Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

Good economic policy means decarbonising our economy. I'm not suggesting that what has been implemented will achieve this overnight but there has to be a starting point. I'd prefer stronger action than this, but this is better than nothing because it starts a process. We have one of the most carbon intensive economies in the world. It is going to take us much longer to change.

You would have us do nothing because you don't actually believe the underlying scientific data that says our current way of doing things is going to cause environmental and economic damage.

I don't know why I argue with you about this considering you don't even believe the scientific consensus. And there is scientific consensus. The scientific data isn't saying how we should try to decarbonise in any particular way, only that we need to decarbonise.

i've never said that i do or don't believe the data. I definitely think the claims are wildly exagerrated. When Al Gore released his end of the world scenario, the world had about two years left before we all vanished into the sea. The point is, whether Australia does or doesn't introduce a tax, it will make next to no difference to total global emissions given China's rate of growth. So the claims that Australia's actions will have an impact on climate change is bullshit, since total carbon emissions will continue to rise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

The point is, whether Australia does or doesn't introduce a tax, it will make next to no difference to total global emissions given China's rate of growth. So the claims that Australia's actions will have an impact on climate change is bullshit, since total carbon emissions will continue to rise.

What if CSIRO or the Aus private sector use money from the carbon tax to develop a new green technology, that we then licence to the Chinese who can make it cheaply and efficiently and it's both cheaper and more green for them than a carbon emitting alternative?

Would that make a difference to total global emissions?

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

and then his argument will be our contribution is meaningless.

and then I will point out that the structural change is strategically beneficial for our future economy. the coalition also thinks this by the way, they just want to fund the structural change with grants from consolidated revenue, ie the soviet model.

well then we have clarified that it will do fuck all for climate change.

so you contend that we need this tax to for our economy? it's like trying to kill an ant with dynamite.......you will kill the ant but you'll also destroy everything else in the vicinity

Quote:

Originally Posted by rancho

What if CSIRO or the Aus private sector use money from the carbon tax to develop a new green technology, that we then licence to the Chinese who can make it cheaply and efficiently and it's both cheaper and more green for them than a carbon emitting alternative?

Would that make a difference to total global emissions?

what if we do nothing?

sound response.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rancho

sound response.

well they are all 'what if's' aren't they?

no, one is backed by scientific data, one is from a bloke who thinks volcanos contribute more carbon then man to the atmosphere

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdoodle

no, one is backed by scientific data, one is from a bloke who thinks volcanos contribute more carbon then man to the atmosphere

where is the scientific data that says Australia's carbon tax will reverse or slow climate change?

is there a point showing you? you wont read it anyway

I'm admit i'm not a huger reader of fiction

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude

Basically what this translates to is that you think individuals should not be responsible for their own actions but only when it is yourself that you are referring to. As an individual you demand the right to pollute but you think that you should pay less for that right than someone else in a country with more people. By any measure of human ethics this is simply a greedy, self centered, unjust position. Me me me and f#ck everyone else.

It has little to do with the individual, Australians dont inherently produce more pollution than other people. Geography dictated our major industries and the form of energy production we pursued. All I'm doing is pointing out how flawed the per capital statistic is. Have you watched the movie vantage point? were a number of people are looking at the same thing but each persons recollection of the event differs but all are still correct? Well the same thing applies, everyone is looking at the over all emissions of a country but some prefer to break it down to a per capita, I suggested the use of land mass. both give the correct information - but the perception that each static gives differs.

Ideally some sort of weighted average of all the variables would be used to determine the true level of "pollution" but that is a little complicated and people are too lazy. Until then it is only fair to call the per capita stat what it is, misleading.

Quote:

Originally Posted by custaro

The hypocrisy lies squarely with the public who scream blue murder at JuLiar's lie/backflip/change of heart/whatever but were only too happy to get reamed by Howard's deceits and distortions for over a decade. Fuck knows why. Was it the tracksuits?

But you screamed blue murder at Howard, and now you are happy to cop backflips from Gillard.

You are just on the other side of the fence custaro, to the 'public'.

Geezah, you are playing semantics. She didn't have to introduce a carbon tax (and it is a tax on big polluters in its present form). She knew what she had said when she did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

i've never said that i do or don't believe the data. I definitely think the claims are wildly exagerrated. When Al Gore released his end of the world scenario, the world had about two years left before we all vanished into the sea. The point is, whether Australia does or doesn't introduce a tax, it will make next to no difference to total global emissions given China's rate of growth. So the claims that Australia's actions will have an impact on climate change is bullshit, since total carbon emissions will continue to rise.

