Eeewww I only go for Sodium 2-Aminopentanedioate. None of that common stuff for me. Although I wouldn't call it essential so I can take it or leave it.
Anyway, I went on a small reading spree, so let me share what i just found.
1. James Lawrence Powell reviewed 13,950 climate articles 1991-2012. 24 of the 13,950 articles , 0.17% clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming.
2.- American Association for the Advancement of Science "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society"
- Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies - United States National Research Council - Geological Society of London - American Meteorological Society - Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences There is a huge list of international academies that put out similar statements, google it.
3. So the experts are saying it is happening. should we just listen or be skeptic. Of course we should do a minimum of research and many people did. Most of them agree, so what about the small minority that disagrees? hmm... Science do make mistakes. but if what they are presenting is logical, we should trust them. How many times did you experience or heard about a doctor that screwed up; wrong dose, allergic reaction, failed treatment? Guess what, if you had cancer or any serious disease you would still go to several doctors and if most of them is telling you to take drugs or follow a treatment, you will. It is not blind faith. They are professionals, expert in their field. You would get an IT guy to fix your CPU and a dentist your teeth. Would you listen to a random guy on a forum? Where are the peer reviewed academic journals that deny climate change caused by humans?
4. What about the sun and other natural events that we cannot do anything about. Yes these things have greate impacts on earth. But in between these events we are the ones affecting the climate. ice age? http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-6-1.html
5. Finally, let's we can all agree to disagr... no wait. We can all agree that this debate does not matter in the end. Most people agree that we pollute too much. As long as we all have the same goals let's achieve it.
Short term satisfaction to get cheap fuel, powerful cars, iphones, TVs, trips around the world, etc is not worth the long term social cost. The medical cost after years of pollution is never taken into account, asthma, cancer, etc. The destruction to the environment, drinking water, animals and fish supplies. These social cost far outweights the short term enjoyment.
Some people like to smoke, eat fatty foods and sugars. They say "YOLO". They want immediate enjoyment without thinking of the consequences. Old people have the same mentality, they say screw that, let the next generation deal with that, it will increase the cost of my V8 Engine car and my ipad. Some say adapt to it butdo we really want our kids to wear medical masks at kinder like in Hongkong and China?
We should teach children to use energy efficient products, recycle and not waste food, water and electricty. + you will save money.
How do we deal with the stubborn people who insist that the plastic bottles we throw at sea will be absorbed by nature or that the smoke from factories won't kill you if you drink your milk? The only way is through taxation or regulations.
Merit goods are underproduced unfortunately and Demerit goods are overproduced and thus should be taxed. If the demerit good is not targeted and taxed, society will bear the cost in the long term anyway and even those that did not consume those goods will have to pay. E.g smokers, dumping chemicals, toxic fumes from cars and factories. The state will have to pay for the hospitals. Poor health will decrease standard of livings and productivity.
Unfair competition? we will lose jobs because China will still pollute? True but we just got to be more innovative and efficient. The Western world can be the leader for a cleaner earth.
They say "YOLO". They want immediate enjoyment without thinking of the consequences. Old people have the same mentality, they say screw that, let the next generation deal with that, it will increase the cost of my V8 Engine car and my ipad. Some say adapt to it butdo we really want our kids to wear medical masks at kinder like in Hongkong and China?
We should teach children to use energy efficient products, recycle and not waste food, water and electricty. + you will save money.
How do we deal with the stubborn people who insist that the plastic bottles we throw at sea will be absorbed by nature or that the smoke from factories won't kill you if you drink your milk? The only way is through taxation or regulations.
Merit goods are underproduced unfortunately and Demerit goods are overproduced and thus should be taxed. If the demerit good is not targeted and taxed, society will bear the cost in the long term anyway and even those that did not consume those goods will have to pay. E.g smokers, dumping chemicals, toxic fumes from cars and factories. The state will have to pay for the hospitals. Poor health will decrease standard of livings and productivity.
Unfair competition? we will lose jobs because China will still pollute? True but we just got to be more innovative and efficient. The Western world can be the leader for a cleaner earth.
Yes they do say "yolo". Obviously there are a LOT more sheeple than leaders out there, that is natural. However the internet has really stirred up the flux and given the ability for groups of sheeple to work almost autonomously without a leader (or choose some random leader they know almost nothing about) thereby operating as a kind of amorphous group. This happens on both sides of any argument. It makes the interwebs a place of ebbs and flows but you know what? I think it'll help us come up with the best answer.
Climate scientists warn Australians are likely to experience more heat records over the next decade.
AUSTRALIA can expect more record heat over the next decade as a result of a "climate on steroids", the climate commission warns.
Speaking at the release of a new report by the commission, climate scientist Will Steffen says Australians are likely to experience even hotter temperatures over the next 10 years.
The report "Angry Summer" argues the extreme weather of 2012/13 was climate change in action and more unusual events are on the way.
It notes that last summer 123 records were broken throughout Australia in 90 days, and that it was the nation's hottest summer, capped by the longest and most extreme heatwave on record.
