The U.S.S. Quad Damage

I just checked, and in fact Australia is the worst pollutant of greenhouse gases per capita!
 

Yes. We had lectures about this. I guess to John Howard's credit he's looking at nuclear power, but I'm guessing that he wouldn't be doing that if we didn't have a massive cache of it in our country. That guy only sees one colour (or in this country, multiple colours).

Yes, I had a lecture about this stuff a couple of years ago and it pretty much said "unless we'd ratified the heavier Kyoto protocol we'd be fucked. Even if we ratify the weaker Kyoto protocol in a couple of years we'd still be fucked, but at least it won't be terrible."

There has been news of huge chunks of polar ice melting The ice caps melting has a direct effect on bits of Sri Lanka (the ones recently fucked over by the tsunami) because they're so low-lying. They have to move their houses back every year because of rising sea levels.

So yeah, we're the best in the world at something. News would cover it, but only if they could somehow blame it on dole bludging single mums.
 

Incidentally, the more I see his quotes, the more I think Al Gore is awesome. What the fuck is wrong with America that they never made this guy president?
 

I agree about Al Gore. I have to admit I kinda didn't put too much effort into researching his policies etc (ages ago during US election I mean). All I knew is that he was the democrat candidate, and probably should have won in the last election v Bush (but courts ruled against a recount in Florida).

Most importantly: Wikipedia states that he is a director on the board of Apple, an unofficial advisor to Google, and his daughter was a writer for Futurama.

Also, I don't agree with crediting John Howard with the looking at Nuclear Power thing. I've been very cynical about this (not the Nuclear Power thing, but the why JH has brought it up).

The whole "it's time for the nation to debate nuclear power" doesn't sit right with me at all. It's come out of the blue, and to me is a political method of distracting the public from talking about IR issues and other things. ie. it's been nothing but bad press for the Govt re the IR laws, and so they need something else for the media and public to talk about.

On another cynical note - I believe the Federal Govt's renegging on the deal to sell the Snowy Hydro scheme was an attack on a state Labor Govt.

Everything had been set to go ahead, right, all the parties were happy, until the NSW govt announced it's big spending plans (party funded by the sale of the Snowy Hydro scheme), and then all of a sudden the feds change their mind and decide that its in the public interest for it not to be sold (a right wing liberal government saying this is ridiculous, they are FOR privatisation for goodness sake).

On the other hand though, I am glad it wasn't sold, as I am totally against the privatisation of essential services, such as power/electricity production.
 

As soon as I saw that Al Gore had admitted that he exaggerated the truth in order to give the movie more umph it lost any sort of credibility from my point of view. Sure it'd still be a good watch, however it is about as great as a factual basis for discussion on global warming as The Day After Tomorrow.
 

Michael: Unfortunately, this is how all politics works. If anything, a small amount of credit should be given to him for admitting the elements of bullshitting.

Tim: I find it interesting that the threat of coalition members crossing the floor has had a far greater effect at keeping the federal government under control than the opposition has managed to do.

You're right about their tactics when it comes to the media. What's this? People being sacked and then offered their jobs back at 70% of their old wage? Look over there - gay marriage!

Remember the "children overboard" saga? Labor was all but certain to win the election until the Liberals played on the tried and true method of appealing to the small, dark corner of xenophobia found in the minds of "ordinary Australians".

Sunny: You are a dirty, job-stealing, dole-bludging paki. How do you think this will get you a wife?
 

Claiming the moral high ground while lying to get your view across is hypocrisy.

Exaggerating the truth when you require people to do something to counter someone exaggerating the truth asking people to do nothing is a huge mistake. Lets see both sides a lying so I'm going to ignore them both and do nothing until I know what I should be doing.

Just like that whole plastic bag debate and how it was found that it's best not to phase out plastic bags at supermarkets. The study found that very few plastic bags make it into the sea and that those which did make it into the sea had less of an environmental impact than claimed. It was also found that most households recycled plastic bags are trash bags and that they have a positive effect on landfills by having a stabalizing effect on the site.

However a bunch of radical environmentalists condeemed it on what can only be assumed principle that plastic bags can potentially harm sea life like when you walk around you can potentially step on animals.

It's things like this as well as the opposite (when radical things like this go forward that shouldn't) that actual harm is done to the environment as well as the environmental cause. Unless the environmental cause is to do weird arse rituals which are supposed to help the environment that don't actually help it. Who's only purpose is to give ourselves a sense of smugness over people whom aren't "Looking after the environment".


Not to mention that anyone whom doesn't throw there full support behind every crack pot idea or theory that says the environment is going to be screwed up beyond repair unless some expensive and in the end ineffectual plan of action was implemented yesterday is considered some rightwing radical or on the payroll of some industry.
 

This has gotten out of hand. What I was referring to was the statement that "What we have entered is a period of consequences". I thought it was an apt assessment of human nature that nobody gives a shit until people start dying (or least feeling mighty uncomfortable) because of global warming (or at least the perception thereof).

Doesn't matter how much of a critic you are, if you're boiling in 40 degree heat, possibly the worst heat ever recorded, or drowning in the worst tsunami ever, or floods, you're going to be like "maybe I should do something", even if the effects have nothing to do with global warming.

Having said that, the number of scientists that still pooh-pooh the global warming concept are now a protected species, and probably payrolled by companies with vested interests in keeping the power flowing.
 

You mean like how back when Everyone thought that the Earth was the centre of the universe and anyone whom spoke otherwise was deemed a heretic by the church?

What we have at the moment is a quasi-religion of environmentalism with it's own set of rediculous rules and customs. Which attacks anyone whom speaks against them and claims moral supperiority over anyone not in their ranks. Just look at PETA one of the Fanatical Cultist "Environmental" groups.
 

It's always nice to note that neither side is above demonizing their opposition.
 

/bump