Climate change

Discuss all the events of the day

Moderator: GH Moderators

User avatar
gerg
Laurie Daley
Posts: 12613
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gerg »

More fool you for watching sky.
Shoving it in your face since 2017
User avatar
BJ
Steve Walters
Posts: 7687
Joined: February 2, 2007, 12:14 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by BJ »

gergreg wrote:More fool you for watching sky.
I watched ABC too to keep things‘fair and balanced’.
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145095
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

BJ wrote: March 29, 2022, 9:51 pm
gergreg wrote:More fool you for watching sky.
I watched ABC too to keep things‘fair and balanced’.
There’s no guarantee of that there either these days.
Image
RedRaider
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11265
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

greeneyed wrote: March 29, 2022, 7:31 pm
RedRaider wrote: March 29, 2022, 6:20 pm
greeneyed wrote: November 9, 2021, 11:10 pm Seems to be an egregious waste of taxpayers’ money. Simply shouldn’t be happening. Rent seekers transferring their costs onto others… other taxpayers. Awful public policy.
GE, from an economic point of view are there Government enterprises you support? I see it as a source of revenue for Government. Alternatively are you in favor of Public/Private arrangements. I am not opposed to Government owning and operating profitable businesses.
I’m certainly opposed to governments owning and operating profitable businesses. Production and supply of private goods is the role of the private sector. History shows governments are bad at doing it, and that’s why things which are essentially commercial activities have been sold off by governments all over the world. That’s accepted by the vast bulk of economists these days.

Government intervention in supplying private goods is a drag on the efficiency of the economy, its productive capacity, and the welfare of society. If governments need to raise revenue for the supply of public goods, broad based taxation is the way it should be done. That comes at minimum dead weight losses.

Where goods have both public and private benefits, the issues are more complex. Public/private partnerships might be sensible, particularly where they can drive efficiency in the production of public goods.

However, we should be sceptical of vested interests claiming there are “public good” elements to their proposals for government subsidies and support. Governments subsidising the production of electric vehicle chargers is a classic case of what not to do. The car industry has historically been good at this sort of thing. It’s the old infant industry argument and tariffs all over again. It took us a long time to work out that these sorts of subsidies are bad for the economy.

And if people say… this will be good for reducing carbon emissions… we’ve gone over that ground before. This “direct action” is a very expensive and inefficient way of doing it… with welfare costs for us all.
Thank you GE. I always appreciate the candor and honesty of your views.
User avatar
papabear
Steve Walters
Posts: 7038
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: leafy part of sydney

Re: Climate change

Post by papabear »

I honestly don't agree with the criticism of direct action policies by governments on the basis that they are a more expensive method of reducing climate change then a carbon tax.

Both of these policies are not mutually exclusive. They can and should be able to stand on their own merits.

If a carbon tax would be a benefit for the country and the globe it is something humanity should pursue.

Equally, so should direct action policies in respect of all environmental concerns including and not limited to:-
- the use / litter of plastics on the planet and in the oceans. clean up australia day is direct action and we need more of it.
- reclaiming non used / non efficient farm or other land to its natural environment through replanting native trees / native species.
- Banning of / enforcement of harmful pesticides / chemicals that can be done so without crippling the agricultural industry.
- improved distribution and holding of water throughout our entire country.

Honestly, when someone bags direct action to hep the environment in an effort to persuade of carbon tax / trading scheme, I emotionally / mentally switch into talking to a super religious person. It is like they have a plan in their mind for the world and they are sticking to the script no matter what comes.
User avatar
dubby
Don Furner
Posts: 33813
Joined: May 16, 2006, 12:14 pm
Favourite Player: Mal Meninga
Location: Albury

Re: Climate change

Post by dubby »

ABC is a disgusting broadcaster. Extremely one-sided and placates the left.

Time to remove its funding by the taxpayer as it no longer represents all Australians. Hasn't for years.
The spiral of silence refers to the idea that when people fail to speak, the price of speaking rises. As the price to speak rises, still fewer speak out, which further causes the price to rise, so that fewer people yet will speak out, until a whole culture or nation is silenced. This is what happened in Germany.