You had previously said that you think natural CO2 emissions were greater than anthropogenic emissions.

What are you basing "wildly exagerrated" on?

I think you are exagerrating what has been said and what is being discovered.

Electricity prices are going up regardless of the carbon tax. Megalogenis wrote that this price impact over the last few years has contributed to people becoming more energy efficient which lead to a decrease in carbon emissions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

You had previously said that you think natural CO2 emissions were greater than anthropogenic emissions.

What are you basing "wildly exagerrated" on?

I think you are exagerrating what has been said and what is being discovered.

Electricity prices are going up regardless of the carbon tax. Megalogenis wrote that this price impact over the last few years has contributed to people becoming more energy efficient which lead to a decrease in carbon emissions.

will the carbon tax have an impact on climate change though? If that is the stated objective and goal of the carbon tax, will it achieve this? if so, by how much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dAvoZ

But you screamed blue murder at Howard, and now you are happy to cop backflips from Gillard.

You are just on the other side of the fence custaro, to the 'public'.

Geezah, you are playing semantics. She didn't have to introduce a carbon tax (and it is a tax on big polluters in its present form). She knew what she had said when she did.

No semantics dude. You said she lied. She didn't. It's not a semantic argument, you are using the wrong word.

I honestly don't believe it to be a tax. You do. I would argue the intention of pricing carbon isn't specifically aimed at generating revenue like a tax is. You would argue differently no doubt. I'd concede this could be construed as a semantic argument, but using the word lie or liar to describe Gillard just isn't the correct term.

Who cares Julia is out at the next election and we'll all see what the geniuses in the Coalition cook up for us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

will the carbon tax have an impact on climate change though? If that is the stated objective and goal of the carbon tax, will it achieve this? if so, by how much.

It's impossible to know at this point. If it helps reduce our emissions then this has some effect on reducing the impact of climate change. I have not said, nor will I say, that Australia acting alone will have an effect. It clearly won't, or even if it did, it would be so marginal as to be insignificant. But we aren't acting alone, and more and more countries are starting to act.

The point is to start acting and not keep kicking the can down the road when it will become more expensive and less likely to have an impact.

The stated objective of this particular climate change policy is to reduce emissions by %5 on 1990's level of emissions by 2020. We won't know until we get there. Abbott's plan is to do the same through government subsidies. If he wins, which is more than likely at this stage, you won't need to worry about the Gillard Lying Factory.

Abbott's plan alone though, if it achieves the %5, will stop at that mark. An ETS that increases renewable energies as the primary source of energy generation (by getting solar, wind, biomass, geothermal technologies to be price comparable relative to fossil fuels) is the only way we get beyond a %5 reduction. Even Greg Hunt concedes this.

waste of time, it's like arguing with Alan Jones

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

I'd prefer stronger action than this, but this is better than nothing because it starts a process. We have one of the most carbon intensive economies in the world. It is going to take us much longer to change.

Comments like this baffle me, the 'it probably won't do enough / I prefer stronger action but it's better than nothing' line makes no sense. If people have the opinion that it isn't good enough, why do they support it? Because, if it turns out that it isn't good enough, we are back at square one, but 10 years down the track (sorry climate, we tried our half arsed best).

so because the task looks difficult we shouldnt try?

Quote:

Originally Posted by guima

Comments like this baffle me, the 'it probably won't do enough / I prefer stronger action but it's better than nothing' line makes no sense. If people have the opinion that it isn't good enough, why do they support it? Because, if it turns out that it isn't good enough, we are back at square one, but 10 years down the track (sorry climate, we tried our half arsed best).

if the choice is between doing something and doing nothing, then we'd prefer to be doing something. this is too big of an issue to be able to have a single solution, we'll need to make many smaller changes. this by itself won't be good enough, but 10 years from now it will hopefully have made some difference, it's either that or "sorry climate, it was too hard so we did nothing"

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

will the carbon tax have an impact on climate change though? If that is the stated objective and goal of the carbon tax, will it achieve this? if so, by how much.

The world: "Hey China and India, Y U EMIT SO MUCH??? Reduce your carbon emissions!"

China & India: "Why should we, if you aren't doing anything?"

Introduction of emissions per capita argument, west got to where it was by emitting therefore we have a right too, etc etc, continue ad infinitum until climate change has buggered us without lube.

