- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 16,365
- Reactions
- 8,396
WTF !! Are you trying to say there is a scientific basis to this CC shite ? And who is this (Kylie) Mole your banging on about.?
The psychology of climate change
- Thread starter 2020hindsight
- Start date
-
- Tags
- climate change psychology
WTF !! Are you trying to say there is a scientific basis to this CC shite ? And who is this (Kylie) Mole your banging on about.?
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 16,365
- Reactions
- 8,396
This is an excellent analysis of just how we have been conned into believing CC is our individual fault rather than something much larger.
The big polluters’ masterstroke was to blame the climate crisis on you and me
George Monbiot
Fossil fuel giants have known the harm they do for decades. But they created a system that absolves them of responsibility
Illustration: Eva Bee
Let’s stop calling this the Sixth Great Extinction. Let’s start calling it what it is: the “first great extermination”. A recent essay by the environmental historian Justin McBrien argues that describing the current eradication of living systems (including human societies) as an extinction event makes this catastrophe sound like a passive accident.
While we are all participants in the first great extermination, our responsibility is not evenly shared. The impacts of most of the world’s people are minimal. Even middle-class people in the rich world, whose effects are significant, are guided by a system of thought and action that is shaped in large part by corporations.
We are guided by an ideology so familiar and pervasive that we do not even recognise it as an ideology. It is called consumerism
The Guardian’s polluters series reports that just 20 fossil fuel companies, some owned by states, some by shareholders, have produced 35% of the carbon dioxide and methane released by human activities since 1965. This was the year in which the president of the American Petroleum Institute told his members that the carbon dioxide they produced could cause “marked changes in climate” by the year 2000. They knew what they were doing.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/09/polluters-climate-crisis-fossil-fuel
The big polluters’ masterstroke was to blame the climate crisis on you and me
George Monbiot
Fossil fuel giants have known the harm they do for decades. But they created a system that absolves them of responsibility
Illustration: Eva Bee
Let’s stop calling this the Sixth Great Extinction. Let’s start calling it what it is: the “first great extermination”. A recent essay by the environmental historian Justin McBrien argues that describing the current eradication of living systems (including human societies) as an extinction event makes this catastrophe sound like a passive accident.
While we are all participants in the first great extermination, our responsibility is not evenly shared. The impacts of most of the world’s people are minimal. Even middle-class people in the rich world, whose effects are significant, are guided by a system of thought and action that is shaped in large part by corporations.
We are guided by an ideology so familiar and pervasive that we do not even recognise it as an ideology. It is called consumerism
The Guardian’s polluters series reports that just 20 fossil fuel companies, some owned by states, some by shareholders, have produced 35% of the carbon dioxide and methane released by human activities since 1965. This was the year in which the president of the American Petroleum Institute told his members that the carbon dioxide they produced could cause “marked changes in climate” by the year 2000. They knew what they were doing.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/09/polluters-climate-crisis-fossil-fuel
OK sixth grade extinction.
Preparation time: 10 Minutes. Duration of activity: 15-20 minutes Target age group: 11-14 years old / Grades 5-8 Application: Chemistry and Physics lessons/ Geography/ After school activity Time for data analysis and discusion: 20 minutes. Previous knowledge required: None Cost: 0.50 € for the effervescent tablets .
http://www.carboeurope.org/education/CS_Materials/CO2solubility.pdf
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 16,365
- Reactions
- 8,396
- Joined
- 28 May 2020
- Posts
- 7,549
- Reactions
- 14,806
The Psychology of climate change.
If one were to look at the debate both in AUS and overseas, the Oz government is constantly berated for "not doing enough", or not having a coherent policy" etc etc.
And yet, if OZ were to just stop using anything that produces CO2 right now, we would make a minuscule impact on the environment.
The complainants seem to turn a deaf ear and blind eye to the major Co2 emitters in the world.
The top 15 emitters of CO2 contribute 72% of it.
Australia , at 1.% of global emissions does not fit in the top 15.
China, 28%, USA 15% , India 7% , Russia 5%, Japan at 3% make the top 5 for 58% of CO2 emissions.
And of course we will likely be blamed for the fact that we export coal to other countries to burn.
From ABC News
Its this sort of foreign income that allows us the foreign reserves to buy all that stuff we import - the solar panels from China, the Electric Vehicles from anywhere, the computers , mobile phones, the Wind farm generators and towers, etc etc.
Bit lucky for us.
Mick
If one were to look at the debate both in AUS and overseas, the Oz government is constantly berated for "not doing enough", or not having a coherent policy" etc etc.
And yet, if OZ were to just stop using anything that produces CO2 right now, we would make a minuscule impact on the environment.