If you do not speak, you are not being neutral, but are contributing to the success of the thing you refuse to name and condemn.
User avatar
Rick
Steve Walters
Posts: 7517
Joined: August 11, 2008, 3:56 pm
Favourite Player: Daley
Location: Darwin

Re: Climate change

Post by Rick »

dubby wrote:ABC is a disgusting broadcaster. Extremely one-sided and placates the left.

Time to remove its funding by the taxpayer as it no longer represents all Australians. Hasn't for years.
Day one of the election and Dubby has gone full Dubby!!!

Calm down and pace yourself, 6 weeks left.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

dubby wrote:ABC is a disgusting broadcaster. Extremely one-sided and placates the left.

Time to remove its funding by the taxpayer as it no longer represents all Australians. Hasn't for years.
Give an example.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

papabear wrote:I honestly don't agree with the criticism of direct action policies by governments on the basis that they are a more expensive method of reducing climate change then a carbon tax.

Both of these policies are not mutually exclusive. They can and should be able to stand on their own merits.

If a carbon tax would be a benefit for the country and the globe it is something humanity should pursue.

Equally, so should direct action policies in respect of all environmental concerns including and not limited to:-
- the use / litter of plastics on the planet and in the oceans. clean up australia day is direct action and we need more of it.
- reclaiming non used / non efficient farm or other land to its natural environment through replanting native trees / native species.
- Banning of / enforcement of harmful pesticides / chemicals that can be done so without crippling the agricultural industry.
- improved distribution and holding of water throughout our entire country.

Honestly, when someone bags direct action to hep the environment in an effort to persuade of carbon tax / trading scheme, I emotionally / mentally switch into talking to a super religious person. It is like they have a plan in their mind for the world and they are sticking to the script no matter what comes.
This would all be well and good if your* direct action plan were shown to be reducing carbon emissions.

Trusting the LNP to do direct action right is about 50 steps away removed again from even arguing direct action version a price on carbon.

* Royal “your”, not papabear “your”
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145095
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

Economists make recommendations on public policy, after clearly identifying and articulating the problem, considering the options and looking at the costs and benefits of the options.

Clearly, there are going to be cases where the provision of a certain public good is the best option. In other cases, certain private activities might have negative externalities that are so damaging, then regulating it or even banning it is the best option.

With carbon pricing... economists are very widely agreed that that is the best option to address the problem of carbon pollution. We know that so called "direct action" is not going to be the least cost and most certain way of achieving carbon emission abatement targets. And the reason is this... it uses the power of market signals to ensure that the private sector finds that least cost abatement solutions. We know governments are bad at making these choices.

I find it really ironic that political parties that champion the market and private sector decision making - reject the market based policy solution. The reality is that they do that, because fundamentally, they don't accept climate change is real, so action isn't needed... or they believe Australia shouldn't when others aren't. And then find things to spend taxpayers money on, so as to appear to be doing something... and which avoid disturbing certain vested interests. So not only are they higher cost, but they won't achieve the carbon abatement targets.
Image
User avatar
papabear
Steve Walters
Posts: 7038
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: leafy part of sydney

Re: Climate change

Post by papabear »

gangrenous wrote: April 11, 2022, 6:15 pm
dubby wrote:ABC is a disgusting broadcaster. Extremely one-sided and placates the left.

Time to remove its funding by the taxpayer as it no longer represents all Australians. Hasn't for years.
Give an example.
ABC is on the other side of murdoch.
User avatar
papabear
Steve Walters
Posts: 7038
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: leafy part of sydney

Re: Climate change

Post by papabear »

greeneyed wrote: April 11, 2022, 7:27 pm Economists make recommendations on public policy, after clearly identifying and articulating the problem, considering the options and looking at the costs and benefits of the options.

Clearly, there are going to be cases where the provision of a certain public good is the best option. In other cases, certain private activities might have negative externalities that are so damaging, then regulating it or even banning it is the best option.

With carbon pricing... economists are very widely agreed that that is the best option to address the problem of carbon pollution. We know that so called "direct action" is not going to be the least cost and most certain way of achieving carbon emission abatement targets. And the reason is this... it uses the power of market signals to ensure that the private sector finds that least cost abatement solutions. We know governments are bad at making these choices.

