![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Politics vs Climate Change
Is there some sort of a legal requirement for US Republican congresscreatures to make such brain-breakingly daft pronouncements on a regular basis? Or is it just party doctrine?
Meanwhile, over here in Australia we've stopped arguing about whether climate change is occurring (we have three states full of soggy people saying "yes, it bloody well is" being reinforced by all the drought-affected ones, some of whom are in the same states) and we're now arguing about what should be done about it. The current government is proposing a price on carbon (and they're currently in discussion with various industry and community groups to determine what that price should be). Meanwhile, our loyal opposition are busy saying we should leave it all up to the market (but please don't ask the miners, the farmers, the manufacturers, or any other large industry to actually do anything about the mess they're making, because they might get all offended and move off-shore).
I wonder, why are we so worried about mining companies moving off-shore anyway? The minerals themselves aren't going to be going anywhere, after all. We have an absolute monopoly on what's in the ground here in Australia; if the various mining companies don't like it, they're welcome to take their bats and balls and go elsewhere. They'll come back eventually - because while Australia isn't the only country with readily exploitable mineral resources, it is one of the few which is tectonically and politically stable, financially stable, and posessed of a skilled workforce. Overall, it's probably cheaper for the mining firms to work here, even with the constraints of a carbon tax, a requirement to go easy on the water supply, and a polite request from the government to clean things up once they're finished (plus the requirement to get permission from the traditional owners of the land before they go digging it up).
Meanwhile we have Senatory Barnaby Joyce (National Party, Queensland) saying Cate Blanchett is "out of touch with ordinary Australians" because she took part in a pro-carbon-tax advertisement. I don't know whether Mr Joyce is aware of this, but Ms Blanchett's job doesn't involve remaining in touch with ordinary Australians; she's an actress rather than a politician. As such, she's allowed to appear in any damn role she pleases - or any role which offers her a pay packet which is to her satisfaction. Mr Joyce, on the other hand, is required by the terms of his job to remain in touch with ordinary Australians, something he's singularly failed to manage. Given his particular management style is responsible for at least two of the current independent members of the House of Representatives because they quit their party rather than deal with the bloke, I'd argue he has more to worry about.
For those who are curious, I firmly believe global climate change is occurring (and I don't care who started it, I just want to see whether we can fix the bits we know we're causing). I also believe putting a price on carbon production is going to be a good way of starting the process of fixing things, because it's a way of quantifying how much pollution we can afford. If Australia as a country makes a start on quantifying how much polluting the environment actually costs, then we can start on coming up with methods to reduce the amount of pollution which is being caused - it's a way of providing an incentive (lower costs) for using alternative methods of production which don't cause as much pollution (or better yet, methods of production which don't cause pollution at all). Businesses are machines for making money - so affecting their ability to make money has to be used as the tool to make them comply with the requirements of the wider society. But the arrangement here has to be that businesses work within the wider context of society, rather than vice versa (although the businesses themselves would tend to promote the alternative view).
Businesses are machines for making money. They are machines made by people, and as such, the needs of the businesses in specific should always be subservient to the needs of society (which is the larger body of people). To say otherwise is to say that the shape of the cart should determine the shape of the horse.
Meanwhile, over here in Australia we've stopped arguing about whether climate change is occurring (we have three states full of soggy people saying "yes, it bloody well is" being reinforced by all the drought-affected ones, some of whom are in the same states) and we're now arguing about what should be done about it. The current government is proposing a price on carbon (and they're currently in discussion with various industry and community groups to determine what that price should be). Meanwhile, our loyal opposition are busy saying we should leave it all up to the market (but please don't ask the miners, the farmers, the manufacturers, or any other large industry to actually do anything about the mess they're making, because they might get all offended and move off-shore).
