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

[Linga]

With regard to a climate tax. People want what they are told. Labour is as much to blame for their terrible approach as the libs are for destroying the tax. Firstly calling it a minng tax initially was a massive failure. What industry does the public think our economy relies on? There was probably a failure to engage the industry in there as well. Secondly the inital increase in price of carbon rich products and the proposed offsets were not sold properly. I could go on.

Even greg hunt. Our current environment minister thought it was a good idea before he became a politician. I havent looked for his thesis but from the title I assume he was in favour.

Very true mate. The mining industry sacked 12% of it's workers in 2008 with the onset of the Global Financial Crisis, if all of indusry followed their lead we would have had 19% unemployment. People just don't know the actual figures of what is going on. Big mining and oil and gas shut and cut whenever it isn't viable and shelve it until it is. Mining was also consulted but they just have the money to market. Mining want you to believe that royalties count as tax... Royalties is the money the government charges for taking the actual ore/oil/gas, it is not a tax it is the price of purchase.

On the Emissions trading scheme (as that is what it was and will be) the sale of that was abominable as it was effective and other countries (primarily China) have modelled theirs of ours... Because it worked. Calling it a tax always wound me up as it was not. Using emissions trading schemes is how we managed chlorine and sulphur to stop the deterioration of the ozone layer and now it is repairing itself.
Also I'm not a scientist but part of my job is to measure C02 levels in the air. I generally am testing in the middle of the ocean away from industry in some of the cleanest air. We are currently sitting at around 360-380ppm, which is almost twice pre industrial levels. It is almost outside the parameters set for breathing air under pressure. This means that in the next few years that you will not be able to just compress air and breath it under water, it will have to be cleaned of CO2 or there is a potentioal for injury to Hypercapnia (elevated CO2 in the body)

For me that is the tipping point... We are very close to not being able to breathe our own air... That is crazy

 

[pharmaboy]

For me that is the tipping point... We are very close to not being able to breathe our own air... That is crazy

Linga - your conclusion is crazy, not the situation. Physiologically, there is absolutely zero danger from these kinds of co2 levels. As to why there are restrictions (if indeed there is) on compressed air for breathing under pressure, is an entirely different question

 

[johnny]

Regards the same sex marriage issue, I don't think it's such a bad thing that he's following through with a plebiscite.

It would be best if the parliament simply did their job and passed legislation for something that seems to have majority public support [keep in mind that it's not sure that the pro-change side would actually have the numbers in a conscience vote]. However if it helps that we have concrete evidence that it does have majority public support in the electorate and we have a supportive PM then you know that it's going to get through both houses and become a reality. I believe Abbott would have tried to make it a referendum, which would likely fail. OR he would have done the plebiscite but found a way to block it in the legislative process. Turnbull will likely hold the plebiscite and make sure that it passes.

I can't see that being a problem, unless I've missed something.

 

[pharmaboy]

Back to politics - clearly the Nationals don't have a lot of love for MT, and that for me is a good thing - bunch of super conservative protectionists - probably more at home in the GOP than in Australia .....

Right now, MT has no power with the Nationals and so had to get an agreement - the price was staying still on climate policy ( given he's spent a bit of time selling it, probably wise anyway), and sticking with the plebiscite idea.

On the plebiscite, with a PM that agrees with it openly and an opposition that does, it will now be certain to carry the day, and mores to the point, certain to have a PM that will legislate it and not look for some excuse not to (plebiscites not being binding). After all, plebiscites are closer to true Greek democracy than what we have. Still a waste of money though.

Really looking forward to more women in cabinet.

Edit - lol, could have cut and pasted Johhnys post on plebiscite and saved the typing

 

[pink poodle]

With regard to a climate tax. People want what they are told. Labour is as much to blame for their terrible approach as the libs are for destroying the tax. Firstly calling it a minng tax initially was a massive failure. What industry does the public think our economy relies on? There was probably a failure to engage the industry in there as well. Secondly the inital increase in price of carbon rich products and the proposed offsets were not sold properly. I could go on.