I find it really ironic that political parties that champion the market and private sector decision making - reject the market based policy solution. The reality is that they do that, because fundamentally, they don't accept climate change is real, so action isn't needed... or they believe Australia shouldn't when others aren't. And then find things to spend taxpayers money on, so as to appear to be doing something... and which avoid disturbing certain vested interests. So not only are they higher cost, but they won't achieve the carbon abatement targets.
When it comes to the environment, imo the strongest voices should come from environmentalists / scientists etc not really economists.

That all said, I do not object to carbon tax /trading scheme. I think overhauling our entire tax structure would be a good thing for any government to do.

However, whether a country implements a carbon tax / trading scheme or not should be irrelevant as to the other environmental challenges it should try and overcome.
User avatar
papabear
Steve Walters
Posts: 7038
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: leafy part of sydney

Re: Climate change

Post by papabear »

gangrenous wrote: April 11, 2022, 6:44 pm
papabear wrote:I honestly don't agree with the criticism of direct action policies by governments on the basis that they are a more expensive method of reducing climate change then a carbon tax.

Both of these policies are not mutually exclusive. They can and should be able to stand on their own merits.

If a carbon tax would be a benefit for the country and the globe it is something humanity should pursue.

Equally, so should direct action policies in respect of all environmental concerns including and not limited to:-
- the use / litter of plastics on the planet and in the oceans. clean up australia day is direct action and we need more of it.
- reclaiming non used / non efficient farm or other land to its natural environment through replanting native trees / native species.
- Banning of / enforcement of harmful pesticides / chemicals that can be done so without crippling the agricultural industry.
- improved distribution and holding of water throughout our entire country.

Honestly, when someone bags direct action to hep the environment in an effort to persuade of carbon tax / trading scheme, I emotionally / mentally switch into talking to a super religious person. It is like they have a plan in their mind for the world and they are sticking to the script no matter what comes.
This would all be well and good if your* direct action plan were shown to be reducing carbon emissions.

Trusting the LNP to do direct action right is about 50 steps away removed again from even arguing direct action version a price on carbon.

* Royal “your”, not papabear “your”
again it is not a direct action v reducing carbon emissions argument.

I do not trust either political party to be frank despite the title of this thread I am not a lackey here trying to persuade people to trust one political party over another, they will both do what ever is politically expedient for themselves at the time.

To repeat myself the commentary in respect of the environment should not solely be on climate change. Climate change should be front and centre and should be pervasive in policy makers thoughts. However, I repeat, their are other environmental concerns that should also take resources, time and energy from both us regular joes and the government that should be worked on....
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145095
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

papabear wrote: April 12, 2022, 1:49 pm
greeneyed wrote: April 11, 2022, 7:27 pm Economists make recommendations on public policy, after clearly identifying and articulating the problem, considering the options and looking at the costs and benefits of the options.

Clearly, there are going to be cases where the provision of a certain public good is the best option. In other cases, certain private activities might have negative externalities that are so damaging, then regulating it or even banning it is the best option.

With carbon pricing... economists are very widely agreed that that is the best option to address the problem of carbon pollution. We know that so called "direct action" is not going to be the least cost and most certain way of achieving carbon emission abatement targets. And the reason is this... it uses the power of market signals to ensure that the private sector finds that least cost abatement solutions. We know governments are bad at making these choices.

I find it really ironic that political parties that champion the market and private sector decision making - reject the market based policy solution. The reality is that they do that, because fundamentally, they don't accept climate change is real, so action isn't needed... or they believe Australia shouldn't when others aren't. And then find things to spend taxpayers money on, so as to appear to be doing something... and which avoid disturbing certain vested interests. So not only are they higher cost, but they won't achieve the carbon abatement targets.
When it comes to the environment, imo the strongest voices should come from environmentalists / scientists etc not really economists.

That all said, I do not object to carbon tax /trading scheme. I think overhauling our entire tax structure would be a good thing for any government to do.

