General Climbing Discussion

Author	OT: Plebiscite
rodw 24-Jun-2011 7:55:48 AM	On 23/06/2011 Wendy wrote: >I get a bit over this "what about the people who will loose their jobs" >reason for not taking a range of actions. Its a bit different from locking up old growth forest and letting an industry adjust to plantation forests and reduce in size slightly to Evan's solution shut down a massive industry completely and somehow train all those people to other industries. Btw wendy how was that flight to the US with its masive carbon footprint? I hope you offset it to compensate :) ....
Gavo 24-Jun-2011 8:53:43 AM	Im with Wendy on the idea that the "people will lose their jobs" idea is weak. I certainly would rather no-one lost their jobs, that is not my point so please dont make like it is... But my opinion is simply that if someone is in an industry that is excessively polluting (or otherwise detrimental), and we have a better solution, then the industry needs to stop. A bunch of people were employed in Asbestos processing and product-manufacture... perhaps a bad example because their skills were probably easily transferred to a similiar process, but I am sure there are no shortage of examples on industries that have been (or some that should be) shut down, people will lose their jobs, but Im afraid, it happens. We cant just keep on doing something destructive or harmful because people work in that field. Actually, fishing might be a decent example... The Atlantic Cod fished mostly from Newfoundland, Canada. The quotas and management of the fishing was not very regulated and for a few centuries these were fished. As technology developed, efficiency of catching the fish increased dramatically and then in the early 90's they realised there are practically none left. Canada declared a moratorium on fishing of the cod, and it affected many thousands... they were understandably upset.. but what was the other option? They would have gotten a few more years out of fishing them, perhaps... but with levels less than 1% of earlier stock levels, it would not have lasted long. My point, which I am sure I did not make well because Im still asleep, is that these fisherman were livid to say the least. But I think the government did the right thing eventually... continuation of the fishing would have resulted in extinction of the fish. No hope of fishing it in the future and unknown ecological effects. Im not discussing what else the fishermen might have moved on to, or how the government failed in its initial regulation of fishing prior to the moratorium... but when the assessment was made that this fishing was not sustainable and was detrimental, it stopped, at the cost of many jobs unfortunately. But the alternative might have been worse. If we are doing something now that is really ruining the planet and we have better ways of doing it, I think we should be obligated to take the more sustainable approach.
bones 24-Jun-2011 9:44:57 AM	On 23/06/2011 One Day Hero wrote: >On 23/06/2011 bones wrote: >> The Prius was Japan's >>best selling vehicle in 2009, >> > >You know that Prius's aren't that great, right? Sure, it makes you feel >better about yourself, but on the highway/in the hills a small diesel car >is way more efficient. The only place a Prius saves fuel is when its stuck >in traffic in the city............and if you're really such a greeny, you >should be on public transport for that commute anyway. I agree, but the point is that when fuel prices went up, cars marketed as fuel efficient all of a sudden took the spotlight. Even the big aussie V8 manufacturers seem to spend more time on smaller fuel efficient cars these days. When fuel prices topped AU$1, everyone was saying that no one could afford it, industry would topple and everyone would lose their jobs. The media was spruiking it as the biggest issue going around and everyone was screaming for the government to intervene to keep fuel prices down. (Does this sound familiar?) Now everyone's forgotten about it and pays ~AU$1.30 per litre without complaint. A carbon tax will come in, everyone will complain and complain about how it's the end of the world and we'll all go broke, then everyone will want more energy efficient appliances, then we'll all forget about it and the consumer market will be better off. Just like petrol prices and small cars.
Wendy 24-Jun-2011 9:55:32 AM	On 24/06/2011 rodw wrote: >On 23/06/2011 Wendy wrote: > >>I get a bit over this "what about the people who will loose their jobs" >>reason for not taking a range of actions. > >Its a bit different from locking up old growth forest and letting an industry >adjust to plantation forests and reduce in size slightly to Evan's solution >shut down a massive industry completely and somehow train all those people >to other industries. > >Btw wendy how was that flight to the US with its masive carbon footprint? >I hope you offset it to compensate :) .... It was long and boring! I am aware that flying is one of the worst things i could be doing, but in my defence, the addition of a major international flight each year doesn't quite bring my footprint up to that of the average Australian. And don't get us all debating carbon offset programs - blah! I did plant a lot of trees this year ... and continued to tend to all the others I've planted in the past ... yes, I know, all feel good, doesn't really help us much now stuff.
