51–60 of 172 posts
If only it was somehow possible to charge more for water, so that people would use less.
If only it was somehow possible to charge more for water, so that people would use less.
The Darling river has a water market [1] [1] https://www.mdba.gov.au/managing-water/water-markets-and-tra...
Edit: Ah, looks like yes; the government was working on undoing this mistake by buying back water rights at large expense, but stopped because, errr, politics. Although it sounds to me like the real mistake here was maybe giving away rights to use water in perpetuity in the first place (which requires the government to "buy back" such rights), instead of selling non-renewable allocations by the litre (which would allow them to just raise the price depending on conditions, or auction the available water yearly etc).
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-23/water-buybacks-everyt...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article doesn't even mention the word 'climate', let alone 'climate change'. There are references to last summer being the hottest on record, which is true, or the effects of the drought, but it's not talking about climate change. Get your shit together - you are a perfect example of why the issue is polarized.
If the river always runs dry and the article is not implying anything about climate change, then why does the article exist?
> At Menindee, 830 km west of Sydney, despair has turned to anger as residents
> blame the government for exacerbating the drought by drawing down river water
> in 2017 for irrigation and other uses downstream.
Meanwhile we're still voting in governments that don't believe in climate change and which fight tooth and nail to destroy any chance of addressing the problem. No worries giving endless buckets of taxpayer money to climate-denying farmers and coal plants, though.
That will continue to happen as long as voting/politics remains ideology based rather than issue based.
Meanwhile we're still voting in governments that don't believe in climate change and which fight tooth and nail to destroy any chance of addressing the problem. No worries giving endless buckets of taxpayer money to climate-denying farmers and coal plants, though.
There are many people in the current government that believe in climate change. The real problem is that the government has surmised (correctly, it would seem) that climate change isn’t an issue that will win an election. That and the fact that pricing carbon was the opposition party’s policy...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article doesn't even mention the word 'climate', let alone 'climate change'. There are references to last summer being the hottest on record, which is true, or the effects of the drought, but it's not talking about climate change. Get your shit together - you are a perfect example of why the issue is polarized.
If the river always runs dry and the article is not implying anything about climate change, then why does the article exist?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think voting with your dollar is much effective then voting at the ballot boxes since politicians go to where the money is and end up not fulfilling most of their campaign promises anyway.
Well, you can do both really easily. Thankfully it's not a binary decision.
If only it was somehow possible to charge more for water, so that people would use less.
Meanwhile we're still voting in governments that don't believe in climate change and which fight tooth and nail to destroy any chance of addressing the problem. No worries giving endless buckets of taxpayer money to climate-denying farmers and coal plants, though.
There are many people in the current government that believe in climate change. The real problem is that the government has surmised (correctly, it would seem) that climate change isn’t an issue that will win an election. That and the fact that pricing carbon was the opposition party’s policy...
I believe that Climate Change is mostly caused by deforestation, but how would any government stop 7B people from cutting down trees?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are literally no weather conditions that won't be cited as evidence of dangerous climate change sooner or later. Wetter, dryer, hotter, colder, etc. It isn't so much being triggered as just saving time and hurrying the conversation on to its likely destination. If the point isn't to talk about climate change there isn't much to this article. Australia frequently experiences droughts. They are taken with a high…
> If the point isn't to talk about climate change there isn't much to this article. Sure there is. The article talks about non-climate-change human impacts, like the use of upstream water for irrigation. There's discussion to be had around that.
However the article is a puff piece and is at best alluding vaguely to those more interesting issues. It is only inspiring discussion of them as people are trying to find lenses to interpret it that aren't climate related. It'd be lovely if HN suddenly decided to take a deep interest in irrigation systems but I'll wait for a few more articles on the subject to hit the front page before I start believing it. The comment threads look more like we are playing a game of finding links that aren't climate related.