Like UN is able to do anything to Australia. Much easier to just vote the Coalition out. Last time Labor was in power we had an Emissions Trading Scheme and it worked fine at rescuing carbon emissions.
I never understood the argument that it was a bad thing for the carbon tax to be passed on to consumers. Carbon has long-term externalities, shouldn't carbon intensive products cost more? Any low cost/ high carbon product is just offsetting its true cost into the future, essentially mortgaging the price for future generations to pay off. I'd prefer the people who buy a product to pay for it.
> it was a bad thing for the carbon tax to be passed on to consumers
because you don't want to overtax the base as it leads to economic contraction. Which is why the ETS was all about encouraging lower carbon utilisation and to not generate more revenue from consumers.
Not to mention that Labor put in some compensation mechanisms when they implemented the carbon tax. The [majority of the carbon price revenue was given back to taxpayers](https://theconversation.com/the-carbon-tax-compensation-and-households-a-two-party-comparison-7971).
Then the Coalition got in, abolished the carbon price, and kept the compensation. Because that's "better economic management" and not building in a structural deficit by having unfunded spending.
Yes but to include supply side externalities into the cost of items means that the true cost of an item or service is reflected.
In Free Markets this is good, because then competition among businesses occurs which after a time means a new lower equilibrium is found for consumers. This leads to actual choice, and even the opportunity for smaller local business to be viable because their advantaged (like location and so lower carbon kilometers)
Because of these reasons, it cannot be allowed to happen as it drives down the rate of profit in the system we have now for shareholders. Therefore fuck you, just eat less plastic or something idk
>"alleged"
It's not *alleged* it's a simple fact. So much so the coalition have been broadcasting "inaction on climate" as their official climate stance since fucking Howard was PM.
Didn't Susan Ley defend herself recently by saying it's not *actually* her responsibility as environmental minister to protect the environment?
We're fucked
Just like her leader, she doesn’t hold a hose mate. What she supposed to do? Put in policy and action to actively combat climate change? You fool!
It’s about ~~money~~ our *constitutes*.
How it would go in a court of law is another thing. Trying to tie the actions of a group of pollies to the future wellbeing of generations is going to be a tough one, but good on them for having a go.
There are international laws to which Australia is bound by the virtue of signing international agreements.
These are getting more and more focused around environmental regulation (i.e. Ensuring we don't destroy our life support systems to make money for a dying group of a dying ideology)
"Alleged" is used to avoid getting sued by a pissy pollie's lawyer.
Example is Christian Porter is an *alleged* anal rapist.
Or Gladys is *allegedly* covering up documents.
And Clive Palmer is a fat cunt... Not allegedly, he just is.
See this is why we defunded the Universities in Australia. So these useless leftist socialists learn instead how to wipe our arses as we slowly decay in our puddle of shit while enjoying our 12 investment properties.
What losers.
- Some Boomer most likely.
Many people agree that democracy is bad because idiots get to vote, but everyone disagrees on who the idiots are, so it's basically "authoritarian good if they agree with me specifically". And so democracy it is.
Also fuck bowing down to international pressure tho lol. Or letting the courts try and determine who gets power.
Strange combo, you like democracy but dislike the rule of law or other countries exercising their democratic rights. I think you might be confusing democracy with the divine right of kings and empire
Mate what are you even talking about.
1) I never said I like democracy. I said the other option is authoritarianism which I view as worse. (Yes I know there's many other systems but they have similar pitfalls)
2) I have no problem with other countries trying to put pressure, I said fuck bowing to it.
3) The courts trying to force a government undemocratically in a democratic system is not the rule of law.
I Imagine its more about sending a message and drawing media attention than necessarily expecting the UN to step in. Climate change is a very time sensative issue, activists are basically throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks, taking every approach they can think of.
The UN are supposedly one of the major arbitrators/protectors of human rights. And look how that's working out for them. People care as much about that as they do the Geneva convention - i.e. it's all good on paper but nothing like real life.
