Comments on: The Copenhagen movie was boring, better luck with the sequel

By: ronda jambe

ronda jambe — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 07:33:12 +0000

somehow I missed DRW’s sensible observation, which I totally agree with, about more accessible, meaningful information that people can respond to in positive ways.
As for names and number of extinct species, I would have to do more digging than my satellite connection here and time allow right now. But over and over, in articles such as this one, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081020171454.htm, and
particularly an article about a sixth mass extinction in New Scientist, 18 March 2004 by Anil Ananthaswamy, emphasise that the shape of biodiversity is changing, with unexpected consequences. Of course it is a valid view to say that this is just evolution, because by definition it is. But never discount self-interest, and I have a perhaps irrational love of the spectacular beauty and diversity of life. This goes way past my concerns about my own or my children’s futures, because we are just part of the tide.
So your comment leads logically to the question: why care about the orangutangs?
I have no answer to that, just a deep sense that it isn’t right. It goes back to the garden of Eden story, that if we do things knowingly, we have some sort of obligation to shape them.
Perhaps that is a weak answer, perhaps we should all just make sure we personally live well, and watch another movie and enjoy our affluence. I do that, too, and no apologies.

By: mhaze

mhaze — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 06:58:40 +0000

You wonder “exactly what kinds of evidence would persuade them [sceptics] that climate change is indeed well underway and will affect their lives dramatically”. You also ‘inform’ us that “mass extinctions, partly driven by climate change, are happening now”.
Well here is one way to persuade this sceptic. If there are mass extinctions then there must be 100′s or even 1000′s of extinctions per year. Give us the name of 10 that went the way of the dodo in 2008…or 2007…or… Not just made up numbers about actual names.
According to the IUCN Red List less than 800 species have gone extinction in the last 500 yrs. You might call 1.5 per year a mass extinction. I call it evolution.

By: ronda jambe

ronda jambe — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:34:19 +0000

there is no evidence that the Opposition is sincere about cutting emissions or weaning Australia off coal as energy or exports. But then Labor doesn’t seem sincere either, as the polluters are going to be compensated way above reason. An ETS could work, if the table weren’t so slanted towards the worst polluters.

By: Doug

Doug — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:30:00 +0000

There is no “great big tax”. An ETS is simply an effort to use the market to ensure efficiency in move from high emmission production/consumption to lower emmision production/consumption with compensation to ensure that the most econmically vulnerable do not bear an unfair burden from the adjustment.
i find it curious that the Opposition is going for a completely regulatory approach that will require much higher levels of government intervention with much higher risks of inefficient outcomes.

By: ronda jambe

ronda jambe — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 16:01:49 +0000

agree totally, let’s have truly evidence based policy, and make sensible realistic decisions that face the facts. money is not the core issue here, it is sustainability more broadly.

By: DRW

DRW — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:18:42 +0000

Copenhagen was always going to be difficult. But looking back on it now, it was difficult in many ways that we did not anticipate. Most “leaders” sought to satisfy their domestic political (not even economic) agendas. Too many participated in a process which inevitably led to the consolidation of money as the bottom line. How much, from whom, to whom, when. This is no ordinary problem we face. It is an issue that shapes our very future. And as far as I can tell, very few of the people in my street – or your street, I suspect – know very much at all about it. Our own leaders seem to be generating the view that we can solve it all by imposing “a great big tax” , and that means most of us are simply thinking about what we think of that, how and whether we can afford it, and what the personal impact will be. Hardly any of us have focused on what exactly is to happen to the money raised, and we have heard little beyond vague references to “compensating” those people who might not be able to afford the new price regimes. It is time for a full and frank engagement of the community, not just about plastic shopping bags, 4 wheel drive vehicles, “naughty” industries and selfish consumers. How about a complete refresh of the information available, in a manner and format that actually informs the common person?