SeniorSeagull - 22 December 2009 12:20 PM
The problem with this so called climate debate is that it is not a debate at all. The overwhelming PC view is that the current state of the environment/climate etc is totally of human making and anyone who dares speak out against it is a “climate change cynic” a pariah and should at once be tied to a stake and burnt for the sin of envionmental heresy.
The clear balanced sensible view is that climate change is a naturally occurring event that has been with this planet for millennia and that what humans are doing is exasperating the change so it will be more severe. Humans are polluting their own nest and mainly due to over population which increases consumption of resource’s and the pollution resulting from the manufacturing required to satisfy the ever increasing demand for power and products.
Changes need to be made, obviously, but they should be made with care and caution because humans are only part of the problem and will only be able to provide part of the solution. We don’t want to race headlong into taking measures that will consign our children and grand children to unsustainable debt and lack of employment as the green extremists will have us do.
Australia is a high polluting nation on a per capita basis, but on the world scale like most things, we are just an insignificant blip on the radar and any measures we take will have little or no effect on the world stage. To have our so called leader running around making grandiose statements about Australia leading the way and setting targets is nothing more than the continued grandstanding and self aggrandisement that Mr Rudd finds so self pleasuring.
Lets all pause and take a deep breath before our pollies lead us down the path of economic oblivion and see what the really big polluters of the world will do ie USA, parts of Europe, India and China, because without these entities making changes anything we do as a nation is mere windowdressing.
With respect to the likes of India, China, Brazil etc why should they do anything when countries like Australia, US etc have failed to act? What is wrong with Australia making a firm commitment and indeed leading the way? Is that not preferable than being a sheep and following? Isn’t that what leaders are supposed to do?
Perhaps you would like to offer some critical analysis of Mr Abbott’s position(s) on global warming.
Obviously you will be able to find people who will support any position. Without going too far what happened in the second world war is disputed by some. With respect to taking a pause on having a debate how many discussing this took the time to watch the Senate’s Committee debate? How many of those who did think that Barnaby Joyce believes that humans have any impact on the climate?
It will be interesting to see Barnaby Joyce announce that no farmers should ever get any drought/flood/fire relief in the future as they are all natural phenomena.
With respect to the Greens’ position it is interesting to note that on balance an ETS passed with the help of the Greens is going to be more stringent than the one agreed to by the Liberals and rejected twice by the Nationals, Liberals and Independents.
Exactly how many:
(i) committees;
(ii) reports;
(iii) years
are required before we deem it appropriate to make a decision.
Finally, what is Joe Hockey’s position with respect to the ETS ligislation recently defeated in the Senate?
