Abbott can now focus on fixing Brookie Oval....

[Hamster Huey]

So basically the sheep approach - i will only follow if everyone else does and you support a motion based on emtion/beliefs/who's paying your election campaign rather than fact.

Manufaturing was not hurt by the carbon tax no matter what emotional garbage the right dredged up, it in fact created jobs within the indutry as well as downstream effects of purchasing more energy efficient drives etc. At the time it was culled the industry had adapted and was profiting as a whole. The energy giants and mining giants who make billions in profit were the ones who were slightly hurt by it (hence why it was scraped).

From my point of view working in manufacturing seeing things inprove in some areas and having an extra lever to pull it was a welcome relief on what is an industry that has had not real medium to long term government assistance for decades.

The "pink batt" thoughts would also be a good laugh.

Fluffy, I'm surprised by your blind faith. Manufacturing was lost, jobs were gone and the green jobs revolution has failed to materialise to counter it. Renewables aren't profitable and require driving up the prices for the likes of coal/gas to offset their costs to put it into the grid; i.e. the consumers went from some of the cheapest, reliable power on Earth, to some of the most expensive.

Germany went it alone to generate a Green Economy and hundreds of billions of dollars later they have seen renewable manufacturing undercut by the Chinese, and Bob Brown's ascertion that they'd have hundreds of thousands of Green jobs, didn't even get close. Now they are building more fossil fuel power stations to cover the shortfall, and require power from France and Russia.

When you're talking energy and economies, you can't go it alone when you're a geographically isolated, bit player.

 

[Bearfax]

Not sure why you would think it would upset me? Interesting take.

As for the sum, it isn't a flaw...it is simply incorrect. To do something like state that 1.4 + 1.4 = 2.8 then round each to the nearest whole number, would then highlight a flaw. ;-)

A' flaw' is a feature that mars the perfection of something or a fault. 1 + 1 = 3 seems to fit that definition in my mind, unless I was getting emotional about it.

 

[Loobs]

A' flaw' is a feature that mars the perfection of something or a fault. 1 + 1 = 3 seems to fit that definition in my mind, unless I was getting emotional about it.

This reminds me of Terrence Howard's recent Rolling Stone interview with his "1 x 1 conundrum":

"How can it equal one? If one times one equals one that means that two is of no value because one times itself has no effect. One times one equals two because the square root of four is two, so what's the square root of two? Should be one, but we're told its two, and that cannot be."

 

[Fluffy]

Fluffy, I'm surprised by your blind faith. Manufacturing was lost, jobs were gone and the green jobs revolution has failed to materialise to counter it. Renewables aren't profitable and require driving up the prices for the likes of coal/gas to offset their costs to put it into the grid; i.e. the consumers went from some of the cheapest, reliable power on Earth, to some of the most expensive.

Germany went it alone to generate a Green Economy and hundreds of billions of dollars later they have seen renewable manufacturing undercut by the Chinese, and Bob Brown's ascertion that they'd have hundreds of thousands of Green jobs, didn't even get close. Now they are building more fossil fuel power stations to cover the shortfall, and require power from France and Russia.

When you're talking energy and economies, you can't go it alone when you're a geographically isolated, bit player.

I am confused - part your reasoning for baking the end of carbon tax was it hurt manufacturing now you say manufacturing was lost which would imply the carbon tax had no effect anyway.

As for Germany they are not alone and also have moved the capital burden from government to the individual consumer = win win. Sweeden have come up with their own green solution which would not suit Australia but it works.

No need to increase the cost of electricity, simply allow those making it from rooftop solar to get paid for it like the big corporations can. Added win here is that China have a carbon policy and are ahead of Australia so by buying chinese solar panels you can help reduce the carbon footprint more than in Australia these days, what an embarrassment that it.

For all your deep in depth talk you seem to be drowning in the kiddy pool. The answers you give are straight from the Libs website and other right wingers who are calling Turnbull a lefty loony.

