No no no I agree. There are jobs in the renewable industry. Lots of them. However they are all in China using Australian coal and iron ore to make wind towers and solar panels for the renewable industry here in Australia. Which by the way is approx 80% owned by foreigners. Slower farms, once constructed, will employ sheep to eat the grass and a few back packet with feather rushers to dust them once every 10 years. Then when they all go kaput, which they do, they will bury them in a bloody big hole in Australia and the cycle will all start over again. And don't start me on the batteries and the that will be needed for them. Why are we hell bent on going green while the world's biggest polluter is hell bent on selling us the stuff that keeps their industry going while killing ours.

yobarr wrote:

---

Buzz Lightbulb wrote:

---

Inequality is the major issue. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer not because the rich work harder but because they exploit the poor. It has been observed that many young people realise this and are slacking off at work. Inequality may be the one reason why (that) people don't work but underemployment is likely to be another reason.

---

 Surely you jest?

No. I don't. You missed the 'rich' part of those getting richer. Look it up at the Australian Bureau of Statistics. 

We all are born equal,

We are not born equal economically. It can take up to six generations of mismanagement for the super rich to lose there inherited money. Those born into a rich family usually become privileged. 

but some of us risk everything in an effort to "get ahead"......Many go out and attain skills that enable them to set up ultimately highly successful businesses,where they risk all their financial resources,sacrifice their social life,endanger their personal relationships and family life,risk their sanity,and neglect their health in an effort to "do well".

I don't deny this. 

These people provide employment for those who are happy to sit around and tell anybody who is stupid enough to listen how tough life is.Jealousy is a disease,but while the "Gummint" (sic) continues to dish out copious amounts of money to these no-hopers,nothing will change.

Not all people who are not employed or under-employed are nohopers.

In fact, again look it up, the majority of people are willing to do a fair day's work for fair pay. 

......And please  don't try to tell me there are "no jobs".

I didn't.

There is work in abundance for those who are willing (not necessarily 'happy') to get off their Rs and find it.It is nauseating to have to sit and listen to the "Poor me" brigade.

I didn't say that. 

I will say there are many people whose jobs can be replaced by robots and artificial intelligence. There are far too many people in the world for us to all live lives of luxury. In some Scandinavian country a Universal Basic Income (UBI) is being tested. So far, the results look good. There is nothing stopping those on UBI from doing extra work if they want to get off their Rs (sic) but in the near future there won't be enough jobs to employ everyone satisfactorily. Those in most Scandinavian countries are happier because of perceived equality.

The  world governments (my autocorrect got it right this time) will have to address inequality and underemployment or the people will revolt and we'll have anarchy.

I forget the original discussion. We appear to have digressed. Oh that's right. Electric cars.....

 

.....

---

 

bgt wrote:

---

I was going to ask. "97% of climate scientists" . Where does this figure come from? What or who qualifies as a 'climate scientist's'? Has that figure even been peer reviewed? And has Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse been removed from the list?

---

 Please look it up. There are many resources to find this information. New Scientist magazine, ABC news, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,. They are trusted resources. 

 

Where do you get the information that Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse were on the list?

Buzz Lightbulb when you have the likes of John Cook making statements then all credability in the 97% has gone. Yes I can read. I know how they got the 97%.

dorian wrote:

---

Whenarewethere wrote:

---

dorian wrote:

---

yobarr wrote:

---

... but I wouldn't be seen dead in one.

---

You had better write that into your will. If you live long enough, hearses will be electric, too.

---

 There is a Tesla hearse.

---

At $200K, I couldn't afford to be seen dead in one.

https://electrek.co/2019/08/07/tesla-hearse-sale/

 

---

 One can buy a used 2005 Ford hearse for $69,000 plus GST. 

$200k for a new MY21 seems good value!

 

With all those batteries onboard one might even get a bit of life back into the passenger!

bgt wrote:

---

Buzz Lightbulb when you have the likes of John Cook making statements then all credability in the 97% has gone. Yes I can read. I know how they got the 97%.

---

 Who's John Cook? 

Buzz Lightbulb wrote:

---

landy wrote:

---

Talking about Australian greenhouse gas emissions made me wonder how Australia compares to china in more meaningful numbers, Tons per square Kilometer . The figures for 2017 are Australia 52 tons per km2 China 1133 tons per km2.
.
I think some may find the charts in the link below of interest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

-- Edited by landy on Saturday 23rd of January 2021 10:30:43 PM

---

 Are emissions per square kilometre more meaningful? I would say per capita is more meaningful because it's how much each person on average contributes. Saying we have more empty square kilometres than another country doesn't really give us the right for each of us to pollute more.

 

I see that i stand corrected that Australia has 'one of' the biggest carbon footprints per capita. 