However, whether a country implements a carbon tax / trading scheme or not should be irrelevant as to the other environmental challenges it should try and overcome.
Environmentalists and scientists undoubtedly have expertise that’s essential to identifying the very problems. Doesn’t happen without them. However, they also typically have limited understanding of how to frame public policy responses and the costs and benefits entailed. The solutions offered by some of them are downright loopy.

I agree that carbon pricing policies should be directed at carbon emissions abatement. By definition, that’s not going to be relevant to separate environmental problems… which might entail very different policy approaches. But it’s the same method. Identify the problem properly, the nature of externalities, consider the costs and benefits of policy options.
Image
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

papabear wrote:
gangrenous wrote: April 11, 2022, 6:44 pm
papabear wrote:I honestly don't agree with the criticism of direct action policies by governments on the basis that they are a more expensive method of reducing climate change then a carbon tax.

Both of these policies are not mutually exclusive. They can and should be able to stand on their own merits.

If a carbon tax would be a benefit for the country and the globe it is something humanity should pursue.

Equally, so should direct action policies in respect of all environmental concerns including and not limited to:-
- the use / litter of plastics on the planet and in the oceans. clean up australia day is direct action and we need more of it.
- reclaiming non used / non efficient farm or other land to its natural environment through replanting native trees / native species.
- Banning of / enforcement of harmful pesticides / chemicals that can be done so without crippling the agricultural industry.
- improved distribution and holding of water throughout our entire country.

Honestly, when someone bags direct action to hep the environment in an effort to persuade of carbon tax / trading scheme, I emotionally / mentally switch into talking to a super religious person. It is like they have a plan in their mind for the world and they are sticking to the script no matter what comes.
This would all be well and good if your* direct action plan were shown to be reducing carbon emissions.

Trusting the LNP to do direct action right is about 50 steps away removed again from even arguing direct action version a price on carbon.

* Royal “your”, not papabear “your”
again it is not a direct action v reducing carbon emissions argument.

I do not trust either political party to be frank despite the title of this thread I am not a lackey here trying to persuade people to trust one political party over another, they will both do what ever is politically expedient for themselves at the time.

To repeat myself the commentary in respect of the environment should not solely be on climate change. Climate change should be front and centre and should be pervasive in policy makers thoughts. However, I repeat, their are other environmental concerns that should also take resources, time and energy from both us regular joes and the government that should be worked on....
I don’t really understand where you’re going with this.

You agree climate change is the most important concern. Direct action has been ineffective at reducing carbon emissions.

Yes there are other problems that need addressing. But the fundamental issue is being screwed up.
User avatar
papabear
Steve Walters
Posts: 7038
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: leafy part of sydney

Re: Climate change

Post by papabear »

gangrenous wrote: April 12, 2022, 7:18 pm
papabear wrote:
gangrenous wrote: April 11, 2022, 6:44 pm
papabear wrote:I honestly don't agree with the criticism of direct action policies by governments on the basis that they are a more expensive method of reducing climate change then a carbon tax.

Both of these policies are not mutually exclusive. They can and should be able to stand on their own merits.

If a carbon tax would be a benefit for the country and the globe it is something humanity should pursue.

Equally, so should direct action policies in respect of all environmental concerns including and not limited to:-
- the use / litter of plastics on the planet and in the oceans. clean up australia day is direct action and we need more of it.
- reclaiming non used / non efficient farm or other land to its natural environment through replanting native trees / native species.
- Banning of / enforcement of harmful pesticides / chemicals that can be done so without crippling the agricultural industry.
- improved distribution and holding of water throughout our entire country.

Honestly, when someone bags direct action to hep the environment in an effort to persuade of carbon tax / trading scheme, I emotionally / mentally switch into talking to a super religious person. It is like they have a plan in their mind for the world and they are sticking to the script no matter what comes.
This would all be well and good if your* direct action plan were shown to be reducing carbon emissions.

Trusting the LNP to do direct action right is about 50 steps away removed again from even arguing direct action version a price on carbon.

* Royal “your”, not papabear “your”
again it is not a direct action v reducing carbon emissions argument.

I do not trust either political party to be frank despite the title of this thread I am not a lackey here trying to persuade people to trust one political party over another, they will both do what ever is politically expedient for themselves at the time.

