Copenhagen Treaty

[Guest]

Can we expect more links? Looking forward to this.....

[Guest]

Can we expect more links? Looking forward to this.....

If you want a discussion the GFC start a new thread

[TheLoneRooster]

Perception is a powerful thing. That quote only works if it's your side that you perceive are the "good men".

One mans' freedom fighter is another mans' terrorist.

Chook.

Perception is reality, true Chook. But this quote works on the basis that some things are universally evil, irrespective of the perception of the perpetrators of said evil. You will probably cite such things as, for example, some Turks believing in "the good" of ridding the world of Armenians. To most people though, there is clearly a sense of right and wrong, good and evil.

[Guest]

Ok just noticed this thread - am not one that usually posts on topics other than footy but politics and global issues float my boat. Interesting arguments and I myself am quite ambivalent with respect to this issue. The whole communist thing/politicians taking over the world is a little overcooked I think but the nitty gritty arguments are compelling. I havent really read a lot of the links - time is of the essence but the things that have always had me question the whole climate change saga is the way in which it has come to fruition almost overnight and also the fact that such occurences if even true have been proven to be cycles of the earth. The ice age for example you could say was global cooling and as it was most definatley not caused by the cavemen barbecuing their brontesorus burgers. So if true im not sure we can do much about it anyway.

Despite this, obviously cutting down emmissions and being a little more environmentally consicous I think is important to improve and attain a general standard of living. Lets just say getting off a plane in India and struggling to breath as you can actually see the pollution in the air is most definatley not an environment in which anyone would want to live. The thing is though that I dont think it is as hard as everyone is making it out to be to attain that level of environmental consciousness. We dont need treaties or agreements we just need to do certain little things on a domestic level that if done globally will make a positive difference to our SOL. If the globe decides the continue to behave erratically if the climate changers argue then I dont actually think we can do much about it anyway.

On the whole Global Government issue, I actually think that this is something that could seriously occur. The fact that the GFC and this whole climate change thing have happened at the same time makes a global regulatory framework all the more likely. See the issue in the global economy that was exemplified by the GFC is the fact that organisations such as the WTO, IMF and World Bank have largely failed to facilitate a global economic trade and financial network which is why trade agreements have become prominent and as has jurastic protective measures such as the EU's common agriculture policy that gives EU farmers an 80% subsidy. This has also excluded developing nations like those of Africa from becoming part of the global network. Because Climate Change and a more unified and overarching regulatory framework in financial markets have caused global leaders to consider more unified Global bodies to deal with this. There has actaully been strong talk that a global government that would tax the rich and redistribute to the poor is likely to come out of copenhagen if anything does and the fact that the GFC has identified a similar need for unilateral approaches to global regulation, it has become all the more likely.

Into perspective, I think its quite silly. I cant see how taxing and adding costs to business will solve the damage they have already imparted on the government. Even more daft is the fact that the money will be flowing to developing nations most of whom are corrupt and wouldnt have a damn clue how to spend it and would most definatley not have the infrastructure or ability to draft new technologies simply promolgating the problem. But you see the problem is that if we were to do something about climate change it would have to be a united approach otherwise our domestic industries are at a competetive disadvantage - heather ridout "CPRS would add $7 billion to business costs by 2010". So therefore we are forced into a global government type system which as I have shown is probably useless anyway and will cause more harm than good.

As you can see that my approach is ok if we were to do something, what can be done and how can we do it? There really arent any viable options and getting global agreements are simply too difficult and unlikely so I think we become confined to small things anyway that can be done such as improved recycling, investments in new technologies etc. A global body like Renewables Australia could be a smart initiative that does research. I actually think that if australia can pioneer some new technologies and commercialise them globally, there is a massive market and can open up a whole new market for us which could benefit us greatly. Aside from this, it is simply too difficult and the evidence isnt quite compeling enough - most of which is nulified by the opposing arguments of which rcptn has given us an adequate taste. Thoughts....

[melon....]

Ok just noticed this thread - am not one that usually posts on topics other than footy but politics and global issues float my boat. Interesting arguments and I myself am quite ambivalent with respect to this issue. The whole communist thing/politicians taking over the world is a little overcooked I think but the nitty gritty arguments are compelling. I havent really read a lot of the links - time is of the essence but the things that have always had me question the whole climate change saga is the way in which it has come to fruition almost overnight and also the fact that such occurences if even true have been proven to be cycles of the earth. The ice age for example you could say was global cooling and as it was most definatley not caused by the cavemen barbecuing their brontesorus burgers. So if true im not sure we can do much about it anyway.

Despite this, obviously cutting down emmissions and being a little more environmentally consicous I think is important to improve and attain a general standard of living. Lets just say getting off a plane in India and struggling to breath as you can actually see the pollution in the air is most definatley not an environment in which anyone would want to live. The thing is though that I dont think it is as hard as everyone is making it out to be to attain that level of environmental consciousness. We dont need treaties or agreements we just need to do certain little things on a domestic level that if done globally will make a positive difference to our SOL. If the globe decides the continue to behave erratically if the climate changers argue then I dont actually think we can do much about it anyway.