Even greg hunt. Our current environment minister thought it was a good idea before he became a politician. I havent looked for his thesis but from the title I assume he was in favour.

I would say that people can only make a decision or form opinions based on the information they have. In this case they received a very biased message at saturation levels.

unless this pic doing the rounds is true...
View attachment 318901

Nothing will change...I think he is playing it smart. Turnip and Co are already in power, so why waste his trump cards now? Hold onto them until the next election, remind people they are coming and make life difficult for the opposition. In the meantime keep your party happy and build your strength.

 

[fatboyonabike]

Fuck..just found out that this whack job will be our new Defence Minister
GOD HELP US ALL

 

[scblack]

With regard to a climate tax. People want what they are told.

Yeah right. Except you, of course. You are not like people. Why do you possibly imagine other people don’t think about things like this?

Firstly calling it a minng tax initially was a massive failure.

Umm, what are you smoking? The Mining Tax had ZERO to do with climate tax. The mining tax was an attempted cash grab by Wayne Swan (World’s Greatest Treasurer) and Gillard from the greedy, super rich mining companies. You seriously have your wires crossed there. And it failed because Gillard and Swan let the mining company CEO's write the formula for the tax. And guess what? It therefore earned 3/10s of f*ck all.

 

[pink poodle]

Fuck..just found out that this whack job will be our new Defence Minister
GOD HELP US ALL
View attachment 318902

Is he wearing 5:10s?

 

[scblack]

Very true mate. The mining industry sacked 12% of it's workers in 2008 with the onset of the Global Financial Crisis, if all of indusry followed their lead we would have had 19% unemployment. People just don't know the actual figures of what is going on. Big mining and oil and gas shut and cut whenever it isn't viable and shelve it until it is. Mining was also consulted but they just have the money to market. Mining want you to believe that royalties count as tax... Royalties is the money the government charges for taking the actual ore/oil/gas, it is not a tax it is the price of purchase.

On the Emissions trading scheme (as that is what it was and will be) the sale of that was abominable as it was effective and other countries (primarily China) have modelled theirs of ours... Because it worked. Calling it a tax always wound me up as it was not. Using emissions trading schemes is how we managed chlorine and sulphur to stop the deterioration of the ozone layer and now it is repairing itself.
Also I'm not a scientist but part of my job is to measure C02 levels in the air. I generally am testing in the middle of the ocean away from industry in some of the cleanest air. We are currently sitting at around 360-380ppm, which is almost twice pre industrial levels. It is almost outside the parameters set for breathing air under pressure. This means that in the next few years that you will not be able to just compress air and breath it under water, it will have to be cleaned of CO2 or there is a potentioal for injury to Hypercapnia (elevated CO2 in the body)

For me that is the tipping point... We are very close to not being able to breathe our own air... That is crazy

There are so many errors in there.

But the highlighted section is just wrong in fact. Banning Chloroflourocarbons (CFC's) is mainly what halted the ozone hole increasing.

 

[John U]

There are so many errors in there.

But the highlighted section is just wrong in fact. Banning Chloroflourocarbons (CFC's) is mainly what halted the ozone hole increasing.

Do you believe in human induced climate change SC? I see it as fairly logical result of our activity.

I am not a climatologist, but a geologist. This is how it has panned out on a geological time scale.

The fossil fuels we are burning now were created by geological processes over 100's of millions of years. Biological matter (plants, animals, and insects) was buried beneath the earth’s surface, put under extreme pressures and heats, to varying degrees, creating all different types of fuels, black coal, brown coal, oil, and gas.
The climate was in a balance while the majority of these fuels remained buried or were released into the atmosphere through natural processes. The problem we have now is that we have developed methods to extract these fuels from the earth at a much quicker rate than it took for them to be laid down and created. This increase has happened over the last 250 years. We are burning the fossil fuels as fast as we are extracting them.
At the same time we have destroyed a lot of the plant matter that used to absorb the carbon when it was emitted into the atmosphere.
It is like a perfect storm.

