Go the Trumpster?

[bricat]

Brian, can you think of any Trump achievements that haven't been reported by the media?

Im afraid Jim you have got me there

[ricktas]

What an appallingly bleak view. I don't say you're wrong but I certainly hope so, and it would be a great disgrace if this sort of pessimism became an excuse for not even trying.

The Earth will eventually recover from almost anything. That's a given.

You say pessimism, I say realism.

[jim]

It's almost a comfortable sort of pessimism though, isn't it? After all a thousand years is a long time. What if it's 50 years, and if we don't sort it out now our children get to participate in the great extinction event?

[Nick Cliff]

I recall David Suzuki saying that the problems of human overpopulation on the planet and the associated increase of pollution we all produce can really only be solved from the ground up, and that relying on politicians to clean up our mess is not the whole answer.
I recall being told by a psychologist that really we humans are just children with a lot to learn at this stage and hopefully we will clean up our act for future generations and not trash their future.
I see very encouraging signs from research done by our scientists that gives me hope we can transition to a low carbon economy far more rapidly than may have seemed possible.
There might be an interesting parallel here to something like Moores law once the momentum starts to build up re reducing and transitioning to a more holistic approach to managing our environment in the future.
Trump I feel has possibly made us take stock of the environment and perhaps consider scientists and their perceived climate hoax message by our politicians here and in the USA as part of the solution and not a nuisance problem for businesses to deal with.
I guess non of us like being told by our neighbors to clean up our mess
cheers Nick

[Steve Axford]

I agree that we cannot just rely on politicians. We have to be prepared to pay a little more for a while and to make environmental choices in our everyday lives, but - it is very hard for individuals to effect change to coal mines or power stations if the politicians are working in the opposite direction. But, we do have a vote and we should make it clear that we expect all of our politicians to move towards clean energy. It is not a left or right thing, it is a survival thing. At least it is survival in the world as we know it. Can anyone here imagine what the world would be like if we just carry on regardless (as trump would seem to suggest)? It certainly won't take 1000 years for the impact to be felt. We can already feel the effects. While last summer can't be blamed totally on climate change, we can be sure that the chances of that happening without climate change would have been minuscule - and the world has only heated by 1 degree so far. We are headed towards at least 3 degrees in 50 years even with the Paris Accords. That may not effect us, but it will most likely effect our children and certainly their children.

While trump gathers headlines our own politicians have been very lax in doing anything constructive. Perhaps the latest mutterings about bipartisan support will actually move us in the right direction. After all, a huge majority of Australians believe that climate change is happening and that it is primarily man made. It seems to me that we have allowed the splinter parties like Pauline Hanson's party to have a say that far outstrips their actual support. The opposition's tendency to take the opposite view to the government on all things has also played into this. They need to get back to the model where they only disagree strongly with the government when they really do disagree strongly.

The media must also take some blame. I picked up a newspaper on the weekend for the first time in ages and was amazed at the headlines on page 1. It was the Australian and all the headlines were written about extreme viewpoints. One example was "Quit Paris Agreement, urge Coalition MPs". If you read the text it said that a breakaway group of coalition MPs wanted this examined, but the headline implied it was the coalition. All the other headlines were like this. Written to attract attention I suppose with very little attention to the facts, at least in the headlines.

I think that one of the things we need to do is to remember to vote for the important things and then to insist that our politicians work to ensure the best results possible. Politicians who just want to get elected should be dumped quick smart. I'm no particular fan of either Turnbull or Shorten, but if they can start working together on the really important issues like climate change, then I think that they are doing their jobs.

[Mark L]

... Perhaps the latest mutterings about bipartisan support will actually move us in the right direction.
...... The opposition's tendency to take the opposite view to the government on all things has also played into this. They need to get back to the model where they only disagree strongly with the government when they really do disagree strongly.

So the opposition is offering some slack and supporting LET, the forth best option. Sigh

[Steve Axford]

Probably the best we can hope for at present. If it collects bipartisan support, then it has done something that nothing else has done so far, and, it will push Abbott out to the realms of irrelevancy. How many votes will he get when it is a clear choice between a climate policy and no climate policy? And we do need a climate policy. By far the majority of people in Australia agree with that (as they do in almost all countries). We can then move forward with strengthening the policy irrespective of who is in power at the time. I hope the USA does the same, irrespective of the mistake they made in having a system that allows a trump to get elected, even with a minority of votes. Systems are very hard to change. Maybe the trump fiasco will allow for some change, which will be a hugely positive thing.

