Australia Is Committing Climate Suicide | Hacker News Reader

Australia Is Committing Climate Suicide

nytimes.com

55 pointsfinancequoll34 comments

Unfortunately, the US and multiple other countries aren't too far behind. Climate-change denial is our generation's ignominy for the future - however long that might be.

Alternate link: https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/comment-australia-i...

Australia not committing suicide; we are already dead - that's why they call us the down-under; the grave of the world. Killed by our wanker leaders.

Speak for yourself, maybe you're dead, i'm not.

Australia knew the science and yet went ahead and kept electing conservatives who promised more coal, less taxes, less money for fire brigades and preventing fires, and to do nothing about climate change. They now experience the consequences of their choices. Hopefully next time they make better choices, like putting their current PM in jail for gross negligence and electing people who acknowledge the causes of this heartbreaking disaster and actually do something about it.

I don't hold much hope. This is the same country that elected the Liberals (the current government) on a policy of "stop the boats" and "the opposite of what the other party wants".

Murdoch's ownership of the media is extremely effective.

Murdoch newspapers in question.. caught not actually covering the fires.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/04/the-australian...

California, Brazil and Australia. I have lost my hope. Next summer, there will be more. Nothing can reverse the damages made by humans. The only way seems to be reducing population to a sustainable level.

The "there will be more" part happened last summer, but thanks to media propaganda/manipulation/disinfo[0] you didn't noticed it, your attention was on Evil Bolsonaro and the Hong kong protests.

[0] https://www.npr.org/2019/09/18/761591604/bolivia-is-fighting...

Forgive my ignorance but can someone explain how these kinds of fires usually start and why couldn't they stop them when they were small and easy to put away?

I think the main sources are lightning strikes, accidental human ignition and deliberate arson. A lot of people have been arrested for deliberate arson recently (https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/nsw-firefronts-uncon...).

I would guess a combination of winds and high fuel load means a small fire can become an uncontrollable roaring blaze very quickly. I guess also a lot of fires could be started in areas that are not easily accessible to fire fighters so it might not even be an option to stop them while they are small.

...and a fair few from the native Australian species, the Eucalyptus. Known to spontaneously combust and even spontaneously explode when spots of resin magnify sunlight. The leaves give off enough oils into the air that they can also spread a fire across a wide area through the tree tops. The plants and seeds are adapted to use fire as part of reproduction, and the seeds fire resistant. Just never normally on this scale.

While Australia has the wrong climate plan, Australia only contributes 1% of the CO2 produced in the world. So even if Australia went carbon free, it would still have the same problems--carbon dioxide circulates throughout the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_Au...

Worlds largest coal exporter, at near 40% of the world's coal, puts Australia as the third highest global export source of CO2. Behind only Saudi and Russia (oil and gas respectively).

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-08-19/australia-co2...

I'm not sure it's fair to count a country's fossil fuel exports to its CO2 contributions. Arguably Australia could increase the price of coal by stopping its coal production but the effect would just be that mines elsewhere would reopen or increase production to meet demand.

I'm not sure it's fair to give production and export a free pass in the accounting, as we do.

If coal prices increase it strengthens the case everywhere, for switching to alternative fuels. More solar, wind, hydro schemes will start, and some will replace coal with gas -- which although fossil is, at least, a step in the right direction. Of course mines may reopen, but if the world is ever to be serious about solving the problem that should be restricted, regulated or taxed by the nation with the reopening mines.

While Australia is insignificant on its own. Its per person contribution is far above average. And since slot of people want to live the developed lifestyle like that of Australia the problem is it offers the excuse to being scaled up in other aspiring countries.

Additionally Australia actively dismantles action amongst other countries. Your comment comes off as knowing the pond in the ocean of the problem. It also exports coal on a gigantic scale, read top of the world so other countries do her polluting.

Does that take into account the torpedoing of international climate agreements.

Does that contribution take into account their coal exports to other countries?

Any estimate the CO2 released by the current bushfire?

Which one? (There's hundreds)

Total. I was wondering what sort of Co2 it released and if this speed up Climate changes in measurable way, or is it a drop in the bucket.

Economic Suicide or Climate Suicide, those were the options.

People can call is climate claim denial all the want, but that is mostly down to them not understanding economics, and the economic realities

The climate issues can not be solved by banning things, taxing things, or regulating things. It can only be solved in the same way every other human problem has been solved. Innovation, we need to innovate our way out of the problem.

Looking to government solutions to the issue will always result in disappointment and no solution

Radium, Heroin and other patent snake oil medicines were solved by innovation not regulation?

How did we innovate around lead in petrol or pipes? Or the health consequences of smoking? Adulteration of food?

CFCs?

Seems like appropriate use of regulation, punitive taxation and banning has a long history of working well, despite your economic dogma.

You believe the Heron problem has been solved by government regulations? Or there are not Snake Oil product today sold with the complete approval of the government? And I am not sure what regulations your referring to around Radium...

The others are more of the same, some of it is misappropriation to how much the government actually impacted things vs normal market pressures, the government has the habit of coming in after society has already starting phasing out a product or practice then "regulating" the last few companies that have not changed yet as the pressure of the market leaders, it is form or protectionism to put competition out of business.

But continue to believe the government work for you, and not Large Multi National corporations. All evidence speaks to the contrary...

It has been solved in the sense of no longer being an OTC non addictive medicine suitable for baby. The war on drugs is an entirely unconnected issue.

No market pressures were affecting adulteration of food or tobacco until governments started acting. Post war the vast majority of adults smoked thanks to US marketing led campaigns to promote wider adoption, and their "torches of freedom" campaign to get adoption started among females. Nor was lead in any way declining, quite the contrary it was constantly increasing as car use spread. Asbestos was being used profligately until regulation came in. Thalidomide was outlawed in developed nations, yet those multi nationals quite happily sell it to the developing world, off script. There is no evidence for their being on the side of the public interest whatsoever, yet countless, endless examples of their working against, from disinformation campaigns on smoking, fire retardants, DDT, lead in fuel, Bhopal, enough to fill a book. Capitalism needs, absolutely needs constraining.

If governments today do not work for us, as they did in the fifties, sixties and seventies, it is because they have been mainly captured by the cult of neoliberalism and small laissez-faire hands of governance, and the libertarian think tanks and lobbyists, such that even the "left" is right leaning...

Julia Gillard implemented a carbon tax that actually had an effect on slowing down emissions. There was no 'economic suicide' Your statement doesn't make sense. The carbon tax was reverted using lies by the current ruling party. Economic suicide is what is happening to our collapsing planet right now. We can't eat money and our crazy policies are killing us all. What is the cost of that?

the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by 1.4 percent in the second year after the carbon tax implementation However, it also caused an increase in electricity costs for households and industry, which led to business closures and other economic hardships for businesses and citizens

It caused inflationary pressures of just under 1%, and cost the average household about $550 per year in additional costs

There were also reports of factory closures due to cost increases, with resulting job losses. One one company reported that they had to pay AUD8 million a year for the carbon tax and was forced to close as a result with all employees losing their jobs

But who needs an economy or jobs, right... the government will provide

Coal is a deprecated technology and needs to be phased out. It doesn't make economic (or any other) sense.

Economic progress cannot ignore the current disaster. Renewable energy creates jobs. We can print money out of thin air but we cannot print The Great Barrier Reef which creates thousands of jobs. Today we are destroying it.

Digging coal to put more money in the pockets of the elites is causing this (from the article):

>>Australia today is ground zero for the climate catastrophe. Its glorious Great Barrier Reef is dying, its world-heritage rain forests are burning, its giant kelp forests have largely vanished, numerous towns have run out of water or are about to, and now the vast continent is burning on a scale never before seen.

>>thousands driven onto beaches in a dull orange haze, crowded tableaux of people and animals almost medieval in their strange muteness

8 Million? Found three in the news Orica, Penrice Soda and Clives Nickel. I remembered hearing about a few in the news at the time and went looking for it.

Not sure if Orica is the one you meant. But if it is, the links really do tell a story about the kind of information presented in the media as an immediate and memorable headline, versus the backstory which plays out over a number of years.

TLDR: This company got more in rebatement that they spent, any actual losses were as a result of poor enviromental and safety practices, and they also got caught for some $30m for tax avoidance.

https://www.australianmining.com.au/news/orica-to-pay-8-mill...

https://www.afr.com/companies/financial-services/carbon-tax-...

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/orica-gains-from-past-as-...

https://www.orica.com/ArticleDocuments/301/2013_Full-Year-Re...

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/orica-announces-19...

https://www.smartcompany.com.au/finance/economy/orica-fined-...

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/orica-profits-hit-...

edit: Here are some links for Penrice Soda. Turnover $137m, claimed they had to pay $8m in carbon tax, actual bill was $1.9m, never paid. Closed their plant, went into administration a year or two after. Company was trading insolvent.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-18/penrice-soda-pulls-pi...

https://www.news.com.au/tablet/carbon-tax-hurts-say-ailing-f...

http://www.ferret.com.au/c/Ferret-www-ferret-com-au/Penrice-...

https://www.smh.com.au/business/penrice-soda-goes-into-admin...

https://www.smh.com.au/business/penrice-soda-traded-while-in...

Innovation is what brought us to this point. The techno-optimistic viewpoint such as yours is incredibly pessimistic. Rather than believe that humans can engage each other to create cultures that fix these problems, you fantasize about future magic that will remove the need for human input. New technology won’t fix the underlying problems.

- Jevon’s paradox. Much of our heavy use of energy is because of increasing energy efficiency

- population growth. We continue to increase the food supply to increase the already ridiculous population size.

- materialism. In the absence of a culture for many people to fit in, we demand toys, gadgets, international travel, non seasonal food, etc.

- relentless pursuit of economic growth at all costs. The belief that the only solution to the distribution problems in our capitalist economy is to grow.

So then you support either Genocide to reduce the population, or complete economic collapse to reduce materialism.

i.e the "Electric prices have to sky rocket to save the planet" which impacts the poorest families the most and will cause massive human suffering.

So you want suffering today to prevent the possibility of suffering in 100 years completely discounting any possibility of the technological solution

Sorry I can not get behind that, but if you believe in that so much why don't you start with your own life, stop using Computers, cars, electricity, Refrigeration, and every other modern life convenience.

Go to a pure 10,000 years ago life style, no medicine, no power, and only food you can find or grow with your own hands no machines, no modern fabric's.. nothing

That's a completely false dichotomy.

Electric prices could sky rocket when generated from fossil sources, and be left alone or get cheaper from neutral sources. Which one is the poor family going to sign up for?

If that doesn't go far enough, simply take the proceeds of the carbon tax or levy and use some of it to assist the poorest -- to insulate, to afford generation until the country has enough sustainable sources, or more generally just to rebalance the impact.

It is perfectly possible to have a developed, sustainable life. Perhaps without monthly flights, or the worst of consumer excess and unrepairable shite, but something we'd all recognise as a modern, comfortable, developed life. Government can help with public transport, regulations of fuel use, bike lanes and all the rest.

It's perfectly possible to educate and reduce birth rates, potentially globally without need of genocide, death squads or even one child policies. We have to do it at some point, or we'll end up with everyone packed in like sardines and nowhere left to grow food. Then there would be a mass die off... Far better to promote it as policy and aim for a sustainable amount, low enough that there's headroom for any unforeseen crises, and to keep a decent amount of wilderness, forest and wildlife that everyone enjoys for a holiday.

Bombing ourselves back to 10,000 years ago is pure hyperbole.

Genocide is mass murder. You seem to be saying that the normal process of people dying is a form of genocide. I disagree. We can reduce our birth rate to below the natural rate of death and start fixing the population problem. We do that naturally by reducing food production. Just take more land out of production, reduce the amount of water poured into deserts, reduce subsidies for quantity. There are lots of options.

Let me ask you this, is it humane to do things to increase a population to unsustainable sizes such that they collapse in famine? When for whatever reason, war, interruptions in trade, etc, thousands die of starvation? Why is that ok in your mind?

Did I say electric prices must skyrocket? If you don’t believe these problems can be fixed with gradual change, then you don’t truly believe in the techno utopia.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com