A little story
administrators

If science is the cure for bullshit then why is there more bullshit lying around than ever before.
The reason we have a problem with our CO2 is because of science, think about it, until the wonders of the industrial revolution brought about by scientific discoveries we never had a CO2 problem, as shown by Dog’s post above.

Think of all the scientific discoveries that cause CO2 emissions, prolong life through scientific discoveries enabling population explosions, and things along these lines, and you will see that instead of “SCIENCE” being the saviour of the world it is actually going to be the cause of the end of humanity as we now know it.

Well it is an interesting point of view, Termite. Science has definitely provided the basis for the technologies that are currently fucking us up. You could argue that pure science actually does not produce anything but understanding. We have then leveraged that understanding to produce the technologies that are doing the damage. So yes science is the enabler, but it is man’s inability to look beyond the noses on our faces that is the real problem.

The real question is, given where we currently are, what resource has the best chance of saving us? Science, or Andrew Bolt?

last edited by silentC

@silentC said in A little story:

The real question is, given where we currently are, what resource has the best chance of saving us? Science, or Andrew Bolt?

Neither, what would be necessary is a ruthless dictator. At present the world wide powers that be are still too self interested in looking after their own positions to be serious about reducing the CO2. Who in their right mind would agree to the Paris accord that allows China to actually continue increasing its emissions for the next 13 years? Who in power in Australia is serious when you consider that the ADANI mine is going to pour millions upon millions of tons of coal into India to be burned for electricity generation with the consequent CO2 production, yet the Government hasn’t stopped it?
Why aren’t the people of Australia, and the world for that matter, rioting to stop the mine, particularly as it looks like we are going to be lumbered with more charges to support some bullshit but look good attempt at appeasing those that do care?

Who has the balls to be confident enough in their power to construct nuclear power plants as a supplement to solar and/or windfarm primary supply? The means are currently available to combat the situation we are in, but even the best of them are only giving lip service to solutions.

The problem at the moment is not the CO2, it’s the world wide apathy from the lowest to the very highest levels that is the real problem. As the saying goes "Apathy is killing us, but who gives a fuck ", and that pretty well sums it up, all mouth and no action. That is partly why you get people doubting what they are being told about the CO2 problem, if the problem is as serious as they are being told then why is bugger all being done about it, and why is increasing production of CO2 not only tolerated as in China, but actively supported as in the coal mine for Indian supply.

Yes I read an interesting article the other day about the ‘death of expertise’. It made the point that the last thing we want are experts running things. But the people who DO run things need to listen to them. Unfortunately all they do is lip service and spend their time trying to convince us that we are under threat from terrorists or whatever.

The reason why fuck all is being done about it is that very few people in power probably even believe it is a problem and think we can just go on as we have indefinitely. The ones who do believe it know it is political suicide, so they make token gestures and sit on their hands.

administrators

@Termite said in A little story:

If science is the cure for bullshit then why is there more bullshit lying around than ever before.
The reason we have a problem with our CO2 is because of science, think about it, until the wonders of the industrial revolution brought about by scientific discoveries we never had a CO2 problem, as shown by Dog’s post above.

Think of all the scientific discoveries that cause CO2 emissions, prolong life through scientific discoveries enabling population explosions, and things along these lines, and you will see that instead of “SCIENCE” being the saviour of the world it is actually going to be the cause of the end of humanity as we now know it.

Basically, what Silent said. Everything we have in the modern world is result of science.
We should have a world where:

Scientists: There is a problem and these are some of the things we can do to rectify it.

Politicians: Debate the possible solutions

The world we have is:
Scientists: There is a problem and these are some of the things we can do to rectify it.

Politicians: Debate whether we have a problem.

Science is the cure for bullshit but some people refuse to take the cure.

administrators

We could have done something about climate change but some of us keep voting in science denying fuckwits.
Even with China increasing CO2 emissions, the rest of the world could make a real difference.

@dog said in A little story:

We could have done something about climate change but some of us keep voting in science denying fuckwits.
Even with China increasing CO2 emissions, the rest of the world could make a real difference.