[Steve Axford]

Here's an interesting way of presenting the climate change data https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...on?CMP=soc_567

[MissionMan]

I saw an article on anonymous of all places where they supported trump's decision to back out. I can't remember the exact numbers but they made it clear that america was getting the raw end of the stick with the agreement and the improvements implemented by the US would be undone by China's pollution in a 10 day period at a cost of $80 Billion

[Steve Axford]

I think we can safely ignore your vague memory of something that sounds like "fake news" anyway.
China is one of the major supporters of the Accords and will go ahead with or without US agreement. In fact no other country has withdrawn, in spite of the fears that some would follow the USA. The USA now joins the power house nations of Syria and Nicaragua as the only nations not to sign the Accord (and I thought that trump didn't like Syria). By the way, even the US withdrawal is delayed until 2020, when the next US presidential election is! Of course there are no penalties if the USA doesn't meet it's targets. There never were, so where the $80 billion comes from is a puzzle.

[MissionMan]

I think we can safely say that's a very impolite response to someone's comment


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MissionMan]

Again, the Green Climate Fund would require America to send up to half a trillion dollars a year to developing countries.

http://www.anonews.co/donald-reasons-withdrawing/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Steve Axford]

I do apologise for any offence, but you seemed to be trivialising an important issue by posting some vague memories without any reference.
Are you suggesting that you agree with this article which you have now posted?
There is no requirement to do anything under the Paris Accords. Countries volunteer to do things , so I'm not sure how anyone could be forced to pay half a trillion dollars (which is about 3% of GDP).

- - - Updated - - -

For your interest MM. This is what I found about anonews.
anonews.co, anonhq.com and many other websites and fan pages claiming to be the official voice of the online hacktivist group Anonymous. However the reality is far different from the truth — These pages have no affiliation with Anonymous, they are rather click-baiting money making machines. Posting non-relevant copy paste articles and videos from all over the Internet. And many people on Facebook are deceived and fall for the scam pages and become fans and share the shady content far and wide. The primary driver of the owners of these pages is to earn some bucks in the name of Anonymous. READ MORE: http://www.disclose.tv/news/who_is_a...or_sure/136289

- - - Updated - - -

I have searched the internet for anything that would list the savings to the USA of withdrawing from the Paris Accords. I can find nothing. There is a mass of articles on how much it will cost the USA by withdrawing, but nothing on savings, at least not in the first 30 or so articles. I guess that's what trump means by Fake News. It means news that doesn't agree with what he says.

[bobt]

The Earth will eventually recover from almost anything. That's a given.

What an extraordinary statement. I would be interested to know how the planet will recover from the endemic pollution, the ravages of Man and the total disregard for our planet we have shown ever since we crawled out of the oceans. Anyone who believes that we can do whatever we like to the planet, and it will miraculously shrug that off and continue to be healthy is simply misguided.

Personally, I don't feel that we are achieving anything by debating whether climate change is real or not. What we need to do is simply consider how we should live and treat this planet given that it's the only one we have. Do we trash our own homes? Hopefully not, but surely it is a matter of plain common sense that we should live and behave in a manner which maintains the integrity of our planet/home and that we should treat each other and our planet with respect. We can argue about the relative impact of humans or the ravages of time, but the bottom line is simply this ...... be nice to our planet and it will be nice to us. Until it explodes .... but none of us will be around by then, and hopefully mankind will have found somewhere new to live by then.

[MissionMan]

Whilst I don't agree with the article, but I think there is some relevance or some merit if the comments about the Green Climate Fund are correct. If the USA feels like they are getting the raw end of the stick on the deal, I think Trump is fully within his rights to pull out, in fact, as the president he has a duty to question these things and ensure he is getting the best outcome for his country. That is what presidents do.

[Steve Axford]

If you are interested if any of the claims made in that article are correct then you should do some research. Google is a good place to start. You just need to be aware that not everything that is written is true. Check things to see if other articles from reputable sources agree.

- - - Updated - - -

What an extraordinary statement. I would be interested to know how the planet will recover from the endemic pollution, the ravages of Man and the total disregard for our planet we have shown ever since we crawled out of the oceans. Anyone who believes that we can do whatever we like to the planet, and it will miraculously shrug that off and continue to be healthy is simply misguided.

Personally, I don't feel that we are achieving anything by debating whether climate change is real or not. What we need to do is simply consider how we should live and treat this planet given that it's the only one we have. Do we trash our own homes? Hopefully not, but surely it is a matter of plain common sense that we should live and behave in a manner which maintains the integrity of our planet/home and that we should treat each other and our planet with respect. We can argue about the relative impact of humans or the ravages of time, but the bottom line is simply this ...... be nice to our planet and it will be nice to us. Until it explodes .... but none of us will be around by then, and hopefully mankind will have found somewhere new to live by then.

In Jim's defence, I think he may mean that the earth will continue with, or without us. We may leave the planet as a radioactive blob, but give it a few million years and it will start something new. If not, the universe won't care. We place a lot of importance on us, but we really don't matter, unless we make us matter. Destroying ourselves doesn't make us matter. The universe doesn't care if we stuff things up, that only matters to us.
As I happen to be one of us, I hope we can make the decisions that gives us the best chance of surviva, because I do believe that we can destroy this world as a suitable habitation for humans. But the earth will recover - probably.

[jim]

What an extraordinary statement. I would be interested to know how the planet will recover from the endemic pollution, the ravages of Man and the total disregard for our planet we have shown ever since we crawled out of the oceans. Anyone who believes that we can do whatever we like to the planet, and it will miraculously shrug that off and continue to be healthy is simply misguided.

Personally, I don't feel that we are achieving anything by debating whether climate change is real or not. What we need to do is simply consider how we should live and treat this planet given that it's the only one we have. Do we trash our own homes? Hopefully not, but surely it is a matter of plain common sense that we should live and behave in a manner which maintains the integrity of our planet/home and that we should treat each other and our planet with respect. We can argue about the relative impact of humans or the ravages of time, but the bottom line is simply this ...... be nice to our planet and it will be nice to us. Until it explodes .... but none of us will be around by then, and hopefully mankind will have found somewhere new to live by then.

bobt, google the Siberian Traps. While we are well on course to making the planet uninhabitable for ourselves and a variety of other species, there is literally nothing we can do to it that comes close to the disasters that have happened quite naturally in the past. And eventually the Earth has recovered from everything.

Of course that's cold comfort if you care about us, which I certainly do.


Oops, didn't read past bobt's post. Steve said it better.

[arthurking83]

.....
China is one of the major supporters of the Accords and will go ahead with or without US agreement. In fact no other country has withdrawn .....

Major LOL here Steve.

If that's meant to mean something .. it should be noted that this is the same Chinese Government that still hides the truth of Tiananmen Square, oppresses Tibet, pillages the South China Sea (contrary to UN resolutions) .. continues to dump steel at huge losses(absorbed by the Government) manufactured in plants with pre Industrial Revolution technology .. etc, etc.
Just closing one of those old steel plants would probably be equivalent to most nations ceasing carbon emissions completely!

Any other government used as a ideological reference point would make sense .. but China has to be laughable.
Chinese government has an agenda known only to themselves. They won't freely give up their only advantage with nothing in return for themselves!

[bobt]

In Jim's defence, I think he may mean that the earth will continue with, or without us. We may leave the planet as a radioactive blob, but give it a few million years and it will start something new. If not, the universe won't care. We place a lot of importance on us, but we really don't matter, unless we make us matter. Destroying ourselves doesn't make us matter. The universe doesn't care if we stuff things up, that only matters to us.
As I happen to be one of us, I hope we can make the decisions that gives us the best chance of survival, because I do believe that we can destroy this world as a suitable habitation for humans. But the earth will recover - probably.

Perhaps that is true, but really outside the frame of reference. I guess it depends upon the time-frame that we are considering. In the overall scheme of things, and on the timescale of infinity, then it's true that the Earth isn't much more than an atom in comparison to the Universe. However, we can only realistically consider the time of Man, infinitesimal though that might be. So on a practical level we need to focus on the here and now, meaning the foreseeable future of our planet and ourselves. With that period in our sights, all I am saying is that although our capacity to control the future is extremely limited, anything we can do to preserve our environment should be a priority.

[Steve Axford]

Arthur, You clearly have some gripes with the Chinese government, and they are far from perfect, but we are talking about climate change and not Tienamin Square, or US civil rights, or Australian stolen generations, so let's keep it to that, if you don't mind. I know that China can be very single minded when they decide to do something, and they do seem to have decided that ollution and climate change is a major issue. Mainly because the Chinese people are complaining so much, but they are taking notice. We went to Kunming in 2015 and again in 2016 and in the space of a year they suddenly all had solar hot water. I just one year! The Chinese government would drive us crazy, but so would trump. I have trouble deciding which is better. I suppose it has to be the USA, but only if they manage to get rid of trump. I am losing faith in US democracy that only allows the rich to get elected. I hope that never happens here.