[FatBoy]

I am for action on all three of those.  I am thinking of even becoming a member of the Australian Republican Movement.  No more foreigners as our head of state!! 

[Doggie 1]

He holds many views that align with Labor/Greens ideologies too, such as climate change, same sex marriage and Australia being a republic to mention just three.

Two of those align with me and the 3rd I am "on the fence"...

Fairy Nuff.
I was aligned with Abbott's views on them which is why I wouldn't want Turnbull as leader.
We'll wait to see how his personal views affect the party policies.

[FatBoy]

He holds many views that align with Labor/Greens ideologies too, such as climate change, same sex marriage and Australia being a republic to mention just three.

Two of those align with me and the 3rd I am "on the fence"...

Fairy Nuff.
I was aligned with Abbott's views on them which is why I wouldn't want Turnbull as leader.
We'll wait to see how his personal views affect the party policies.

Turnbull has said that the policies will remain.  Fairy Nuff too!!  While I would like to see SSM and Australia become a Republic, they aren't show stoppers.  However, I really think we can and need to do more for Climate Change (says me that drives a V8).  I will say in my defence that I do have 100% Carbon offset on my vehicle.

[Phil №❶]

Leadership of a party is an elected position, determined by the majority for the good of the party. It should not be a popularity contest, but based not the skills and abilities of the contestants to effectively lead the country, economically and morally down the right path.

I don't think it was a good choice, but I do acknowledge my disappointment in the way Tony was running things, I thought he'd do a much better job.

[ibrokeit]

Same here with SSM - would like to see it (if two people wish to marry it shouldn't matter they are the same gender - just don't force religious organisations to conduct ceremonies unless they wish to, which of course won't be forcing then).   Of course, from time to time, I have heard 'Homosexual relationships don't last as long as heterosexual ones, so what is the point of them getting married.' to which my smart retort is usually "Oh yes, because divorce rates are, and the past couple of decades, soooo low.  Riiiight??'

Not so hot on Republic - Long Live the Queen!

Regarding Climate Change - the climate is changing, but I am not sure it is solely because of us (which is how it often is portrayed), having said that we should always do whatever we can (within reason - if you wreck an economy rather than change it, then there will be no money to fund protecting/restoring the environment) to protect/conserve the environment, or ideally things (such as buildings) that positively benefit the environment while benefiting their users as well.   The trouble is, until recently, environmental protection (like we know it now) was very little (or no concern) to most businesses and, indeed, many people.

Phil: You are right, it shouldn't be popularity contest - but, as you say, he wasn't (or wasn't appearing to) run things well and was harming the party due to it.

Of course one small detail, that many over look, is that there is no legal requirement the (political) leader of a party forming government (or the leader of the largest party in a coalition) has to be the PM - but that is how it is generally done.

[Phil №❶]

Regarding Climate Change - the climate is changing, but I am not sure it is solely because of us (which is how it often is portrayed), having said that we should always do whatever we can (within reason - if you wreck an economy rather than change it, then there will be no money to fund protecting/restoring the environment) to protect/conserve the environment, or ideally things (such as buildings) that positively benefit the environment while benefiting their users as well.   The trouble is, until recently, environmental protection (like we know it now) was very little (or no concern) to most businesses and, indeed, many people.

Humans do change the climate, you'll have a hard time convincing me otherwise.

[Doggie 1]

But taxing emissions doesn't make the air cleaner or cool the climate. 

[FatBoy]

But taxing emissions doesn't make the air cleaner or cool the climate. 

Agreed Dave.  Reducing emissions does, however that is achieved.  Nonetheless, taxing cigarettes has cut down the smoking rate.

I used to be a climate change sceptic, until I read the scientific, peer reviewed, information.  Not the right wing, opinionated, pieces.

[Doggie 1]

But taxing emissions doesn't make the air cleaner or cool the climate. 

Agreed Dave.  Reducing emissions does, however that is achieved.  Nonetheless, taxing cigarettes has cut down the smoking rate.

I used to be a climate change sceptic, until I read the scientific, peer reviewed, information.  Not the right wing, opinionated, pieces.

Ouch! That hurt! 
As long as countries like India and China continue to pollute at the rates they do, us spending billions of dollars will mean diddly squat.
Direct action at least makes some difference.

[ibrokeit]

Regarding Climate Change - the climate is changing, but I am not sure it is solely because of us (which is how it often is portrayed), having said that we should always do whatever we can (within reason - if you wreck an economy rather than change it, then there will be no money to fund protecting/restoring the environment) to protect/conserve the environment, or ideally things (such as buildings) that positively benefit the environment while benefiting their users as well.   The trouble is, until recently, environmental protection (like we know it now) was very little (or no concern) to most businesses and, indeed, many people.