The complainants seem to turn a deaf ear and blind eye to the major Co2 emitters in the world.
The top 15 emitters of CO2 contribute 72% of it.
Australia , at 1.% of global emissions does not fit in the top 15.
China, 28%, USA 15% , India 7% , Russia 5%, Japan at 3% make the top 5 for 58% of CO2 emissions.
And of course we will likely be blamed for the fact that we export coal to other countries to burn.
From ABC News
So despite all the talk of coal being yesterdays fuel, and we should be shutting it down etc, its something that has contributed heavily to Australia's income as we lose out on revenue from Education, Tourism, wine sales, lobster sales etc from China.
Its this sort of foreign income that allows us the foreign reserves to buy all that stuff we import - the solar panels from China, the Electric Vehicles from anywhere, the computers , mobile phones, the Wind farm generators and towers, etc etc.
Bit lucky for us.
Mick
Knobby22
Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast
- Joined
- 13 October 2004
- Posts
- 10,673
- Reactions
- 8,374
Per capita we are pretty much the worst emitter and if we don't start pulling our weight soon we can expect sanctions from the EU and maybe even the USA.
The next meeting will be interesting.
The farmers groups in particular are worried.
We can't continue to subsidise coal to help it compete against renewables.
Private companies in Australia can see the future. The new solar battery plant being designed in the north of the country to supply power to Singapore is a good example.
- Joined
- 28 May 2020
- Posts
- 7,549
- Reactions
- 14,806
Exactly how are we subsidising coal?
The companies pay tax on their income.
There are mining royalties on coal (it varies from state to state and whether its open cut, underground above o below 400 metres etc).
So what are the subsidies given to them?
Mick
- Joined
- 10 June 2007
- Posts
- 4,045
- Reactions
- 1,405
not sure if this is the light you'll find to shed on the subject, Mick
no name or credentials so hard to judge the value of the piece
"In fact, $10.3 billion in Government subsidies means that in 2020,
every minute of every day $19,686 was effectively given to coal, oil and
gas companies and major users of fossil fuels."
Australian fossil fuel subsidies hit $10.3 billion in 2020-21
Fossil fuel subsidies cost Australians a staggering $10.3 billion in FY 2020-21 with one Commonwealth tax break alone ($7.84 billion) exceeding the $7.82
- Joined
- 10 June 2007
- Posts
- 4,045
- Reactions
- 1,405
and this def sheds "some" light on what Knobby was alluding to
Matt Canavan says there’s no government subsidisation of Australia’s fossil fuel industries. Is he correct?
Here's what the research says.
www.crikey.com.au
- Joined
- 28 May 2020
- Posts
- 7,549
- Reactions
- 14,806
The article said that part of the figure was made up by money spent by state governments on rail, ports, and other infrastructure.not sure if this is the light you'll find to shed on the subject, Mick
no name or credentials so hard to judge the value of the piece
"In fact, $10.3 billion in Government subsidies means that in 2020,
every minute of every day $19,686 was effectively given to coal, oil and
gas companies and major users of fossil fuels."
Australian fossil fuel subsidies hit $10.3 billion in 2020-21
Fossil fuel subsidies cost Australians a staggering $10.3 billion in FY 2020-21 with one Commonwealth tax break alone ($7.84 billion) exceeding the $7.82australiainstitute.org.au
Some of the infrastructure spending may help a range of industries.
From the report
- Western Australia is spending hundreds of millions on fossil fuel-fired power stations, including $93 million on a gas-fired power station in a town of 848 people in partnership with Chevron.
- Queensland upgraded its coal and gas power stations, ran a ‘mine dozer replacement program’ and provided other assistance measures worth $744 million last year, only slightly less than the $818 million spent on Fire and Emergency Services.
Part of the reasoning in the article is that so much of the total is made of tax rebates for diesel excise paid by primary producers and mining companies. Some mining companies are shifting to electric trucks and electric mining machinery to avoid paying high prices for diesel and the rates of diesel excise. They also get offset certificates for the green energy to play with. You might argue that is a subsidy, but the offset certificates are available to any industry.
Its hard to call the diesel offset rebate a subsidy, as its merely relief from a tax that is levied by the feds.
Based on this logic, anyone who gets tax relief from the feds is getting a subsidy.
Mick
- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,308
- Reactions
- 4,671
Nobody is responsible for climate change because everyone can blame someone else.
Alternatively, climate change is not real.
Or it's real but we can't do anything about it.
Or, others are worse than us so anything we do won't make a difference.
Or, we want to be part of the solution.
What causes people to think the way they do - that's psychology.
Discussion about economics or politics or policies might condition psychology, but they are not generally causal.
