But using the scatter gun to spray mud around hoping it hits a few targets is quite counter productive.
Your interpretation.
An attempt to have a crack at business through riding the old CC hobby horse. It just sets back the case for meaningful change.
Your opinion.
You won't believe the world's climate experts when they say there's a climate emergency, but you'll believe some mining company when it makes non-binding statements that it supports action on climate.
But using the scatter gun to spray mud around hoping it hits a few targets is quite counter productive.
An attempt to have a crack at business through
pot kettle black
That you also never ever consider the costs of exceeding the goals set in the paris agreement, make whatose peopel who you just sprayed appear in your mind to have no purpsoe.
In December 2020, Australia re-communicated its 2015 NDC as part of the "ratchet mechanism" under the Paris Agreement. Australia failed to increase its 2030 ambition beyond the original target of 26-28% The new NDC states: "This target is a floor on Australia's ambition. Australia is aiming to overachieve…". However, Australia's 2030 GHG target remains misaligned with the Paris Agreement and the advice of the Climate Change Authority, and has been categorized as "Insufficient" by Climate Action Tracker in line with 2°C to 3°C warming scenarios.
They do however have objectives other than those you ascribe to them.
and that is doing better than this
However, Australia's 2030 GHG target remains misaligned with the Paris Agreement and the advice of the Climate Change Authority, and has been categorized as "Insufficient" by Climate Action Tracker in line with 2°C to 3°C warming scenarios.
There is ABSOLUTELY nothing about that goal that is anti capitalism unless of course you start with the premise that doing things about climate change is somehow anti capitalism, because you deny the reality of the cost of failing to act effectively.
There is ABSOLUTELY nothing about that goal that is anti capitalism unless of course you start with the premise that doing things about climate change is somehow anti capitalism, because you deny the reality of the cost of failing to act effectively.
IMO there is plenty that is capitalist about acting to reduce emissions....
- It requires investment
- It employs people
- It will lower power prices, helping households and businesses.
- if offer opportunities to develop new export industries which we will need.
The question isn't so much whether the government is pro or anti business.
It is whether they are putting the interests of some businesses ahead of the interests of other businesses, and the national interest.
And a secondary question is if campaign donations or direct perks are in anyway contributing to the skewed priorities.
In a democracy voters, the media and stakeholders of all kinds have a right to hold the government to account to ask questions and probe any issues that seem suspicious.
Those probing the issue, merely want open transparent and accountable government, rational decision making, and a sustainable future... IMO these are perfectly reasonable requirements...
The Paris Agreement is a legal instrument
My birth certificate is also a legal instrument.
It is a hybrid of legally binding and nonbinding provisions.
So, by definition, not legally binding.
NDC's (nationally determined contributions) are non-binding goals, They aren't binding obligations. The clue is in the words "nationally determined". We volunteer them. Read Australia's NDC. The goals are actually pretty loose.
But the UN try this on at each CoP. They would love nothing better than to convert all NDC's into obligations.
That won't happen simply because it's ludicrous for the UN, a body which has no legal standing in member countries, to then presumably seek to coerce member countries into conformation to some plan under a legal framework that doesn't exist and for which, no authority has been granted by member countries who are only associated voluntarily. And that's just for a start. Put simply, the UN has no governance authority over Australia.
But, yes, we've agreed to honour the process and our NDCs.
Whether we agree to more stringent processes, NDCs or other proposals is another matter.
You are not alone here. We have a couple of regular contributors who advocate VRE be responsible for firming, and if we were starting from a blank canvas, it would be worthy of consideration. Problem for me is, we don't have a rewind button to unscramble that egg now.
Yes . . agree with your prior points as well and also that we can't unscramble the egg.
Thanks for your first hand background knowledge on this stuff, too. It's often not properly acknowledged or appreciated by those like myself who don't possess same. I also wasn't properly across BZE's proposal – mea culpa.
But the UN try this on at each CoP. They would love nothing better than to convert all NDC's into obligations.
That's as may be.
Do you think our obligations to achieve emissions standards should be based on whether they're 'legally binding'?
But, yes, we've agreed to honour the process and our NDCs.
Good, so we have obligations beyond the purely legal, do we agree?
Why would the government meet so many more ff firms than renewables? To listen to them urge stronger climate action, maybe?
The whole topic has become politically charged to the point where little sensible conversation is possible.
Tony Abbott shows his comprehensive grasp of the topic of climate change.
Policy to deal with climate change is like primitive people killing goats to appease volcano gods, former prime minister Tony Abbott has told an audience in Britain overnight.
"In most countries far more people die in cold snaps than in heatwaves, so a gradual lift in global temperatures, especially if it is accompanied by more prosperity and more capacity to adapt to change might even be beneficial," he told the Global Warming Policy Foundation in the United Kingdom in a speech called Daring to Doubt.