Humans do change the climate, you'll have a hard time convincing me otherwise.

Ah hmm... I didn't say they didn't, nor was I trying to convince you, and I refer you to my statement above.

In short: by saying "I am not sure it is solely because of us" I am not saying it isn't us, that we don't change the environment or that we have had no effect.  You will then note I go on to say we should look after (that includes improving it - if we can) the environment ergo climate.

Why does Charles Dickens works have White Christmases when the lower UK rarely has them as such?  The answer is he had 6 white christmases in his first 9 years  - where as 20th Century the lower UK
had 7.   Did humans cause those atypical winters by changing the climate? According to this article it was the coldest since 1690 - so 120 years prior it had been about as cold (being 'coldest since' strictly just means the intervening decades were warmer than those two).   Why were they atypically cold? I suspect humans didn't have much effect in those instances.   Yet colder, and warmer, than normal weather is blamed on 'global warming' and 'climate change' brought about by solely humans...  could be the 'warming' and 'change' are natural long-term oscillations which we have exacerbated/amplified by our activities (making the effects more pronounced - or worse - than they would have been otherwise.

I personally want the environment/climate protected as much as possible - I always sought my rubbish appropriately (actually a little disappointed with the plastics, and similar materials, recycling here), I never (knowingly) litter, etc. etc. - I just don't believe everything is exactly how it gets portrayed.

Humans do effect the environment - even where they are trying to be 'green' - supposedly a few years ago a conservation group realised a rare 'moss' that had a small area where it grew was disappearing.   Apparently when it was investigated they found the wind direction/pattern had changed.   Turns out the wind-farm turbines were disrupting the air currents and the moss wasn't getting enough resources/energy/nutrients (it may have been dew/mist that was main disrupted resource).  Anyway without meaning to... the 'green' solution... was negatively effecting the (local) environment.

[Phil №❶]

I may have been a little harsh in my statement, but I am a CC believer and can't fathom how the skeptics form their opinions.

With the number of people and animals in existence all emitting CO₂ and methane into the atmosphere, both greenhouse gasses with methane @ 20X CO₂ contribution. Add to that, industrial air borne pollution and thermal energy from burning fossil fuels at millions of barrels per day, we must eventually affect the natural balance as our numbers increase.

Not looking to argue, just saying.

[Dazzler]

I may have been a little harsh in my statement, but I am a CC believer and can't fathom how the skeptics form their opinions.

With the number of people and animals in existence all emitting CO₂ and methane into the atmosphere, both greenhouse gasses with methane @ 20X CO₂ contribution. Add to that, industrial air borne pollution and thermal energy from burning fossil fuels at millions of barrels per day, we must eventually affect the natural balance as our numbers increase.

Not looking to argue, just saying.

I'm with you Phil, I'm convinced that man is having a measureable impact on our climate. Unfortunately the more populous places would be having a bigger effect that Oz, but any action is better than none. 

[The Gonz]

Count me in for CC as well, boys. It's sad to see the industry pitching a couple of argumentative 'science' types in the mix against the other 99.99% who are stating there's a problem. Sadly it's a great tactical but disastrously cynical piece of manipulation a la tobacco companies in decades gone by, and the processed food industry today.

[FatBoy]

Me three for CC.  The overwhelming evidence suggests that man is the major cause.

[Aussie Keith]

The New Zealand PM joked: 'I must admit, wouldn't it be exciting if we were holding this event in Australia? You'd know the Prime Minister's coming, you just wouldn't know who's going to show up.'

Mr Key went on to say Australia has had the same number of Prime Ministers, since he has been in power, as Greece.

On CC, we have been experiencing global warming since the last ice age. However when you look at the retreat of the Athabascar Glacier (for example - there's others in worse shape) and see how its retreated a mile in the last 100 years or so, it makes you think.

On the arguments about Australia's response to CC "on a per capita basis", weasel words. We should do our bit responsibly targeting best practice in low emissions overall. Pointing the finger at others serves no purpose, we can't control India and China. But we could set an example and apply some pressure that way. It couldn't hurt.

I have no idea what the answer is. But we need better ideas than what's been proposed in the past if we are to make an impact.

[Doggie 1]

At any cost?
Doing whatever we can comes at a huge cost that is borne by our limited number of taxpayers.
If there's a tangible result for it at the end of the day then all well and good but why throw so much money at it when other largely populated countries such as those I mentioned counteract what we do?
Not weasel words at all. More like a reasonable viewpoint to me.

