VOTERS NETWORK ACTION FORUM
Latest Topics Chat
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
Greg

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 150
 #1 
Good to hear your views Paul. Agree with you on not rusting the media too much. I personally cannot see that pumping goal fumes into the air is beneficial to anyone and I  do see that there is a change. I have seen how easily one person can change what government does in Australia, so I reckon you don't need 25 million to change what the world does. FairGo and Voters Network know just how to change what governments do.We used to blame El Nino for droughts but now we find that the oceans around India and China are having the greatest impact . Seems to me that if we dig up coal here and send it to them to burn there, we may suffer more droughts here. What do others think? Don't be shy. We don't all have to agree, just listen patiently and tolerantly to what the other person has to say. That's how we learn.
0
Paul3

Registered:
Posts: 2
 #2 
The climate is changing, but before we swallow blindly all the media and the bias, so called scientific evidence, take the time to look at this please.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yze1YAz_LYM

Nothing a few 25 million people can do will change this !!!!!

Remember the year 2000 so called computer disaster we all were facing?

Another hoax

Please watch the video, its a bit long but very very interesting
0
Margaret

Hub Leader
Registered:
Posts: 15
 #3 
We have to unpick the actions required to reverse as best we can those factors that we can influence in a warming planet.
We can't do much with weather events except be ready and prewarned about them
We must change quite quickly to non-carbon fuels. This includes gas.
We have the ability to absorb carbon here. We hae boundless sun wind and waves.
We must be prepared to pay for connecting smaller solutions to each other on the grid.
King Island is self contained in energy needs. They make all they need themselves. We need to look at these successes and DO IT BIG TIME
0
Greg

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 150
 #4 
It is hotter and drier, but it is certainly not "climate change" for us to deal with.  Really???? What politicians need is simple solutions from voters that other voters will agree with.
0
Greg

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 150
 #5 
Climate change is well on the agenda. Now we have  chance to push it along and make it happen in the best way possible. Suggestions have been made as to how Australia could profit from the changes necessary so that is surely worth following up. If members are interested we could form a hub around climate change to make sure our governments cope with it in the best rather than the worst way.
0
Greg

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 150
 #6 
Did you see anything in the federal budget on this?
What do you draw from the NSW election and the incorporation of environment into planning?
0
Greg

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 150
 #7 
Therre is every chance you are right and that is part of the problem paul32. But I have certainly been convinced by scientists that we also contribute to the problem. It is like most things in that there are many different causes for any change. I guess we cannot do much about our orbit around the sun so we should attend to those things we can control, like pollution. I have no problems in being convinced that if we pump pollution into the atmosphere there will be adverse consequences. You make a good point. Thanks for your contribution which was news to me, but I am not in that field.
0
Paul3

Registered:
Posts: 2
 #8 
Has anyone thought that our orbit around the sun may be responsible for the so called global warming every one is so excited about?
Our orbit around the sun changes over several hundreds of years, hence the ice ages etc

NASA has some interesting things to say about this, but their theory's don't get those nice government grants scientists live on!!!!!!

Bring on the next test match
0
Greg

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 150
 #9 
Let's get all the views we can onto this forum. Then we can extract the solutions we have raised and vote on which ones we should turn into a political action campaign.
It seems to me that if we oppose coal on environmental grounds we should not export it. That means less jobs and less money to spend on foreign imports. Does that matter? With what might we replace the coal money?
Inland development is made for solar energy.
Power companies are starting to talk about not being able to cope with solar energy fed back into the grid. Does this mean that local networks of solar power would be a good idea so that we control a lot of our own power instead of some companies controlling it for us?
What do others think? We have solar for hot water and part of our other energy needs andit works well.
Maybe we need a govenment owned solar industry as I think we are grossly overcharged for our present energy, as private companies try to recover the excessive price the govenment charged on privatisation. Voters pay for such political mal-practice.
0
Bob1

Registered:
Posts: 2
 #10 
Australia is made for using solar energy. It is a shame we are so far behind in this.
0
Roger2

Hub Leader
Registered:
Posts: 21
 #11 
We need to be clear about the language of 'climate change'. There appear to be a number of objectives when determining what to do about carbon emissions, global warming and energy efficiency, future and cost.  Australia has had four Prime Ministers who have been unable to satisfy the majority of Australians in confirming action to reduce carbon emissions. The latest one focuses on reducing energy bills to appeal to voters. We should follow good examples of governments overseas who are more concerned than us and have clearly defined policies to protect the world environment and its inhabitants if we cannot get it right here in Australia. Droughts complicate the determination of maintaining a water use policy in our dry country at the same tme as reducing emissions from power generation, transport, motor vehicles and farm animals. There have been a number of world meetings including Kyoto, Copenhagen and Paris all achieving little but an agreement to do something.  Voters wanting action on 'climate change' really want action on emissions from using fossil fuels, anywhere in the world, not just Australia, This is compounded by the Australian determination to continue to extract and export coal for profit. The attitude seems to be, if not convinced of the science, that we have coal in the ground and should use it and export it so other countries can burn it. Most think this is better than adopting nuclear but expect that renewals especially using economical solar are logical in Australia.
0
Margaret

Hub Leader
Registered:
Posts: 15
 #12 
I have just been in Scotland who have jettisoned their coal power for hydro, solar and wind farms.
Come on Australia. Countries with less sunshine than us are showing us the way.

We need a reasoned step by step PLAN on how to get there and we need to call out the vested interests in old technology. We should not be exporting pollution to others. We should be offering alternative energy advice and incentives instead.

0
Greg

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 150
 #13 
I would have thought that a carefully planned strategy to change from dirty to clean energy in a way that did not increase costs for consumers would be a good idea. I don't think it is reasonable to wind down coal consumption here and export it instead to develoing nations. The global impact seems to me to be the same. Others probably know much more about it than I do. Solar has worked well for us. Why would we not require every new building constructed after 1 January 2019 to be solar powered? The government wanted to subsidise billionaire companies with big tax cuts so why would we not subsidise poor families with solar power?
0
Zelda2

Hub Leader
Registered:
Posts: 10
 #14 
http://www.lockthegate.org.au/time2choose
0
Zelda2

Hub Leader
Registered:
Posts: 10
 #15 
I used to complete energy saving surveys in factories like sanitarium and masterfoods, dairy farmers to name a few. It was interesting to prove to these huge manufacturers that they were wasteful in electricity water and gas. What deemed extra interesting was that for some investment which usually had a ROI period of 9 months to a year they could almost half their electricity usage and seriously reduce their carbon impact. The problem was they had no incentive to take out the time to do the changes and more or less decided to waste the electricity and pay a hefty bill and write it off against profits......
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.