rodw 24-Jun-2011 10:29:00 AM	Im just pointing out everyone can do a little bit but a few dont have to take the full brunt like was being suggested in shutting down a whole industry...and if everybody looked at there own lifestyle in this country I reckon few could really say they do everything they can and pointing fingers at one sector and blaming them dosnt help the cause
evanbb 24-Jun-2011 10:52:50 AM	On 24/06/2011 rodw wrote: >Im just pointing out everyone can do a little bit but a few dont have to >take the full brunt like was being suggested in shutting down a whole industry...and >if everybody looked at there own lifestyle in this country I reckon few >could really say they do everything they can and pointing fingers at one >sector and blaming them dosnt help the cause You might have missed my rant on this. Individual action will and can not make enough of a difference in Australia. The top 20 energy using companies use more than every household and every vehicle in Australia. It is a furphy of the green movement; individual actions will not make enough of a difference.
rodw 24-Jun-2011 11:07:31 AM	So your solution is wiping out a whole industry?....your just the other end of the spectrum vs climate change denialist IMHO.
Eduardo Slabofvic 24-Jun-2011 11:17:17 AM	Maybe everyone should take up smoking cigarettes, that way all the people who lose their jobs in the aluminum sector can get jobs in the cigarette manufacturing and health care sectors.
Sabu 24-Jun-2011 11:18:58 AM	Was talking to someone about this and your solution evan and she mentioned that by shutting down the industry we'll export the raw materials and import Aluminium rather than process it locally (is this what you envisioned?). If this is the case she argued that the car industry will be killed off as manufacturers will move offshore instead of importing the aluminium which would have huge implications. Was this something you considered as well? And if so, your response?
harold 24-Jun-2011 12:26:52 PM	If we shut down the aluminium industry what will you use to make caribiners or aircraft out of. Or if you just shift production overseas, what is the benefit/difference???
uwhp510 24-Jun-2011 12:34:55 PM	On 24/06/2011 Sabu wrote: >Was talking to someone about this and your solution evan and she mentioned >that by shutting down the industry we'll export the raw materials and import >Aluminium rather than process it locally (is this what you envisioned?). >If this is the case she argued that the car industry will be killed off >as manufacturers will move offshore instead of importing the aluminium >which would have huge implications. Was this something you considered as >well? And if so, your response? Apart from some fancy European cars with aluminium panels and even body shells (like Audis, Range Rovers... NOT commondores) there's not all that much aluminium in a car anyways (block, head, gearbox and diff housings and little bits like brake calipers and cylinders). And how much cheaper is imported aluminium compared to locally produced aluminium? I guess it's subsidised but by how much? Surely the difference isn't enough to make Ford or Holden go offshore (both of which enjoy subsidies anyway though import restrictions).
uwhp510 24-Jun-2011 12:36:49 PM	On 24/06/2011 harold wrote: >If we shut down the aluminium industry what will you use to make caribiners >or aircraft out of. Or if you just shift production overseas, what is >the benefit/difference??? I think the idea is that other countries can make Al without burning coal. Canada's aluminium smelters are all in the mountains, next to the hydro plants apparently.
evanbb 24-Jun-2011 6:40:51 PM	On 24/06/2011 Sabu wrote: >Was talking to someone about this and your solution evan and she mentioned >that by shutting down the industry we'll export the raw materials and import >Aluminium rather than process it locally (is this what you envisioned?). >If this is the case she argued that the car industry will be killed off >as manufacturers will move offshore instead of importing the aluminium >which would have huge implications. Was this something you considered as >well? And if so, your response? That outcome would surprise me. I don't reckon Australian car manufacturers use much aluminium as it is. And they've been doing a good enough killing themselves off without external assistance. Rudd's handouts to the car industry were scandalous and I would have let the industry die. It amounts to industrial protectionism.
evanbb 24-Jun-2011 6:42:33 PM	On 24/06/2011 rodw wrote: >So your solution is wiping out a whole industry?....your just the other >end of the spectrum vs climate change denialist IMHO. Yes it is. The coal sector is going to have to close before 2050. Aluminium probably also. My understanding is that this would yield the greatest reduction in emissions for the least loss in jobs. If you present an alternative Rod I will gladly consider it. But I have not heard an alternative, credible plan.