Prof Steffen said the findings of the new report into last summer's extreme weather events showed climate change was real.
Recent data shows that without Australia’s population boom, we’d probably have greenhouse gas emissions under control. So why is no one talking about whether an Australia of 62 million is environmentally sustainable?
Forget the carbon price, forget the opposition’s Direct Action climate plan. Australia could probably meet its targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without either, provided we did one thing. But you won’t hear the politicians talk about it.
A statistical analysis by Crikey, based on data released this week, indicates that if Australia’s high population growth rate were reined in, the country would already be meeting its targets to cut pollution. In fact, we’d probably be under those targets.
The federal government’s data on greenhouse gas emissions for the December quarter points to the major impact the population boom has had on Australia’s emissions. Here’s the Crikey number-crunching that shows why it might be time to talk about the environmental impact of Australia’s growing population. (This is a crude statistical analysis, but you won’t find the government — both major parties support and plan for significant population growth — doing it. So we had a go.)
Australia’s per capita emissions actually dropped between 1989 and 2012. But the population increased by 35% during that period, and overall national emissions soared by 32%. That took national greenhouse gas emissions from 418 megatonnes a year in 1990 to 552 megatonnes in 2012 (a megatonne is 1 million tonnes).
Australia has a high rate of population growth, caused in part by a relatively high rate of immigration. What would the country’s emissions be if that was not the case?
The ABS calculates that in the decade to 2007, the population grew by 1.3% pa on average, with “just under half from net overseas migration” (the rest comes from births). The proportion of population growth coming from migration increased to more than half at the end of that period; last year the federal government said migration “has in recent years had the largest impact on overall population change”. In 2009, migration provided 65% of population growth.
Based on those numbers, if Australia had net zero migration from 1989 to 2012, we can estimate the population would have increased from 16.9 million (1989) to roughly 20.4 million (2012).
And based on the government’s calculation of current per capita emissions, that would give us total national emissions in 2012 of 495 megatonnes. So our actual total emissions are 11.5% — or 57 megatonnes — higher than if we had had net zero migration.
“The short answer is that we may well be meeting that (emissions) target already if we did not have the population boom.”
So what? Well, the body politic is consumed with how to meet the bipartisan target to reduce national emissions to 537 megatonnes of emissions per year in 2020. It’s an issue that has toppled prime ministers, helped decide elections and keeps politicians awake at night.
The short answer is that we might well be meeting that target already if we did not have the population boom.
With the swelling population, it’s a different story. Australia’s headcount stands at a ticker under 23 million. The ABS predicts there will be between 31 million and 43 million of us in 2056. By 2101, the ABS estimates it could be as high as 62 million.
This above analysis is rough and is no substitute for rigorous modelling by teams of economists and demographers. It’s worth bearing in mind that per capita emissions simply divide up national emissions by the headcount, yet a chunk of those emissions are not from individual people, they come from industry (including export-oriented industry). So some of the increase in total emissions would have happened regardless of population growth. Also, it’s difficult to directly compare population growth and emissions for the exact period 1989 to 2012. However, the numbers crunched here do point to an aspect to the climate debate that is seldom discussed at the political level: more people means higher emissions.
Former prime minister Kevin Rudd famously declared he believed in a “big Australia”; in the ensuing criticism both major parties toned down the rhetoric, but neither major party has moved away from significant population growth fuelled by skilled migration.
Tony Mohr, the Australian Conservation Foundation’s manager of climate change campaign, calls for a stabilisation of Australia’s population. “More people in Australia means more roads, more energy use and more greenhouse gas emissions,” Mohr told Crikey. “Population is one driver of emissions growth in Australia.”
He says Australia should address the problem rather than “add fuel”. “We’ve already got a really big emissions footprint … certainly taking another look at our skilled migration would help reduce the growth in our greenhouse gas emissions,” he said.
Mohr calls on politicians to debate the impacts of population growth on the environment and cities. He adds the ACF did not support reducing Australia’s humanitarian intake, which is a fraction of the overall migration intake. In the 2010 election campaign, Prime Minister Julia Gillard said:
“I do not believe in the idea of a big Australia; an Australia where we push all the policy leavers into top gear to drive population growth as high as we can. Australia cannot and should not hurtle down the track towards a big population.”
However, Labor has done little to seriously challenge projections of significant population growth (apart from criticising the 457 visa program). Tony Burke, the federal Minister for Population, has issued 46 media releases this year, but none appear to be about population. Last year Burke issued an 86-page sustainable population policy, which appears to make no recommendations on what Australia’s population should be.
Recent data shows that without Australia’s population boom, we’d probably have greenhouse gas emissions under control. So why is no one talking about whether an Australia of 62 million is environmentally sustainable?
Former prime minister Kevin Rudd famously declared he believed in a “big Australia”; in the ensuing criticism both major parties toned down the rhetoric, but neither major party has moved away from significant population growth fuelled by skilled migration.
And if the migrants don't move here then they stay where they are or move to a different country - the world still gets their pollution.
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy
