Top English environmentalist wants air travel rationed

[Soundguy]

Take Al Gore for example:

- he drives a hybrid car
- he buys energy for his home from renewable energy sources
- he has installed extensive energy saving measures in his home
- he buys carbon credits to offset his air travel

....... many more boring and laughable claims snipped.

1) He owns many cars & SUV's. One person with any ordinary car is always going to be 'greener' than Al-Gore.
2) He owns many homes, including one very large and very energy hungry one in Tennessee. So you can pollute as much as you like as long as you pay some villager somewhere a dollar to plant a bunch of trees? Right....
3) He fitted compact fluorescent lamps and a solar pool heater. Wow! He mansions still use more energy than whole villages elsewhere.
4) The 'carbon credits' he buys are purchased from his own company. He pays himself for them.

Flannery and Gore are the biggest eco-frauds and charlatans walking this planet, but there certainly are many other lesser ones also.

Hey, they made very good cash from this obviously fraudulent scam so good luck to them, I guess. Like them I'm gonna continue to crank out as much CO2 as I please. It's beneficial, after all.

 

[Platy]

....... many more boring and laughable claims snipped.

1) He owns many cars & SUV's. One person with any ordinary car is always going to be 'greener' than Al-Gore.
2) He owns many homes, including one very large and very energy hungry one in Tennessee. So you can pollute as much as you like as long as you pay some villager somewhere a dollar to plant a bunch of trees? Right....
3) He fitted compact fluorescent lamps and a solar pool heater. Wow! He mansions still use more energy than whole villages elsewhere.
4) The 'carbon credits' he buys are purchased from his own company. He pays himself for them.

Flannery and Gore are the biggest eco-frauds and charlatans walking this planet, but there certainly are many other lesser ones also.

Hey, they made very good cash from this obviously fraudulent scam so good luck to them, I guess. Like them I'm gonna continue to crank out as much CO2 as I please. It's beneficial, after all.

Yes, Soundguy, you are absolutely right. ALL of the science is wrong. It's ALL a scam. Masterly crafted by scientists and former pollies to feather their own nests. They are ALL to an individual thereby immoral lying folk deliberately invoking mass scientific fraud for a pay cheque. All the editors of all of the relevant scientific journals are in on it too.

I finally understand:

The folk representing industry on the Parliamentary Committees are somehow mysteriously in on the gambit.
MPs in various countries are curiously willing to risk electoral oblivion by subsuming to the great swindle.
Any environmentalist making money MUST be a charlatan by definition.
Every so-called expert can be re-branded a pseudo expert.
Any advocate can be found wanting through exposure of an inclement practice.
A lexicon of derogatory terms (eco fraud, charlatan, greenie) can be trotted out without any need for any supporting rationale.
Rich folk aren't entitled to take an environmental stand.
Paying carbon credits to offset air travel makes no difference when an environmentalist goes on an aircraft
If an environmentalist goes businesss or first class that dents their scientific credibility even further
Using a sustainable energy source makes no difference

Laughable indeed!

 

[dajop]

I'm not interested in debating here whether man-made climate change is or isn't occuring. However for a moment assume it is ... this whole idea of capping of airflights is interesting but grossly unfair. So someone can live 100km from work in a huge house with central heating and air conditioning ...commute daily in a 6 cylinder vehicle .... no problemo. Someone who lives a short walk from their workplace, in a 2br flat with energy saving lighting and no aircon has to restrict the number of flights they take........

 

[Platy]

I'm not interested in debating here whether man-made climate change is or isn't occuring. However for a moment assume it is ... this whole idea of capping of airflights is interesting but grossly unfair. So someone can live 100km from work in a huge house with central heating and air conditioning ...commute daily in a 6 cylinder vehicle .... no problemo. Someone who lives a short walk from their workplace, in a 2br flat with energy saving lighting and no aircon has to restrict the number of flights they take........

Indeed, and many would agree with you, Dajop!

Which is why, as mentioned in another post above, another idea being discussed in the UK is to have an individual carbon quota (with the provision to buy extra).

 

[simongr]

Sorry, I must disagree on this point. A country that does not have a head of state elected/appointed “in some way” by its people, has an entire house of parliament full of “lords” and cultivates privilege/influence using a class based social/cultural system can NOT by definition be considered democratic.

My 2c.

Some would argue that the lack of elected individuals in the upper house is a good thing as they are less tied to political decisions/motivations. What is better - to have an upper house that just does what it is told by the leader of its party or to have some independence?