Never mind the fact that both political parties have the stated goal of reducing carbon emission growth and a means-of-production altering permit system is the most efficient short of nationalisation and establishment of the United Australian Socialist Republics (bags Stalin).

Quote:

Originally Posted by guima

Comments like this baffle me, the 'it probably won't do enough / I prefer stronger action but it's better than nothing' line makes no sense. If people have the opinion that it isn't good enough, why do they support it? Because, if it turns out that it isn't good enough, we are back at square one, but 10 years down the track (sorry climate, we tried our half arsed best).

The point is to start the process. This starts that process. We have delayed and delayed and delayed. I think this will have some effect and at least sets foundations that can be built upon going forward. It gets the mechanism inbuilt into the community's psyche. I suspect that in the next 5 years global action is going to speed up exponentially. Well I hope so.

I think the Chinese and American have the demographic, financial, and entrepreneurial capacity to move very quickly once they start the ball rolling. So, even though they might have been slightly intransigent about acting until now (I speak more about America here) they have the population density, or critical mass, to effect transformation far quicker than we do.

Abbott's policy will only mean delayed implementation of a carbon price and ETS. And unless he wins the Senate I think he will find a way to weazel out of repealing the policy altogether. If reliant on a double dissolution election he will balk, just like Rudd did, and his back-up position will be to reduce the fixed price and the timeline it is fixed at and look at introducing the ETS quicker.

Remembering that there are plenty in the Coalition who believe that a market-based policy is far superior to the governmentally interventionist policy they are advocating at present.

This is obviously just an opinion of course, nothing more.

Australians now joins 863 million other people in 33 countries and four major regional areas of China and the US who will live with a carbon trading scheme by the end of 2013. South Korea will be the next country to join this list. Although this is only 12 per cent of the global population, the list includes many industrialised nations who are significant emitters of greenhouse gasses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guima

Comments like this baffle me, the 'it probably won't do enough / I prefer stronger action but it's better than nothing' line makes no sense. If people have the opinion that it isn't good enough, why do they support it? Because, if it turns out that it isn't good enough, we are back at square one, but 10 years down the track (sorry climate, we tried our half arsed best).

I think that you answer the question well in the first sentence. The couple of responses do make sense.

If we're "back to square one" in ten years because we have the compromise scheme that got through Parliament in the face of staunch opposition from at least two parties, we're behind where we'd be if we got the scheme through three years earlier but we're still well ahead of where we'd have been if we'd done nothing.

If Australia introduced an emissions trading scheme last decade, we'd also be accustomed to it now. There would be nowhere near as much controversy if someone talked about ratcheting it to make pollution more expensive than originally planned.

Those who say that a scheme should be rejected because it doesn't do enough are almost certainly more concerned about the cost to them of pricing pollution and looking for any excuse to oppose it.

It seems to me and this is just my personal observation, that the majority of Australians don't want this tax (Carbon pricing for Geezah).
I'm actually not sure what the real figures for and against are and i suppose we won't know until an election, but even then it will be hard to tell who really supported it but voted against the government for other reasons etc etc. I'd like to see a referendum but that won't happen.

I did a little bit of light browsing on the BOS this morning and found that 82% of Australians 18 and over are concerned about the environment. This made sense to me. People don't like to shit in their own backyard so to speak. I also found that only 53% of people think it is deteriorating. This stumped me a little. So while the vast majority are concerned about the environment, only about half think it's getting any worse. Funnily enough 79% are concerned about climate change. So 26% are concerned about climate change but don't think the environment is deteriorating.
89% are concerned about water shortages. That's a lot, they should look into that.

I've come to the conclusion that people do care about pollution and the environment. I remember the massive drives against pollution as a kid. Recycling, Captain Planet, Clean up Australia Day. Going to the tip use to just involved emptying your trailer at the landfill. Anything and everything and then setting fire to it.
Everybody recycles now. People don't tip shit down the drain anymore.

Why did everybody jump on board the recycling bandwagon so readily yet oppose this so fiercely. I think it's first and foremost because recycling was easy and free. It was simply a matter of dropping things into a different bin. A bin the council supplied and also picked up themselves. If you were clever you could sell your recycled shit and make a bit of money.
People got the feeling they were doing something good and it really didn't affect their lives much. Maybe this won't either, but will you get the feeling it's doing anything?

We got rid of styrofoam packages as much as possible, those plastic rings that held 6 packs together too. No one cared, not much changed and when it did it was simple and quite clearly logical. Why are we still using plastic bags so much then? They are just too practical and cheap to make to get rid of right now that's why, just like fossil fuel.