 

[scblack]

Do you believe in human induced climate change SC? I see it as fairly logical result of our activity.

I am not a climatologist, but a geologist. This is how it has panned out on a geological time scale.

The fossil fuels we are burning now were created by geological processes over 100's of millions of years. Biological matter (plants, animals, and insects) was buried beneath the earth’s surface, put under extreme pressures and heats, to varying degrees, creating all different types of fuels, black coal, brown coal, oil, and gas.
The climate was in a balance while the majority of these fuels remained buried or were released into the atmosphere through natural processes. The problem we have now is that we have developed methods to extract these fuels from the earth at a much quicker rate than it took for them to be laid down and created. This increase has happened over the last 250 years. We are burning the fossil fuels as fast as we are extracting them.
At the same time we have destroyed a lot of the plant matter that used to absorb the carbon when it was emitted into the atmosphere.
It is like a perfect storm.

What has that got to with the depletion of the ozone layer?

 

[DJninja]

I see this as a circular argument.

The recent "discovery" of the travel rorts has shown the spots of the leopard, the indignant reaction of the culprits revealed the soul, as black as heart of the kraken

As far as I'm aware there is a complete investigation into politician benefits/entitlements as we speak.

That's already been bought up multiple times in public and he's seen it off. Not to pass judgement on climate change but I don't think holding people to papers they write as a young student is very fair. I know I wouldn't stand by a lot of beliefs and fairly polarised positions I held when I was a student (and I was mature age too!). The real world and professional life gives you more reality and education than university does - formal education is just a basis of understanding, professional life is where you become real.

I was thinking of your point when I made my own. He is a Liberal and that might have something to do with the shedding of that idea. The opposition are also professional politicians and still think it to be a good idea. I've filled myself with pro-carbon pricing propaganda so its a hard idea for me to leave it behind.

Yeah right. Except you, of course. You are not like people. Why do you possibly imagine other people don’t think about things like this?


Umm, what are you smoking? The Mining Tax had ZERO to do with climate tax. The mining tax was an attempted cash grab by Wayne Swan (World’s Greatest Treasurer) and Gillard from the greedy, super rich mining companies. You seriously have your wires crossed there. And it failed because Gillard and Swan let the mining company CEO's write the formula for the tax. And guess what? It therefore earned 3/10s of f*ck all.

How many people in the potential industries that were to be effected would care to research the other side or question the information given to them by leaders against the tax? Once you hear things like less money, less jobs, dead industry, like fark you are going to be thinking about caring for the environment for future generations or any other arguments at all. Industry should of been engaged differently. The odd industry environmentalist might but you don't get into tree lopping for conservation.

I did have my wires crossed, it was late and I was on my phone. The mining tax was pre carbon pricing I believe and has all to do with the build up and failure of the following carbon pricing attempt. The destruction of the mining tax helped feed into the negative associations with a carbon tax. You could probably figure it out but I believe the low cost beginning was to allow industry to adjust. Would the tax of earned $0 into perpetuity?

I think mining companies are awesome and the agenda of the left to get business to divest from coal and oil is straight up retarded.

 

[John U]

What has that got to with the depletion of the ozone layer?

When you said 'There are so many errors in there.' I thought you were stating that there was a few errors in Linga's post. I was responding to what you may have seen as errors in relation to his comments on Carbon pollution.

From your response to my post, when you posted 'There are so many errors in there.' I guess you were only referring to his comments about the ozone layer.

 

[pink poodle]

What has that got to with the depletion of the ozone layer?

It is probably the similarities between the two...something that was clearly identified as damaging the planet with an easy solution. But a costly one. The difference seeming to be only in the fact that with the ozone layer everyone jumped on board to reduce the issue.

Now about the question you avoided answering?

Also on the mining tax...was it not (in part) a way to tax companies that were avoiding paying taxes here by off-shoring their cash? Something that the current government has been working on sporadically for the last year or so? But specific to mining.

 

[casnell]

I think mining companies are awesome and the agenda of the left to get business to divest from coal and oil is straight up retarded.

