nothing failed, your opinion is just facile and I'm letting you know it.

LOL Right, rational conjecture.
1. This plan is not by progressives.
2. This plan replaces a plan put in place by progressives.
3. A progressive think tank (which should be called a "feelings tank" as "progressive think tank" is analogous to "jumbo shrimp") dislikes this plan.
4. Therefore I feel this plan is in every way inferior to the original plan without any disturbing direct comparison.

 

[palehorse]

^^^ what he said.