Australia's Hottest Summer on Record...

[cimbom]

I think it would make a bigger difference if we all consumed less instead of trying to put blame on 5 Sri Lankan refugees for our problems.

It's not even about quality of life - most of these emissions are caused by things that are actually eroding our health and wellbeing. Having suburbs 40kms away from employment centres, having 3 cars per house and needing to get into a car and drive just to buy a loaf of bread. This is something that we want to protect?

Aussie kids today are going to live a shorter life than their parents for the first time in history because they live in poor quality neighbourhoods with no amenities, forcing them to sit in front of the TV or computer all day, making themselves fat and sick.

I know people who commute so much that they don't even have time to cook themselves dinner when they get home in the evening or have time to eat breakfast before they go to work. Certainly nothing to be proud of.

If these things were improved, we would have a much BETTER quality of life and lower greenhouse emissions to go with it. Wanting to kick out a couple of migrants for the sake of maintaining this sick and wasteful lifestyle seems absurd to say the least.

 

[The Fence]

Aussie kids today are going to live a shorter life than their parents for the first time in history because they live in poor quality neighbourhoods with no amenities, forcing them to sit in front of the TV or computer all day, making themselves fat and sick.

Who is forcing anyone to sit in front of the TV all day...?

There is a thing called outside and there is also a thing called playing outside.

Also, who is forcing people to eat rubbish food in front of the TV all day long..?

I cant believe and dont accept we are responsible for saving these people.
What about taking responsibility for ones self...?


I fear more fearmongering.

 

[Aaron_C]

I think it would make a bigger difference if we all consumed less instead of trying to put blame on 5 Sri Lankan refugees for our problems.

Yes but it's not 5 refugees. Try multiplying that by 10,000. Big difference.

 

[cimbom]

Well they're not "forced" in the sense of having a gun put to their head, but it's a bit difficult to play outside when you live in a suburb that doesn't have footpaths (which is becoming increasingly common), when their friends live a few kms drive away from them and/or when they live in a boring, isolated suburb with no amenities that doesn't really provide enticement for them to actually go outside. Why would you go outside when there's nothing and no one outside?

Let's not forget that kids generally don't think of these things independently but rather model the behaviour of their parents, who probably think the same thing.

 

[Dazz]

What about taking responsibility for ones self...?

This is the nub of it.

Just like the political spectrum.....you've got this whole spectrum of responsibility whereby you've got ;

1. People who wish to take responsibility for everyone, but wishing to impose their opinions to do it on everyone. These people despair at both groups 2 and 3.

2. People who wish to take responsibility for themselves only, and want the world to butt out of their affairs. These people think group 1 are nosey parkers and group 3 are slobs.

3. People who never take responsibility, not even for themselves and wish to blame 'the system' 'the Govt' or anyone for that matter, just as long as they teflon shoulder their own responsibilities. These people wanna sue you for everything you've got, and despise everyone else, all of group 1, all of group2 and everyone else in group 3.

 

[cimbom]

I'm not sure how responsibility is relevant? The point I am making is that a lot of these things are a hindrance on our wellbeing, not something we should be trying to protect. If you are going to debate, please debate this point because arguing responsibility or otherwise doesn't make the lifestyle better all of a sudden.

This is a property investment forum. Surely most of us have an understanding of what makes some suburbs more expensive and desirable than others? This is really the crux of the debate. In Australia, the "good" suburbs are very small in number. In other places in the world, these are "average" suburbs and everyone is happier and healthier for it.

 

[topcropper]

I think it would make a bigger difference if we all consumed less instead of trying to put blame on 5 Sri Lankan refugees for our problems. .

Who said anything about 5 Sri Lankans. We are letting in a couple of hundred thousand immigrants. Of course the ones that come from New Zealand or Great Britain or Europe or the US were already producing huge amounts of CO2 where they came from, so they are not really adding any more if they come here are they. But the ones from third world countries add enormously.