I am personally shocked that a country so small in population as Australia wastes so much in resources by having so politicians (upper and lower house in each state AND a federal level AND local councils :shock with an associated infrastructure that could be better directed at providing services.

I am not sure how the British suffer or how our society is so much worse through not having an elected upper house. The actions of the government are much the same. Also in recent times the elected official in the Upper house derailed legislation to feather his own cause - one man deciding on whether the stimulus package is a good thing - how is that democratic?

I like the idea of a carbon quota but I fear that it will go the same way as most things like this - politically it will not be palatable to impact the broader population too much so it will end up being another tax on higher earners - Gordon Brown gets to be the good guy and vast majority of people wont be impacted by it...

 

[Platy]

Some would argue that the lack of elected individuals in the upper house is a good thing as they are less tied to political decisions/motivations. What is better - to have an upper house that just does what it is told by the leader of its party or to have some independence?

I am personally shocked that a country so small in population as Australia wastes so much in resources by having so politicians (upper and lower house in each state AND a federal level AND local councils :shock with an associated infrastructure that could be better directed at providing services.

I am not sure how the British suffer or how our society is so much worse through not having an elected upper house. The actions of the government are much the same. Also in recent times the elected official in the Upper house derailed legislation to feather his own cause - one man deciding on whether the stimulus package is a good thing - how is that democratic?

I like the idea of a carbon quota but I fear that it will go the same way as most things like this - politically it will not be palatable to impact the broader population too much so it will end up being another tax on higher earners - Gordon Brown gets to be the good guy and vast majority of people wont be impacted by it...

Whilst I generally agree with your points, simongr, I would respectfully observe that higher earners are likely to be higher consumers of carbon so would be paying their share absolutely fairly should carbon use be "taxed" assuming a user pays basis for carbon tax levy. There is no real inequity there, compared, say, to higher tax rates at higher incomes.

One doubts whether the senator to which you refer decided whether the stimulus package was good or bad, merely siezed upon an opportunity to promote his own agenda and thus his standing in the eyes of those that are attracted to him/his politics.

He only ended up with the balance of power because there was otherwise an even democratic split. IF the Coalition had wanted to, they could have voted with the Government or negotiated a more palatable compromise than Senator X and tossed X back to his rightful place as a wee minnow in a very big pond...

 

[coco50]

Originally posted by Platy

I seem to remember petrol being rationed during the oil crisis when I was a kid? Was that totalitarian or reasonable??? [/quote]

Petrol may have been rationed in the 1973 Oil Price Shock in the UK but not in Australia. The marketplace used price as a rationing device. Brits seem to have this thing about being a democracy when in reality many countries in the rest of the world have developed superior models where the people have greater choice. In the UK:

• the head of state gets there by birth
• the upper house is not popularly elected - how democratic is that?

I wish that Australia would become a republic and remove the whole country from the clutches of the royal family

 

[Platy]

I wish that Australia would become a republic and remove the whole country from the clutches of the royal family

Cool!

 

[simongr]

Firstly it would be great if you could answer the question as to exactly what isn't working in the British system that would indicate the need for more paid politicians (noting that Peer do receive allowances and payments for attending the house), more elections (and thus cost)?

Secondly, there is no requirement to in fact have an upper house under a democracy. All that is really required under a Democracy is that power is held directly or indirectly by citizens under a free electoral system. The people elect the MPs, whoever has the most MPs appoints the PM and the MPs can overturn any decision made by the Upper house - so the people hold the power. Just because that doesnt jibe with your narrow definition of a democracy doesnt make it not a democracy.

There are several varieties of democracy some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others. (borrowed from wikipedia as a simple source for these purposes)

• the head of state gets there by birth
• the upper house is not popularly elected - how democratic is that?

I wish that Australia would become a republic and remove the whole country from the clutches of the royal family

I just love these images. Makes me imagine the Queen sitting on a Throne in Buckingham Palace like Monty Burns "excellent..." Just exactly what tangible benefit are you going to get from holding elections for this Head of State? - who makes decisions then? the PM or the elected Head of State? If the head of State - why bother with the PM? What would you rather have a couple more doctors in Hospitals or an election for a figurehead?

 

[simongr]

Whilst I generally agree with your points, simongr, I would respectfully observe that higher earners are likely to be higher consumers of carbon so would be paying their share absolutely fairly should carbon use be "taxed" assuming a user pays basis for carbon tax levy. There is no real inequity there, compared, say, to higher tax rates at higher incomes.

