Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should we take some sort of affirmative action on climate change?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Should we take some sort of affirmative action on climate change?

    As a follow-on from the other thread I started, clearly the majority of people don't support the tax. It also looks like it's the notion of a tax more than anything else, but I could be wrong. So, do you think we need to take 'some' sort of affirmative action to minimise and ultimately prevent climate change?
    111
    Yes
    62.16%
    69
    No
    37.84%
    42
    "He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice." Albert Einstein

  • #2
    Grow trees.

    S.
    Chuck Norris is 1/8th Cherokee. This has nothing to do with ancestry, the man ate a fucking Indian.

    Comment


    • #3
      many of the things already happening like wind and solar farms seem very worthy, if the tax was put towards positive results it would be received better.
      we do need to do something affirmative, but already are in many ways with recycling, the water desalination program and other useful but non topical ideas.
      Ask not what your country can for do you,
      But what is your country going to do to you next?

      Comment


      • #4
        I'm not so much worried about climate change as I am about what we leave behind for future generations. Simple fact of the matter is we can't continue producing and wasting like we do now.

        I think we should be doing more to encourage development of more sustainable technologies; whether it be products or processes. Best way I can see would be things like tax incentives/offsets for investment. Difficult to implement, but similar things have been done before, with success (Norway is a world leader in offshore and subsea oil and gas technology in part because they recognised their local resources were finite and gave tax concessions to companies investing in development).
        No amount of genius can overcome a preoccupation to detail.



        Comment


        • #5
          We definitely need to do something.

          I'm all for investing money in Nuclear power. I mean even if we use it for 100 years the human race as a whole is progressing stupidly fast.

          We've gone from not being able to fly to mars and out of the solar system in a century. We'll probably be on different planets in the galaxy within 50 years.

          Nuclear waste won't be a problem in 100 years or so because we'll have the technology to shoot it into the sun or do something else with it.
          Wes

          Comment


          • #6
            I would 100% support population control as a means to reduce our environmental impact

            Comment


            • #7
              Only real long term solution -

              Decrease population growth

              Consume less

              Which political party is gonna sell that one effectively?

              "Like sitting in the half-dark, reading a book and wrapped in a blanket? Tired of computers games and watching fuck off big TV's? Then vote for (Insert party here)"

              Nuclear waste won't be a problem in 100 years or so because we'll have the technology to shoot it into the sun or do something else with it.
              That's a big call. Too bad if we have all this nuclear waste we don't achieve that aim.

              "Do you enjoy riding your bike to work instead of driving your air-conditioned mobile ego enhancer? Then vote for (Insert party here)"
              Whatcha gonna do? Rap is not afraid of you
              Beat is for Sonny Bono, beat is for Yoko Ono

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by likefry View Post
                We definitely need to do something.

                I'm all for investing money in Nuclear power. I mean even if we use it for 100 years the human race as a whole is progressing stupidly fast.

                We've gone from not being able to fly to mars and out of the solar system in a century. We'll probably be on different planets in the galaxy within 50 years.

                Nuclear waste won't be a problem in 100 years or so because we'll have the technology to shoot it into the sun or do something else with it.
                Personally I have always supported the idea of disposing of everyones nuclear waste in the desert somewhere. Fence off a few kms in each direction, build a concrete bunker and put the waste there. Dispose/store other countries waste for them in exchange for payment. By the time we fill our entire country with people and start populating the desert (if that ever actually happens, which is probably unlikely unless climate change turns the desert into prime farming land or something), we will know how to dispose of the waste anyway.

                On the topic of affirmative action, I think we should mainly just be concentrating on new renewable energy/nuclear power to reduce the amount of coal we burn.
                #166

                Bernie says "think before you drive bribe"

                Comment


                • #9
                  When the full costs of generating nuclear power are considered, it remain one of the costliest ways of producing electricity. (source)

                  The reason it appears cheap in countries like the US is because of massive government subsidies.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The fact is that nearly all economic models choose to ignore the reality of finite resources on our little ball of rock. Constant growth is the mantra, and we all want a piece of the pie.
                    REAL strategies to make an impact on climate change are about as popular as bacon at a bar mitzvah, and put to a "popular" vote they will never stand up. Money talks louder than the quality of our air or food, or what we will be leaving behind for our children.

                    Incentives to drive innovation in energy production (Solar, Thorium, geo, whatever..) rather than propping up 19th century industries

                    Educating the population to take some responsibility for their energy and resources use, rather than fostering a bleating mass of self-interested individualists who think they are hard done by because they can't afford a new car every 2 years

                    Robust regulation of environmental standards

                    Sustainable farming practices that are shared globally

                    ... just to start

                    ^ Mr Snail, I am glad you pointed that out - few people realise how many years it takes for a nuclear power plant to start breaking even, and that's not even taking into account the waste disposal...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      ^ great post

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by devolved View Post
                        That's a big call. Too bad if we have all this nuclear waste we don't achieve that aim.
                        Are you suggesting that if we use too much nuclear fuel we'll spoil the environment with nuclear waste?
                        When due process fails us, we really do live in a world of terror. — JC Denton

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          i think we should be burning fossil fuels as fast as we can. Kyoto was all arsed about.

                          the sticking point (@kyoto) was why should industrialised nations sacrifice when the developing world didn't have to, wasnt going to nor was expected to.

                          this came about because industrialised nations were the ones trying to convince the developing world of the problem- NO FUCK THAT. the same way the super powers held a nuclear winter over the heads of everyone, industrialised nations hold a hot earth over the heads of everyone.

                          one way of looking at it is the developing world has lost the economic war. they just dont know it yet, some of the smarter ones are only coming to suspect it.

                          fossil fuels are the ammunition of economics. it is cheap transportable power to do work. we export it to our trade partners and they grow more powerful. we deny it to our enemies and they grow relatively weaker. we have used it to grow food and power our industry and exported that food and industry to our trade partners and our cummulative power grew.


                          detente in a post climate change age means the developing world accepts they have lost and makes concessions to the industrialised world to convince us to back off the fossil fuels. NOT the industrialised world to transfer power to the developing world out of some guilt trip or misplaced naive idea of fair play.
                          Last edited by g0zer; 14-10-2011, 11:40 AM.
                          Originally posted by Bendito
                          If we get to a stop and we are missing a dozen bikes and you are last, it was your fault. Don't be that guy. No one likes that guy.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Australia is unique in the world in that we have large coal deposits near most of our major cities. So moving away from coal generated electricity but continuing to sell coal overseas for electricity generation seams, stupid, damaging to Australia’s only manufacturing advantage of cheap electricity and contradictory. That is assuming global warming will occur if we release the carbon dioxide BACK to the atmosphere (from whence it came).
                            Pollution control can only be controlled by strong Government action and Australia has an admirable record with that the result is all "dirty" manufacturing being carried out of shore.
                            If we really wanted to help the world environment why not ban all imports generated in "dirty" manufacturing process.
                            I would support that even at the cost of higher prices.
                            sigpic

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by gordonleslie View Post
                              I would 100% support population control as a means to reduce our environmental impact
                              This is the only thing which will save the human race and the planet, and yet is the one thing that almost nobody has the guts to admit.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X