Thread: Climate Change and our Land of Fire, Flood and Drought.

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

........... For example, why aren't we making more batteries and metal products, rather than importing products made using our raw materials?
.....

There are a number of answers to this, and none of them really have much to do with climate change, although the fact that they exist is relevant that.

1. Australians are generally risk averse. In part this is because the tax and other financial systems (as well as cultural outlook) do not allow individuals or companies to garner a reward commensurate with the risk of an undertaking. A related effect is that these same systems do not allow for rewards for taking a long term view.

The result is that any investment into risky or long term outcomes is left to foreigners or, rarely, governments. One result is overseas takeovers of Australian businesses simply because they are worth more to overseas individuals and corporations. Australia has always depended on foreign capital.

2. With Australian capital not being available for long term or risky investments, these require foreign ownership. To convince these foreign investors to manufacture in Australia requires substantial subsidy or protection - the "natural advantages" of, for example, having plenty of iron ore and solar power mean do not overcome the high costs of Australian red tape and the risk that the government will change the rules, as was attempted with the resources tax (a classic case of denying reward for risk and long term planning).

3. Australians generally, faced with the examples of local car and electronics manufacturing, which rewarded heavy protection and subsidies with restricted range of outdated products, have shown little appetite for returning to this sort of society (which, if you look at the history, was built on the needs of two world wars, and then prolonged by vested interests).

4. Australian manufacturing generally is disadvantaged by lack of a substantial local market, distance from markets (plus cost of transport - manufactured goods cost a lot more to transport than bulk commodities), cost of red tape, poor communications, cost of power, reliability of water supply, cost of strikes etc.

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Lots of comments, but still nothing that disproves climate change.
It's interesting when people say they don't 'believe' in climate change. Climate change is not a religion so there's nothing to believe in. It's the denialists who are putting their beliefs in opposition to facts and science.

A suggestion if I may

Firstly, Let us all use correct terminology in the discussion.

Denial of Climate Change would be to suggest that the climate does not change - nobody believes this. Everyone accepts Ice Ages etc.

What the incorrectly named “climate change denialist”, in the context of this thread, is often saying is that they are in accepting of the “doom and gloom”, apocalyptic, representations being made.

Scientists question data constantly, it’s a requirement! So don’t bag people challenging data.

Secondly, Facts are only facts until other datasets emerge. Historic facts like:
- The Earth is flat
- The sun revolves around the Earth
- Witches are real
- Pluto was a planet
- Potatoes are bad for you

The above were all considered facts...

I can throw another one out there, and of the people I know, if I ask a heap of them this controversial question - “Is there a benevolent being?”
One group will say yes, it’s a fact! The other group will say no.


This thread will benefit in many ways from a paradigm shift. The discussion on how to achieve the following:

- Economic growth
- Increased environmental sustainability
- Climate adaptation
- Reduced emission strategies

And of course

- How to mitigate bush fire risk

Originally Posted by JDNSW

There are a number of answers to this, and none of them really have much to do with climate change, although the fact that they exist is relevant that.

1. Australians are generally risk averse. In part this is because the tax and other financial systems (as well as cultural outlook) do not allow individuals or companies to garner a reward commensurate with the risk of an undertaking. A related effect is that these same systems do not allow for rewards for taking a long term view.

The result is that any investment into risky or long term outcomes is left to foreigners or, rarely, governments. One result is overseas takeovers of Australian businesses simply because they are worth more to overseas individuals and corporations. Australia has always depended on foreign capital.

2. With Australian capital not being available for long term or risky investments, these require foreign ownership. To convince these foreign investors to manufacture in Australia requires substantial subsidy or protection - the "natural advantages" of, for example, having plenty of iron ore and solar power mean do not overcome the high costs of Australian red tape and the risk that the government will change the rules, as was attempted with the resources tax (a classic case of denying reward for risk and long term planning).

3. Australians generally, faced with the examples of local car and electronics manufacturing, which rewarded heavy protection and subsidies with restricted range of outdated products, have shown little appetite for returning to this sort of society (which, if you look at the history, was built on the needs of two world wars, and then prolonged by vested interests).

4. Australian manufacturing generally is disadvantaged by lack of a substantial local market, distance from markets (plus cost of transport - manufactured goods cost a lot more to transport than bulk commodities), cost of red tape, poor communications, cost of power, reliability of water supply, cost of strikes etc.

Not to mention Australia doesn't have access to political prisoners and other slave labour.

Originally Posted by Tombie

A suggestion if I may

Firstly, Let us all use correct terminology in the discussion.

Denial of Climate Change would be to suggest that the climate does not change - nobody believes this. Everyone accepts Ice Ages etc.

What the incorrectly named “climate change denialist”, in the context of this thread, is often saying is that they are in accepting of the “doom and gloom”, apocalyptic, representations being made.

Scientists question data constantly, it’s a requirement! So don’t bag people challenging data.

Secondly, Facts are only facts until other datasets emerge. Historic facts like:
- The Earth is flat
- The sun revolves around the Earth
- Witches are real
- Pluto was a planet
- Potatoes are bad for you

The above were all considered facts...

I can throw another one out there, and of the people I know, if I ask a heap of them this controversial question - “Is there a benevolent being?”
One group will say yes, it’s a fact! The other group will say no.


This thread will benefit in many ways from a paradigm shift. The discussion on how to achieve the following:

- Economic growth
- Increased environmental sustainability
- Climate adaptation
- Reduced emission strategies

And of course

- How to mitigate bush fire risk

Ha! The Irish might dispute the one about potatoes.

Denialists are denying that humans have a role in making climate change more extreme.