To repeat myself the commentary in respect of the environment should not solely be on climate change. Climate change should be front and centre and should be pervasive in policy makers thoughts. However, I repeat, their are other environmental concerns that should also take resources, time and energy from both us regular joes and the government that should be worked on....
I don’t really understand where you’re going with this.

You agree climate change is the most important concern. Direct action has been ineffective at reducing carbon emissions.

Yes there are other problems that need addressing. But the fundamental issue is being screwed up.
The fundamental issue is that humans for the last couple of hundred years have been destroying the planet.

When it becomes politically expedient to denigrate real environmental issues under the guise of it being a distraction from climate change , I don’t have faith that that individual has the environmental concerns at heart.

To me it’s as disingenuous as saying no we can’t fix that we need to build a school in xyz.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

I don’t understand your point.

If your policy fails at addressing the number 1 priority in an area then that’s a problem. It’s usually a good indicator that priorities onwards are not well addressed either.

The reason subsequent issues are usually dismissed is because they’re being brought up in bad faith. I asked a local member what they were doing about Climate Change and they spoke about their local cans recycling program.
User avatar
papabear
Steve Walters
Posts: 7038
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: leafy part of sydney

Re: Climate change

Post by papabear »

gangrenous wrote: April 13, 2022, 1:50 pm I don’t understand your point.

If your policy fails at addressing the number 1 priority in an area then that’s a problem. It’s usually a good indicator that priorities onwards are not well addressed either.

The reason subsequent issues are usually dismissed is because they’re being brought up in bad faith. I asked a local member what they were doing about Climate Change and they spoke about their local cans recycling program.
You wanted the local member to show u his Tesla and solar panels?

Both parties have made commitments to reduce carbon emmissions with labor being more aggressive then the coalition. Whether either or both will achieve their commitments is another question.

They have both made that abundantly clear.

To take my point further, when someone does not care about the environment and many other devastating things humans are doing… but they do care passionately about criticising a particular governments policy regarding greenhouse gas emmissions, then I would suggest that, that persons care about emmissions is driven by their partisan political opinion devaluing that opinion to me…
User avatar
papabear
Steve Walters
Posts: 7038
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: leafy part of sydney

Re: Climate change

Post by papabear »

greeneyed wrote: April 12, 2022, 2:46 pm
papabear wrote: April 12, 2022, 1:49 pm
greeneyed wrote: April 11, 2022, 7:27 pm Economists make recommendations on public policy, after clearly identifying and articulating the problem, considering the options and looking at the costs and benefits of the options.

Clearly, there are going to be cases where the provision of a certain public good is the best option. In other cases, certain private activities might have negative externalities that are so damaging, then regulating it or even banning it is the best option.

With carbon pricing... economists are very widely agreed that that is the best option to address the problem of carbon pollution. We know that so called "direct action" is not going to be the least cost and most certain way of achieving carbon emission abatement targets. And the reason is this... it uses the power of market signals to ensure that the private sector finds that least cost abatement solutions. We know governments are bad at making these choices.

I find it really ironic that political parties that champion the market and private sector decision making - reject the market based policy solution. The reality is that they do that, because fundamentally, they don't accept climate change is real, so action isn't needed... or they believe Australia shouldn't when others aren't. And then find things to spend taxpayers money on, so as to appear to be doing something... and which avoid disturbing certain vested interests. So not only are they higher cost, but they won't achieve the carbon abatement targets.
When it comes to the environment, imo the strongest voices should come from environmentalists / scientists etc not really economists.

That all said, I do not object to carbon tax /trading scheme. I think overhauling our entire tax structure would be a good thing for any government to do.

However, whether a country implements a carbon tax / trading scheme or not should be irrelevant as to the other environmental challenges it should try and overcome.
Environmentalists and scientists undoubtedly have expertise that’s essential to identifying the very problems. Doesn’t happen without them. However, they also typically have limited understanding of how to frame public policy responses and the costs and benefits entailed. The solutions offered by some of them are downright loopy.

