- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,377
- Reactions
- 17,768
My point is about what's required physically and that, primarily, it's not about politics doing things.But pretending that the issue is "someones else" problem and that "we" aren't responsible/don't matter/ aren't significant is just a pretext for doing SFA.
My point is about what's required physically and that, primarily, it's not about politics doing things.
Rather, it's about politics getting out of the way and leaving science, engineering, business etc to get on and do things.
I say that as someone who's watched this debate for an extended period. Politics has had the odd moment of usefulness but only the odd one. Far more often politics is the problem rather than the solution.
Politics has helped fix climate change in the same way not wearing a seat belt has saved lives. Whilst technically true, there have been freak occurrences, overall it's done far more harm than good. Far, far more.
It's not engineering or proper environmental science that decided to put gas into practically every house and to whip up a public frenzy about transmission lines, hydro, nuclear and even wind farms. It's not meteorology that created doubt in the minds of many about climate science by attributing short term weather to climate change. It's not hydrology that made extreme predictions about rivers ceasing to flow and so on. No, it's politics that created the monster of opposition to the means of fixing the problem and doubt about the need to do it in the first place. Politics.
Terrifying isn't it ? Totally hysterical in fact. Accepting the reality of the two posts on sea temperatures and land temperatures the only rational conclusion is holy xhit.
I wonder what Andrew Bolt has to say ? The leader in climate change lies. Yep right on cue
View attachment 168616
Agreed it's not due to climate - the energy situation in WA is a part of it though.the closure has SFA to do with climate change
In the Australian context, consider where we were some decades ago with our scientific and engineering capability and the public's confidence in them, our trades, our public utilities and so on.We need "politics" to do what is necessary to tackle CC.
And the use of disinformation from lobby groups that was highly effective.In the Australian context, consider where we were some decades ago with our scientific and engineering capability and the public's confidence in them, our trades, our public utilities and so on.
Now look at where we are today.
What went wrong?
Did our scientists, engineers and tradies all make a pact with the devil?
Or did politics go on a rampage of destruction right across the entire sector, from high school science education to building regulations to power generation to the very structure of the nation's economy?
I think we all know the truth there. It wasn't scientists, engineers or tradies who put us into a time warp, created pubic cynicism and turned the nation into Asia's quarry. It was politics which did that and all sides are to blame with their anti-science approach and chasing of short term easy money and political gain.
Well it shows precips were a waste of money, now all we are doing is robbing the soil of nutrients..On a lighter, or should I say darker in this case, note the Russians have a brilliant method here.
Very environmentally friendly.....
Now I want to see that done with the fire going.
Absolutely and again that goes for both sides.And the use of disinformation from lobby groups that was highly effective.
Trouble is, what does this actually achieve?The proposed reporting standards would require companies that met certain criteria to begin climate disclosures from mid-2024.
Companies with $500m in revenues would have to report climate matters to investors from July 1, 2024. Smaller companies with a turnover of $200m would start in 2026 and those with $50m in 2027.
Asset owners with more than $5bn under management will be required to begin reporting from July 1, 2026.
Trouble is, what does this actually achieve?
Taking climate science as 100% accurate for the sake of the argument, how does this measure actually fix anything?
It looks far more like something a lawyer or accountant would be involved with than something an engineer or tradies would be doing. It's words when what's required to fix this or any problem is action.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?