The election thread - Two middle-late aged white men trying to be blokey and convincing..., same old shit, FFS.

Who will you vote for?

  • Liberals

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Labor

    Votes: 21 31.8%
  • Nationals

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • Greens

    Votes: 21 31.8%
  • Independant

    Votes: 15 22.7%
  • The Clive Palmer shit show

    Votes: 4 6.1%
  • Shooters and Fishers Party

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • One Nation

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Donkey/Invalid vote

    Votes: 3 4.5%

  • Total voters
    66

pink poodle

気が狂っている男
I'm pretty sure @Zaf posted his voting compass, or deliberately set about a troll game with a deliberate hard-line compass outcome. Either way word is there's an open invite to join him at his house next sunday for the Westboro live stream.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Zaf

hifiandmtb

Sphincter beanie
And once you've read & understood the science behind CC, you then seek out policy to address it.

Alas, here in Straya, there's a policy void.
 

scblack

Leucocholic
As for your answer! I'm sorry, I did mention earlier that as the lone vocal conservative,
Nah, you're not solo but I am chuckling at you having been sucked way too deep down into the rabbit-hole. And fuck me you will find its a fractal hole. You poor guy.:p

Just be satisfied and content that we are a part of the majority of our society.

Though I fear I will never be able to live with myself any longer, seeing:
  • Murdoch feeds my every thought
  • I believe every LIE that the Liberal party spouted
  • I believe all propaganda that right wingers pay for
  • Andrew Bolte feeds all my thoughts
  • Seeing I am a "conservative" I have ZERO interest in the environment
  • Voting for local issues in a Federal election is "unethical" (Zaf did you did you see that one? hehe)
There are some fucking funny ones in there huh. The last few days has seen some truly entertaining reading, some genuine rib-ticklers in here.

Have fun with it Zaf!
 

Haakon

has an accommodating arse
CC is complicated. Science is text & numbers.

Is the summary page really too difficult to digest?

https://www.worldenergydata.org/summary/

Any page that "dumbs down science" gets criticised for leaving out the facts.
That’s good.

But better to hit the 13.9mb link and read the whole report. If you can’t be bothered to do even that small thing, then you don’t get to question the experts. Even if you do read it all you’re some way from justifiable objection ..

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/
 

Haakon

has an accommodating arse
Nah, you're not solo but I am chuckling at you having been sucked way too deep down into the rabbit-hole. And fuck me you will find its a fractal hole. You poor guy.:p

Just be satisfied and content that we are a part of the majority of our society.

Though I fear I will never be able to live with myself any longer, seeing:
  • Murdoch feeds my every thought
  • I believe every LIE that the Liberal party spouted
  • I believe all propaganda that right wingers pay for
  • Andrew Bolte feeds all my thoughts
  • Seeing I am a "conservative" I have ZERO interest in the environment
  • Voting for local issues in a Federal election is "unethical" (Zaf did you did you see that one? hehe)
There are some fucking funny ones in there huh. The last few days has seen some truly entertaining reading, some genuine rib-ticklers in here.

Have fun with it Zaf!
Honestly, I’m just trying to learn... It’s clear I’ve missed something big and I need to know what.

Not much that makes much sense to me, but early days. I’m still pretty numb and disgusted, I’m hoping I can be more rational soon.

But the result still feels irrational and it hurts that so many (a decisive number I fear) based their decision on easily disproven lies. Still don’t know what to do with that...
 

hifiandmtb

Sphincter beanie
I understand what you're saying about dumbing it down, but that's exactly what I've been saying. I did a quick skim read of the summary (relax, I'll read it all later!), and it outlines the intended goals (again, lots of numbers, immediately forgotten) but no actual action that will achieve it other than "the elimination of". So we've got a what with no how.
Climate science experts will report on the science. Science shows the numbers.

Here's a number, -4.45% per year emissions reduction needed to reach 50% emissions by 2030:

https://www.worldenergydata.org/a-safe-climate/



Policy to achieve the numbers is something else. Scientists are not policy makers.

I've searched high & low for Strayan govt policy to achieve -4.45% per year emissions reductions. I can't find it.
 

link1896

Mr Greenfield
Fuck you all. This wanna be communist is looking for ways to make a buck from climate change denial.

If the whole country can have their head up their ass, I can too. That’s the new MO right?
 

hifiandmtb

Sphincter beanie
We've still got a what with no how.
Okay, we need emissions down by 5% a year until 2030. Is that a compound 5% of each year? or 5% of this year's emissions for the next ten years?
How do we do it?! How can I, on a day to day basis do this? What can I do RIGHT now, to help with that?
Do I go out and plant a kitten? Will that help drop CO2? I hear that planting things reduces CO2, surely that helps.

This is, in essence, describing a photo that you forgot to bring your camera for. It completely misses the point unless you find a way to just show people.
Seriously - do you read? The chart on the left answers your questions on the rate of emissions.

It's not about what you or I can do, it's not about the individual, it's about the collective whole, driven by overarching policy we are prepared to accept.

A fee & dividend scheme makes a hell of a lot of sense:

https://www.carbonpricingleadership...-fee-and-dividend-bill-now-before-us-congress

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend

https://citizensclimatelobby.org/basics-carbon-fee-dividend/


In order to maximize effectiveness, the amount of the fee would be regulated based on the scientific assessments from both economic and climate science in order to balance the size and speed of fee progression.
But good luck not having conservatives reframe this as socialist propaganda,

And we end up back where we started...doing nothing.
 

silentbutdeadly

has some good things to say
We've still got a what with no how.
That's because there is no specific 'how'. Merely a vast range of potential options, each with their set of social, political, environmental and economic wrinkles. Science has, to some extent, described these options but it is up to the wider community (and the people that represent them politically) to pick which ones they feel would be the most effective.

But we can't. That's why CC is well known as a 'wicked problem'. One of a number of them actually.

My view is that there is no solution to human induced climate change. It's built into too many future generations for the current generations to effectively plan for and respond to in a meaningful fashion. All we can do is reduce our emissions as much as we can and as fast as we can manage without advancing instability in our society. This is happening to some extent. Clearly not as fast as some would like but it never will.

What's not happening is adaptation. There are very few countries that have an adaptation plan more effective than suggesting punters by better air conditioning. The lack of adaptation planning and resilience development policy in this country is appalling.

Of course, this would still be the case if the other lot won too. But that's the nature of things. And it's why I'm not that disappointed by the outcome. Simply because it would have made very little difference...at least in the climate and environmental space.

If nothing else...I do hope that we all develop some courage over the coming years to not fear change...climate or otherwise.
 
Top