Hahahaha, good one!

 

[pharmaboy]

It is probably the similarities between the two...something that was clearly identified as damaging the planet with an easy solution. But a costly one. The difference seeming to be only in the fact that with the ozone layer everyone jumped on board to reduce the issue.

.

Pp, that's straight greens party bullshit. The ozone problem, did have an easy solution, hence it wasn't a costly one. We didn't have to miss out on anything at all, simply change our ingredients .

The differences to AGW are astoundingly large, in that we don't have econmcally viable solutions, nor even actions that we know would work, nor whether it needs to, costs would be in the order of hundreds to thousand s of times more expensive and more difficult.

Before you go off on a high horse, I am quite sure that humans are causing climate change and that it needs to be fixed, but I also know that the greens and their ilk are also chicken littles, which is exceedingly easy to be when you don't have to face up to actually doing anything, only screaming from the sidelines.

Actually, if the greens and the conservationist movement just fucked off entirely, it's likely the problem would find agreement far easier, in the main because green parties aren't concerned with only the environment but nailed to a left socialist ideology which is what drives the deep suspicion from the socially conservative. Own worst enemy

 

[paulb]

Actually, if the greens and the conservationist movement just fucked off entirely, it's likely the problem would find agreement far easier, in the main because green parties aren't concerned with only the environment but nailed to a left socialist ideology which is what drives the deep suspicion from the socially conservative. Own worst enemy

Just who is it that prefers to ignore the facts because they're concerned they conflict with their corporate libertarian ideology? Are we supposed to indulge you like little children? If you believe your ideology can deal with AGW prove it - but your leaders prefer to deny instead - it seems they don't believe. Perhaps Turnbull will have the courage to try but he'll have the rest of his party dragging him down

 

[pink poodle]

Pp, that's straight greens party bullshit. The ozone problem, did have an easy solution, hence it wasn't a costly one. We didn't have to miss out on anything at all, simply change our ingredients .

The differences to AGW are astoundingly large, in that we don't have econmcally viable solutions, nor even actions that we know would work, nor whether it needs to, costs would be in the order of hundreds to thousand s of times more expensive and more difficult.

Before you go off on a high horse, I am quite sure that humans are causing climate change and that it needs to be fixed, but I also know that the greens and their ilk are also chicken littles, which is exceedingly easy to be when you don't have to face up to actually doing anything, only screaming from the sidelines.

Actually, if the greens and the conservationist movement just fucked off entirely, it's likely the problem would find agreement far easier, in the main because green parties aren't concerned with only the environment but nailed to a left socialist ideology which is what drives the deep suspicion from the socially conservative. Own worst enemy

You're right, redesigning entire manufacturing processes, can and packaging ingredients, and some products would've been a small cost...I would agree it is unlikely to be as costly as shutting down coal mining, but we have no exit strategy, minimal resources to throw at developing a strategy, and an umbilical chord to a range of industries that neither state nor federal governments have much interest in cutting. Both parties are guilty of that too. For me it sits in the same category as NSW's poker machine issue. Hurrying our heads in the sand is not an option and plenty of other nations are working hard at reducing emissions and improving their alternative energy sectors, so it is not really true to claim alternatives don't exist.

Wind farms are ugly. That is why they were put near Canberra.

 

[Haakon]

Windfarms are great. Elegent engineering, very happy to have one in my area.

Would hate to live the in Latrobe Valley... I get enough carcinogens in my lungs from diesel thanks very much.

 

[hifiandmtb]

Before you go off on a high horse, I am quite sure that humans are causing climate change and that it needs to be fixed, but I also know that the greens and their ilk are also chicken littles, which is exceedingly easy to be when you don't have to face up to actually doing anything, only screaming from the sidelines.

I have done a lot of research into climate change & am shit-scared about what this world will be like in 50 years.

There's no good outcome. None. We have set the scene for disaster. No point trying to convince me otherwise...what I've determined is irrefutable.

But I'm not going to be an evangelist about it. Other people can be the "kooky" ones.