Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 204 posts

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#191

Post by milesrout »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #187
milesrout wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like it because it's a cop-out. It's no different from 'oh yeah, you think taxes should be higher? why don't you voluntarily pay more taxes then?'

That's not quite the same — there's no relationship between you voluntarily paying more on your taxes and tax rates. If we agree that tax revenue is too low, then yeah, you're doing a bad thing by not paying more. Here's a better analogy still. Candidate X won a recent election, and you voted for them. If we agree that we knew that candidate was bad before the election, then you, individually, did a bad thing! No one…

> That's not quite the same — there's no relationship between you voluntarily paying more on your taxes and tax rates. If we agree that tax revenue is too low, then yeah, you're doing a bad thing by not paying more.

Wanting to raise taxes and wanting higher tax revenue is the same thing. And that does not mean I should pay more in tax voluntarily. I want tax rates to be higher across the board in a way that is fair to everyone.

Of course it's not reasonable to 'just pay more tax voluntarily'. That's ridiculous. That's just taxing the people that want tax rates on everyone to be higher. By that logic we should all just pay however much we want. That's stupid.

>Here's a better analogy still. Candidate X won a recent election, and you voted for them. If we agree that we knew that candidate was bad before the election, then you, individually, did a bad thing! No one person's vote decides an election, but the fact that millions of other people voted for the same candidate doesn't absolve you of your role in electing them.

No, that's a terrible analogy, that's not at all the same thing. I want fair government policy affecting all carbon producers to fight global warming. I don't want to never eat meat, I want meat to be priced taking into account the negative externalities of meat production. If a steak costs $20 because that's how much all the water costs and repairing the environmental damage costs, then that's fair.

I don't want just the people that care about the environment to volunteer to do tiny, irrelevant amounts to help. I want the people that are actually causing significant environmental damage to be held responsible. I'm sick of hearing about how to fight climate change. Climate change isn't a person, the people we should be fighting are the people CAUSING climate change, and that isn't me or you.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#192

Post by kakarot »

dingo_bat wrote: post #190
kakarot wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm speaking of environmental impact. Sure, things may be looking good if you look at base crime statistics, hunger statistics, and war statistics. But certainly not if you look at the bigger picture. Way too many unknowns at this point in terms of consequences for unchecked industrialism for us to simply say, "Yep, things are good here." But I'll bite. What metric are you using to say things are better than ever?

We are healthier than ever, living longer than ever. More of our babies are surviving for longer, even in the poorest places on Earth. We are using more renewable energy, less coal. Every year we add more solar/wind capacity than the past decade (just a guess). Soon, driverless electric cars will transport people autonomously, without creating any pollution, and road accidents will dwindle down to ~0. More people hav…

You're focusing on positive aspects of the modern areas of the modern world. Not all of the world is so peachy keen.

Yes, we live with countless blessings. But this is in spite of continued industrial negligence and increasing international economic pressure.

In spite of the fact that our wages increasingly do not match our economic contributions, while the costs of living continues to rise just about everywhere in modern countries. In spite of increasingly militarized police states engaging in targeted socioeconomic suppression across the globe.

In spite of many, many things.

I want to have optimism for the future, too. But I'm not going to ignore the multitudes of problems we face today, and will face tomorrow.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#193

Post by crawrey »

hannob wrote: post #131
crawrey wrote: post #47

I grew up on the coast of the Great Barrier Reef in North Queensland and I can say that the current state of the reef is almost unrecognisable to what it was 20-odd years ago. While a large part of this damage has been caused by rising sea temperatures, another large component is due to the run-off from agriculture, refineries and mining. The latter being a directly contributed by the local population. The region is…

> The issue of the reef and climate-change in general is a fairly untouched issue in Australian politics. I'm not sure that we are going to get anywhere without foreign intervention. I'm surprised by you saying this. I was in australia last year and saw TV news a couple of times. And multiple times climate change was mentioned as one of the election issues. Of course mentioning the issue doesn't mean it's being taken…

You are right that it is an issue that is talked about and it was discussed in the lead up to the the 2016 election. However, since the election there has been very little attention paid to climate change and there is some evidence that Australia is on-track to be in violation of the Paris Agreement[1].

Australia chose to elect a party with policies that target greenhouse gas emissions the least, 26-28% 2005 levels by 2030, where the next most popular party has target of 45% 2005 levels by 2030.

The former Labor government introduced a tax on carbon emissions[2] and a mining resource rent tax[3] in 2012. These taxes were later repealed in 2014 by our current Liberal/National government. Since the repeal, our emissions have been steadily increasing[4].

Talk is cheap and when push comes to shove on climate change, the majority of Australian's give into the scaremongering of conservative politics.

[1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-09/australias-energy-poli...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_pricing_in_Australia

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minerals_Resource_Rent_Tax

[4] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-22/australia-greenhouse-g...

