A lot of medium-term solutions exist, many of which have the benefit of also being long-term solutions. So while I support nuclear power, it cannot be the sole source of power (max 25% of our energy production would be a good target).
How exactly are we [Australia] supposed to do that? did you not understand my post: nothing we do matters! there is NOTHING Australia can do that will even marginally SLOW DOWN global warming, let alone stop it. The absolute best we could do would be for everyone in Australia to take a suicide pill, and even then global emissions would only fall .01%! we need to find different solutions, not worry about what [insignificant] emissions we put out. This is a global problem, but 90% of the globe doesnt seem to give a shit, and are just pumping out more greenhouse gasses every year.
Oh please, what a juvenile opinion. Everything we can use for energy relies on some type of finite source, uranium is an almost untapped atm and has a huge energy potential [not to mention Australia sitting on one of the largest supplies atm] if we instantly today converted all our power needs into nuclear power plants we would cut down greenhouse gasses by a significant margin, have more and cleaner power, and the uranium would last centuries. It buys us time to sort something new out. Its tried and true technology that we could start getting off the ground today if we wanted, instead our government is farting around and handing out halogen lightbulbs as if that would make a difference.
Your a fool. Of course Australia by itself will accomplish nothing. Any country by itself will accomplish nothing. All countries obviously have to come to a global agreement, Australia obviously has to be part of the agreement.
I saw Kim Beazley on one of the breakfast shows a few months back talking about "climate acceptors" or something. Basically people who don't deny the climate science but more or less think "oh well when it comes we'll deal with the consequences as best we can." Abbott strikes me as one of those.
Actually I think that the US, China, India or the EU* could act alone and have a meaningful impact... but more importantly why should Australia do anything before a global agreement is reached???
Probably the best strategy if we are being honest.... after all even if there was global action then stopping climate change would be very very hard.... and a certain level of change is now inevitable....
Yeah, agreed. But I think runoutofsleep's point was that he's hardly going to waste time on a 'strong and effective climate policy' for something he doesn't believe in, is he? And it's not just him who feels that, many of the other Libs also do, evidently.
There is no reason why incentive based action should not be encouraged as good environmental practice. How about we endeavour to make our households, businesses and industries more EFFICIENT, prevent deforestation and encourage recycling. One does not have to believe in the climate science to recognise that these things make good sense and are matters of real gravity to the environment.
This i can 100% get behind, recycling and acting responsibly is alway a good idea. I just cant agree with labours idea that somehow a population of 20million is at fault for global warming and that we need to shoulder the economic burden, whilst china is INCREASING their greenhouse gas output every year by more than our entire country makes annually.
As I said before, please spread the news that even with a higher target say 80% reductions in emissions, this would only effect a maybe, if the science is accurate, a potential 0.0001- 0.001°c reduction in temperature. (Professor R. Carter, Professor J. Christy).