I prescribe gas masks, as inhaling smoke for a month likely interferes with thinking; and a relocation from the Western side of Sydney, as contagion from Mark Latham's angry-man-who-can-see-the-truth vibes is proving really detrimental to a susceptible mind.
I notice you haven't argued my point because you can't. And yes Abbott has done more for the community than lord Fauntleroy the political failure who should go away
ReplyDelete*by actually fighting fires
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteJason, you don't make an argument as such - you make a mere assertion ("it doesn't matter what we do, no big nation that needs to make big cuts is going to care".)
ReplyDeleteOr, to put it another way, it's a self fulfilling prophecy.
I don't think it's a position really worth arguing with, it's so obviously wrong (if you actually have a desire to reduce greenhouse gases.)
But seems to me you'd now rather culture war rage, and get your hate on about Hilary Clinton, than attack the Conservative/libertarian Right and its denialism (or lukewarmism) that is condemning the planet to 2 or 3 times as much heating as we've already seen.
Jason is correct.
ReplyDeleteYesterday I read an article which stated that most scientists recognise AGW but most scientists are not that alarmed by it. What we hear on the MSM is what we always hear because it sells: doom and gloom.
Even Arrhenius stated,
By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidlyi propagating mankind.
"carbonic acid" is an old name for CO2
There is already evidence of greening in some arid regions. Australia is the obvious exception. I'm not prepared to attribute the current fires and droughts to AGW. We're expecting too much from this continent and short of massive geo-engineering projects to divert waters inland(eg. from the Gulf country) perhaps it is time to tell farmers to retrain. Even the geo projects will only work if the diversion reaches the upper catchment of the Darling River; though the WA State Liberal Party proposal for the Ord River Catchment is worthy of more consideration.
I don't know what is true anymore but it is a brute fact that even if all the advanced nations achieved big emission reductions the rest will overwhelm that. There are currently 300 coal fired power stations being built so even the claim that coal is dead is ridiculous.
The methane issue is exaggerated because as I read by an expert there are plenty of bugs that may use the methane before it is released. It is impossible to know what will happen because there are some unquantifiable variables in play there.
Four things I have learned about this debate:
Don't trust the MSM to provide a balanced account even when they are interviewing scientists because they choose the scientists who make claims that have the greatest impact.
Too many people think they are experts on this issue.
If you accept the MSM, especially The Guardian, scenarios it is already way too late.
Don't trust anything written on blogs including this comment. 😆
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete"We're expecting too much from this continent and short of massive geo-engineering projects to divert waters inland(eg. from the Gulf country) perhaps it is time to tell farmers to retrain. "
ReplyDeleteNo we have the science to completely rehydrate this country. And when we are tapped out with the cheap stuff we can go in for PATIENT geo-engineering. Terraforming is no all-or-nothing proposal. These are 5000 year projects.
No we have the science to completely rehydrate this country. And when we are tapped out with the cheap stuff we can go in for PATIENT geo-engineering. Terraforming is no all-or-nothing proposal. These are 5000 year projects.
ReplyDeleteGood point. I did have that in mind. People say that the costs are prohibitive but with automation and remote control I think it is increasingly manageable. It certainly doesn't have to be all or none but I wish we would start somewhere.
As your exuberant claims of being the last Renaissance Man I suggest a temporal lobe scan.
We could start with SWALES. Zero interest loans just to do SWALES. We don't need to be stupid about it. All the money thats wasted on farmer aid. But if you have more water than you can deal with it gets harder to fill in the subsidy paperwork.
ReplyDeleteWhy are farmers a protected species? This farmer bail out business has been going on all my life. Australia has always had water issues yet farmers have been so wasteful with water. From open irrigation channels and using crops with high water demands. A century of farming stupidity should not be rewarded with more hand outs.
ReplyDeleteI am with Stephen on this.
ReplyDeletedon't do anything because other larger emitters are doing little is bordering on stupidity.
I would rather be on the moral high ground than the low ground.
Whoopsy I should have added another reason why we should de-carbonise.
ReplyDeleteIt gives us an enormous competitive advantage. Just read Garnaut's book.
"Why are farmers a protected species? This farmer bail out business has been going on all my life. "
ReplyDelete.And it will go on another thousand years if we don't fix the problem. What happens is that the bankers lend low interest money to buy the farm but not to improve the farm. Aid efforts provide aid to stop bankruptcy but not to improve the farm. Throwing fertiliser onto the farm is tax deductible in the same year but a pond might be treated as a capital investment and only depreciated slowly.
So very little money is there to improve the land. You can see that if you take a train ride in the country. Endless brown land, very little animals and almost no water retention features. A
The new farmers typically have more land holdings than they can properly take care of without zero interest loans to improve the farm.
So that if you come along and offer zero interest loans for land hydration, but a quid pro quo is that the larger land-holders should off-load some of the land onto the market, you would rebalance the situation.
Every aid program that the farmers get has come about because of something to do with hydrology. Floods droughts and fires. But mostly droughts. So if you deal with the hydrology problem then its only one more comprehensive aid program but if you don't it will be endless aid programs. They have been put in this position by our flawed banking and taxation system.