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#194

Post by laumars »

milesrout wrote: post #191
jakelazaroff wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not quite the same — there's no relationship between you voluntarily paying more on your taxes and tax rates. If we agree that tax revenue is too low, then yeah, you're doing a bad thing by not paying more. Here's a better analogy still. Candidate X won a recent election, and you voted for them. If we agree that we knew that candidate was bad before the election, then you, individually, did a bad thing! No one…

> That's not quite the same — there's no relationship between you voluntarily paying more on your taxes and tax rates. If we agree that tax revenue is too low, then yeah, you're doing a bad thing by not paying more. Wanting to raise taxes and wanting higher tax revenue is the same thing. And that does not mean I should pay more in tax voluntarily. I want tax rates to be higher across the board in a way that is fair t…

Nobody is suggesting that climate change should be tackled by _only_ those who volunteer to help. We are saying climate change is _everyone's_ responsibility. There definitely needs to be legislation in place as an "incentive" for those who can't be bothered or simply don't care (businesses and individuals alike) but that doesn't absolve your own responsibility either.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#196

Post by lhopki01 »

hobs wrote: post #129
jsperson wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Offensive!? You're of course free to get offended, but pointing out that flying pollutes a lot relative to the proposed limits is certainly valid. I think the point is that there is an opportunity to take personal responsibility here. Why wait for government? Using a couple of your examples, buying less stuff made in China would go a long way.

Because collective action is the only way to make a dent in multinational corporations that poison the environment? While changing the agreement and raising awareness is good, its basically rearranging the deck chairs on the titantic. Do you know how many "upright citizens" I know who dont shop at wallmart? All my friends, family, and people I work with. And how's wallmart doing economically right now? Even a decentl…

Do you accept that even if governments do take action every person will still need to live within a carbon allowance or else global warming will still happen? If so even if you convince governments you'll still have to fly less and live in smaller houses and eat more locally sourced food.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#197

Post by jakelazaroff »

milesrout wrote: post #191
jakelazaroff wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not quite the same — there's no relationship between you voluntarily paying more on your taxes and tax rates. If we agree that tax revenue is too low, then yeah, you're doing a bad thing by not paying more. Here's a better analogy still. Candidate X won a recent election, and you voted for them. If we agree that we knew that candidate was bad before the election, then you, individually, did a bad thing! No one…

> That's not quite the same — there's no relationship between you voluntarily paying more on your taxes and tax rates. If we agree that tax revenue is too low, then yeah, you're doing a bad thing by not paying more. Wanting to raise taxes and wanting higher tax revenue is the same thing. And that does not mean I should pay more in tax voluntarily. I want tax rates to be higher across the board in a way that is fair t…

> Climate change isn't a person, the people we should be fighting are the people CAUSING climate change, and that isn't me or you.

Yes, it is.

This isn't really controversial or even an arguable position; the tragedy of the commons is a well known and accepted economic theory. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#198

Post by Recurecur »

M_Grey wrote: post #172
Recurecur wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) No, -I- believe a solution still exists. 2) My comments about Australia addressed the generally fuzzy thinking on this topic. 3) Again, there is no reason to think that the outcome is definite at this point. Clearly, in the worst case, technology should provide a solution. If the gloomiest projections turn out to be incorrect, for which there is mounting evidence, no mitigation may be needed at all.

You believe that a solution exists, although you also believe that there is no need for one, but if there was "technology" would be that solution. Is that about right?

I believe that a solution exists, if in fact CO2 induced global warming is sufficient to warrant it. The latest IPCC report has a range of possible warming which is innocuous at the low end. It's also not clear what the error bounds are on the published warming estimates.

I gave the concrete example of orbital sunshades, which are absolutely feasible given current engineering techniques. Another possible CO2 mitigation are iron-induced ocean algae blooms. Many other approaches have been suggested including nuclear powered CO2 sequestration in the Antarctic. I'm sure that many other innovative, technology based mitigations will be proposed over time.

I hope that clears things up for you.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#199

Post by saiya-jin »

hannob wrote: post #131
crawrey wrote: post #47

I grew up on the coast of the Great Barrier Reef in North Queensland and I can say that the current state of the reef is almost unrecognisable to what it was 20-odd years ago. While a large part of this damage has been caused by rising sea temperatures, another large component is due to the run-off from agriculture, refineries and mining. The latter being a directly contributed by the local population. The region is…

> The issue of the reef and climate-change in general is a fairly untouched issue in Australian politics. I'm not sure that we are going to get anywhere without foreign intervention. I'm surprised by you saying this. I was in australia last year and saw TV news a couple of times. And multiple times climate change was mentioned as one of the election issues. Of course mentioning the issue doesn't mean it's being taken…

I think there will be some good out of all the bad things we're doing now to our environment. Bad things are going to happen, I think this part is pretty clear. But out of the misery will come a hard lesson about respecting our environment, and added value of nature in our lives. So mankind could be better off after this. Something along the lesson from 2 world wars to not allow it in this scale again, it seems to work so far.

Basically, we as our generations are fucked in sense that we can do little to affect our lives, to move the masses to do something not directly beneficial to them, actually in contrary. Only build/protect for the future generations.

what we can do - similar to seedbank, preserve DNA of all the animals that live now, in various places. We will repopulate once the technological barrier for it will be crossed, probably even with long extinct species ie mammoth just because we can. They will behave differently, so records of their behavior now in wild species might help.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#200

Post by sctb »

milesrout wrote: post #161
jsperson wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Offensive!? You're of course free to get offended, but pointing out that flying pollutes a lot relative to the proposed limits is certainly valid. I think the point is that there is an opportunity to take personal responsibility here. Why wait for government? Using a couple of your examples, buying less stuff made in China would go a long way.

Taking 'personal responsibility' does nothing. I'm not going to forgo travelling overseas from NZ once every few years because some American thinks I'm 'using up my carbon budget'. It's not my personal fucking responsibility. Its yours. Your country is the one ruining the environment, backing out of carbon treaties, polluting the world. It's you, not me. NZ has a dairy industry, yes, but I don't vote for parties that…

Please stop violating the guidelines. We've already asked you not to comment uncivilly or spark flamewars.
Post reply on HN