As an Australian resident and now citizen for 20 years, I've been pretty angry since that last federal election. So many people here are still denying man-made global warming, and that includes our own government, which stood in the way of progress at COP25 [1].
Even now, in the midst of unprecedented heat, drought and fire that has gripped this continent for months, if not years, "friends" of mine regularly post the most ignorant climate denialist BS on FB.
So many people here are still denying man-made global warming
That isn't really true beyond the margins. Polls show that a large majority of Australians have accepted the science on climate collapse for two decades.
Australians know what's happening, but they believe their wealth can insulate them personally from the consequences while they watch dusky foreigners die. The last federal election contained an implied declaration of environmental war on the Pacific island nations, with the tradeoffs very clearly spelled out in the campaign.
Australia is a rogue nation of self-comforting nihilists, for whom Scott Morrison is a very natural leader.
Yes absolutely, of course. No-one can deny the outsized political significance of those margins along many dimensions (marginal rural constituencies, the Liberal/Nat/LNP right-wing factions, Alan Jones' grumpy gossiping old men, perpetually outraged about anything done by anyone under 60, the Murdoch press, etc).
I guess my point is that these extreme margins gain their power only because of the nihilism of the skittish 'moderate' Australian majority, which knows enough, and cares little about anything of significance.
I've recently been reading The Australian online, and any time there's a climate related article, there are literally 100s of comments almost all of which are rabid climate deniers. It's stomach churning to read.
No idea how representative of general population, but my gut-feeling is that it's a significant minority, e.g. 10-20%.
Yeah it's depressing, but have you not noticed a change or shift in tone at least in the media ? I'm hopeful this swings the focus back onto science and mitigation, and away from the economy. Every time our PM says "we must balance the environment with a healthy economy for all" I want to explode: what does that even MEAN. Economic activity is a function of human activity and humans need to like... breath?
I've been encouraged by some of the interviews and coverage with local government officials, they seem to be really shocked into a truth: I wish we could do better than a temporary 'concern' over the earth.
> The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW 2016, Begg 2007) has estimated that about 3000 deaths (equivalent to about 28,000 years of life lost) are attributable to urban air pollution in Australia each year (Figure ATM29). [0]
Ouch. That is bad. It does require a response. However it is close enough to normal that it wouldn't change any rational decisions about our energy mix. This crisis is small enough that we only need to respond to the threats directly, without winding in a decarbonisation scheme that doesn't actually do anything.
> ...without winding in a decarbonisation scheme that doesn't actually do anything
I take issue with this. Australia's contribution to GHG emissions does contribute to warming. Even if it's only 1.3% (greater if you take exports into account [0]) it has an effect.
Also, more than 20% of global emissions are emitted by countries with lower overall emissions than us [1]. If they all used our excuse [2], do you think that would be acceptable?
We also have among the highest per capita emissions in the world [3].
And I haven't even talked about historic cumulative emissions, which have to be taken into account for an equitable solution.
Australia is already suffering from the effects of a climate emergency, with conditions predicted to get orders of magnitude worse this century. We should be taking a lead in the decarbonisation effort so we can urge the rest of the world to do the same, for our sakes, as well as theirs.
Instead, our government sabotaged negotiations at COP25 [4], and is acting for the short-term benefit of a few fossil fuel miners, even to the point of wanting to make secondary boycotts illegal [5]. They are criminally negligent at best, and an absolute disgrace.
> Also, more than 20% of global emissions are emitted by countries with lower overall emissions than us [1]. If they all used our excuse [2], do you think that would be acceptable?
The compliment of 20% is 80%. Those countries could all drop their emissions to 0 and any problem from emissions would still be 80% there and so still be about as bad as it ever was. So yes everyone smaller than us can use the same excuse. What matters policy-wise is the leadership in China & the United States.
> We also have among the highest per capita emissions in the world [3].
Yeah. We don't have any nuclear plants. Puts us a bit behind the 8 ball. We should fix that up too and build some. Labor needs to be more vocal about supporting nuclear energy.
There is a link between counties that make heavy use of nuclear energy and countries that have low emissions and air free of coal dust.
> Australia is already suffering from the effects of a climate emergency, with conditions predicted to get orders of magnitude worse this century. We should be taking a lead in the decarbonisation effort so we can urge the rest of the world to do the same, for our sakes, as well as theirs.
Germany already did that, it didn't impress very many people; it looked expensive and didn't actually help their emissions much. We should restrict ourselves to trying things that are likely to work and actually address the issues we are facing, which decarbonisation does not. There isn't anyone here who can seriously argue that Australia decarbonising would have had any impact on these bushfires. If Australia were completely decarbonised and had stopped exporting coal they would still have happened.
A positive actions in anyone's book happens to be just waiting another decade until it becomes economic to build photovoltaic solar; according to the Finkel report.
Personal action (such as reducing your own CO2 emissions) is good but not enough. Collective action to put pressure on governments to regulate CO2 emissions is what's needed.
We already have the tech to reduce emissions to safe levels. What we lack is the political will to use it.
I wonder to what extent a lifetime of exposure to advertising contributes to our craving for stuff. The article claims an evolutionary psychological explanation: anyone know of any research to back that up? Our ancestors were nomadic, so acquiring a lot of stuff wouldn't have made sense, would it?
I wonder whether the super rich of the 17-century wanted to acquire stuff as much as we do. They would have had the means to buy a lot, but would not have been exposed to as much marketing as us. I concede there would have been a lot less stuff to buy then.
Surely the important distinction between the 'super-rich' and us mere mortals is that they can afford to acquire stuff that is inherently worth keeping to an extent?
Advertising pushes us not only towards buying 'stuff', but towards buying disposable items, items with high margins built in, etc. I've seen tons of furniture adverts, but never one for antique solid wood furniture, or even its' modern equivalent. Always disposable tat.
Even luxury adverts are generally advertising disposables such as cars.
The "collector" instinct certainly predates the 20th century. A lot of our museums are built around the personal collections of rich individuals amassed in the 19th century when antiquarianism became popular.
Interesting thought! However, I think in the case of the super rich of earlier times, the amassing of 'stuff' was a sign of material wealth. Hoarding fine linens, brilliant jewels, and the like would've served a different purpose.
I think a parallel between the "middle class" (in quotes as I am unsure that term makes much sense depending on the period) of a time gone by and our era makes more sense. For them, I'd say the issue of stockpiling stuff would've been less problematic. Perhaps a large supply of tools or other utilitarian objects, but beyond that nothing of excess. They didn't have Billy Mays back then to sell them "As Seen On TV" goods.
The reason I mentioned the super rich of the past, is that they had enough money to buy whatever was available. Most other people couldn't afford to buy much at all, I imagine.
So the question is, were the super rich then as acquisitive as we are today? Were there rooms in their mansions filled with pointless things? Or were they surprisingly spartan by the standards of today?
I'm trying to figure out whether our insatiable appetite for more and more stuff is a modern thing, or whether it's always been there. And if it is largely a modern thing, what caused it? Non-stop advertising?
Your point about amassing wealth in the form of jewels etc. is a good one.
Well, when you have a rococo interior, the house looks filled even when it's empty :)
I'm hardly an expert, but from what I've read about the 18th century, the idea of filling your house with bric-a-brac and bibelots was very common - though probably more among the bourgeoisie than the aristocrats.
An example:
Victorian interior design was characterized by three words: gaudy, ornate and formidable. Following fashion, private and public rooms were stuffed with objets d’art, bric-a-brac, heavy velvet drapery, tables, chairs, paneled walls, Oriental rugs, potted plants, gilded reproductions of Louis XVI furniture—intricately carved, fragile sofas and chairs—Chinese ivory figures, German porcelain vases, ormolu clocks, and miniatures lined the fireplace mantle, the mantle itself shaded by heavy, ornamental fire-shades, and all was overlooked by wall to wall portraits and priceless paintings, richly framed in gold.
I agree (about climate) and I don't think we can wait for peak oil to hit before we start making much deeper cuts in emissions.
Bill McKibben in Rolling Stone shows that proven fossil fuel reserves are around 5 times higher than we can burn to avoid a very dangerous climate change (beyond the 2C guardrail):
Even now, in the midst of unprecedented heat, drought and fire that has gripped this continent for months, if not years, "friends" of mine regularly post the most ignorant climate denialist BS on FB.
[1] https://reneweconomy.com.au/cop25-talks-labelled-lost-opport...