It's not the underlying reason for the ETS that is the problem. That reason being to lower emissions. I think everyone can agree that lowering emissions is nothing but a good thing. Pollution is not good no matter how you look at it and we should limit it at every turn.

It's how they are trying to lower them that people don't seem to like.

Whether you like to admit it or not this is a moral and ethical issue for each person individually. You care, but how much do you care, in dollars? Because i doubt all the hard line climate activists are going without their precious Macbook Pro or I-phone 4 , their latte machine or driving around in their Prius, because they care about the environment, but with the fog lights permanently on.

I'll openly admit i don't care to the point where i want to pay money. Can any of you admit that? And if you can't how much are you willing to pay? There must be a limit to your generosity. Will you send a big donation to the government to help? How much have you invested in green energy?

You can discourage the wasting of energy by increasing it's cost, but this is never ever going to be popular.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coezi

I've come to the conclusion that people do care about pollution and the environment. I remember the massive drives against pollution as a kid. Recycling, Captain Planet, Clean up Australia Day. Going to the tip use to just involved emptying your trailer at the landfill. Anything and everything and then setting fire to it.
Everybody recycles now. People don't tip shit down the drain anymore.

Why did everybody jump on board the recycling bandwagon so readily yet oppose this so fiercely

did anyone run a scare campaign against recycling?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coezi

Why are we still using plastic bags so much then? They are just too practical and cheap to make to get rid of right now that's why, just like fossil fuel.

a lot of plastic bags are bio-degradable. a lot aren't, of course.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coezi

Because i doubt all the hard line climate activists are going without their precious Macbook Pro or I-phone 4 , their latte machine or driving around in their Prius, because they care about the environment, but with the fog lights permanently on.

sweet stereotype, bro.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coezi

I'll openly admit i don't care to the point where i want to pay money. Can any of you admit that? And if you can't how much are you willing to pay? There must be a limit to your generosity. Will you send a big donation to the government to help? How much have you invested in green energy?

i would be willing to pay plenty. if i can afford the essentials, i'm happy. i enjoy the occasional luxury and holiday, but i can live happily with less. i've met people who live in bamboo huts in rice fields that look happier than a lot of people in this country.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rancho

did anyone run a scare campaign against recycling?

No. Good point, they didn't. I was too young to know why they didn't though. It's hard to convince even an idiot like me that reusing something, if possible is a bad idea i'd imagine. There was definitely a scare campaign for recycling though lol.
I don't deny that the oppositions anti-carbon tax campaign is having an effect on peoples opinions, it definitely is. It was never going to be hard to win that popularity contest though was it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rancho

a lot of plastic bags are bio-degradable. a lot aren't, of course.

Yeh i know, it was just the first example that popped in my head of something that is bad for the environment but we still use because it's very cheap and very practical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rancho

sweet stereotype, bro.

Yeh i meant to there, a slight niggle at the hypocrisy of some so-called climate activists i've met in my time, not at anyone here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rancho

i would be willing to pay plenty. if i can afford the essentials, i'm happy. i enjoy the occasional luxury and holiday, but i can live happily with less. i've met people who live in bamboo huts in rice fields that look happier than a lot of people in this country.

Yep, so have I. I spent a while commissioning a 3.6MW power plant in West Papua. These people were pretty poor, not the worst off i've seen, but they were happy. It took awhile for me to get used to the conditions but after a week i found i had a smile on my face pretty much all the time while i was there as well.
Life expectancy wasn't so crash hot though unfortunately. They have constant power now, so hopefully it gets better.
Do you give up the money though Rancho? It's one thing to be willing to, talk is cheap. Would you actually give up all you had, bar the essentials? If you did, it's something i can definitely respect and admire.

I'm probably willing to pay 10 bucks a week

Quote:

Originally Posted by CheelWinston

I'm probably willing to pay 10 bucks a week

So you would be against it if it was over $10?

10.10 is about what I am willing to pay on average

fuck that, i'm only going $9.90.

At this stage i'm still not willing to pay anything. People here have convinced me to continue my research though.

Does anyone have a by the dollar break down of what it's being spent on?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coezi

At this stage i'm still not willing to pay anything. People here have convinced me to continue my research though.

Does anyone have a by the dollar break down of what it's being spent on?

if you mean the income from the ETS I'm sure a post has been posted linking to the government plan that spells out where they're planning to spend it.