I agree that carbon pricing policies should be directed at carbon emissions abatement. By definition, that’s not going to be relevant to separate environmental problems… which might entail very different policy approaches. But it’s the same method. Identify the problem properly, the nature of externalities, consider the costs and benefits of policy options.
Your post above is Well written and persuasive.

Re the irony mentioned in your earlier post political parties are going to do whatever is politically expedient at the time - if it will get them votes they will do it. Also, I’m not sure a proposed carbon market is a market in the traditional sense, thus I wouldn’t expect it to be perceived that way.
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145095
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

It’s actually very much like a lot of markets that have sprung up over time, particularly in the financial sector. They depend on good regulatory frameworks, but are markets nevertheless.
Image
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

papabear wrote:
gangrenous wrote: April 13, 2022, 1:50 pm I don’t understand your point.

If your policy fails at addressing the number 1 priority in an area then that’s a problem. It’s usually a good indicator that priorities onwards are not well addressed either.

The reason subsequent issues are usually dismissed is because they’re being brought up in bad faith. I asked a local member what they were doing about Climate Change and they spoke about their local cans recycling program.
You wanted the local member to show u his Tesla and solar panels?

Both parties have made commitments to reduce carbon emmissions with labor being more aggressive then the coalition. Whether either or both will achieve their commitments is another question.

They have both made that abundantly clear.

To take my point further, when someone does not care about the environment and many other devastating things humans are doing… but they do care passionately about criticising a particular governments policy regarding greenhouse gas emmissions, then I would suggest that, that persons care about emmissions is driven by their partisan political opinion devaluing that opinion to me…
It was a she.

I wanted them to talk to what they’re actually doing to reduce emissions and prepare for more damaging natural disasters.

How you can try and paint Labor and Liberal climate action as similar is beyond me. Labor dropped emissions significantly. Liberals spent 9 years doing **** all and aggravating on the world stage to make things worse. They ignored warnings on natural disasters refusing to prepare adequately, and when they did strike their response has been inadequate if they were even in the country.

That is a dreadful take.
User avatar
papabear
Steve Walters
Posts: 7038
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: leafy part of sydney

Re: Climate change

Post by papabear »

Honestly you keep bringing labor and liberal into this because that’s where your interest is.

Mine isn’t it. I do not care who wins this election, so save your marbles for Election Day when you can yell at the other volunteers.

For example - liberal get criticised for only playing 1 percent of their promised trees. Imo planting native trees and regenerating areas is a good thing, if I were criticising such a position I would take it a step further and say I would have planted 20 percent of the native trees or pick a figure instead of criticising planting native trees whole sale.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

The reason it’s Labor versus Liberal for me is because one side demonstrated a willingness to do something and the other side has done **** all for 10 years and actively worsened the situation deliberately on many occasions.

Plant a few trees if you like. The most valuable tool you have is electing a government to appropriately tackle the problem.

Any other response that tries to paint this Liberal party as a viable candidate for dealing with climate change or the environment generally is at best naive, at worst gross stupidity.
User avatar
Mickey_Raider
Jason Croker
Posts: 4340
Joined: March 16, 2008, 7:15 am
Favourite Player: Big Papa
Location: North Sydney

Re: Climate change

Post by Mickey_Raider »

gangrenous wrote: April 18, 2022, 11:37 am The reason it’s Labor versus Liberal for me is because one side demonstrated a willingness to do something and the other side has done **** all for 10 years and actively worsened the situation deliberately on many occasions.

Plant a few trees if you like. The most valuable tool you have is electing a government to appropriately tackle the problem.

Any other response that tries to paint this Liberal party as a viable candidate for dealing with climate change or the environment generally is at best naive, at worst gross stupidity.
Net zero is dead, according to the Nationals.

Don't politicise it because "bOtH mAjOr PaRtIeS aRe ThE sAmE"
Up The Milk
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

Colin Boyce is telling you what the LNP still think on Climate Change.

Wouldn’t surprise me if the “wiggle room” and non-binding remarks are exactly the kinds of ways ScoMo pitched it to the Nats. Just need to be able to say enough to be seen to be paying lip service to the problem, don’t need to actually follow through…
Post Reply