evanbb 24-Jun-2011 6:46:57 PM	On 24/06/2011 harold wrote: >If we shut down the aluminium industry what will you use to make caribiners >or aircraft out of. Or if you just shift production overseas, what is >the benefit/difference??? There are a few factors at work here. Australia does almost no aluminium manufacturing; we just use cheap coal energy to extract aluminium from bauxite. This is the most energy intensive step of the process by some margin. It is the same story all over the world with aluminium; countries with very, very cheap energy get the aluminium smelters. Australia has the highest emissions intensity in the world for electricity generation. That means in emissions terms, Australia is the worst place in the world to make aluminium. I would favour any solution that moved aluminium smelting to lower emitting sources of electricity. An alternative is to get serious about geothermal energy in the Cooper basin and move resource processing there. This is proposed by Flannery in one of the quarterly essays. He gets a bit carried away and proposes a city in the desert called Geothermia, but I think he's on drugs.
evanbb 24-Jun-2011 6:47:35 PM	On 24/06/2011 uwhp510 wrote: >On 24/06/2011 harold wrote: >>If we shut down the aluminium industry what will you use to make caribiners >>or aircraft out of. Or if you just shift production overseas, what is >>the benefit/difference??? > >I think the idea is that other countries can make Al without burning coal. > Canada's aluminium smelters are all in the mountains, next to the hydro >plants apparently. Exactly.
IdratherbeclimbingM9 24-Jun-2011 11:34:25 PM	On 24/06/2011 bones wrote: >Now everyone's forgotten about it and pays ~AU$1.30 per litre without complaint. > >A carbon tax will come in, everyone will complain and complain about how >it's the end of the world and we'll all go broke, then everyone will want >more energy efficient appliances, then we'll all forget about it and the >consumer market will be better off. Just like petrol prices and small cars. You only pay $1.30 a litre for petrol? ~> The bowser jockies in my part of the world need to be wearing balaclavas(!), ... as what they are extorting amounts to highway robbery!
rodw 25-Jun-2011 7:58:34 AM	>If you present an alternative Rod I will gladly consider it. But I have >not heard an alternative, credible plan. Your plan will never get off the ground as it hurts way to many people, we live in a democracy and thats means majority have to be happy with decissions made. The thing that gets me about our new so called Carbon tax is the way the govt wants to use the money....alot will go into compensation.....a bit into renewable enrgy research and the rest into general revenue to fund other crap not even related to carbon tax...its just feels to me thats it more a case of bringing the budget back into surplus than really being a climate change issue....but then again thats the same with most solicially driven govt taxes...alcohol and ciggy tax goes into general revenue...same with petrol tax...everytime the govt wants something they whack another tax on it so they can spend up for the next election. What Id like to see with this "tax" is it to come in at a lower rate and all used to produce renewable energy as the reason its so expensive is it very costly to setup, but once setup it very competative with coal...solar, geothermal, wind, methane reclamation etc, over the years with enough renewable infrastructure in place coal stations can be shut down and eventually the tax go away....kinda like the NBN of renewable energy funded by the tax. ...the way it is now though..... the govt will tax us and actually compensate the coal industries to keep going, give a bit of money back and eventually power cost keep rising and compensation dosnt so loose/loose...and net gain is will need more coal stations as the population increases anyway with no real renewable energy system in place so no real affect on lower carbon emmissions.
widewetandslippery 25-Jun-2011 10:53:14 AM	What has this tax got for me. I'm expected to give a shit about 2050? f--- off I'll be dead.
IdratherbeclimbingM9 25-Jun-2011 12:13:12 PM	On 25/06/2011 widewetandslippery wrote: >What has this tax got for me. I'm expected to give a shit about 2050? f--- >off I'll be dead. > But what about the dogs? You gotta think of the dogs you leave the world behind to ww&s! ;-)

Home | Guide | Gallery | Tech Tips | Articles | Reviews | Dictionary | Forum | Links | About | Search
Chockstone Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | Landscape Photos Australia

Please read the full disclaimer before using any information contained on these pages.

Australian Panoramic | Australian Coast | Australian Mountains | Australian Countryside | Australian Waterfalls | Australian Lakes | Australian Cities | Australian Macro | Australian Wildlife
Landscape Photo | Landscape Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Fine Art Photography | Wilderness Photography | Nature Photo | Australian Landscape Photo | Stock Photography Australia | Landscape Photos | Panoramic Photos | Panoramic Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | High Country Mountain Huts | Mothers Day Gifts | Gifts for Mothers Day | Mothers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Mothers Day | Wedding Gift Ideas | Christmas Gift Ideas | Fathers Day Gifts | Gifts for Fathers Day | Fathers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Fathers Day | Landscape Prints | Landscape Poster | Limited Edition Prints | Panoramic Photo | Buy Posters | Poster Prints