From the chart you posted, an Aussie creates 18 tonnes of CO2. Compared to a Sri Lankan, 0.6 tonnes. Times that by 100,000, and we are adding a few million tonnes of CO2 per year.

It does look fairly black and white to me.

It's not even about quality of life - most of these emissions are caused by things that are actually eroding our health and wellbeing. Having suburbs 40kms away from employment centres, having 3 cars per house and needing to get into a car and drive just to buy a loaf of bread. This is something that we want to protect?

Aussie kids today are going to live a shorter life than their parents for the first time in history because they live in poor quality neighbourhoods with no amenities, forcing them to sit in front of the TV or computer all day, making themselves fat and sick.

I know people who commute so much that they don't even have time to cook themselves dinner when they get home in the evening or have time to eat breakfast before they go to work. Certainly nothing to be proud of.

If these things were improved, we would have a much BETTER quality of life and lower greenhouse emissions to go with it. Wanting to kick out a couple of migrants for the sake of maintaining this sick and wasteful lifestyle seems absurd to say the least.

So you think we should cram everyone into units, close to the city? Dunno, but that's what I make out of what your saying here? That to me gives no quality of life, or not what I would call quality.

And who says children today will have shorter lives than their parents? First I've heard that one?

You live in Canberra right? Wow, that place is spread out. To me that is nice. Plenty of room for bicycle tracks, sporting fields, wide roads and parks and plenty of green space in between the suburbs. Why would you want packed in high rise units there? But that's what we are headed to with our population growth.


See ya's.

 

[Angel]

Now that it is after 5, I will comment about the latest Wikipedia link.

We have been told in Australia that we are one of the biggest polluters in the world based on our per capita outputs of CO2. As a consequence, we have to enter into a Carbon Trading Scheme.

Fallacy no1 - huge quantum leap of logic.

Fallacy no2 - How does a CTS or Ctax reduce pollution again?

Fallacy no3 - The data does not include deforestation which environmentalists argue is a polluter. I guess they didn't include volcanic matter either. If humans are blamed for all the earth's ills, surely we must be responsible for volcanic output too?

According to that chart, The Falklands emit more carbon per capita than we do but I don't hear anything in the press about them having to pay us anything?

Is this still the thread about global warming? You know, one thing about Qld not having Daylight Saving Time is that we get to enjoy two Happy Hours when socialising with our friends down south.

Cheers

 

[topcropper]

I don't think it will come to that since most reasonable Australians would support a reasonable level of immigration - not the catastrophe we have now supported by the rabid Lefties.

I used to think the population debate was a leftie verses rightie issue. It does seem to be that way on this forum. But the show on TV, "Dick Smiths population puzzle" two and a half years ago showed me that it can be a real bipartisan issue, with left and right views all being crossed over and mixed up.

I started a thread after the show on TV.

Here,...

http://somersoft.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64537


For the lefties who want to fill this great place up with people, It must really get on their conscience. They must know that the low population growth argument makes sense, but they can't bear to admit it. And the righties who want high population growth are just plain greedy. All they are thinking about is their wallets.


See ya's.

 

[Aaron_C]

For the lefties who want to fill this great place up with people, It must really get on their conscience. They must know that the low population growth argument makes sense, but they can't bear to admit it. And the righties who want high population growth are just plain greedy. All they are thinking about is their wallets.

Like I said, reasonable migration. This also includes the quality of the migration. We want people to come to this country who will work and not just remain supported on welfare - otherwise what's the point? Migrants to bring skills and wealth to the country, not dilute it.

 

[cimbom]

Who said anything about 5 Sri Lankans. We are letting in a couple of hundred thousand immigrants. Of course the ones that come from New Zealand or Great Britain or Europe or the US were already producing huge amounts of CO2 where they came from, so they are not really adding any more if they come here are they. But the ones from third world countries add enormously.

That's a creative interpretation I guess France, Switzerland, Croatia and all the other countries ranked much lower than us are not part of Europe.

So you think we should cram everyone into units, close to the city? Dunno, but that's what I make out of what your saying here? That to me gives no quality of life, or not what I would call quality.

Of course, how horrendous. Spending one month out of each year commuting is certainly much better.

And who says children today will have shorter lives than their parents? First I've heard that one?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/fat-killing-our-kids/story-e6frf7kx-1111115712960

An excellent article that explains my points really well: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/04/garden/as-suburbs-grow-so-do-waistlines.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

 

[BayView]

It's not just quantity but quality as well. That's the part that a lot of people don't like to hear.

From what I've seen based on other Countries I've visited, we enjoy a very nice amount of quality with a nice amount of not too much quantity in Aus.

Another 50 or 100 million won't improve it a whole lot more - more likely it would go backwards - if how the USA has become; to use it as our yardstick.

 

[BayView]

Yeah, we can be as bogan as we like after 5pm.

Hell no; have been known to quaff chardy's and nibble on cucumber sandwiches, but just as happy with a good old barbie and a Boag's.....gotta be flexible!

 

[BayView]

Ah - but I found this a brilliant doco from a reliable source. A real eye opener

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/how-many-people-can-live-on-planet-earth/

Very worrying if it's all true.

The thing that astounds me is; if we are on a march to overpopulating the planet, but the water is a finite resource - just redistributed around the globe via various events such as rainfall, droughts, irrigation and general useage by humans, and given all the news of floods etc each day in QLD at the moment (and last year); why are there steps not being taken to harness all this water that ultimately just runs out into the sea?

It's insane; the answer is right there flowing through their living rooms on a too-regular basis and nothing is being suggested - let alone planned and executed.

Here in my State of Victoria; the Gippsland Region is a rain magnet. There is an enormous amount of rainfall there all year long...just running into the ground or the sea mostly.

Yes, we can keep on constructing desal plants - with probable serious side-effects for the oceans, but an easier and far cheaper solution surely would be a series of dams, and/or pipelines from strategic catchment areas that redirect the water back to other areas (dams) in outer-reach locations which are useless and non-productive?

The short answer is conservation protests, and to a small degree; yes they probably should to keep the process in check. I'm all for conservation, but we have to save ourselves as well. This is always gunna come at the expense of other species as we have found. At least we (hopefully) have the knowledge from past experience to manage it more effectively.

But, the human race is not going away anytime soon, so to protest every dam is non-sensical just because a few frogs and other species will be affected. Sorry to say it, but it's just too bad. (I reckon more water would actually help the frogs and birds etc in the medium to longer term after the dams are made).

It's getting too late to continue on with all that guff; unless the protesters want to be the first to give up all their water as a sign of their faith to the cause....yeah, right.

The Gubbmint also has to get some backbone and not listen to these annoying minority groups any longer, and do what is needed for the longer term good of the Country's inhabitants.

 

[topcropper]

This is sort of directed at High Equity, but also, anyone can comment of course.


As a grain farmer, I'm considered a massive contributer to green house gases. I use probably 80,000 litres of diesel a year, 300 or 400 or so tonnes of fertilizer. Have about 1.5 million dollars worth of US made farm machinery. Last year these inputs were turned into 9,000 tonnes of grain, which was mostly fed directly to animals, both here and in Japan.

Grain is almost half carbon.

My farm until 30 years ago depleted soil carbon. We were not using fertilizer, and were simply taking the free and plentifull nutrients from the soil. This was the common practice of the district. But this stopped suddenly 30 years ago when we hit a fertility wall. Soil carbon got down to less than 1%. Originally it was about 2.5%, before agriculture.

So, we started using fertilizer, lots. Basically full replacement levels. Whats taken away gets replaced. Started zero tilling with herbicides instead of plowing. Yields and output go through the roof. This is also the norm throughout the district.

Soil carbon levels are now back above 2% and have stablised. Soil is back to full fertility. But we obviously have to continue using fertilizer, or the fertility would quickly deplete again.

So I know definately that I am not depleting soil carbon anymore.

So, if grain is almost 50% carbon, and I know I'm not depleting soil carbon, I should be safe to assume the carbon that leaves my farm as grain is coming from CO2 and photosynthesis?



