-
As a reminder, this section is for civil discussions only. In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
Global Climate change will cost the world's economy US$6.9 Trillion.
- Thread starter SDNR
- Start date
It used to average about 27C.
Michael
Torque Titan
Well where I am apparently our weather is going to be worse this winter (colder) because of the change in overl currents of the ocean and wins. El Nino I think may be the one behind this or maybe El Nina. Our hurricane season was not as bad.
I don't think anyone can noticed substantial changes in their weather patterns. Take into consideration that we humans have so many other things on our mainds on a daily basis, weekly, monthly, and yearly, and we don't necessarily notice, "oh...its colder today than it was last year."
I don't think anyone can noticed substantial changes in their weather patterns. Take into consideration that we humans have so many other things on our mainds on a daily basis, weekly, monthly, and yearly, and we don't necessarily notice, "oh...its colder today than it was last year."
Germaniac
Tarmac Traveler
Re: Post by Germaniac
G'day
I think I was attempting to link the fact that in both scenarios (with the white australia policy and the current environmental debates) the same excuse is being used - "it will cost us jobs and harm industry". I drew the conclusion, based on the fact that immigration has done nothing if not benefit the Australian economy because with more people comes a greater need - that tight emission control, while in the short-term will surely affect jobs (as did mass immigration of cheap labour), will in the longer term create jobs due to the fact that the need for energy production will still be the same - it will just need to come from different (ie "green") sources, which will in turn inject investment into that industry.
I think the heart of the issue is your point "If US companies are forced to cut emissions, they will simply close down their operations in the US and move their facilities to China or other developing countries ". As I've said I'm no expert but this is my understanding of the situation - companies now require a great deal of energy (electricity, fuel etc) to operate and are basically solely reliant on fossil fuels to provide that energy (power the generators, work the machines etc). Now, your scenario is that once companies are forced to "clean up their act", they will not bother but instead ship their operations off sure to a less restricted country, costing both jobs and doing just as much harm to the environment. I just don't see this as a plausible reality, mainly because I'm under the impression companies can't just pack up and leave operations in countries like the US with they seem fit - they are inextrolibly linked or "tied down" in politics, unionism etc - think about all the trouble GM, for example, has had in recent years with laying off employees - imagine all manufacturing companies laying off all of their staff tomorrow - it just ain't gonna happen. Instead, I believe, companies will "swallow", forced or otherwise, the slightly higher cost of energy by buying it from green sources.. initially of course that energy will be significantly more expensive but as it is assimilated more and more it will become the new norm.
Rob said:I am familiar with the "white Australia policy" -- nothing like a bit of institutionalized racism.
But I hardly see how this issue relates to workers being displaced in the West by cheap labour in third-world countries.
G'day
I think I was attempting to link the fact that in both scenarios (with the white australia policy and the current environmental debates) the same excuse is being used - "it will cost us jobs and harm industry". I drew the conclusion, based on the fact that immigration has done nothing if not benefit the Australian economy because with more people comes a greater need - that tight emission control, while in the short-term will surely affect jobs (as did mass immigration of cheap labour), will in the longer term create jobs due to the fact that the need for energy production will still be the same - it will just need to come from different (ie "green") sources, which will in turn inject investment into that industry.
I think the heart of the issue is your point "If US companies are forced to cut emissions, they will simply close down their operations in the US and move their facilities to China or other developing countries ". As I've said I'm no expert but this is my understanding of the situation - companies now require a great deal of energy (electricity, fuel etc) to operate and are basically solely reliant on fossil fuels to provide that energy (power the generators, work the machines etc). Now, your scenario is that once companies are forced to "clean up their act", they will not bother but instead ship their operations off sure to a less restricted country, costing both jobs and doing just as much harm to the environment. I just don't see this as a plausible reality, mainly because I'm under the impression companies can't just pack up and leave operations in countries like the US with they seem fit - they are inextrolibly linked or "tied down" in politics, unionism etc - think about all the trouble GM, for example, has had in recent years with laying off employees - imagine all manufacturing companies laying off all of their staff tomorrow - it just ain't gonna happen. Instead, I believe, companies will "swallow", forced or otherwise, the slightly higher cost of energy by buying it from green sources.. initially of course that energy will be significantly more expensive but as it is assimilated more and more it will become the new norm.
Mr. M
Tire Trailblazer
Luwalira said:Maybe you whoudl tell your father to cancle your 4porte order and buy the new 4 door fiat instead.
Yeah I thought about it. I keep looking at fuel consumption figures for the QP and it's one of the highest around. But y'know, my dad isn't convinced that what he does by himself can make any difference in the world.