---

Yes Buzz A lot more meaningful. It shows that as a nation and for the percentage of the earth that Australia covers we contribute very little to the earths greenhouse gasses. If Australia was to halve its omissions per capita or even cut them altogether it would make virtually no difference to the overall situation. May I suggest addressing China's overpopulation ( as an example) would be much more effective in solving the worlds difficulties in many more ways than one. But of course that's the Elephant in the room and its not going to happen.

landy wrote:

 

 

Yes Buzz A lot more meaningful. It shows that as a nation and for the percentage of the earth that Australia covers we contribute very little to the earths greenhouse gasses. If Australia was to halve its omissions per capita or even cut them altogether it would make virtually no difference to the overall situation. May I suggest addressing China's overpopulation ( as an example) would be much more effective in solving the worlds difficulties in many more ways than one. But of course that's the Elephant in the room and its not going to happen.

---

 Extrapolating that idea, when one is driving in WA one can pollute more than when driving in the ACT because there are more square kilometres in WA than in the ACT? No, Australians do not have the right to pollute more just because there are fewer of us by numbers and by density.

I totally agree that there are too many people in the world and the Chinese government was trying to do something about that with its one child policy. Something that I believe most democratic countries would reject, but overpopulation is not just a Chinese issue. It's a world issue which every country should be addressing. Overpopulation is not only China's fault.

 

 

Buzz Lightbulb wrote:

---

bgt, is that the peered reviewe, published paper that you wanted? Written by John Cook et al? I saw opinions refuting their claims but they were just that, opinions, not peer reviewed, published papers. 

There's some confirmation bias going on and I've spent too much time on this so here are my beliefs:

It's been known by experiments since the mid 1800's that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 

CO2 ppm is increasing in earth's atmosphere. 

Burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere. 

I have children.

These are irrefutable facts.

I have personally seen weather events becoming more severe, the local summers getting hotter and a decrease in wild animals. 

I conclude, along with the majority of climate scientists, that the use of fossil fuels is contributing to climate change. 

I feel that i should reduce my carbon footprint because i want a decent world for my children to live in and I think that other's should do also. I love my children. 

Oh yes. It's good that the ACT government is reducing it's carbon footprint, as per previous posts, by encouraging green energy and electric cars.-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Sunday 24th of January 2021 10:35:03 AM

---

 And Australia's contribution is 1.07%...what an exercise in stupidity,akin to me stopping drinking beer in an effort to make sure 4X goes bust.Cheers

-- Edited by yobarr on Sunday 24th of January 2021 10:59:51 AM

& not only on the road!

bgt wrote:

---

The thing is we all want to leave a better world for our grand kids. No disputing that. EV's would help. Renewables will help. I have no issue with Australia being green. That's not the argument. BUT you can't destroy the economy so that some may sleep better at night. Sure Australia could go headlong into renewables because we wont be needing electricity or EV's. Because we will be all living in bark huts. No electricity. No cars. No nothing actually.

There is a smarter way of doing things. We need to guarantee future generations that they can have a life just as comfortable as we have now. Wrecking the economy and society just so we can save approx 1% of the global pollution is crazy. We, as an independent country, could put pressure on China to reduce their carbon footprint by just 1% and that would allow us to not make any changes at all. 1% of their carbon footprint is way bigger than our 1%. So why are some Australians hell bent on being the world guinea pig? It's ideology gone mad. Or are those who promote Australia's carbon future actually happy to see China continue to pollute at the expense of our economy. Is it politics rather than a means to save the world?

---

Absolutely brilliant post Bruce,but probably a bit too much logic involved for many to follow? I have highlighted the sentence that clearly and succintly explains exactly what is happening.Cheers

We're not powerful enough to put pressure on China. It won't work. In fact,China is already putting pressure on Australia with our barley, lobsters, wine, coal and other things that i couldn't be bothered looking up. Other countries have tried and failed. China will not back down. It's too powerful.

Tony Bev your right and the thread is way off track. But isn't that how most threads end up? And this is "I digress" isn't it.

Buzz Lightbuld where do you get your information from? Australia is going green. Not by choice I may add. And in doing so we have one of the most expensive electricity systems/costs in the world. Heck we made our own wind towers, blades etc here in Australia. Green jobs? Sure are. They have gone to China and now Australia imports them from China. Made with Australian COAL and iron ore. If that's not a step back in the economy then tell me what is. I bet a large component of Chinese solar panels are made with Australian raw materials. COAL for one. And where's our iron now produced? Oh Whyalla by a foreigner who has his hand out for government subsidies and more subsidies for renewable power farms.

If just 1% of China goes green that will more than likely pass Australia's meager !% of world carbon omissions. But while China is going 1% green they are increasing their carbon emissions more in one year than Australia's total emissions. The Paris agreement allows China to increase their carbon footprint while we see our economy go down the gurgler because of green ideology.

Check your reading. Barley is now being sold to places like Spain and Mexico. The Barley farmers are not missing out on income because new markets have been found. And if you think Australia can't put pressure on China then watch them squeal when the iron ore tap is turned off.

But as Tony Bev points out. this thread wont change anyone's mind.

bgf. There's no logical argument that I can put to you that will change your mind. I'm not going to waste my time trying to overcome confirmation bias. New Scientists explains that it doesn't work. I'll wait to see how far Australia falls behind other developing countries that are committed to zero carbon emissions by 2050 or thereabouts.

Meanwhile, I'll do the right thing for the world and reduce my carbon footprint. I'm happy with that.