[wildman]

What have we to lose?

Money.

At least that's what the deniers say. They claim it would cost too much and lead to economic decline. Without absolute certainty that climate change is real do nothing and maybe not even then.

[Ash]

Of course it will cost money.
That's a given.
The question is still worth asking; we have a lot other than money to lose.
And money is quite a fleeting authority of worldly wealth.
Surely our labour to create what money apparently can buy is worth more...
And so too the very land we live on.
(better stop, sounding too cliche...)

[wwwmorrell]

And this report was prepared and paid for by Federal Government.

With their carbon tax about to be implemented on the Australian people

[Nesster]

And this report was prepared and paid for by Federal Government.

With their carbon tax about to be implemented on the Australian people

You say that like it's a bad thing Don't we have our governments so they can figure this stuff out and plan for it?

--

The right's argument against doing something about global warming does have to do with money: but in the context of entrenched industries protecting the current status quo. For of course should a society decide to do something, money would flow to businesses, perhaps new industries are generated, the good Austrian model of creative destruction would take place... All good capitalist things.

[Ash]

Well, Aussies are well known for their general disdain for the current PM.
Egalitarianism has a lot to do with that.

But yes, governments have that responsibility - the bureaucratic process frustrating but such is the political will for change.

This is too serious an issue to not take to the next level, though. So it's worth the research and investment into planning and effective implementation.

[newarts]

I believe the best strategy in any situation is to:

Do something - even if what you decide to do is to delay.

If a train is roaring at you, don't dither long about which direction to jump. At present there is most likely a train approaching - it really doesn't matter whose train it is. It would be wise to get off the tracks, throw the switch, whatever...

[Nesster]

Please, tell me what natural system, man has stuck his fingers in that
didn't start, initially, with a modest limited modification to the
natural system and eventually, given enough time, lead to modifications
that became so extensive and extreme that they threatened the system
it's self.

But is this climate change that we have been experiencing for the last
60 years or so the result of the normal expression of natural forces or
is it the result of human economic activity?

Put the two together and there's no dissonance nor tenable right wing argument.

Who cares what causes warming. We are in position to affect it, to stick our fingers in it.

In fact, the right wing argument that We Cannot Do Anything! is a wimpy response, abrogating personal responsibility, and our "God Given" ability to improve on nature! Since when have humans just given up and rolled over to Mother Nature?

Which brings up an idea: maybe the warming has been sold to the conservatives in the wrong way. We should be selling it as a heroic attempt to dominate Nature. A Moon Shot! A Nuke!

[wildman]

And this report was prepared and paid for by Federal Government.

I'm shocked and outraged. To think a government would have the chutzpa to speak out on something it believes is of critical public importance. What do those bureaucrats think they are there for?

Such a study should be done by the private sector such as BP, Exxon or Shell.

[shooz]

Search for the pentagons research.
If it's still out here.
They believe it.
The evidence is all around us.

[Parallax]

"It is better to do something and be wrong than to do nothing and be wrong"

It depends on what the "something" is. Some of the proposals involve trying to alter weather patterns, rainfall, etc. You'll see a natural system really screwed up by man's fingers then.

[Ratmagiclady]

It depends on what the "something" is. Some of the proposals involve trying to alter weather patterns, rainfall, etc. You'll see a natural system really screwed up by man's fingers then.

Yeah, the thing about the 'money' aspect is, whose money, to do what, for how long? They keep claiming it somehow 'protects jobs' ....which they cut anyway, no matter how many decades they hold back any progress on sustainability or the slightest regulation or responsibility: profit for polluters who can't even promise their plan is sustainable *even economically,* even if denialism were even *remotely* true, ...they're playing to 'normalcy bias.'


And, yeah, Jim, the potential 'Plan C's' (like actually pumping nasty stuff into the air just to try to put the brakes on the solar heating) would not be pleasant for anyone and we can't even be sure they'd work for long, or be sufficient to the task by then.

Of course, even as record weather years already occur *every* year, they don't count the costs of *that,* ...even want to cut NOAA research and monitoring, NASA, of course, if the program might be another thing refuting denialism... and even 'early warning' for hurricanes, tornadoes, even 'tsunamis.' Never mind monitoring those drilling rigs they want everywhere, but won't be a fix in any way.....


'The money' doesn't benefit us, it's just big oil gambling with other people's ives and livelihoods. And the fact is, unless anyone finds another huge *buffer*, like the ice caps, on the way out, glaciers, on the way out, the Amazon, on the way out, deep ocean cold layers, permafrost, .....all on the way out, well, we're about to run out of those. There'd have to be something really *big* we're not seeing, and I couldn't tell you what vast unoccupied place to *look* on Earth.

[jolepp]

Energy-related carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions in 2010 were the highest in history, according to the latest estimates by the International Energy Agency (IEA).
...
“This significant increase in CO2 emissions and the locking in of future emissions due to infrastructure investments represent a serious setback to our hopes of limiting the global rise in temperature to no more than 2ºC,” said Dr Fatih Birol, Chief Economist at the IEA who oversees the annual World Energy Outlook, the Agency’s flagship publication.

http://www.iea.org/index_info.asp?id=1959

[Ash]

*Report outlines worst-case climate damage*

A new report on the risk of climate change to Australia's coasts predicts sea level rises could claim thousands of buildings and significant infrastructure by the end of the century.

The report, titled Risk to Coastal Settlements and Communities, was commissioned by the Federal Government and assesses the potential damage caused by a worst-case scenario sea level rise of 1.1 metres within 90 years.

It comes as the nation's climate scientists vow to continue their research, despite a growing campaign of death threats against them.

The report identifies $226 billion worth of assets at risk of erosion or being wiped out.

It found up to 274,000 homes are at risk of inundation and erosion along with over 8,000 commercial buildings, and up to 35,000 kilometres of roads and rail around the country.

It warns any future developments in coastal areas must take account of potential sea level rises.

The report also warns climate change will increase the frequency and severity of natural disasters, which currently cost around $1 billion a year.

[GaJoe]

Warning - contains vulgar language.

You Tube

You Tube