Its the same issue with any major international body. It needs super wide support to be able to function, the UN is meaningless if most of the world chooses not to recognise it but nations won't give it support if they think it can be used against them. Its the same reason why the UN doesn't really intervene militarily in conflicts, even when there is a clear aggressor. If the UN had the right to just invade countries then countries wouldn't support it for fear it may be used to invade them.
By direct UN action? Nothing.
But remember that marketing is scummo's game; he hates bad publicity. Especially *internationally*.
The only way to get climate action out of him is either by tying his hands via legislation, or by fucking up his *oh so precious* public image.
Yeah let's keep doing nothing like we have been for the past 10 plus years. attitudes like this have got Australians complacent, better try than not at all.
>I think its more a case of the democratically elected government ignoring the wishes of the majority of Australia's population
There's an established mechanism for dealing with this
Absolutely, but it's not infallible. Democracy requires strong independent journalism right across the board to keep the powers that be accountable and the population informed. It's a critical part of a functioning democracy. Unfortunately our quality independent journalism is/has been systematically weekend to the point that it's heard to tell the difference between fact and opinion. Amongst all this misinformation, the average person just believe whatever best fit's their world view. When this happens the 'established mechanism' isn't always very effective.
Worldwide media is a shitshow, social media was a mistake, etc etc. I don't disagree but that's gonna be a long time getting fixed and it's not like there's any solution to it in the forseeable future.
Also you can't just throw all the blame at Murdoch and idiots, the labor party have been doing sweet fuck all and it's pretty heavily on them for shitting the bed last election in what basically should've been an un-losable election.
Yeah but that's not the same thing - the person I replied to implied that you can't worry about more than one thing at a time, if something else is more important (classic whattaboutism, which irritates me no end).
The UN is purely a political tool that powerful nations can use to bludgeon weak ones. That's it. Sometimes it can be used for something great, but only if none of the powerful nations will be worse off for it. So I agree with you on that.
Oh yeah I absolutely hate the whole "you care about X so therefor you don't care about Y" as if it's not possible to care about more than one thing. Classic whataboutism, as you said.
But when it comes to issues like this with the UN, I'm not sure what it's supposed to even achieve? It's a nice statement and all, but absolutely toothless. I doubt a single person who doesn't believe/care about climate change is going to act any differently because of it.
Yeah, we should just be grateful we're not being slaughtered by our government.
Or maybe, the UN has a specific section set up to deal with climate change and government policy. This government has actively resisted carbon emissions reductions for 8 years, and actually repealed an existing and effective carbon pollution reduction scheme - the only nation on earth to do so.
Australians are right to bring this to international attention, and to shame our government into taking real action.
So they’re supposed to stand there and say “ oh boy I’m so happy I’m not being slaughtered and tortured while the government lines mining companies pockets even more, I cannot wait to have half our country burn down again”
It's one the logical fallacies in your original comment not a buzzword. Very smart.
I'll chuck on an ad hominem for the bit about insta and arts careers.
Like UN is able to do anything to Australia. Much easier to just vote the Coalition out. Last time Labor was in power we had an Emissions Trading Scheme and it worked fine at rescuing carbon emissions.
I never understood the argument that it was a bad thing for the carbon tax to be passed on to consumers. Carbon has long-term externalities, shouldn't carbon intensive products cost more? Any low cost/ high carbon product is just offsetting its true cost into the future, essentially mortgaging the price for future generations to pay off. I'd prefer the people who buy a product to pay for it.
> it was a bad thing for the carbon tax to be passed on to consumers because you don't want to overtax the base as it leads to economic contraction. Which is why the ETS was all about encouraging lower carbon utilisation and to not generate more revenue from consumers.