All of the positives you listed at the end, including economic growth, could be achieved by going renewable and limiting emissions. That would be the opposite of the current situation, when the economy is stagnating under the denialists. Renewables are stimulating the creation of many new jobs.

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Ha! The Irish might dispute the one about potatoes.

Denialists are denying that humans have a role in making climate change more extreme.

All of the positives you listed at the end, including economic growth, could be achieved by going renewable and limiting emissions. That would be the opposite of the current situation, when the economy is stagnating under the denialists. Renewables are stimulating the creation of many new jobs.

Citation please! Where and in what industry are all these new jobs?

Denialist thought isn’t the current issue; risk averse investors are the current issue.

That combined with the lack of investors looking to wear the significant risk to establish a manufacturing sector that no doubt will end up annihilated by other nations later on.

We can’t as a Nation even consider supporting our own businesses, our own industries or our own workers. Aulro members confirm that all the time with international purchases over domestic, slagging Aussie businesses trying to make no less of a living than any other Aussie.

Heck, we make steel - ours is world class, better than most of the world - and yet cheap import structurals etc are very popular. Recently I found out Stratco has stopped rolling its own gear as it’s cheaper to ship the coil to China and have it rolled etc.

Originally Posted by Tombie

Citation please! Where and in what industry are all these new jobs?

Denialist thought isn’t the current issue; risk averse investors are the current issue.

That combined with the lack of investors looking to wear the significant risk to establish a manufacturing sector that no doubt will end up annihilated by other nations later on.

We can’t as a Nation even consider supporting our own businesses, our own industries or our own workers. Aulro members confirm that all the time with international purchases over domestic, slagging Aussie businesses trying to make no less of a living than any other Aussie.

Heck, we make steel - ours is world class, better than most of the world - and yet cheap import structurals etc are very popular. Recently I found out Stratco has stopped rolling its own gear as it’s cheaper to ship the coil to China and have it rolled etc.

Don't go bringing facts to the table, you'll shatter the utopian, apocryphal economic fantasies.

Originally Posted by Tombie

Recently I found out Stratco has stopped rolling its own gear as it’s cheaper to ship the coil to China and have it rolled etc.

Seriously? Man. At least they are shipping real steel over to be worked. I hope that's what they are getting back.

When I was younger and slightly more stupid I imported a pallet load of copper tube from China as a trial. First copper I've ever found that was attracted to a magnet and rusted when I chucked some on the lawn under the sprinklers.

I now buy Kembla copper, along with Bluescope Aussie Steel I've always used. But yeah, I can see the "we can get it cheaper from over there" as I was one of those.

On the flip side, I sold the whole pallet of copper to the scrappie for about what I paid for it + shipping. So China can have their "copper tone" tube back. They might not buy our "recycling" anymore, but they still buy the shredded metals.

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

.....

Of course, that assumes Australia is still habitable by the end of this century, when the average temperature could be 4-5 degrees hotter, say around 35 degrees.
This bloke says it may not be habitable.

....

LOL!
If that bloke says it .. must be true!
Bet he has zero idea on Australian history for starters. And how most of this land has been habitable for 10's of thousands of years, with temperature probably higher than those expected too.

Also bet you don't know of the 'hottest inhabited place on earth, and the habitability(or lack thereof) of this place too tho?

80K population. average temps close to 35°C(that's average, not average highs!), lowest low was approx 22° every day is about 40°C highs(hence the high average of about 35°C).
Strangely tho, it's absolute top maximum has never exceeded 50°C .. about 49°C being it's highest recorded maximum.
400 ft below sea level makes it very hot, 80K population basically refutes lunatic propositions that hot places won't sustain life!

But it is your choice to believe every lunatic and their idiotic predictions and fallacies .. Seems as tho as long as someone with maximum ignorance of facts and data says something stupid .. is more believable than the actual facts and data!

Seriously .. you're much better off doing research for yourself .. ie. don't read these 'idiots guides to climate possibilities'.

I'll give you a hint .. read up on the hellish climate that the rift valley(ie. Africa) has endured for millennia, and how people just go on with their daily lives even tho they also endure 40-ish degree days every day of their lives.
Have a search for hottest place in Aus .. bet you it comes up with either Coober Pedy(recorded maximum for a day) .. or Marble Bar!
If you find the stats for Marble Bar .. makes for very interesting reading on how hot and how long the hottest recorded heatwave in the world unfolded.
(hint again... very likely that you will find that 35+ degree places are very much habitable. Maybe not quite so nice to live in, but habitable all the same)

And you want us to believe some rubbish that place are rendered uninhabitable if the average temps hit 30-ish degrees or so!

And you still don't get it! ..

No one(well at least me) .. is not trying to disprove climate change!. We get it .. it's a thing .. it's real, it's happening.
Hopefully at some point you will get it .. climate change is not the issue.
What's at issue are the idiotic claims being made!
Some folks believe that the change may not be purely human made ... I tend towards this myself too, but there is zero absolute proof one way or the other. There's evidence to support either arguments.

BUT .. what's annoying are the dire claims constantly made, and yet no one .. ever!!!! .. has shown any evidence that a warming globe has been detrimental to life(and/or civilisations).
And in fact all historical evidence has shown that life goes on as normal.
Yeah, changes need to be made .. as you'd expect.
But what's worse, and will no doubt create a dire situation would be climate change that shows lower sustained temperatures over a period. ie/ glaciation .. ice age. Once all that moisture(ie/ water) is locked up in glaciers .. we will most likely die of thirst and hunger as this leads to drying up of the climate(as well as the freezing over of much life).