So whether you talk about a carbon tax, an ETS or direct action, none of them is necessary and I am also talking about the direct action by the Coalition. The carbon tax or the ETS will do nothing to change the climate and neither will the direct action.
See! Doesn't that feel better just saying it. If you don't believe the science then why not just say so, plenty of people do, rather than try and pick holes in policies that are trying to solve a problem that you don't think exists.
I am now well into my 80's and I have lived through more changes to climate than you would have had hot dinners. ... So I guess by now you realize you have hit a nerve when you start talking about climate change.
Climate does change, always has, always will. People have adapted as required when changes do occur, and life goes on. The planet is largely in balance and moves through a stable oscillation from one extreme to the other. My concern is that our actions may speed up the oscillations, or worse, disrupt the stabilizers such that we move into an unstable oscillation. Then we're ****ed.
The underlying greenhouse effect theory is simple, and proven. Whether the evidence shows significant global warming is occurring now or not is irrelevant IMO. Personally I'm not up to date with the latest back-and-forth on temperature measurements, or the latest modeling, and it is incredibly painful to try and find actual science vs propaganda nowadays. What I'm concerned with is how far we can stretch the rubber band before it snaps.
So, it touches a nerve for me when people suggest there's nothing to worry about, as if the fact that we haven't ****ed the planet by now proves we're not going to any time soon.
It also touches a nerve when people, and parties for that matter, use it as a tool to justify other ends, as it trivialized a serious issue. Costs of living are a serious concern and shouldn't be increased lightly. I think it is entirely valid to debate whether Australia's actions will amount to anything, I think it is entirely valid to discuss which policies if any will be the most effective, or fairest.
But it really touches a nerve, when people's political views start to colour their perception of the science, and then try and twist the science to further their own political ambitions. When people lump every last little offhand comment together to somehow justify action or inaction without going to the core of the matter is infuriating.
... so the three naive Labor Party states of Queensland , NSW and Victoria wasted billions of dollars on constructing desal plants which are now all in mothballs
Great example. The desalination plant on the Gold Coast, and the SE QLD water grid which links major dams to the desal, and the recycled water plants, were the solution to the fact that we haven't increased our water supplies in line with population growth. Droughts happen, they're not a recent occurrence due to man-made climate changes. Either new dams, population restrictions, or this infrastructure was needed. Personally I support the idea of running a pipeline all the way up to Cairns to shift water supplies around the entire state. But the way it was implemented was absolutely abysmal, and I saw first hand just how much money was wasted on those projects. And the way some politicians spruiked it as action on climate change made me grind my teeth.
This infrastructure project is also a great way of comparing the current choice between Rudd and Abbott. Rudd has big ideas, similar to this, which will be required in the long run. His record so far is that if he's allowed to implement them they probably will serve Australia well going forward, but there's a good chance we'll pay more then we need to, that small business will be stepped on to get the job done, and that there'll be some stuff up along the way, that if left to fester into a scandal will most likely cause the end of the project before it's complete.
Vs Abbott who's biggest idea so far is to consider the top-end for renovation.