True, but show me a politician that will do anything other than put another tax on coal and carry on regardless, they don’t exist in Australia.

China’s CO2 emissions appear to have peaked, as have the US despite anything their current president thinks he is doing. Our lot are still crapping on about clean coal, we do have carbon capture technology but it is presently very expensive to get up and running, we can capture it but haven’t got anything resembling a long term in ground storage solution and the pace of change in renewables would probably mean even if we got it going it would be redundant technology and a stranded asset long before it paid for itself. I simply don’t understand the hard rights fascination for coal, surely if they are true to their cause they would be looking for the cheapest option that delivers the lowest cost power in a reliable framework. That means in its purest form you don’t become attached to any technology or mineral but become focused purely on cost.

I’ve decided that their current ideological father (Mr Abbott) is a bit like the rabbit. Imported from England, when seen on the side of the road either eating grass or in lycra they appear benign but actually provide absolutely no useful function and are harmful to both the economy and environment. Only useful in death, one for skin and meat the other because they are no longer a drain on the public purse.

@Johnc said in A little story:

I simply don’t understand the hard rights fascination for coal

It’s not so much a fascination for coal as a desire to not let those left wing greenies think they have won.

@silentC said in A little story:

a desire to not let those us left wing greenies think they have won.
FIFY
"I simply don’t understand the hard rights fascination for coal, …"

I’m sure it doesn’t have anything to do with the resources industry’s donations, not to mention their campaign that ensured that the rabbit was elected. That doesn’t count as a donation, but I bet it cost a few million.
link text

administrators

@silentC said in A little story:

@Johnc said in A little story:

I simply don’t understand the hard rights fascination for coal

It’s not so much a fascination for coal as a desire to not let those left wing greenies think they have won.

Yeah, I think some in the right still think that climate change is some greenie conspiracy.

As far as tax on carbon goes, it is the best mechanism for reducing carbon emissions.

@dog said in A little story:

As far as tax on carbon goes, it is the best mechanism for reducing carbon emissions.

I still don’t get why it’s so bad to tax carbon. People scream about power prices going up, but I don’t recall them going down when they removed it previously.

As far as tax on carbon goes, it is the best mechanism for reducing carbon emissions.
The above statement is genuine bullshit. A tax on carbon does absolutely nothing to reduce carbon emissions, this is merely a fairy tale from the left.
Until you can come up with a way that the actual producer is penalised for producing CO2, instead of them just passing the penalty on to the consumer, it remains a fairy tale.

administrators

Sorry I should have said ‘price’ on carbon. An ETS or other mechanisms to price carbon are not a product of the left. They were devised by economists​ who generally​ aren’t left wing. These are ‘market’ mechanisms.

Regardless of what you call it, it is still does nothing to reduce the CO2, as stated before the consumer pays and the CO2 still gets produced.

After we brought in a carbon tax CO2 emissions fell, when we removed it they started to rise again, this is what market mechanisms do.

I don’t know, I still favour direct action because it’s just too easy for them to sit on their hands and pass the costs on, which is pretty much what happened last time, although I would have to concede they didn’t really give it much time to have an impact.

However I need to point out that when the carbon tax was removed, my supplier at the time (Dodo) DID cut their prices and we received a letter advising us it was due to the carbon tax being removed.

last edited by silentC
administrators

The prices did drop by about 7% after the abolition of the carbon tax. The price have subsequently increased by more than that and is about to rise significantly.

administrators

@silentC said in A little story:

I don’t know, I still favour direct action because it’s just too easy for them to sit on their hands and pass the costs on, which is pretty much what happened last time, although I would have to concede they didn’t really give it much time to have an impact.

However I need to point out that when the carbon tax was removed, my supplier at the time (Dodo) DID cut their prices and we received a letter advising us it was due to the carbon tax being removed.

This is where a cap and trade scheme makes the most sense. There is a cap on emissions meaning that the economy can’t produce more carbon. If a business wants/needs to produce carbon then they can buy/trade for certificates that allow them to produce a certain amount but they must buy these from existing emitters.

The carbon price did however make renewables more competitive and this drove significant investment.

Looks like your connection to The Blokey Shed was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.