The Federal Government has signalled it may not adopt chief scientist Alan Finkel's recommendation for a clean energy target (CET) and Mr Abbott has insisted in the speech that "there must not be" a CET.
Mr Abbott said environmentalism combined a "post-socialist instinct for big government with a post-Christian nostalgia for making sacrifices in a good cause".
The NEG set a 26% target for electricity by 2030, less than half what was believed necessary at at the time. In fact, we now know the targets need to be even higher.
Was going swimmingly well until Labour said they would back it, and suddenly it was whisked off the table.
Abbott was the most vocal opponent, releasing a statement after the joint party room meeting on Tuesday that asked: “When the big emitters are not meeting Paris, why should we?”
A group of MPs threatened to cross the floor of the lower house. You’ll remember Turnbull only has a one-seat majority. He and his key backers put their efforts last week into trying to reduce the number of MPs who could cross the floor. Too significant a revolt would constitute a loss of confidence in his leadership.
In a bid to quell the unrest, Turnbull announced late last week that he would no longer legislate the emissions reduction target, but would instead implement it via regulation. This backfired spectacularly. Abbott and co were unlikely ever to be placated. They said the change would simply allow Labor to increase the target by changing the regulation (which does not require a vote in parliament) if it took office.
At least Turnbull had some grasp of the topic, even if he had the spine of a jellyfish. Scott Morrison has about as much grasp of the topic of climate change as Abbott, without the colourful metaphors.
Morrison confirmed to the Weekend Australian that the energy policy formed by his predecessor, Malcolm Turnbull, would be axed.
“The Neg is dead, long live reliability guarantee, long live default prices, long live backing new power generation,” Morrison said. “Largely, we are in that position already anyway, so it’s not a major shift. But we just need to put to rest any suggestion that this legislation is going ahead.”
The Clean Energy Act was passed in November 2011. It was highly effective while it lasted.
On 24 February 2011, in a joint press conference of the "Climate Change Committee" – comprising the Government, Greens and two independent MPs – Gillard announced a plan to legislate for the introduction of a fixed price to be imposed on "carbon pollution" from 1 July 2012 The carbon price would be placed for three to five years before a full emissions trading scheme is implemented, under a blueprint agreed by a multi-party parliamentary committee. Key issues remained to be negotiated between the Government and the cross-benches, including compensation arrangements for households and businesses, the carbon price level, the emissions reduction target and whether or not to include fuel in the tax.
But, you're absolutely right. It's really too bad about the politics.
Your opinion.
Climate change has been in the mainstream for a third of a century now at least in Australia. There was quite a fuss about it in 1988, indeed it pervaded pretty much all aspects of society very quickly at the time, and it has been intermittently in the news ever since.
The problem has not been solved indeed the opposite is true, emissions are higher than ever.
This tells me two things:
1. Climate scientists and others (eg environmental groups etc) are plausibly 100% correct at identifying the problem and consequences of it.
2. They are clearly very wrong in identifying effective means of fixing it. There are some individual exceptions but what they've come up with thus far has been rejected as a whole.
Now if we look at those bits which have succeeded, the key is they fit firmly into the "bigger better faster louder" category and are a very long way removed from the "live simply" category.
In short, the way to sell the public on things like renewable energy isn't that they can save money on gas. Rather, it's to point out that they can have the house as warm as they like without harming the planet or their wallet.
Nobody aspires to be poor and well intentioned environmentalists (etc) do often make the mistake of trying to convince people to do just that. Telling them that the only way to save the planet means 2 minute showers and no private cars does more harm than good.
Or in other words more of the Elon Musk approach. Fast EV's not slow "eco cars". Bright LED's everywhere not dimly lit streets. And so on. Sell people a vision of the future that's simply better without even mentioning climate – that it fixes that being a bonus albeit an important one but don't focus the marketing on it.
They are clearly very wrong in identifying effective means of fixing it.
That's because they're climate scientists, not engineers.
Telling them that the only way to save the planet means 2 minute showers and no private cars does more harm than good.
I actually do understand how voters think. If and when we have real and effective bipartisanship on climate action it won't matter what voters think, because both parties will be united on policy that aligns with the Paris Agreement.
Instead of shaping policy to please voters, voters will have to deal with whatever policy is legislated, and my guess is it's going to get very ugly in another decade or so.
I've been having 2 minute showers for as long as I can remember, FWIW, probably shorter than that.
"bigger better faster louder" ...Telling them that the only way to save the planet means 2 minute showers and no private cars does more harm than good. Or in other words more of the Elon Musk approach. Fast EV's not slow "eco cars". Bright LED's everywhere not dimly lit streets.