Actually there is a difference. If it was user pays - i.e. $10 per tone of CO2 _ I would be happy. The more you consume - the more you pay - not a problem. I have a major issue with upscaling tax rates - I have never understood why someone on a higher income has to pay a higher rate of tax - I am happy with a higher absolute amount but have never agreed that simply because you earn more a great share of your income is taken from you.

 

[Platy]

Actually there is a difference. If it was user pays - i.e. $10 per tone of CO2 _ I would be happy. The more you consume - the more you pay - not a problem. I have a major issue with upscaling tax rates - I have never understood why someone on a higher income has to pay a higher rate of tax - I am happy with a higher absolute amount but have never agreed that simply because you earn more a great share of your income is taken from you.

That's exactly what I was trying to say.

 

[simongr]

That's exactly what I was trying to say.

Apologies - I misread your comment.

 

[comint]

Some would argue that the lack of elected individuals in the upper house is a good thing as they are less tied to political decisions/motivations.

Many argue the same about Benevolent Dictatorships or Constitutional Monarchies (if there is a difference). But these are quite simply not democratic principles.

But I do agree that different mechanisms should be in place to elect politicians in a bi-cameral system, ensuring maximum representation (not just territorial/constituency based representation). Countries like New Zealand and Germany present interesting alternates for uni-cameral parliaments.

I am personally shocked that a country so small in population as Australia wastes so much in resources by having so politicians (upper and lower house in each state AND a federal level AND local councils ) with an associated infrastructure that could be better directed at providing services.

Aside from a checks & balances argument, I don’t necessarily disagree (except that Qld is uni-cameral).

I am not sure how the British suffer or how our society is so much worse through not having an elected upper house.

In day to day life maybe they don’t. In fact they are “well kept” in terms of health, housing, education & other social safety nets. The lack of elected representation is a merely a self-determination issue. You either believe it’s a human right, or you don’t.

 

[Platy]

Apologies - I misread your comment.

No worries mate (it's good to be on the same page!)...

 

[Platy]

In day to day life maybe they don’t. In fact they are “well kept” in terms of health, housing, education & other social safety nets. The lack of elected representation is a merely a self-determination issue. You either believe it’s a human right, or you don’t.

And, arguably, Elizabeth Windsor is exceptional in taking the responsibility of her position with the utmost professionalism (a few unfortunate exceptions, such as reaction to Diana's death accepted). I say that as a republican (and nouveau Aussie)

 

[coco50]

I just love these images. Makes me imagine the Queen sitting on a Throne in Buckingham Palace like Monty Burns "excellent..." Just exactly what tangible benefit are you going to get from holding elections for this Head of State? - who makes decisions then? the PM or the elected Head of State? If the head of State - why bother with the PM? What would you rather have a couple more doctors in Hospitals or an election for a figurehead?

I think that Barack Obama is a bit more than a "figurehead" don't you? One hopes that our American cousins get tangible benefits from electing thweir president as head of state every four years. Our PM is not our head of state. Constitutionally, Queen Elizabeth is our Head of State. She is not even an Australian. She also happens to be head of state for a country whose foreign policy, economic policy and general political direction may be completely opposed to ours. (remember Churchill in WW2 - let the Japs have Australia. The war in Europe must be won first - and the Falklands War in 1982. The UK was at war with Argentina while Australia was not)

 

[simongr]

I think that Barack Obama is a bit more than a "figurehead" don't you? One hopes that our American cousins get tangible benefits from electing thweir president as head of state every four years. Our PM is not our head of state. Constitutionally, Queen Elizabeth is our Head of State.

Any chance [again] you could clarify what those tangible benefits are for me?

And [again] if you elect a President - is there any point electing a PM?

She is not even an Australian. She also happens to be head of state for a country whose foreign policy, economic policy and general political direction may be completely opposed to ours. (remember Churchill in WW2 - let the Japs have Australia. The war in Europe must be won first - and the Falklands War in 1982. The UK was at war with Argentina while Australia was not)

All fair points. Just one thing under the UK's system of government the Head of State does not actually influence foreign or economic policy. In relation to the Falklands War - was Australia actually opposed to the war?

 

[drron]

Found this interview with Finnair's VP for sustainable developement.A few interesting comments.And I found out where another of my sources gets his information!
elliott.org | “We cannot go on paving roads and laying rails forever”