neverfail wrote: ↑
Sun May 19, 2019 5:33 pm
Nice to see you take an interest in events down here Cass. I live in a country that is too accustomed to being ignored. Possibly because we are so damn peaceful and prosperous; so nonthreatening within the context of the World at large as to appear downright boring to the uninitiated. We just cannot compete with the likes of Syria or Afghanistan in "news-worthiness" (i.e. in spills and thrills shock-horror stuff).
You are indeed boring people compared to the likes of the Syrians and Afghans.
But that is a blessing. Enjoy your peace and prosperity.
CASSOWARY: we ARE paying more for expensive energy right at this very moment. Historically, the highest we have ever paid and I believe among the most expensive in the World - and the size of our power bills currently shows no sign of abating.
Like everything else, cutting down on greenhouse gases costs money. $$$. Advocates for green energy sounds good to many people. Who does not want to stop stop human caused global warming. But once people become aware of the costs, they suddenly lose enthusiasm.
You got to weigh the costs with benefits. We don't know a lot of things. Nature and human activity cause climate change. Even without human activity, the climate had been warmer in earth's history. So how much of the current warming is due to human activity? We don't know.
This question is important. Because it will answer the next question. How much can we do to affect change? If most of the climate change is due to natural causes, switching to costly green energy will not change the world temperature much.
This leads us to the next question. How much will it cost to cut down on greenhouse emissions? What will we get in return? Is it worth it for the world to spend trillions of dollars to reduce world temperature by 0.05 degrees C
The climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule: if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.
The total cost for developing countries to implement their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) is more than US$4.4 trillion.
So Is it worth it? The next question to ask is, "Should you not spend the money on alleviating poverty instead?"
Global warming via greenhouse gas emissions is a GLOBAL challenge. Regardless of who won our current election that challenge, along with our current bugbear of high energy bills, are not going to go away. Unless the big polluters like China and India come on board anything my country successfully does to counter our own greenhouse gas emissions is bound to be swallowed up by the ambitions of these two (along with others) to industrialize further.
Exactly. You brought up my last question:
If Australia put your people into poverty by forcing people to pay more for green energy just to do your bit to lower global temperature, but other people do not do their bit to put themselves into poverty so that our descendents in 2100 can feel cooler by 0.05 degrees, are you not being silly?