Political rant

[vonstrassburg]

Since I've gotten into another political s**tfight, here's where I stand on such issues in case anyone's interested:

• Climate change is real, it's here, and it's happening now.  There may be a lot of noise in the press saying "oh but wait some climate scientists think it's not all bad" and "there's this guy in Milwaukee who reckons that it's all

Comments

[wallraven]

I agree with most of this, but...
Didn't Britain get rid of the monarchy once before? (Charles I)
And then decided they wanted it back? (Charles II)

[ex_zarathus122]

I think you will find that the situation has changed somewhat since then

[ex_zarathus122]

"Abolish the senate. It's a waste of money. Bring in proportional or MMP voting into a single chamber and that will do the same job

[vonstrassburg]

Abolish the senate because the difference in actual power between a government that has control over the senate (e.g. Howard's last term where he managed to push through workchoices) and one that is not is so large that a government with control over the senate has an enormous temptation to mis-use that power for nefarious purposes, as did Howard

[cyberdjinn]

On the other hand: Queensland. Just saying. Yes, I know you want to abolish States too (I agree), but it shows what happens without an upper house.

[omnot]

"A global ETS, with or without a carbon tax, is a very good thing. It means that farmer A can be in Ecuador or Brazil, while coal power station B is in China, and suddenly there's a big incentive to stop chopping rainforests down. Huge win for everyone (except B who can probably afford it anyway)"

The last section, in brackets, is where you can get in trouble. Because "B" can afford it by charging more for their products/services. Which means that the consumer pays the cost of maintaining the environment, and we can't have that, can we?

I mean, it's perfectly acceptable that where the manufacture of a product incurs a cost for disposing of liquid waste such that it does not foul the local waterways or the ocean, that cost should be factored in to the price of the product to consumers.

But where the manufacture of a product would incur costs for disposing of gaseous wastes in such a way that they do not foul the global atmosphere, it is just wrong that the end-user be expected to pay that cost

[vonstrassburg]

Yes, it's clear you're being sarcastic. It's not clear why, but whatever floats your boat.

[omnot]

Why?

Because when someone (like you) says something like "company B can afford it" it is quickly pounced on by anti-carbon-price people who howl that the additional cost of production will be passed on to consumers.

That every other aspect of the cost of production is already passed on to consumers seems to be lost on them, and they carry on about the unacceptable injustice and damage to the economy.

So it is far more productive to say "consumers will have to afford this cost which will be some tiny percentage of the overall cost of the product/service". Anti-carbon-price people will still argue, but at least the argument will be over an actual point of contention: that people bloody well should pay the "real" cost of the things we consume, and that we've been getting away without doing so to whatever extent thus far does not mean there isn't a (demonstrably fatal) cost.

[anagathic]

Re republicanism. What's your preferred replacement? Just stick with a governor general who's appointed by parliament to act as a ceremonial figure and theoretical political fuse, or put some sort of elected executive head of state?

I'm quite fond of the role of the GG, personally; I don't really care one way or another about the notional connection to the monarchy, as long as it stays strictly notional (and I'm pretty confident any attempt to make monarchistic power more real would be giggled at and ignored) and feel it would be a bit rude to kick Liz to the curb at this point (though I acknowledge that's irrational), but agree that when she turns her toes up would be a natural time to migrate to something else.

[vonstrassburg]

A head of state that's an Australian citizen would be a good start. An elected one seems to be the obvious solution in a democracy.

[ant_queen]

Nicely put. I think I agree or am neutral on most of that. I do love this phrase:

If you use the terms "loopy greenies" or "nutbags from the green movement" (Sarah Palin's epithet I believe) around me then you can expect a lot of complicated questions that will need detailed and accurate answersI think part of the problem with any slightly politicised debate at present is that when you ask a lot of complicated questions, you rarely get detailed and accurate answers from people. On a social/educational level, people need to learn the basics of critical thinking so that when they come out with something like "I don't think people cause climate change" and are challenged, they can

[vonstrassburg]

I'm still not sure what to do about the argument "but I read the bible and there's nothing in the bible about climate change and the bible must be true so there's no climate change bible bible bible bla bla bla".

Critical analysis indeed.

[cellio]

The bible is silent on many things; does that mean they don't exist or don't matter? Things like democracy, racial equality, big business, the internet...