I pay extra for my electricity (about an extra 10%) due to choosing to go with a greener plan, if there was a plan where I could get all my elect from renewable at, say, 50% extra cost I'd be willing to do that too. Granted I'm only paying for myself and I don't use that much, if I was paying for a family of 4 then it'd prob be somewhat different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coezi

Do you give up the money though Rancho? It's one thing to be willing to, talk is cheap. Would you actually give up all you had, bar the essentials? If you did, it's something i can definitely respect and admire.

do i give up the money? it's not always about giving up the money, you can do things that can save you money too.

eg i buy produce from local markets, much of that comes from small, local farms that don't truck shit to and from huge distribution centres and don't pesticide the shit out of everything. i ride a bike to work much of the time.

i'll buy a more expensive product if i think it's greener though, sure. the toilet paper i buy isn't the cheapest or kindest to your butt, but it is the only one at the supermarket that is wrapped in paper instead of plastic. little things like that.

it's hard to always know if you're doing the right thing though. anyway i'm dribbling there, but i always try to be concious of the repercussions of my actions and purchases.

would i give up all i had? i guess i couldn't say for sure unless i did, but at the moment i have a pipe dream of backpacking in a few years, and spending an extended period of time in south america and asia with the bare essentials (and my camera) which would hopefully involve some volunteer work. gotta save some pennies for that one.

Rancho makes a good point Coezi... it's not all about the cash. And it's not all about giving up the lifestyle.

I'm a student, so the amount of money I am prepared to pay at the moment is pretty slim (SEE: none), but that's okay because even though my energy bills are going to be higher, I'm pretty wise with my power usage so my tax break is going to put me in the black. I am going to be better off with this scheme, and a lot of people probably would be if they thought about it for longer than it takes to say "Axe the Tax". That said, once I've graduated and I'm getting some semi-decent coin, I would be willing to put in a fair chunk to ensure the longevity of the planet. I have always planned on having kids some day, so I would want to ensure that I would be bringing them into a world worth living, bugger the cost.

However, you do bring up an interesting point regarding lifestyle. Our lifestyles are going to change radically in the next 50 years purely due to agricultural pressures (combined with an ever expanding population). My industry is Agriculture and I'm specialising in Permaculture and Vertical Farming. There is a not a lot of research being invested in the permaculture side of things (most of the research is geared towards increasing yields in a highly mechanised monoculture farming system) but there are more and more people subscribing to the permaculture ethos/lifestyle. Grow more shit yourself, make compost with wastes, minimise other impacts, go solar, keeping businesses local and only buying stuff in season to reduce carbon transport impacts etc etc etc etc etc.

I'm meandering here. The point is that in 50 years, everyday life is going to look different. Taking a few small steps now (eg. solar, growing your food etc.) will reduce the impact this change will have on you. Conversely, keep trucking along and buy everything from the supermarket and one day you might find out that Durian is no longer available. No biggie you think, that shit tastes and smells horrible. A year or two later, there is no longer any wombok, and then lamb becomes expensive because pasture is becoming harder to grow and before you know it, your supermarket is reduced to aisles of "Hurricane Chow" and tins of wadded beef.

Rancho bought up a good one. The markets which only source their food from within 50kms are becoming increasingly common. There are other international projects like www.slowfood.com which is completely changing the way people look at growing and distributing food.

In summation, I would give up a fair bit of my lifestyle just to ensure the longevity of the planet, and as all this carbon hysteria goes on, I have my 10 year plan which sees my life being very different to the one I have lived for the past few decades, most of which should all have a positive influence on the environment.

That said, I recognise the fact that most people would not give up any of their lifestyle. depressing really. what a selfish bunch of fuckwits. They make me re-think the decision of having kids in the future.





NB: I mention food all the time in this post because I deem it to be the biggest risk factor of this whole climate bizzo AND its my area of expertise.

I am interested though Coezi. You mentioned

Quote:

At this stage i'm still not willing to pay anything. People here have convinced me to continue my research though.

At what point do you think you WOULD be convinced to pay anything? And what kind of criteria needs to be met for you change your decision?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rancho

eg i buy produce from local markets, much of that comes from small, local farms that don't truck shit to and from huge distribution centres and don't pesticide the shit out of everything. .

which is also much more expensive. Most people would do the same, however, it's not easy feeding a family of four with organically grown produce.........it would cost a fortune. Unless people are prepared to reduce their cost of labour in this country (which is a whole other argument) mass produced will be the only way people can feed themselves and have enough money leftb over to pay rent etc.