Thanks Graeme, interesting ideas.
ReplyDeleteI consider this market failure when we have billions of dollars of loans turning over, we devote millions of barrels of oil to farming, we have all this big machinery to hand, and yet we cannot match the ancient Incas when it comes to terracing the land. We could simply reform money, banking and taxation in order to have a more functioning setup. But thats a major centuries long effort to defeat the oligarchy and institute proper banking. So I see no way out but the loan program I talked about.
ReplyDeletehttps://spotlight.it-notes.ru/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/d9c70753bc5a3bf0bdbffd122f18020a.jpg
Swales direct rainwater underground so that it moves more slowly and doesn't evaporate. This is a much better system than drip-irrigation. Drip-irrigation should probably only be used with initial support trees.
The Israelis are always claiming they invented drip-irrigation but I suspect thats bullshit. I suspect we had it here first. But by and large this is a bad innovation. When I used to test salt levels in water you would usually find that its something like 160 parts per million when you pump it from A to B. So if you are irrigating you almost cannot help but salt the place up. You end up destroying the land. You just really want Swales and check dams everywhere. Support trees on the lower side of the swale. If we put them in every 3 metres of altitude then thats the first step to greening the place. Second step is soil development since carbon in the soil acts as a sponge.
We will always have a water problem while we have water intensive industries such as rice and cotton taking more than their share.
ReplyDeleteWhen they are gone you know something right is occurring
I consider this market failure when we have billions of dollars of loans turning over ...
ReplyDeleteI can't assess the practicality of your ideas but I like the approach. It's innovative and relevant to Australia's problems. The problem though Graeme is politicians and bureaucrats have a poor record at innovation. The business and banking community don't break any records either. All too often the problem is not finding the solutions rather it is finding ways to make people accept, believe, and implement those solutions. Finance is a disaster area and it would be nice if economists were more active in advancing different approaches but as far as I can see they tend to back the status quo.
The economists are ultimately controlled by the bankers. Fractional reserve banking is the key thieving vector from which the banking cartel ultimately gets its wealth. Its the core thieving technology that spawns any number of other scams. So you can campaign for phasing it out. But its got to be considered a war rather than any honest disagreement.
ReplyDeleteThe other thing is that economists have always really known that Henry George was mostly right. And that its land that should ultimately be taxed. But how's a banker going to make a living if he cannot use fractional reserve and if all land carried a tax? Rich people would have to earn a living. Even for normal people that would be a very hard system to phase in. But to the undeserving rich its the end of the line for them. No more can their money make money while they sleep.
George Stigler didn't say the Georgists were wrong. He just said that if you want to be a Georgist economist you better marry a rich woman and treat her very well. Thats the attitude we've gotten from the profession all the way through.
I know about fractional reserve and the problems it creates. The land tax issue is interesting because land is a limited resource so we shouldn't let it dominated by the few.
ReplyDeleteBut its got to be considered a war rather than any honest disagreement.
It will be a war. I cannot perceive any Australian politicians considering a substantial change to our banking sector. I laughed last night when I saw Ken Henry as the Chair of the NAB. Sums it up eh? Key government economic advisor now a head honcho of a bank, or rather was. Why does capital gains get a reduced tax rate? Because the powerful own investments with large capital gains.
Why is so much investment in Australia towards property. Property capital gains of course, a ponzi scheme. I regard it as dead weight investment because there's no productivity in it. It stifles productivity and innovation because the investment funds are sunk into property when it should be aimed at start ups and manufacturing.
Graeme I don't know how to fix any of this. It seems that perhaps the Marxists were right after all: in the end the system is for the powerful and only a revolution will change that.
Just pulled into Sinclair Davidson's Catallaxy. He's got the following quote as a liberty quote.
ReplyDelete"[E]very significant 100-percent bank known to history was a government-sponsored enterprise, which depended for its existence on some combination of direct government subsidies, compulsory patronage, or laws suppressing rival (fractional reserve) institutions." George Selgin.
Thats a liberty quote according to Sinclair. So there can be a bit of racial solidarity when it comes to keeping the looting going.
Not sure I should be getting into blog fights at the moment, considering news revealed in my second latest blogpost, but still....
ReplyDeleteJason is right. It is simply a fact that nations like Australia make a relatively minor contribution to global emissions. The strategy, which must be over a decade old now, of having smaller nations like Australia, New Zealand or even larger nations like Germany set an example for other nations by drastically cutting emissions has clearly failed. Nobody cares.
I reckon John Howard had it right back a decade and a half ago. Unilateral policies on climate change are useless. Special exceptions for‘emerging economies’ like China are a joke.
Hi Tim: I assume you had something to do with the new critter in the house?! Congratulations, and sorry I missed it.
ReplyDeleteBut of course, you're still completely wrong on climate change. :0
Well how do you know it’s not all a conspiracy to get more readers? And thanks (I hope the post wasn’t too weirdly obfuscatory or cryptic)...!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete