The Politics Thread 2014

[T_R]

Nobody doubts tr's ability to rationalise.

Or Shadow Boxer's ability to wander into an argument, pontificate awkwardly, declare that he hates the place and is leaving before wandering back in.

Beyond doubt.

[Dr Zaius]

My line of thinking is that no significant impact will occur until the major powers and most populated countries take action. We should be lobbying these countries for action. How can we lobby them if we take no action ourselves?

They.don't.care

I don't know how else I can put it. They don't care.

We can go and live in caves and not even light cooking fires, and they still won't care.

The idea that China will in any way respond to lobbying by Australia is just so outrageously laughable that I wouldn't know where to begin.

They.don't.care.

Oh I don't doubt it. Many terrible things happening in this world are sanctioned by people in power. Very few of them would care what Australia thinks, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't lobby them. Sometimes you have to choose between what is right and what is easy.

As you said in a previous post, I understand and respect your point of view. I just don't agree with it.

[T_R]

But Dr Z, you lose me on this one.

If we stand around huge pits of oil-soaked burning baby whales, they won't care what we say.
If we grow macrobiotic legumes in sunfilled daisy fields and spend out days dancing gaily, they won't care what we say.

Any action that we take will make no difference to our lobbying efforts.
Any action that we don't take will make no difference to our lobbying efforts.

Lobby, by all means. But the idea that China will in someway change their point of view as a result of the moral authority that Australia's climate change policy gives us is just out of this world naive.

But lobby away, by all means.

[Dr Zaius]

But Dr Z, you lose me on this one.

If we stand around huge pits of oil-soaked burning baby whales, they won't care what we say.
If we grow macrobiotic legumes in sunfilled daisy fields and spend out days dancing gaily, they won't care what we say.

Any action that we take will make no difference to our lobbying efforts.
Any action that we don't take will make no difference to our lobbying efforts.

Lobby, by all means. But the idea that China will in someway change their point of view as a result of the moral authority that Australia's climate change policy gives us is just out of this world naive.

But lobby away, by all means.

You seem to miss my point. I know that China won't give a rats what we say or do.

[Botman]

I can just see a smear campaign being mounted against her, trying to run her out

Anyone who has heard her speak would assume she is running her own smear campaign against herself.

[gangrenous]

Statement 1

...every time climate change is discussed, even without reference to specific courses of action discussed (as in this thread today before you joined and not even really after you joined...) you enter on the side against Australia acting in any way whatsoever against climate change.

Statement II

If you came in and said "look I completely agree we need to do something. I wish the world was doing something, but I don't think their actions are matching their words at the moment so Australia should hold steady on committing to too much action just yet and focus on the diplomacy aspect at the time being" then we don't have a problem.

I see.

Personally I struggled to see no conflict between "against Australia acting in any way" and advocating that "[Australia] need to do something" and Australia should "focus on the diplomacy aspect at the time being".

[T_R]

You seem to miss my point. I know that China won't give a rats what we say or do.

I was getting all worked up on this point:

How can we lobby them if we take no action ourselves?

Also,

[T_R]

Statement 1

...every time climate change is discussed, even without reference to specific courses of action discussed (as in this thread today before you joined and not even really after you joined...) you enter on the side against Australia acting in any way whatsoever against climate change.

Statement II

If you came in and said "look I completely agree we need to do something. I wish the world was doing something, but I don't think their actions are matching their words at the moment so Australia should hold steady on committing to too much action just yet and focus on the diplomacy aspect at the time being" then we don't have a problem.

I see.

Personally I struggled to see no conflict between "against Australia acting in any way" and advocating that "[Australia] need to do something" and Australia should "focus on the diplomacy aspect at the time being".

Australia not acting: No result
Australia focusing on diplomacy: No result

No conflict. They both achieve precisely the same outcome.

[gangrenous]

Except that the context was me talking about what you might write in the thread, in which case they are opposed.

[T_R]

Except that the context was me talking about what you might write in the thread, in which case they are opposed.

OK

[Professor]

We've been over this before T_R. We know if you had your way then no one would do anything because you like the appearance that boundaries of nations artificially restricts the problem to people who aren't you. Doesn't ever end in a solution to the problem though does it. But since you're better in the short term it is probably a great strategy right?

If we all reduce our emissions to the targets expected of us then we don't screw everything for those that follow. That is Australia's contribution to this noble fight.

So, in summary, we feel good but don't achieve anything?

Yep.

Come on, people, let's open the purse strings and let's all feel good together.

[gangrenous]

That's just not true Raider 85. Here is my post last time people went with this line of argument. What are your thoughts on this:

This idea that we are negligible is a mathematical oversight, because there are so many countries in the world, and because China sticks out like a sore thumb due to their huge population and India's poverty compared to the rest of the world. The fact is that if all the 'negligible' countries in the world with around 2% emissions or less (like Australia) dropped their emissions by 30% then it would have a greater impact on the environment than China dropping their emissions by 30%. Why? Because the cumulative effect of our many small contributions is a large one. If you say that countries like Australia are too small to make a difference, you are effectively wiping out around 40% of the world's capability for reducing emissions.

I'd like to hear what the naysayers think of these two scenarios:
1. Imagine there are 100 countries in the world, each with the exact same population and per capita emissions. To stop global warming requires 20% reduction in emissions worldwide. Are we screwed? Each country emits a smaller percentage than Australia! They're all negligible!

Now arbitrarily pick 30 countries at random and put them all under the same rule. They now on paper have 30 times the population and emissions. None of their behaviour changes. Does this change the problem? Why?

2. Imagine the problem isn't emissions, but food distribution. Say all countries emissions are equivalent to the amount of food they currently consume. Now we know for next year the worldwide food supply is going to be 80% of what it was. Is it right to say: "China, as the largest eaters of food, you're going to need to take the brunt of this. We know you eat less than us per capita, but look at all the food you eat as a population"? Then everyone in China gets their food cut to about 30% of what it was, while the rest of the world carries on business as usual. Given China ate less than us before, do you think that they will enjoy eating now 10% of what people get in Australia due to essentially arbitrary boundaries?

If you did a bit of a better job and took it from countries with food > 2% of the total then they all take about a 33% cut to their food, and still wouldn't at all be annoyed that almost half the world don't take a hit purely because they live in a country with less people... Or is the obvious best solution that everyone, even the 'negligible' countries tighten their belts and take a 20% hit to their food intake?

You think us cutting our emissions will cripple our economy? Well why are you asking China and other big countries to take on a bigger percentage of cripple to their economies because you think that you are negligible?

[Professor]

To be honest, mate, it's not really a discussion I'm intersted in having - the aggressiveness that comes from people from the left when discussing this topic is akin to those who preech religion.

[Botman]

So essentially what gangrenous is saying, is that if we completely change the situation, distort it so much that is no longer actually represents the reality of the situation at hand, distort so much that it barely retains links to the situation at hand, we'd be contributing enough to the problem that we would then be obligated to risk our economy by being a front runner in fixing it

I'm really pleased we've got to the bottom of this. Now just as soon as one of those fantasy situations gangrenous asked about becomes reality, we can all agree action must be taken by Australia to help lead the world response

[T_R]

So essentially what gangrenous is saying, is that if we completely change the situation, distort it so much that is no longer actually represents the reality of the situation at hand, distort so much that it barely retains links to the situation at hand, we'd be contributing enough to the problem that we would then be obligated to risk our economy by being a front runner in fixing it

I'm really pleased we've got to the bottom of this. Now just as soon as one of those fantasy situations gangrenous asked about becomes reality, we can all agree action must be taken by Australia to help lead the world response

Damn, Pigman got in first.

I was going to go with more of an 'Imagine this! Imagine that!' motif, but the end point would have been the same.

And it strikes me that Gangrenous never answered me - G, your house IS entirely off the grid, right? You drive an electric car, right? It would be nice to see some of that leadership you talk about. I know that those changes would come at some expense to you and make no difference to the world, but hey, it's all about symbolic leadership.

[Seiffert82]

I don't think anyone will ever win the debate regarding Australia's "emissions reduction" contribution to the global climate change solution. There are very valid points on either side.

I'd be taking that moot point out of the conversation and replacing it with the discussion about how Australia is going to lead the way in developing new technologies that enable the world's largest emitters to transition from a dependence on fossil fuels into an economy based on efficient and effective renewable energy sources.

Not only will the movement to renewable energy eventually change the need for the West to secure oil supplies in the Middle East through various "humanitarian" invasions, it might, just, you know, help our own economy move from something stuck in the 1950's into something that vaguely resembles the type country that we should be - a knowledge and skills based economy including high end manufacturing, supplemented by digging valuable **** out of the ground.

More investment in R and D, more jobs, less expenditure on national security, less pollution, better quality of life and by some miracle we might also as a consequence help the world save natural wonders such as the Great Barrier Reef.

[Botman]

I'd love to go out for dinner with Gangrenous.
We'd go out, he'd get a garden salad, and a chicken dish with some water, i'd get the scollops with truffles and caviar, then get the lobster and a bottle of bollinger to wash it all down. Bill comes in... "fair is fair, ol mate. You contributed to the meal, it's only fair we split the bill 50/50"

[Shadow Boxer]

The strawmen are flying thick and fast now.

I really can't believe people are suggesting we should sit around and do nothing because it's all too hard.

Is climate change real, of course
Are people largely to blame, of course
Will it impact our kids, of course
Should we help, of course
Will the world putting a price on carbon help, of course

The only problem was the appalling piece of public policy the greens and labour rolled out that valued carbon way to high and left 10% of the population footing the entire bill.

[Professor]

[T_R]

The strawmen are flying thick and fast now.

I really can't believe people are suggesting we should sit around and do nothing because it's all too hard.

Is climate change real, of course
Are people largely to blame, of course
Will it impact our kids, of course
Should we help, of course
Will the world putting a price on carbon help, of course

The only problem was the appalling piece of public policy the greens and labour rolled out that valued carbon way to high and left 10% of the population footing the entire bill.

Forcefully said, and I think mostly very reasonable.

But there's still those 'shoulds'. Assuming for a moment that the rest of the world lacks enlightenment and are resistant to pricing carbon, do you suggest that Australia goes it alone?

The public policy point is one I am glad has been taken up, by the way. No one has ever been able to explain to me why this great moral challenge applied only to high income earners.

[Shadow Boxer]

It was just a bizarre policy all round.

Electricity companies just passed on the cost and people with 5 or 10k lying around put some pretty useless panels on their roof.

One of my friends is making a fortune cleaning them for people though, it's done with metho apparently.

[gangrenous]

I'd love to go out for dinner with Gangrenous.
We'd go out, he'd get a garden salad, and a chicken dish with some water, i'd get the scollops with truffles and caviar, then get the lobster and a bottle of bollinger to wash it all down. Bill comes in... "fair is fair, ol mate. You contributed to the meal, it's only fair we split the bill 50/50"

I'd hate to go out to dinner with Pigman. We'd hit the restaurant with 8 of our friends, everyone has a reasonable meal but Pigman is loading up on the truffles and caviar again. Bill time comes and people turn to Pigman for his share, he yells "what are you talking about, you guys ran up 80% of that bill! I'm not paying a cent for your mess!"

[gangrenous]

So essentially what gangrenous is saying, is that if we completely change the situation, distort it so much that is no longer actually represents the reality of the situation at hand, distort so much that it barely retains links to the situation at hand, we'd be contributing enough to the problem that we would then be obligated to risk our economy by being a front runner in fixing it

I'm really pleased we've got to the bottom of this. Now just as soon as one of those fantasy situations gangrenous asked about becomes reality, we can all agree action must be taken by Australia to help lead the world response

Good old pigman all attack, no actual substance. What exactly is so far-fetched about my scenarios? They are not meant as an exact match, but as a comparable analogy. Precisely where is it so distorted pigman?

You're also being hypocritical given how off one of your analogies about climate change was earlier in this thread.

[gangrenous]

And it strikes me that Gangrenous never answered me - G, your house IS entirely off the grid, right? You drive an electric car, right? It would be nice to see some of that leadership you talk about. I know that those changes would come at some expense to you and make no difference to the world, but hey, it's all about symbolic leadership.

If there was agreement that 5% of everyone's salary went towards this next year, I would be happy to pay. I am not suggesting Australia cripple itself while everyone does nothing. We're deliberately fighting the solution, that's not ok.

[T_R]

And it strikes me that Gangrenous never answered me - G, your house IS entirely off the grid, right? You drive an electric car, right? It would be nice to see some of that leadership you talk about. I know that those changes would come at some expense to you and make no difference to the world, but hey, it's all about symbolic leadership.

If there was agreement that 5% of everyone's salary went towards this next year, I would be happy to pay. I am not suggesting Australia cripple itself while everyone does nothing. We're deliberately fighting the solution, that's not ok.

Wow, that's a nuanced approach!

So is your argument now that there's no point in going this alone, and we're better off waiting for others to lead.

You'll be received to know that I live almost entirely off the grid in regards electricity and water.

I just wish you shared my commitment to the environment

[gangrenous]

So is your argument now that there's no point in going this alone, and we're better off waiting for others to lead.

No my argument is we're better off all working on a solution together now. I can't change people's behaviour, the leaders of the world's countries can.

[T_R]

So commitment, but not willing to pay for it.

Pragmatic.

[gangrenous]

I just said I am willing to pay for it T_R. Try harder.

[Botman]

So essentially what gangrenous is saying, is that if we completely change the situation, distort it so much that is no longer actually represents the reality of the situation at hand, distort so much that it barely retains links to the situation at hand, we'd be contributing enough to the problem that we would then be obligated to risk our economy by being a front runner in fixing it

I'm really pleased we've got to the bottom of this. Now just as soon as one of those fantasy situations gangrenous asked about becomes reality, we can all agree action must be taken by Australia to help lead the world response

Good old pigman all attack, no actual substance. What exactly is so far-fetched about my scenarios? They are not meant as an exact match, but as a comparable analogy. Precisely where is it so distorted pigman?

You're also being hypocritical given how off one of your analogies about climate change was earlier in this thread.

Well in your first scenario you state that we should imagine there is 100 countries whom all have the same population, and in such a scenario we'd rank as the worst. A couple of small problems, there isn't 100 countries with the same population, across the world and there likely never will be. It's a pointless scenario that doesn't even remotely match the reality.

The second part of scenario number one is completely irrelevant because it's based of a scenario that is not only not reality, it's based off a scenario that is not in the realms of possibility


Scenario number two asks we think of this as food distribution, not carbon emissions, well let me cut you off right there. It isn't about food distribution, it IS about carbon emissions. People would naturally hold a different view on this if it was food distribution because it would be an entirely different problem. It's apples and oranges


As a general rule, if you have completely change the discussion in order to score points, if you have to come up with fanciful scenarios, what ifs and hypotheticals in order to make your point, it says you probably don't have a strong case to begin with

Instead of asking questions about what we should do in these alternate realities, let's just stick to actual reality, yeah?

[gangrenous]

Well in your first scenario you state that we should imagine there is 100 countries whom all have the same population, and in such a scenario we'd rank as the worst. A couple of small problems, there isn't 100 countries with the same population, across the world and there likely never will be. It's a pointless scenario that doesn't even remotely match the reality.

The second part of scenario number one is completely irrelevant because it's based of a scenario that is not only not reality, it's based off a scenario that is not in the realms of possibility


Scenario number two asks we think of this as food distribution, not carbon emissions, well let me cut you off right there. It isn't about food distribution, it IS about carbon emissions. People would naturally hold a different view on this if it was food distribution because it would be an entirely different problem. It's apples and oranges


As a general rule, if you have completely change the discussion in order to score points, if you have to come up with fanciful scenarios, what ifs and hypotheticals in order to make your point, it says you probably don't have a strong case to begin with

Instead of asking questions about what we should do in these alternate realities, let's just stick to actual reality, yeah?

Are you seriously refusing to acknowledge the reasoning value of my argument because there's not really 100 countries with the same population? And the second point where the scenario draws closer in line with reality is more fanciful?

I ask these questions because people make statements about how Australia's contributions are nothing, and we can do nothing to solve the problem. I think posing the problem in this fashion highlights the logical fallacy in a way that is easier to understand. Why don't you try walking through the answers to the posed questions and see how we go with your reasoning? I doubt it, far easier to stick to "reality" where you make claims which look good at the surface and call people names, but you don't actually have to think or analyse the problem.

[Botman]

Im saying deal in the reality of the situation, dont make up your own alternate realities because they better suit your argument.

[gangrenous]

Yeah, thought as much.

[Botman]

I ask these questions because people make statements about how Australia's contributions are nothing, and we can do nothing to solve the problem. I think posing the problem in this fashion highlights the logical fallacy in a way that is easier to understand. Why don't you try walking through the answers to the posed questions and see how we go with your reasoning? I doubt it, far easier to stick to "reality" where you make claims which look good at the surface and call people names, but you don't actually have to think or analyse the problem.

There is no real point walking through the answers because they are not the scenario we are dealing with. In posing the problem in the way you have, you have completely changed the situation in which we are dealing with and there for changed how we should respond. But what good does that do us?
The scenario you raise and our response bares absolutely no revelvance to the scenario we live in and our response. Of course our response should change if we were a major factor in this problem, but we arent. And no amount of hypotheticals will change that.

You say something like " far easier to stick to "reality"" as if this should be viewed as a bad thing. In problem solving, it's almost ALWAYS better to attempt the solve the problem you are given, not make a new one up and solve it instead. Trust me, i tried both in school! Solving the problem on the exam got me marks, making a new one up when i didnt have the answer and solving it didnt achieve anything.

If we were a major contributor to these problems, and my aunty had balls as per these alternate realities, both me and my new Uncle would probably agree that we need to be far more aggressive in our response as a country... but here's the kicker. My aunty doesnt have balls (least not that i know of) and we arent a major contributor, so it actually doesnt help us at all to know what we'd do in a situation that doesnt exist.

[gangrenous]

There is no real point walking through the answers because they are not the scenario we are dealing with. In posing the problem in the way you have, you have completely changed the situation in which we are dealing with and there for changed how we should respond. But what good does that do us?

The first scenario is an abstraction. The second scenario essentially brings China into play, I'm still considering the problem from the point of view of a 'small' emitter of similar percentage to Australia's contribution when other 'big' polluters exist. In what way exactly does this completely change the problem?

The scenario you raise and our response bares absolutely no revelvance to the scenario we live in and our response. Of course our response should change if we were a major factor in this problem, but we arent. And no amount of hypotheticals will change that.

I still doubt you can actually provide the specific way in which my scenario is actually inapplicable to the real world scenario.

You say something like " far easier to stick to "reality"" as if this should be viewed as a bad thing. In problem solving, it's almost ALWAYS better to attempt the solve the problem you are given, not make a new one up and solve it instead. Trust me, i tried both in school! Solving the problem on the exam got me marks, making a new one up when i didnt have the answer and solving it didnt achieve anything.

You're right, there's absolutely never any value in considering simpler versions of problems to aid reasoning in more complex problems.

If we were a major contributor to these problems, and my aunty had balls as per these alternate realities, both me and my new Uncle would probably agree that we need to be far more aggressive in our response as a country... but here's the kicker. My aunty doesnt have balls (least not that i know of) and we arent a major contributor, so it actually doesnt help us at all to know what we'd do in a situation that doesnt exist.

My whole point is that you don't have to be a 'major contributor' to be a valid part of the problem or solution. That's what you don't get.

[Botman]

The problem is again with the reality, the reality is no one is really saying we cant be PART of the problem or solution, we simply saying we give our PART of the problem is miniscule, our PART of the solution should mirror that, thus far the policies put forward by the left have not mirrored this, nor have the right btw, both are extremes at either end.

One basically does nothing or pays lip service to it, whilst the other is putting us a world leader on the matter, and by the way, to hell with the consequences to our economy and we're going to make the top teir foot the entire bill whilst letting the bottom teir earners (who by the way are probably the main contributors to our minor contribution) off scott free

And if those are the options given to me as a voter, i favour doing nothing over doing too much given no matter how much we do, unless the majors get on board we will have no impact on the problem what so ever