Marrickville markets is an absolute scandal as far as fresh produce is concerned. the issue i have with 'organically' grown is that it provides producers with an excuse to charge an extra $4/kg on fresh fruit and vegetables, which runs counter to the whole premise of locally grown.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

which is also much more expensive. Most people would do the same, however, it's not easy feeding a family of four with organically grown produce.........it would cost a fortune. Unless people are prepared to reduce their cost of labour in this country (which is a whole other argument) mass produced will be the only way people can feed themselves and have enough money leftb over to pay rent etc.

Marrickville markets is an absolute scandal as far as fresh produce is concerned. the issue i have with 'organically' grown is that it provides producers with an excuse to charge an extra $4/kg on fresh fruit and vegetables, which runs counter to the whole premise of locally grown.

it's not necessarily expensive, it's very dependant on your location. not all produce from markets is organic either. the stuff i buy is usually cheaper than the supermarket whilst being better quality.

of course marrickville markets are going to be expensive. i don't think there's many farms in inner city sydney. plus, there's the whole supply/demand economics, people in marrickville can likely afford to pay the prices.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

which is also much more expensive. Most people would do the same, however, it's not easy feeding a family of four with organically grown produce.........it would cost a fortune. Unless people are prepared to reduce their cost of labour in this country (which is a whole other argument) mass produced will be the only way people can feed themselves and have enough money leftb over to pay rent etc.

Marrickville markets is an absolute scandal as far as fresh produce is concerned. the issue i have with 'organically' grown is that it provides producers with an excuse to charge an extra $4/kg on fresh fruit and vegetables, which runs counter to the whole premise of locally grown.

it's not an excuse to charge an extra $4/kg

it's just far more expensive to produce certified organic crops.

I definitely agree with you on the "things being dramatically different in 50 years" thing. I sometimes wonder can you be a humanitarian and an environmentalist at the same time? Considering every step forward for humanity seems to be a step backward for the environment. We seem to destroy things wherever we go.

I actually don't believe we will destroy the earth before it destroys us (or at least severely depletes our numbers) however. Nature has a way of maintaining equilibrium. So i don't think it's the earth itself that's in danger, it's us.

Quote:

"The minimum amount of agricultural land necessary for sustainable food security, with a diversified diet similar to those of North America and Western Europe (hence including meat), is 5000m2 per person. This does not allow for any land degradation such as soil erosion, and it assumes adequate water supplies. Very few populous countries have more than an average of 2500m2. It is realistic to suppose that the absolute minimum of arable land to support one person is a mere 700m2–and this assumes a largely vegetarian diet, no land degradation or water shortages, virtually no post-harvest waste, and farmers who know precisely when and how to plant, fertilize, irrigate, etc. [FAO, 1993]

I only quickly found this information and am not sure how reliable it is. Maybe you have more reliable data being in your field.

If everyone was to start growing their own food we would have to decentralise to each have adequate land and then transporting yourself to and from work would become a massive energy sink. Not to mention the logistical issue with getting water and power to a more spread out community. Unless of course everyone worked from home and had a self sustaining dwelling.

I do think we could decentralise into smaller towns though. Maybe not everyone growing their own food but as you said, sourcing it from within 50km. For instance there is no need for a CBD anymore. With modern communications technology there is no reason companies need to situate themselves in the middle of Sydney city.
That would only really solve some transport related energy issues though, and only the agriculture related transport at that.



Note: Year refers to financial year, e.g. 1977 refers to 1976–77 financial year.
Source: ABS, data available on request (Energy Account Australia).



Transport, while a big energy user, at least isn't growing very fast.

To be honest I am not quite sure what would convince me to change my mind. I asked for the per dollar breakdown of ETS spending before so i guess not being entirely happy where the money is going may be part of it. I know a lot of it is going to compensation (i don't know exactly how much) and that doesn't sit right with me. I don't think some people should be more responsible for the environment than others.
I'd like to see every bit of it going to something related to lowering emissions. If they said we are taking $9 out of your pay each month because we are building a nuclear power plant. It will produce this much power. Once it is built we will be able to shut down 2 coal plants and will lower waste/kWh by this much. I think i'd swallow the whole thing a lot easier.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coezi

I definitely agree with you on the "things being dramatically different in 50 years" thing. I sometimes wonder can you be a humanitarian and an environmentalist at the same time? Considering every step forward for humanity seems to be a step backward for the environment. We seem to destroy things wherever we go.