On the whole Global Government issue, I actually think that this is something that could seriously occur. The fact that the GFC and this whole climate change thing have happened at the same time makes a global regulatory framework all the more likely. See the issue in the global economy that was exemplified by the GFC is the fact that organisations such as the WTO, IMF and World Bank have largely failed to facilitate a global economic trade and financial network which is why trade agreements have become prominent and as has jurastic protective measures such as the EU's common agriculture policy that gives EU farmers an 80% subsidy. This has also excluded developing nations like those of Africa from becoming part of the global network. Because Climate Change and a more unified and overarching regulatory framework in financial markets have caused global leaders to consider more unified Global bodies to deal with this. There has actaully been strong talk that a global government that would tax the rich and redistribute to the poor is likely to come out of copenhagen if anything does and the fact that the GFC has identified a similar need for unilateral approaches to global regulation, it has become all the more likely.

Into perspective, I think its quite silly. I cant see how taxing and adding costs to business will solve the damage they have already imparted on the government. Even more daft is the fact that the money will be flowing to developing nations most of whom are corrupt and wouldnt have a damn clue how to spend it and would most definatley not have the infrastructure or ability to draft new technologies simply promolgating the problem. But you see the problem is that if we were to do something about climate change it would have to be a united approach otherwise our domestic industries are at a competetive disadvantage - heather ridout "CPRS would add $7 billion to business costs by 2010". So therefore we are forced into a global government type system which as I have shown is probably useless anyway and will cause more harm than good.

As you can see that my approach is ok if we were to do something, what can be done and how can we do it? There really arent any viable options and getting global agreements are simply too difficult and unlikely so I think we become confined to small things anyway that can be done such as improved recycling, investments in new technologies etc. A global body like Renewables Australia could be a smart initiative that does research. I actually think that if australia can pioneer some new technologies and commercialise them globally, there is a massive market and can open up a whole new market for us which could benefit us greatly. Aside from this, it is simply too difficult and the evidence isnt quite compeling enough - most of which is nulified by the opposing arguments of which rcptn has given us an adequate taste. Thoughts....

Roz,

let me sumarise better than any politician can, more truthfully and for billions less.

1. The combined sum of all total, man made C02 is less than 2% of the amount generated by nature.

2. 100% reduction of CO2 emissions - that's teh SUM TOTAL of MAN MADE CO2 REDUCED, will not impact the effect of CO2 on climate. Man made CO2 is 2% of a total. That Total only effects climate by 10%. 2% of 10% equals? Not much.

3. No amount of ETS, Tax, Carbon Reduction or World Bank can stop the effects of nature on climate. If all Coal Burning stopped today, climate would not change one bit from its natural evolution and cyclic trajectory. it will continue heating then cooling then heating etc. And by teh way we are in a COOLING cycle at the moment. The most effect stopping coal burning will have is cleaner air, cleaner water. This is the incentive of replacing caol fire with the only viable alternative - Nuclear. There is no Climate correcting incentive. Man cannot change climate.

I cant state 3 more blatantly obvious facts in point form about the fabrication called Global Warming.

This whole thing is purely Soclialism. its Wealth Re-distribution. Nothing more and nothing less. With the authors of Global Warming, getting a reward for the ideology if implemented. That reward is billions of dollars in their pockets. Thats why it is supported by every Leftist Socialist governmnet in teh world. To implement their ideals - all the while in true Latte leftist style with their noses in the trough auging billions off teh cream.

Turnbull agrees with it too because he is as Socialist as they come - dont ask me how he ended up leading the Libs.

The scheme must not be allowed through the Senate. Australia connot be solely responsible for setting any guidelines towards a false science. Australia does not have to rush into making a promise that if kept will do nothing than cripple the very people that will be paying for it. You and me.

its about Rudd and his leftist counterparts sitting on the board of the new World Wealth Redistribution Bank - under the banner of the UN. This is the premise of Copenhagen. Nobody is going there to talk climate promises. How can they? They cant change it no matter what they do.
They will be talking power - but not the electrical type.

Nothing more nothing less.

Im not a sceptic. Im a realist.

[Kramer]

Melon, you have made some very good points.

At present most countries are governed by left wing socialist,
and the countries to benefit from the treaty will be those that dominate the UN.
I note that the US is getting cold feet on the issue, most likely due to preasure from BIG business in the States.

Giddyup!

[Guest]

My Mother emailed a link to me this morning too an interesting poll on Yahoo 7's homepage this morning

The question is

Are you a climate change sceptic?

So far

Yes 1624 votes 62%
No 985 votes 38%

Looks like the tide is turning despite Rudds attempt to bully deniers into silence

The link to the poll can be found at the bottom of the news headlines

http://au.yahoo.com/?p=us

[Guest]

Government propaganda funded by the taxpayer

I saw this show called "Addicted to Money" on the ABC last night decrying Capitalism and saying it is broken and cannot be fixed and calling for a completely new system

The credits roll and it was funded by the Australian Goverment

Imagine the uproar had the previous Coalition government had done this

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/geo/documen...dictedtomoney/

3 part series by the way

[melon....]