In purist terms climate change is an issue for science to resolve.
And if it's real then what needs to be done?
The solution would be to reduce GHG emissions globally.
Not sure that involves any psychology.
Alternatively, climate change is not real.
Or it's real but we can't do anything about it.
Or, others are worse than us so anything we do won't make a difference.
Or, we want to be part of the solution.
What causes people to think the way they do - that's psychology.
Discussion about economics or politics or policies might condition psychology, but they are not generally causal.
In purist terms climate change is an issue for science to resolve.
And if it's real then what needs to be done?
The solution would be to reduce GHG emissions globally.
Not sure that involves any psychology.
This Points to $4 billion since 2003 to develop CCS/carbon capture and storage... Coal and Gas
As to your tax and royalties. Qatar exports less gas than Australia and recieves north of $25billion/ annum in royalties. Australia recieves in royalties??? I think we've just scratched over $1 billion
.... this level of background knowledge to an investment forum??? god help you...
And there's $50million subsidy on the table for Beetaloo... $18 just shoveled out the door with no due dillegence by Pitt and Angus; on what basis? .... a cynic might judge, shoring up their retiement...
Last edited:
- Joined
- 28 May 2020
- Posts
- 7,549
- Reactions
- 14,806
So, you are basing your effort on a fake Ad from Juice Media?
The thing about carbon capture and storage is that if they get it to work (a big if), it can keep right on reducing the CO2 even after the Co2 emissions are stabilised, and we can get back to pre industrial levels if people think thats a good idea.
Well, I don't know where the figure of 1 billion came from, but according to
Mineral Council
And thats just coal. Ad its just queensland. But I am sure you get my message.
As I am a comitted athiest, I doubt yours or anyone else;s god is going to help me, should there be any faint chance I was interested.
But thanks for for generous offer.
Mick
Last edited:
Knobby22
Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast
- Joined
- 13 October 2004
- Posts
- 10,673
- Reactions
- 8,374
It's a good point Mullokintyre regarding the loss or royalties.
It's true that with renewables, once you build it you just get free power with no royalty payments to government.
- Joined
- 28 May 2020
- Posts
- 7,549
- Reactions
- 14,806
Never assume a government won't spend a lot of time and effort in looking for ways to skim some off the top.
Notice the sort of gyrations they are going through looking for ways to get users of EV's to pay some equivalent of the fuel excise tax, plus GST that ICE cars now pay. Govts need to pay for the roads and other infrastructure, so somewhere it will cost EV users.
Its a bit like the transmission costs we now pay for in our electricity bills. I still pay a fixed charge every month on my electric bill whether I use any electricity or not.
Same with water, there is an infrastructure charge.
Once they have killed off all the fossil fuels, you can bet your life that green levies will start to appear, with the usual justification.
Mick
Knobby22
Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast
- Joined
- 13 October 2004
- Posts
- 10,673
- Reactions
- 8,374
There will definitely be infrastructure costs that have to be paid for.
- Joined
- 28 May 2020
- Posts
- 7,549
- Reactions
- 14,806
To go back to the original post I made last week about the psychology of climate change that somehow allows nations to bag Australia for its lack of climate action, while allowing the biggest emitters off scot free.
From Todays OZ
Is Sharma, the European Union and Biden all going to demand that China and india "do more", as has been the consistent theme that has been app[lied to Australia?
There is so little logic applied to so much of the climate debate.
The climate debate has become a political game of power struggles.
The climate is just one of a number of pawns that are used to sizee authority and place it in the hands of the elites.
Mick
From Todays OZ
So once again I ask, why are CO2 molecules emitted by China and India different from the CO2 molecules that Australia emits?
Is Sharma, the European Union and Biden all going to demand that China and india "do more", as has been the consistent theme that has been app[lied to Australia?
There is so little logic applied to so much of the climate debate.
The climate debate has become a political game of power struggles.
The climate is just one of a number of pawns that are used to sizee authority and place it in the hands of the elites.
Mick
- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,308
- Reactions
- 4,671
What is your contribution?
And your evidence is what?
Another conspiracy theory!
Australia is being bagged for its lack of climate action because that is what reviews of its performance suggest is the case.
At a global level we rate as shown:
We are one of the five G20 nations not assessed as on track to meet our 2030 NDC (nationally determined commitment).
The psychology often applied to debate on climate is to look at who is the biggest offender.
But that idea ignores who has been the biggest offender to date - the USA by a country mile - and per capita emissions (as at 2018 China was not in the top 20 emitters).
People who bag China are poor at maths and logic.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,902
- Reactions
- 13,971
Those of us who don't have beach houses and live in the mountains couldn't give a stuff.
Similar threads
