So we tell China they're REALLY REALLY bad for their REALLY REALLY high level of CO2 equivalent emissions, but then each person in Australia is generating roughly 3.3 times as they do in China. Why are we such profligate energy consumers? Our industries are relatively inefficient in terms of energy consumption, especially the Aluminium sector which is as the bottom of the efficiency curve. We produce twice as much carbon as the Germans, even 2.5 times as much as Italy. Our household sector has been quite inefficient too, though new building codes have started to improve on this.
it seems your argument is that until China stops growing emissions and reducing them, that we shouldn't do anything. How about we start to look at things from a per capita view point so that everyone gets treated equally. Considering the huge move to renewables and Nucelar that China is making, I dare say in 10-15 years time they will team up with the USA (which due to their glut of natural gas will have a much lower CO2 equivalent intensity as well) and basically force the rest of the world down a path that benefits them over those economies that are still reliant on high levels of carbon in their economies. I don't want Australia to be one of them.
No, my argument is that the goal is to reduce GLOBAL emissions of which we contribute around 1%. Is that so hard to understand?
If you want lower per capita then we need many times more people but then that pushes up our contribution of global emissions.
Can't have it both ways.
No. You're implying that our emissions are fixed and we need more people to spread the emissions per capita. Either through lowering demand or employing more expensive technology we can reduce our emissions. Yes, that means a decrease in disposable income and/or quality of life.
If we're serious about getting global agreement and action on the issue, how can we as a nation stand at the table with China and argue that they need to move first, and their population should be subject to a reduction in living standards, before we do, while at the same time gloating about having recently been voted the best place in the world to live.
Back to thread topic: Abbott is not the man I want standing at that table given his credibility on the issue.
No. You're implying that our emissions are fixed and we need more people to spread the emissions per capita. Either through lowering demand or employing more expensive technology we can reduce our emissions. Yes, that means a decrease in disposable income and/or quality of life.
If we're serious about getting global agreement and action on the issue, how can we as a nation stand at the table with China and argue that they need to move first, and their population should be subject to a reduction in living standards, before we do, while at the same time gloating about having recently been voted the best place in the world to live.
Back to thread topic: Abbott is not the man I want standing at that table given his credibility on the issue.
Depends what you consider to be living standards. The choice to be wasteful is a luxury we currently enjoy.We don't have to have a reduction in living standards to lower our energy intensity. That's a fallacy.
One of the energy retailers in Victoria was able to show that the housing estates built after the 5 star energy building code was introduced use something like a third less energy than older housing. I doubt the owners in those housing estates feel like they have a lower standard of living when they are saving significant amounts on their energy bills.
Depends what you consider to be living standards. The choice to be wasteful is a luxury we currently enjoy.
And does the new building code require more expensive technologies than previously required? I'd say so. If the efficiencies make up for the extra costs that's great, if not, the new owners are subsidising the rest of us through the original purchase price.
I would use it as a central plank to attack the Libs if I was his marketing manager. Why did he state he will reinstate it? Still doing his best to lose the election.
Yes. the politics of envy is certainly a useful Labor marketing tool, particularly among losers.
And people who don't like seeing their taxes wasted.
The new rules have not been legislated, which means Parliament will either have to be recalled or Labor will have to win the election. The Coalition will not pass the proposal.
Syd and Zedd...:topic...you're supposed to be rubbishing Abbott...not each other.
It's getting confusing keeping track of essentially one giant conversation on the election with side topics of Rudd, Abbott, climate change, NBN, asylum seekers ... Goes to show though how different minded people are united as one against a giant twat who has no credibility on climate change policy.
It's getting confusing keeping track of essentially one giant conversation on the election with side topics of Rudd, Abbott, climate change, NBN, asylum seekers ... Goes to show though how different minded people are united as one against a giant twat who has no credibility on climate change policy.
A clear and obvious reference to Julia Gillard.
If there was ever one that lacked credibility on global warming.... oops, climate change, it was she.
For those of us too ignorant to understand to whom you are referring, you might like to be somewhat less cryptic.It's getting confusing keeping track of essentially one giant conversation on the election with side topics of Rudd, Abbott, climate change, NBN, asylum seekers ... Goes to show though how different minded people are united as one against a giant twat who has no credibility on climate change policy.
It's getting confusing keeping track of essentially one giant conversation on the election with side topics of Rudd, Abbott, climate change, NBN, asylum seekers ... Goes to show though how different minded people are united as one against a giant twat who has no credibility on climate change policy.
KEVIN RUDD'S hard line stance on asylum seekers has lifted Labor's support to its highest level since the 2010 election with voters now split 50:50.
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?