I actually don't believe we will destroy the earth before it destroys us (or at least severely depletes our numbers) however. Nature has a way of maintaining equilibrium. So i don't think it's the earth itself that's in danger, it's us.

You've actually contradicted yourself there.

But in respect of your second point, it's not so much the earth being destroyed, but the current homeostatic ecosystem that already is being destroyed. In geological time scales there have been a number of planetary scale state shifts, including the 'big five' mass extinctions, with the most recent state shift being the last glacial-interglacial transition. A paper about to be published in nature suggests that emergent global forcings may reach threshold values that rapidly change all of earth's ecosystems somewhere from 2045 on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by austraboy

it's not an excuse to charge an extra $4/kg

it's just far more expensive to produce certified organic crops.

why though? why should it cost more to produce crops that are grown without pesticides, without intensive farming practices generally? The reason is that you don't get enough yield from organically farmed produce, which increases your per unit rate because we have high input costs of production.......again, labour etc. This country (and most other western countries) have choked themselves with high factor costs of production. Are we prepared to drop our labour costs?

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

why though? why should it cost more to produce crops that are grown without pesticides, without intensive farming practices generally? The reason is that you don't get enough yield from organically farmed produce, which increases your per unit rate because we have high input costs of production.......again, labour etc. This country (and most other western countries) have choked themselves with high factor costs of production. Are we prepared to drop our labour costs?

I don't think you quite understand the scale of modern agribusiness tbh.

There are plenty of linear irrigation systems in Australia that are 1km long and automated with GPS guidance systems.

We aren't talking about it costs too much to have people out in the field with hats on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

You've actually contradicted yourself there.

True, i sometimes don't word things the best way. It's not my forte.

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

But in respect of your second point, it's not so much the earth being destroyed, but the current homeostatic ecosystem that already is being destroyed. In geological time scales there have been a number of planetary scale state shifts, including the 'big five' mass extinctions, with the most recent state shift being the last glacial-interglacial transition. A paper about to be published in nature suggests that emergent global forcings may reach threshold values that rapidly change all of earth's ecosystems somewhere from 2045 on.

It's hard to imagine that this wasn't going to have some kind of negative repercussions. We're like a bloody locust plague. Like a locust plague though, i think we'll run out of steam (read: food) eventually too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coezi

If everyone was to start growing their own food we would have to decentralise to each have adequate land and then transporting yourself to and from work would become a massive energy sink. Not to mention the logistical issue with getting water and power to a more spread out community. Unless of course everyone worked from home and had a self sustaining dwelling.

It's a good point and one worth discussing. Naturally, the NBN and other such technologies would be a good way to get around the hellishly destructive nature of 'the daily commute'. And as for power, the energy mix of renewable energy should be able to sustain a domestic type of lifestyle (the haters keep on hating, but solar is coming forward in leaps and bounds and I don't doubt that one day it will be the sole source of domestic energy... just need to work on energy storage!). Energy usage is being reduced every year and more efficient domestic technologies are being developed all the time. I think power wouldn't be too hard to source for such a low-energy type of household.

However, the water thing? I have no solution for that. In school, the number one thing they drill into us is that we need to double food output by 2050 with probably between 20-40% less rain (we're talking Australia only here).

I think decentralisation is certainly the key to a sustainable future, but there will be many roadblocks, and I'm not sure if they would ever be addressed in time to avoid certain DOOOOOM.

As for your figures, I'm not entirely sure it's reliable, and it is also largely ignorant of input/output of different countries. As an example, in Australia you have 1 farmer taking care of 8000 hectares. 8000!!! that is completely unheard of anywhere else in the world. In fact, most of the leaps and bounds made in mechanised farming systems were pioneered in Australia due to necessity (ie. no one wanted to work on the farms, so the farmer had to find a way to make their work easier). In addition to this, our soil in Australia is (generally) of extremely poor quality when compared with say Europe or Indonesia or PNG or other places with rich alluvial soil. It's an interesting point... some smaller countries would be able to sustain a shitload more people than our large, mostly infertile/arid land. I'll have a look at some figures and get back to you on that one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coezi

To be honest I am not quite sure what would convince me to change my mind. I asked for the per dollar breakdown of ETS spending before so i guess not being entirely happy where the money is going may be part of it. I know a lot of it is going to compensation (i don't know exactly how much) and that doesn't sit right with me. I don't think some people should be more responsible for the environment than others.