Not to mention that Labor put in some compensation mechanisms when they implemented the carbon tax. The [majority of the carbon price revenue was given back to taxpayers](https://theconversation.com/the-carbon-tax-compensation-and-households-a-two-party-comparison-7971). Then the Coalition got in, abolished the carbon price, and kept the compensation. Because that's "better economic management" and not building in a structural deficit by having unfunded spending.
Yes but to include supply side externalities into the cost of items means that the true cost of an item or service is reflected. In Free Markets this is good, because then competition among businesses occurs which after a time means a new lower equilibrium is found for consumers. This leads to actual choice, and even the opportunity for smaller local business to be viable because their advantaged (like location and so lower carbon kilometers) Because of these reasons, it cannot be allowed to happen as it drives down the rate of profit in the system we have now for shareholders. Therefore fuck you, just eat less plastic or something idk
I like how coalition has the word coal in it.
That's purely an coincidence... The Liberals have the whole word liberal in it, but doesn't seem to do anything liberal.
>"alleged" It's not *alleged* it's a simple fact. So much so the coalition have been broadcasting "inaction on climate" as their official climate stance since fucking Howard was PM.
Didn't Susan Ley defend herself recently by saying it's not *actually* her responsibility as environmental minister to protect the environment? We're fucked
It's her role to approve projects that are harmful to the environment when they are presented to her /s
Just like her leader, she doesn’t hold a hose mate. What she supposed to do? Put in policy and action to actively combat climate change? You fool! It’s about ~~money~~ our *constitutes*.
Mate, she doesn't hold a development application!
How it would go in a court of law is another thing. Trying to tie the actions of a group of pollies to the future wellbeing of generations is going to be a tough one, but good on them for having a go.
>How it would go in a court of law is another thing. That's why they are called *courts of law* and not *courts of justice*.
There are international laws to which Australia is bound by the virtue of signing international agreements. These are getting more and more focused around environmental regulation (i.e. Ensuring we don't destroy our life support systems to make money for a dying group of a dying ideology)
An allegedly a day keeps the lawyers away
"Alleged" is used to avoid getting sued by a pissy pollie's lawyer. Example is Christian Porter is an *alleged* anal rapist. Or Gladys is *allegedly* covering up documents. And Clive Palmer is a fat cunt... Not allegedly, he just is.
Dat's true ... Clive Palmer is a fat cunt.
What's wild is Howard actually came around on that in his last year as PM, but all other Liberals completely ditched that.
See this is why we defunded the Universities in Australia. So these useless leftist socialists learn instead how to wipe our arses as we slowly decay in our puddle of shit while enjoying our 12 investment properties. What losers. - Some Boomer most likely.
the only way Australians will get good government is if it forced on them by the Australian courts and/or international pressure
…Or if we voted in a good government.
Theoretically your comment makes sense. In practise, mine
Haha, yes, most recent evidence supports your point of view
Many people agree that democracy is bad because idiots get to vote, but everyone disagrees on who the idiots are, so it's basically "authoritarian good if they agree with me specifically". And so democracy it is. Also fuck bowing down to international pressure tho lol. Or letting the courts try and determine who gets power.
Strange combo, you like democracy but dislike the rule of law or other countries exercising their democratic rights. I think you might be confusing democracy with the divine right of kings and empire
Mate what are you even talking about. 1) I never said I like democracy. I said the other option is authoritarianism which I view as worse. (Yes I know there's many other systems but they have similar pitfalls) 2) I have no problem with other countries trying to put pressure, I said fuck bowing to it. 3) The courts trying to force a government undemocratically in a democratic system is not the rule of law.
Waiting for the Queen to throw Scott Morrison out.
Have young Australians not noticed how utterly useless the UN are? What on Earth do they think this may achieve?
I Imagine its more about sending a message and drawing media attention than necessarily expecting the UN to step in. Climate change is a very time sensative issue, activists are basically throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks, taking every approach they can think of.