I wonder, why are we so worried about mining companies moving off-shore anyway? The minerals themselves aren't going to be going anywhere, after all. We have an absolute monopoly on what's in the ground here in Australia; if the various mining companies don't like it, they're welcome to take their bats and balls and go elsewhere. They'll come back eventually - because while Australia isn't the only country with readily exploitable mineral resources, it is one of the few which is tectonically and politically stable, financially stable, and posessed of a skilled workforce. Overall, it's probably cheaper for the mining firms to work here, even with the constraints of a carbon tax, a requirement to go easy on the water supply, and a polite request from the government to clean things up once they're finished (plus the requirement to get permission from the traditional owners of the land before they go digging it up).
Meanwhile we have Senatory Barnaby Joyce (National Party, Queensland) saying Cate Blanchett is "out of touch with ordinary Australians" because she took part in a pro-carbon-tax advertisement. I don't know whether Mr Joyce is aware of this, but Ms Blanchett's job doesn't involve remaining in touch with ordinary Australians; she's an actress rather than a politician. As such, she's allowed to appear in any damn role she pleases - or any role which offers her a pay packet which is to her satisfaction. Mr Joyce, on the other hand, is required by the terms of his job to remain in touch with ordinary Australians, something he's singularly failed to manage. Given his particular management style is responsible for at least two of the current independent members of the House of Representatives because they quit their party rather than deal with the bloke, I'd argue he has more to worry about.
For those who are curious, I firmly believe global climate change is occurring (and I don't care who started it, I just want to see whether we can fix the bits we know we're causing). I also believe putting a price on carbon production is going to be a good way of starting the process of fixing things, because it's a way of quantifying how much pollution we can afford. If Australia as a country makes a start on quantifying how much polluting the environment actually costs, then we can start on coming up with methods to reduce the amount of pollution which is being caused - it's a way of providing an incentive (lower costs) for using alternative methods of production which don't cause as much pollution (or better yet, methods of production which don't cause pollution at all). Businesses are machines for making money - so affecting their ability to make money has to be used as the tool to make them comply with the requirements of the wider society. But the arrangement here has to be that businesses work within the wider context of society, rather than vice versa (although the businesses themselves would tend to promote the alternative view).
Businesses are machines for making money. They are machines made by people, and as such, the needs of the businesses in specific should always be subservient to the needs of society (which is the larger body of people). To say otherwise is to say that the shape of the cart should determine the shape of the horse.
no subject
Because I'm a Cantabrian, I have to admit its the waterways that are truly pissing me off. All you have to do is find any high point on the Canterbury Plains and look around to see the many perfect little patches of vivid emerald green amongst the more subdued earth tones to realise just how much water the dairy industry draws out of our water table. One farmer, in defense of the supposedly enormous money they pull in, pointed out that irrigating his farm had required an investment in the millions.
Of course, if you drive through Canterbury, you'll also discover that although it is illegal for their irrigation systems to send water beyond their own boundaries, they do waste it - spewing over the roads where, in some cases, it actually poses a hazard for passing cars. And while they swear they do their best to minimise the environmental impact, most of them don't consider treating the runoff from their properties worth the same investment as irrigation. And that is killing our rivers, turning the water that is left into something that fish and plants cannot survive in. In reality, they consider cleaning up after themselves an additional, optional expense rather than the cost of doing business - which is what it should be, and what central goverment should make it.
The argument is that farming, not tourism, is now the main source of money in our economy - but they're killing our tourism industry by polluting our water.
no subject
What are they growing around there, anyway? Does the crop actually need that much water?
As you point out, the cost of cleanup needs to be considered part of the cost of doing business. This is part of what carbon pricing is going to be attempting to do here in Australia (and it's part of why the big polluters here are bitching non-stop about it). The point is, at present the cost is spread out over the wider community, which means the polluters can ignore it and pretend it doesn't have to be paid at all.
no subject
For the first time I can ever remember, we're treating the water that comes out of our taps. A lot of us won't actually drink it as a result - you can taste the chlorine. But the water table is pretty high in the city, mostly due to liquefaction. And the concern is that broken sewage pipes may have contaminated it. Further out though, a lot of the rivers are pretty low at the moment. I wouldn't be surprised if the Greendale fault has shifted some of the underground rivers, because that cut a pretty wide swath across the countryside.