Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage' • Hacker News Board

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#201

Post by jozzas » Wed, Apr 12, 2017, 12:42 AM UTC

milesrout wrote: post #179

inopinatus wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The often wafer-thin margins in the agriculture sector do not invalidate farmer's demands because food security is a most fundamental national security issue, even more so than energy or border control. Conversely, and unfortunately, the Great Barrier Reef is managed by Australian governments basically as a tourist attraction, rather than a unique and fragile national treasure. There is a (locally) famous quote from…

'Food security' is quite irrelevant. Cattle and dairy farming is not a food security issue.

Biggest pesticide and nutrient culprits are bananas and sugar cane.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#202

Post by milesrout » Wed, Apr 12, 2017, 1:11 AM UTC

jakelazaroff wrote: post #197

milesrout wrote: post #191

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. 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

Rubbish.

Big businesses cause almost all environmental damage, worldwide.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#203

Post by harry8 » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 12:26 AM UTC

kakarot wrote: post #189

harry8 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. You acknowledge the credibility problem that exists and justify it as great lies in service of great justice. I don't make that justification. I believe that misinformation, propaganda and lies undermine the efficient allocation of resources to most effectively deal with the problems at hand (of which on this planet there are many, starting with 700m people without adequate access to clean drinking water). Whet…

It's been a long time since I've read that. Thank you. I do not think these are lies. Most of these scientific articles we read are highly sensationalized. The problem lies within the state of journalism. That isn't to say there aren't scientists who skew results to get more grant money, but that isn't really the case here. If you want a more accurate depiction of how the scientific community feels, stick to reading…

There is /always/ an opportunity cost of any resource allocation. Assessing these and making the necessary tradeoffs so that they can be efficiently allocated is the whole ballgame. Muddying that up to influence it is one approach. It's the one I disagree with totally.

2/3 of the reef bleached is a disaster? I don't know. I don't even know what that means anymore? It sounds like it? Is it supposed to sound like it? Is it manipulative because I (and most australians) really do like the reef. Is it accurate science this time when in the past it has been propaganda?

I have no idea. If it's the latter wolf has been cried too often and I'm reacting to it as if it's yet another piece of manipulation. This is not a good state of affairs for those in the environmental movement pointing at it and the response "Should I believe this more than I believe what Trump says?" The credibility should so wildly different as to be incomparable, but it isn't.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#204

Post by kakarot » Fri, Apr 21, 2017, 2:41 PM UTC

harry8 wrote: post #203

kakarot wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been a long time since I've read that. Thank you. I do not think these are lies. Most of these scientific articles we read are highly sensationalized. The problem lies within the state of journalism. That isn't to say there aren't scientists who skew results to get more grant money, but that isn't really the case here. If you want a more accurate depiction of how the scientific community feels, stick to reading…

There is /always/ an opportunity cost of any resource allocation. Assessing these and making the necessary tradeoffs so that they can be efficiently allocated is the whole ballgame. Muddying that up to influence it is one approach. It's the one I disagree with totally. 2/3 of the reef bleached is a disaster? I don't know. I don't even know what that means anymore? It sounds like it? Is it supposed to sound like it? I…

Sometimes in our attempts to remain uninfluenced by others, we delude ourselves instead. Losing the coral reef is absolutely an ecological disaster because we have humans took it upon ourselves to pollute this planet at unsustainable levels and it is our responsibility to mitigate the damage we have caused.