Plastic bags, climate change, renewable energy,

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20190213-201746.png
    Screenshot_20190213-201746.png
    393.9 KB · Views: 105
There's a lot more to birth rates than being fruitful and multiplying. You're ignoring that birth rates are linked to child mortality and standards of living which we should be looking to raise in the developing world. As long as we're not trying to develop them to use all of our "clean coal" we should be right in that regard.

350787
 
German tower boilers wont be burning Australian coal unless they are shipping the shit from the Victoria too.
 
Minerals council of Australia are a bunch of lying turds that believe profits from coal are more important than climate change. There is no such thing as clean coal, the best techs are only about 20% better than dirty coal which still makes it a shocking source of CO2.

Germany is getting out of coal completely in 20 years and they are not building more coal stations.
 
wesdadude said:
There's a lot more to birth rates than being fruitful and multiplying. You're ignoring that birth rates are linked to child mortality and standards of living which we should be looking to raise in the developing world. As long as we're not trying to develop them to use all of our "clean coal" we should be right in that regard.
Click to expand...

Agree. However it's no secret that birth rates lag behind development. You see this with migrants that come to Australia and still have huge families. So while development will eventually slow the birth rate (I'd argue it's house prices that force dual incomes that does this more) we have at best one generation that will go through raising standards AND populating at developing country levels. That's 20 years of population growth the world can't really afford.
 
Freediver said:
Minerals council of Australia are a bunch of lying turds that believe profits from coal are more important than climate change. There is no such thing as clean coal, the best techs are only about 20% better than dirty coal which still makes it a shocking source of CO2.

Germany is getting out of coal completely in 20 years and they are not building more coal stations.
Click to expand...

Mitch Hook in particular was horrid. Bully boy.

The Germany thing of course has more to it, they wouldn’t do it if it wasn’t politically favourable (this of course is a lot of the problem globally...) - 300k jobs in renewables, 20k in their coal industry.

Of course there are more people in renewables here too, but see point A about minerals council. And a less enlightened/educated electorate...
 
Calvin27 said:
. That's 20 years of population growth the world can't really afford.
Click to expand...

We couldn’t afford the last 20 either.

You might not have to explain it to your kids, but your grandkids at least will look at our generation with confusions and disgust.
 
Calvin27 said:
Agree. However it's no secret that birth rates lag behind development. You see this with migrants that come to Australia and still have huge families. So while development will eventually slow the birth rate (I'd argue it's house prices that force dual incomes that does this more) we have at best one generation that will go through raising standards AND populating at developing country levels. That's 20 years of population growth the world can't really afford.
Click to expand...

Bit more nuanced here as the Australian population is nothing compared to the global scale - not that I advocate for a big Australia - but we will have to do more to accept climate refugees as Pacific islands go under water and major water reservoirs held as ice in places like the Himalayas melt and disrupt significant food bowls. Why? Because our per capitata emissions are amongst the highest.
 
droenn said:
Bit more nuanced here as the Australian population is nothing compared to the global scale - not that I advocate for a big Australia - but we will have to do more to accept climate refugees as Pacific islands go under water and major water reservoirs held as ice in places like the Himalayas melt and disrupt significant food bowls. Why? Because our per capitata emissions are amongst the highest.
Click to expand...

Refugee policy is a emotionally charged topic. But from a pure environment perspective it makes more sense to send refugees to Europe than Australia. Pacific island climate refugees however are, like you said, a whole new ball game and yes we do have a responsibility in this regard. But even then their numbers are not that great - about 2m or so.

The bigger issue is closer neighbors that would be affected but climate like the population giant that is Indonesia. It would make the Syrian refugee crisis look like a tea party compared to what might at our doorstep.
 
Why does it make more sense to send refugees to Europe than Australia?
Calvin27 said:
Refugee policy is a emotionally charged topic. But from a pure environment perspective it makes more sense to send refugees to Europe than Australia. Pacific island climate refugees however are, like you said, a whole new ball game and yes we do have a responsibility in this regard. But even then their numbers are not that great - about 2m or so.

The bigger issue is closer neighbors that would be affected but climate like the population giant that is Indonesia. It would make the Syrian refugee crisis look like a tea party compared to what might at our doorstep.
Click to expand...
 
John U said:
Why does it make more sense to send refugees to Europe than Australia?
Click to expand...

Dirrrrrrrrrrrr. Because Australia doesn't have enough space for any more refugees than the ones who came here already. It's probably the same for migrants as well. We couldn't really allow our culture to get too multi, it might get too confused.
 
John U said:
Why does it make more sense to send refugees to Europe than Australia?
Click to expand...
They have more fresh water and arable land.

The climate also makes things like tri-gen and burning rubbish much more sensible. Wind power is also more reliable and North Africa could become rich thanks to solar power and fish farming.



Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
 
Oddjob said:
They have more fresh water and arable land.

The climate also makes things like tri-gen and burning rubbish much more sensible. Wind power is also more reliable and North Africa could become rich thanks to solar power and fish farming.



Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
They also have a much bigger population. I wonder how the head count per arable land compares between the 2.
 
John U said:
They also have a much bigger population. I wonder how the head count per arable land compares between the 2.
Click to expand...
Lower. From memory Ukraine has as much arable land as we do, and thats just one country.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
 
John U said:
So is Australia over capacity at moment? Are we being to wasteful?
Click to expand...
No. We export 2/3rds of our agricultural production in a good year.

We can significantly reduce water use and marginal land use by switching to different production. Ie getting out of cotton, less grain fed beef, more kangaroo harvesting, more fast growing timber and bamboo.



Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top