 

[Rex]

Thanks for bearing with me HH. I'm trying to understand your beliefs more clearly. So it'd help if you can clarify further, and also correct me where I've misheard or misunderstood.

Self-interest and narrow views are everywhere, across the board. Money is as much a driver in the renewable space, as in the other self-interest areas. A clear look at the pro/cons should see most see that anything we do is irrelevent in the final solution; reducing climate change.

Greed and narrow self-interest
I'm hearing you believe greed and narrow self-interest are characteristics of all human beings in all situations? I'm not wanting to exaggerate or misrepresent your beliefs so it would help if you correct me. And, putting aside the question of desirability of reducing climate change, that any attempts to reduce climate change are futile? In your view, are we helpless in reducing climate change because others won't get on board (because of their greed and narrow self-interest)? Or helpless because there is nothing that could practically be done to reduce climate change even if everyone got on board?

I don't see global warming as a threat to humanity. Climate changes and people adapt. I'd be far more concerned if we saw the climate shifting to a cooling trend.

Global warming
I'm wondering how certain you are that global warming is not a threat to humanity? In your view, is there any possibility at all that you could be wrong, and if so, how might this impact your stance? e.g. If you thought there was any possibility at all you could be wrong, what would be the best way of researching this issue - so we could make a sound judgement on how we, as humans, could best adapt and respond?

Animals thrived/perished previously and often without our interference. I am far more concerned about the direct threats we pose to animals via deforestation, over fishing, over development and introduced species. Climate influences are often overstated to appeal to our compassionate side, with all sort of cute and (not so) cuddly animals paraded as the next extinction possibility. Many of these are half-arsed studies that appear to already have climate change as the answer, before they start looking; polar bears, hares, butterflies have all had a run and subsequent studies have found the initial claims misleading and/or false.

Animals and other life forms
I've heard you're "far more" concerned about the direct threats we pose to animals via deforestation, over fishing, over development and introduced species - rather than climate change. Overall, how would you describe your level of concern? e.g. Mildly concerned? Very concerned? And would you like to see us do something as governments and/or individuals in response to your concerns? And I'm wondering, given the ubiquity of greed and narrow self-interest, how you think we might respond rationally to these concerns in a global context? - Given that deforestation in, say, Brazil is not under our direct control.

I'm unclear whether you think there is a problem with species of animals potentially/actually becoming extinct through human activity. I'm hearing that you don't accept that human impact on climate change is a cause. But I'm not clear whether deforestation, over fishing, over development and introduced species are, in your view, causing a potential/actual problem of extinction.

Of course I do. But I see the hundreds of billions wasted better spent on helping the less well off adapt, lifting poverty to improve health and education. An ETS/Carbon Tax will never drive the change we seek to ensure we can clean up our acts.

What happens on this planet after we're dead
I wasn't asking the question thinking of carbon policy. I was more interested in how you rate the importance of leaving the planet in a good condition for future generations.

As you've raised it, I'm now curious. You think an ETS/Carbon Tax will never drive the change we seek to ensure we can "clean up our acts". Do you think Abbott's path would ensure that we can "clean up our act"? Or some other alternative? And if so, in your view what is that different mechanism that would make it work, where an ETS/Carbon Tax would not work?

 

[Rex]

This reminds me of Terrence Howard's recent Rolling Stone interview with his "1 x 1 conundrum":

"How can it equal one? If one times one equals one that means that two is of no value because one times itself has no effect. One times one equals two because the square root of four is two, so what's the square root of two? Should be one, but we're told its two, and that cannot be."

I don't know what drugs Terrence was on, but school teachers should be afraid ... very afraid.

 

[manlyfan76]

Abbott has fixed #tablegate now he can fix @Brookie lol.

 

[rifraff]

Abbott has fixed #tablegate now he can fix @Brookie lol.

Marbleous, simply marbleous

 

[manlyfan76]

Abbott. What a bad joke history will see him as.