I see that your primary issue with the current scheme is the issue of compensation. Well, I hate to break it to ya buddy but if there was no compensation offered, this thing would NEVER get off the ground. There would be even less support for the ETS than there is now because its all about the "Aussie Battler". Imagine Abbott sinking his teeth into that one. The reasons for compensation are purely political... I don't like it any more than you do (even as a student I reckon I could survive with 10 bucks a week less)

But I think the whole compensation thing provides people with an incentive to change their own behaviour under their own volition, and possibly reducing the impacts of some potential future shocks. At the start of the thread, a wise man put it in such simple terms that i have used this analogy ad infinitum trying to explain the ETS to any other Joe Public I meet:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legal Affairs

a) The tax is not paid directly by consumers, it is paid by polluters. Polluters who pollute less will pay less, and thus be able to (a) lower their prices or (b) make greater profits. So there's an incentive for polluters to pollute less.
b) Compensation paid to households won't be paid as rebates on bills. If your bills go up $500 and you get a tax cut of $500, you can either spend the $500 on your bills or you can reduce your energy use and spend the money on beer. Beer is good. So there's an incentive for consumers to pollute less.

If I can scam $500 bucks of beer out of this scheme, I would certainly look at changing my habits DRASTICALLY

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

why though? why should it cost more to produce crops that are grown without pesticides, without intensive farming practices generally? The reason is that you don't get enough yield from organically farmed produce, which increases your per unit rate because we have high input costs of production.......again, labour etc. This country (and most other western countries) have choked themselves with high factor costs of production. Are we prepared to drop our labour costs?

Organic doesn't mean that the produce is being handpicked by individuals. The same general technologies are still in place, it just means you can't use certain pesticides etc. Maybe some harvesting techniques aren't allowed I'm not quite sure.

To be Australian Organic Certified you get audited, if there are trace substances of inorganic pesticides or the like found on your farm, you lose your organic certification.

What this means is that you have to implement extra practices to ensure that your land is essentially fortified against external pesticides etc. This is very difficult to achieve if you live next to a river or other water source. It means you can't have vehicles from other farms enter the fields.

I imagine the yields are lower too as I would presume that the organic pesticides are not as effective as other pesticides.

Things like Organic Chickens are really expensive not just because of the feed that is fed to the chickens is more expensive, but the conditions in which organic chickens have to live in are far far far better than anything else. Obviously makes it more expensive to rear.

yeah, and you can get borderline organic produce that's not certified. the bloke i buy bananas from for example, he loads up his truck with some crates, drives off the the markets and flogs them for cheap. he obviously doesn't use a heap of pesticides as some bananas have scaly skins, but they taste awesome

Quote:

Originally Posted by austraboy

Organic doesn't mean that the produce is being handpicked by individuals. The same general technologies are still in place, it just means you can't use certain pesticides etc. Maybe some harvesting techniques aren't allowed I'm not quite sure.

To be Australian Organic Certified you get audited, if there are trace substances of inorganic pesticides or the like found on your farm, you lose your organic certification.

What this means is that you have to implement extra practices to ensure that your land is essentially fortified against external pesticides etc. This is very difficult to achieve if you live next to a river or other water source. It means you can't have vehicles from other farms enter the fields.

I imagine the yields are lower too as I would presume that the organic pesticides are not as effective as other pesticides.

Things like Organic Chickens are really expensive not just because of the feed that is fed to the chickens is more expensive, but the conditions in which organic chickens have to live in are far far far better than anything else. Obviously makes it more expensive to rear.

i understand that, but you won't feed millions with organic and even an organic enterprise still has a lot of human involvement through the supply chain (unless you carry your produce to the market with a ute, but i wasn't referring to hobby farmers in this instance)

organic chickens are so expensive because they just don't produce the yield which raises the per unit cost............as you say, they require larger land mass and without hormones, the time to full growth is much longer. The more chicken you produce per unit of time, the lower the unit rate to produce that chicken becomes. Obviously input costs per unit produced rise in proportion too.

Organic has become a luxury good these days.

are we prepared to sacrifice wages etc to help reduce the cost of organically grown food?

who's we? everyone? in equal part? what's the cost reduction? i'd happily sacrifice my wage by $x a week if the cost benefit to produce is beneficial...

i'd even go so far to say i'd sacrifice $10.10 per week of my salary if organic produce cost me an average of $9.90 per week less. it would be even better if i only had to sacrifice $9.90 for $10.10 savings!