Yes, "bigger better faster" will entice consumers better. But it's only using one side of the solution – "using less energy" is neglected. This severely limits the speed of the transition and leads to worse outcomes overall due to the effects of climate change.
As a species and country we should be thinking outside the box – perhaps there's a better approach. For example, people accepted rationing in WW1 & WW2. Capitalism continued, elections were held but the emergency spurred bipartisanship and a willingness to cut back on consumerism.
I'm not saying a government should simply declare "it's a war" and immediately ration private motorists to 31 km per week and taxi drivers to 83 litres of petrol per week, as was done in WW2. I'm wondering if there's some political way to achieve public support for serious action while retaining democracy and capitalism *without* going to war.
Rather, it's to point out that they can have the house as warm as they like without harming the planet or their wallet.
Yes that would be good. But is it possible? There is a limit to resources available. No planet B to escape to, sorry Elon.
At what point
voters will have to deal with whatever policy is legislated,?
It may be more serious than policy if the bloke with the bigger stick gets nasty.
and my guess is it's going to get very ugly in another decade or so.
A lot of mankind already is (has always been ) living in a rather ugly situation. For them it is rather academic whether the wallet or the environment gets hurt.
Yes, "bigger better faster" will entice consumers better. But it's only using one side of the solution – "using less energy" is neglected. This severely limits the speed of the transition and leads to worse outcomes overall due to the effects of climate change
Absolutely. If we neglect "using less energy" (that includes wanting fewer gadgets) then it is like the cat chasing it's own tail or trying to jump over our own shadow.
The covid pandemic could (if we only did listen) teach us a lesson, wearing a mask or being restricted how far we can travel are minor inconveniences compared to running out of space , food or water.
Sell people a vision of the future that's simply better without even mentioning climate – that it fixes that being a bonus albeit an important one but don't focus the marketing on it.
Agree 100%....
Australia is increasingly regarded as a pariah state on climate.
...when a senior UN official warned Australia's climate inaction would eventually "wreak havoc" on its economy, Australia's resources minister, Keith Pitt, dismissed the UN as a "foreign body" that should mind its own business. He even bragged about Australia's plans to keep mining coal "well beyond 2030," while much of the developed world is already well on its way to phasing out the fossil fuel.
Australia is becoming increasingly isolated from the rest of the world with its obstinate approach to the climate crisis. Leaders like US climate envoy John Kerry and COP26 President Alok Sharma have been focused recently on the climate challenge of China — but it's Australia that's emerging as the real pariah of the COP26 talks.
"Of all the developed countries, Australia has the poorest standing on climate. It's clear that Australia will just be absent, basically, from the talks," Bas Eickhout, a Dutch member of the European Parliament, told CNN.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021
A lot of mankind already is (has always been ) living in a rather ugly situation.
I was referring to Australia, but ugly anywhere can still get uglier.
For them it is rather academic whether the wallet or the environment gets hurt.
The environment is the wallet.
If we're talking about an increase of 2 degrees and rising, It'll be academic whether people in poorer agricultural based economies die of heat or starvation first.
Do you think our obligations to achieve emissions standards should be based on whether they're 'legally binding'?
Again, these are not 'obligations' but goals . . or 'targets' if you like.
Do you mean 'legally binding' with respect to the UN?
Good, so we have obligations beyond the purely legal, do we agree?
I've tried to parse this but without success.
What specifically do you mean by "beyond the purely legal"? Are you perchance inferring something like a moral obligation, and if so, to whom?
I'm not getting the thrust of it.
Instead of shaping policy to please voters, voters will have to deal with whatever policy is legislated . .
If you "actually do understand how voters think", ask Julia (there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead) Gillard how that went down.
Julia brought us Tony (axe the tax) Abbott.
We don't elect emperors.
If you "actually do understand how voters think", ask Julia (there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead) Gillard how that went down.
Julia brought us Tony (axe the tax) Abbott.
We don't elect emperors.
No, we elect liars, which is what happened in that case (the "there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead" that Credlin has admitted to was a lie).
Of course, this will become less relevant as countries move towards things like carbon import taxes (which will hurt our economy badly) but that would require foresight and proactive planning by government to compensate for.
Yes, "bigger better faster" will entice consumers better. But it's only using one side of the solution – "using less energy" is neglected. This severely limits the speed of the transition and leads to worse outcomes overall due to the effects of climate change.
Thing is, consumers can be sold on the "bigger better faster louder" approach almost immediately.
Convince consumers that there's a better product and they want it NOW.
In contrast the "use less" approach, realistically, will be very much slower. It's essentially more of what we've been doing for decades and will bring a continuation of the same results. It also brings with it political resistance.