[Aussie Keith]

No its weasel words. "Per capita" immediately suggests we are underperforming or trying to hide something. We should be able to stand by our target on its merits, not hide behind weasel words. If its 5 percent or whatever of total emissions that's what it should be. Because "per capita" we are a big polluter. However compared to China and India, our total output is less significant. We should do what we can because we care about the planet we live on.

And I agree, there needs to be a reasonable approach to cost. But I don't understand either approach to date where we pay people to reduce emissions (direct action) or charge a carbon tax and then provide rebates. Both ideas make no sense to me and come at huge cost. Surely there's a better way.

[Doggie 1]

Oh well.
I don't like paying for something that won't make one iota of difference.
And let's face it, if we'd all listened to what Tim Flannery has had to say over the past few years (as many still do), we would now have no water in our dams and would be surrounded by raging bush fires. He is constantly just plain wrong.
Yet the cc advocates still parade him him out regularly on our TVs as the cc guru. 

[ibrokeit]

I also believe humans are contributing to Climate Change - and that we should do what we can to reduce it.   I said as much, in more detail, above - however what I said and response to it show how polarised the debate can be.

Measurable - the change seems to be; how much (which may very well be the majority) of it is us (humans) might be harder.   I have a smart mate - who totally thinks CC (by humans) is cr*p...; to me it is logical... everything we do has an impact, so it will add up, so therefore humans will have an impact on the climate (therefore changing it); but then you get others who present that CC, more particularly 'global warming' is 100% caused by humans (i.e. it wouldn't change otherwise) which is just not true, it has warmed and cooled in cycles.

Yes we should do what we can, but our (Australia's) contribution will only be minor compared to certain other countries/economies - and do we do all that can be done no matter the cost? or do what we can do without inhibiting/injuring the economy (GDP, etc.)?

Phil: You mention about the fossil fuels, CO₂, energy production, etc..  It is something I find amusing, some 'greenies' are now advocating for nuclear power, which many such people (and many others) are against.  Yet when it comes down to it - overall (with radiation/radiated materials contained) - during Normal operation nuclear power (which is a base-load power type) has one of the most efficient fuels (weight to energy), is environmentally friendly (again for base-load - e.g. not-solar or wind), based on energy obtained from is less damaging to mine it than coal (because energy contained is much more dense), also has one of the lowest rate of human death for the power source.

However it is when nuclear things go wrong, and are not contained, that the dangers of it occur and can remain for some time.    However how many times have dam's failed? Either power generating ones, or storage ones for mining by-products from various types of mining operation.  And what damage have they caused.   Also another one, that keep going, is coal-seam fires - fire gets started in a mine, then gets into the seam and keeps burning, can't be put out, some have been going for decades... I know of one in/near Reefton in NZ, there is another in the US.  Releasing all kinds of stuff into the atmosphere - yuck.

[Surferdude]

Coal seam fires. Even in Australia. I too am all for us doing as much as we can economically to care for the environment.

Burning Mountain, the common name for Mount Wingen, is a hill near Wingen, New South Wales, Australia, approximately 224 km (139 mi) north of Sydney just off the New England Highway. It takes its name from a smouldering coal seam running underground through the sandstone. Burning Mountain is contained within the Burning Mountain Nature Reserve, which is administered by the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service.

A trail with information panels runs from the park car park to the site where smoke emanates from the ground.

The underground fire is estimated to be at a depth of around 30 m  The scientific estimate is that the fire has burned for approximately 6,000 years and is the oldest known coal fire.

European explorers and settlers to the area believed the smoke, coming from the ground, was volcanic in origin. It was not until 1829 that geologist C.P.N. Wilton identified it as a coal seam fire.

The fire is generally moving in a southerly direction at a rate of about 1 m  per year. The combustion has caused soil discolouration and an uneven ground surface in the area.

[ibrokeit]

Coal seam fires. Even in Australia. I too am all for us doing as much as we can economically to care for the environment.


The underground fire is estimated to be at a depth of around 30 m  The scientific estimate is that the fire has burned for approximately 6,000 years and is the oldest known coal fire.

I am assuming that started via. lightning strike, other natural ignition of some kind (bush fire? or maybe compression, or seismic forces during an earthquake or something), or aliens.

Yup - to care for the environment, at least with the current world economy model, we need the economy to be able to pay for it.  Of course, long term, maybe the economy should be reworked around the environment.