My Mother emailed a link to me this morning too an interesting poll on Yahoo 7's homepage this morning

The question is

Are you a climate change sceptic?

So far

Yes 1624 votes 62%
No 985 votes 38%

Looks like the tide is turning despite Rudds attempt to bully deniers into silence

The link to the poll can be found at the bottom of the news headlines

http://au.yahoo.com/?p=us

If Rudd goes to an election with Climate Change as teh issue...he'll get smashed. Come on Senate - REJECT Labor Turnbull's compromises. I want a definite no to this lunacy.

[Guest]

Melon, you have made some very good points.

At present most countries are governed by left wing socialist,
and the countries to benefit from the treaty will be those that dominate the UN.
I note that the US is getting cold feet on the issue, most likely due to preasure from BIG business in the States.

Giddyup!

Even the conservatives these days can be dodgy

Just look at Keys the new conservative PM of NZ another progressive in favour of AGW and a single economic market between NZ and Australia.

Guess where he came from?

He was an investment banker who was sent home to become a leading politician.

The Banks desperately want us to trade Carbon

[Guest]

If Rudd goes to an election with Climate Change as teh issue...he'll get smashed. Come on Senate - REJECT Labor Turnbull's compromises. I want a definite no to this lunacy.

Yep they have to get rid of Turnbull and his mates including Mal Washer and get somebody like Minchin in there maybe. Campaign against the ETS and Rudd would have a helluva fight on his hands.

[Guest]

Queensland Government trying too suppress report on carbon emissions from cattle

http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/st...l/1681718.aspx

Climate breakthrough: cattle carbon neutral
MARK PHELPS
19 Nov, 2009 08:50 AM
A NEW report which shows that Queensland's cattle grazing industry is already all but carbon neutral and could provide a solution in addressing the State's overall carbon liability has been buried by the Bligh Government.
It is understood the release of the 30-page report prepared by Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries has been derailed by Greg Withers, the Director-General of the Queensland Government's Department of Climate Change and Premier Anna Bligh's husband.

The report, which examines the carbon footprint of the beef industry and the impact of vegetation clearing bans, has been peer reviewed by a number of the nation's top scientists, including the CSIRO's Dr Ed Charmley, QUT's Dr Peter Grace, and Meat and Livestock Australia's Beverly Henry.

The authors of the report - titled Net Carbon Position of the Queensland Beef Industry - are respected QPIF scientists Dr Steven Bray and Dr Jacqui Wilcocks.

It is not the first time Queensland's Labor Government has denied a report. In 2003, a report prepared by leading government scientist Dr Bill Burrows detailing the negative impact of vegetation thickening was suppressed.

Queensland Country Life was first made aware on November 6 of the existence of the new report by industry sources.

At a meeting on November 9 with Primary Industries Minister Tim Mulherin and his key staff, QCL was advised the report would likely be made available either last week or this week.

However, QCL has subsequently been advised the report will now not be made available.

Instead, the report is now expected to go to Cabinet, meaning the release of the report would not occur until at least next year, long after the Copenhagen conference on climate change, therefore not allowing the ground-breaking information it contains to help shape Queensland's response to the complex climate debate.

It would also give the Bligh Government the right to claim 'Cabinet confidentiality' over the report if it did not suit its political purposes.

to be continued

[Guest]

The delay of the report has significantly raised anxiety levels within rural industry groups and among a number of key bureaucrats.

Industry groups were moderately confident that a better working relationship had development following the resolution of Anna Bligh controversial election campaign-driven ban on the management of so-called "endangered regrowth".

There had also being been growing hope that the Bligh Government had brought at end to the Beattie Government culture of "bush bashing" following the development and recent release of the incentive-based Delbessie Agreement.

This agreement rewards landholders with increases in lease terms from 30 years to 40 years for demonstrating better land management practices.

The refusal to release the report has also understandably raised concerns among some senior bureaucrats over the level of politicisation of the Bligh Government administration.

"The report shows firstly that the beef cattle grazing industry is next to carbon neutral, at most producing a modest three megatonnes of carbon a year," one source told QCL.

"What we need to do is find the net carbon position position of the industry.

"We know that cattle are emitters of carbon but what what we need to understand is the entire process of emitting and sequestration in the grazing system. Not just the cattle, but also the role soil plays.

"This report concludes that the State owned soils which cover 80 percent of Queensland could be used to sequester carbon, improving degraded C class soils into B class soils and over a 10-year period sequest a massive amount of carbon.

"We know it can be done and the government recognises it can be done. It is the very basis of the Delbessie Agreement.

"We are talking about Queensland being able to significantly reduce its carbon liability as a direct result of the cattle grazing industry."

[Guest]

Sustainability Declaration for when you sell your house in QLD from 1/1/2010

http://media.mytalk.com.au/stuff/declaration.pdf

Expect more of this intrusive crap if the Copenhagen Treaty is signed and ratified

[stephenj]

its much too hot to argue about that stuff at the moment! ive got my solar poanels on the roof now, just in time for another electricity hike?