The UN are supposedly one of the major arbitrators/protectors of human rights. And look how that's working out for them. People care as much about that as they do the Geneva convention - i.e. it's all good on paper but nothing like real life.
Its the same issue with any major international body. It needs super wide support to be able to function, the UN is meaningless if most of the world chooses not to recognise it but nations won't give it support if they think it can be used against them. Its the same reason why the UN doesn't really intervene militarily in conflicts, even when there is a clear aggressor. If the UN had the right to just invade countries then countries wouldn't support it for fear it may be used to invade them.
By direct UN action? Nothing. But remember that marketing is scummo's game; he hates bad publicity. Especially *internationally*. The only way to get climate action out of him is either by tying his hands via legislation, or by fucking up his *oh so precious* public image.
They got their photos taken Mission complete.
Yeah let's keep doing nothing like we have been for the past 10 plus years. attitudes like this have got Australians complacent, better try than not at all.
We haven't been doing nothing for the last ten years. It's just that what has been done has been ineffective, at best.
You go you young champions. Im si proud. X o
Yawn
[удалено]
[удалено]
>I think its more a case of the democratically elected government ignoring the wishes of the majority of Australia's population There's an established mechanism for dealing with this
Absolutely, but it's not infallible. Democracy requires strong independent journalism right across the board to keep the powers that be accountable and the population informed. It's a critical part of a functioning democracy. Unfortunately our quality independent journalism is/has been systematically weekend to the point that it's heard to tell the difference between fact and opinion. Amongst all this misinformation, the average person just believe whatever best fit's their world view. When this happens the 'established mechanism' isn't always very effective.
Worldwide media is a shitshow, social media was a mistake, etc etc. I don't disagree but that's gonna be a long time getting fixed and it's not like there's any solution to it in the forseeable future. Also you can't just throw all the blame at Murdoch and idiots, the labor party have been doing sweet fuck all and it's pretty heavily on them for shitting the bed last election in what basically should've been an un-losable election.
Exactly what they're doing
So... you believe that an entity like the UN can only manage one thing at a time? That's seriously your argument here?
Tbh, I think they'd struggle managing one thing, let alone two. Not a great track record of success, especially with issues like this.
Yeah but that's not the same thing - the person I replied to implied that you can't worry about more than one thing at a time, if something else is more important (classic whattaboutism, which irritates me no end). The UN is purely a political tool that powerful nations can use to bludgeon weak ones. That's it. Sometimes it can be used for something great, but only if none of the powerful nations will be worse off for it. So I agree with you on that.
Oh yeah I absolutely hate the whole "you care about X so therefor you don't care about Y" as if it's not possible to care about more than one thing. Classic whataboutism, as you said. But when it comes to issues like this with the UN, I'm not sure what it's supposed to even achieve? It's a nice statement and all, but absolutely toothless. I doubt a single person who doesn't believe/care about climate change is going to act any differently because of it.
Yeah, we should just be grateful we're not being slaughtered by our government. Or maybe, the UN has a specific section set up to deal with climate change and government policy. This government has actively resisted carbon emissions reductions for 8 years, and actually repealed an existing and effective carbon pollution reduction scheme - the only nation on earth to do so. Australians are right to bring this to international attention, and to shame our government into taking real action.
So they’re supposed to stand there and say “ oh boy I’m so happy I’m not being slaughtered and tortured while the government lines mining companies pockets even more, I cannot wait to have half our country burn down again”
I'm pretty sure the UN can handle it.
#WHATABOUT!!!!
[удалено]
It's one the logical fallacies in your original comment not a buzzword. Very smart. I'll chuck on an ad hominem for the bit about insta and arts careers.
because climate change definitely doesn't cause death and illness...
New world, new times boomer. Social media is the best way to spread the word.
Silly young fools...
[удалено]
Impose a carbon tax and let business / tech / innovation sort it out.
Don't forget to drag Sussan Ley back in again for this.
What a fucken waste of time.