So, I reckon I exported at least 4000 tonnes of carbon from my farm last year. [thats from 9000 tonnes of grain. Grain is almost 50% carbon].

I know it's not come from my soil. It must have come from the air?

CO2 is 12 parts carbon, 32 parts oxygen? Atomic weight 44?

If 4000 tonnes of grain left my farm, doesn't that mean I've taken 3.6 times 4000, equals over 14,000 tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere? [44 divided by 12 equals 3.66]



So I reckon I've taken 14,000 tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere.
Of course, this has to be balanced by what the natural pasture would have taken 250 years ago before it was farmed? The native grass is very unproductive. Almost everyone tries to get rid of it and replace with something introduced, if you want production.

Hard to work this figure out? But I'd think I'd take out far more CO2 that was taken out 250 years ago, but I've no way to prove this.



I know scientists completely disregard the carbon in the grain that leaves my farm, but I believe this is wrong. Scientists say it goes straight back into the atmosphere. So that's why I'm regarded as a massive CO2 contributer.

But the carbon in my grain doesn't all go back into the atmosphere. It gets eaten by animals [and some of that gets turned into methan, yes] but it also comes out the back as manure, or turned into bones and flesh, then eaten by humans, and turned into more bones and flesh. The manure gets composted and get put onto organic farms as organic fertilizer which builds soil carbon levels on organic farms. Basically, I'm saying that a lot of the carbon that leaves my farm gets locked up in animals and humans and soil, so it doesn't return to the atmosphere.



HE, what can you see wrong here with my assumptions and figures?

I've suggested to numerous soil scientists and department of Ag people that our carbon doesn't all go back into the atmosphere however they all stare back blankly. Some have said it's impossible to work out, and so it won't be worked out.

Lots about agricultures carbon use cannot be worked out, so, as we know, thats the main reason it was left out of a carbon tax.



See ya's.

 

[kathryn d]

And with less people here, the more food and energy and other commodities we can export overseas to the poor overpopulated masses.


See ya's.

In the animal world we constantly hear that during droughts or other natural occurances which reduce the food source, animals starve.
Culling or hunting is considered to be a humane way of balancing the numbers.

The animals will also naturally have less offspring during these tough times.

Obviously, we don't want to do that with humans.
Wars and disease will naturally lessen the numbers.
Countries that are poor and overpopulated need to reduce their numbers. Plain and simple.
Feeding them might seem like the humane thing to do, but all it does is add more misery.Maybe allowing nature to take its course, is the best way.

 

[Aaron_C]

Feeding them might seem like the humane thing to do, but all it does is add more misery.Maybe allowing nature to take its course, is the best way.

It is pretty obvious that the wealthier a country is, the less they grow in population. The answer is to make these impoverished nations wealthier. Of course that is easier said than done but it is far better than letting them die off the 'natural way'...

 

[cimbom]

Some more recommended reading:

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2011/05/your_commute_is_killing_you.single.html

http://ideas.repec.org/p/zur/iewwpx/151.html

 

[kathryn d]

Some more recommended reading:

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2011/05/your_commute_is_killing_you.single.html

http://ideas.repec.org/p/zur/iewwpx/151.html

I read the first one.
Commuting can be a pain..mine was generally 30 minutes each way...so not bad.

A friend of mine travels an hour each way (we used to be co-workers) to work. She wants to quit, because she says she is basically working to pay for vehicle/fuel to get her to work. Her husband tells her maybe in 3 years she can.(she will be 57 then)
She lives waaaaay out in the boonies.

I think if people would stop being so materialistic, and opt for the 'simpler' times..having a garden, chooks,fruit trees they would be a lot happier.
Taking a lower paying job and living closer, will give you the same result.

 

[BayView]

It is pretty obvious that the wealthier a country is, the less they grow in population. The answer is to make these impoverished nations wealthier.

Wouldn't it be better to educate them in ways to guard against pregnancy as a first step?