Would you use public transport more if you got some cash back for it?
Do you think that would help people use public transport more and as a result help reduce climate change or at least increase the awareness?
Question - Climate Change & Public Transport
mrjk05 on 13/09/2019 - 16:40
Poll Options
- 57Would love cash back or some reward
- 167I have to use public transport anyways, but getting something back would be great
- 30No it won't be affective
- 94Dont care
Comments
My train line wouldn't be able to cope with the increases you are imagining. Trains are full in both directions each day. So you would be asking the Government to probably double their fleet of trains and buses and take in less to try and pay for it?
Let's all correct a surgeon's understanding of a procedure that they're experienced in based on what we think is right. Just because, you know, we've heard that's right from Google or our limited knowledge. The surgeon will roll his eyes and say "good on ya".
Here on this forum, I'm assuming none of us, including the politicians who pass legislature, are scientists who study weather patterns or climate science… Yet we're all experts on this.
Maybe listen to the experts.
shakes head
…a surgeon's understanding…
A surgeon has exposure to procedures not available to anyone else. If you somehow manage to have access to perform surgery and your arguments have merit, by all means.
Weather data especially historical data, the ones that you're referring to, are freely accessible to anyone. A certification doesn't make a correlation into science, after all, chiropractors have an officially recognized degree.
Some professions rely solely on arguments from authority. If no amount of considered rebuttals and cited facts (or lack thereof) carries equal weight to someone with a degree, I pity your world view.
You may want to do some more research into how correct the "97% of scientists" claim actually is, instead if blindly believing it because it is parroted so often. Hell, look at some ice core samples of long term historic global temps.
Also, the surgeon isn't trying to make money from fear mongering, they are just trying to stop you dying of a burst appendix, or cancer. Look at our old mate Al Gore, how many millions has he made off this joke, all while flying around the world belching out more emmisions than 1000 of us normal plebs, in his private jet.
Al Gore being a jackass doesn't exactly negate the validity of climate science. Besides, if you want to see who is profiting the most from climate science acceptance or denial, then you might want to turn your attention to the fossil fuel industry.
They all do the same thing, "do as I say, not as I do". Who profits the most isn't the point, the people pushing the "climate change" agenda are profiting from it.
Do your remember y2k? I said the same thing about that then, as I'm saying about this now.
@brendanm: But you're only choosing to criticise the profiteers of climate change acceptance (like Gore) instead of the other side (like oil companies). So if you're using the profit argument, use it for both sides or don't use it at all.
@kahn: Fossil fuels have always made money, they aren't making money from scare mongering, they are selling a product. That's why I compare it to y2k, same scare mongering, same profiting from said scare mongering. I have no problem with people making profit, I have problems with hypocrites like Gore, and making money from lying to people about something with extremely poor science behind it
There is money to be made on both sides. Solar cells, lithium, cobalt and coal vs petroleum.
@whooah1979: Agreed, so I would argue that we instead
1) weigh the science for/against
2) analyse the effect of action/inactionSome people have found it useful to use the analogy of accepting/dismissing medical science when debating this issue. Basically, replacing climate science with some other science and seeing if we'd use the same line of argument or discovering a personal bias.
@kahn: Correlation is not causation, there is no proper science to show that humans are contributor significantly to "climate change" (previously global warming).
@brendanm: A lot of scientific study is based on correlation. We discover that A causes B through observation and try to figure out why. In many cases, we create hypotheses based on existing knowledge or best guesses. There can be varied levels of confidence depending on many factors. In the case of climate change, there has been strong/very strong levels of confidence in anthropogenic climate change for decades. Probably more confidence than a lot of other sciences that you may choose to believe.
It is much more likely that people like you reject anthropogenic climate change for reasons other than science. There's usually some emotional or religious factor behind it when someone doesn't believe what almost all the climate science studies report.
@kahn: I'm not religious. I have no reason to be emotional. It is not possible to do a proper scientific study on the possibility that climate change is man-made or man-accelerated, as we don't have the proper data from before the industrial revolution.
I simply think it is being used for the gain of some, as things have been before.
@brendanm: You can have that opinion, but I hope you are aware that almost all climate scientists would disagree with you.
On the positive side, it's good that you're skeptical of claims made for profit motives. I would simply suggest you apply that attitude to things other than climate change :-)
@kahn: I apply it to everything. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I applied it when everyone was whining about y2k and how it was going to be catastrophic, and I was correct.
Climate scientists don't get research grants if their research doesn't agree with what the people giving the grants want. Also as above, I haven't denied that the climate is changing, simply how much affect we are having on it, and the way that we are going about tackling it.
Strangely enough, no one wants to reduce consumption and population, increase forested areas etc. We should still increase population (more worker bees, lower wages, more fighting for jobs, more people to consume products), still consume as much as we do (just different things),
Instead of having strict limits on carbon output, have "carbon credits" that make people money, and if you want to pollute more, just buy more.
More coal fired power stations instead of focussing on renewables or nuclear. Massive focus on shifting the blame to the everyday person (extremely strict emissions controls on private vehicles etc), while huge shipping lines burn bunker oil with no emissions controls.
/Rant
Climate scientists don't get research grants if their research doesn't agree with what the people giving the grants want.
Don't be an idiot, of course they do. What you are describing is paying for a research outcome. That is not a research grant.
Strangely enough, no one wants to reduce consumption and population, increase forested areas etc
So people are buying led globes because they don't want to reduce consumption?
People are buying electric cars because they don't want to stop pollution?
Countries are planting trees because they don't want to increase forested areas?
http://www.agriculture.gov.au/forestry/publications/growing-…
https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/07/31/ethiopia-bids-p…Instead of having strict limits on carbon output, have "carbon credits" that make people money, and if you want to pollute more, just buy more.
What does that solve?
Letting BP pay a trillion dollars to not fix the deep water horizon oil platform doesn't help the ocean.More coal fired power stations instead of focussing on renewables or nuclear.
So more pollution is better?
@spaceflight: Wow you really struggle with comprehension. I am saying the carbon credit system is dumb for precisely the reason you describe.
More pollution is better
Far out, learn to read. More coal fired is what is happening, not what is better. Where in this thread or any others have I said coal is good? I actively say that coal is bad. Just because someone doesn't believe in the level of man made climate change that is being spruiked, doesn't mean they think everyone should go crazy with pollution.
Are you honestly ESL? Need to know if I should just give up replying, it's getting very tiresome.
Wow you really struggle with comprehension
I am comprehending what you are typing.
If you are unable to type what you want to say then don't get upset when people take a different meaning.Look at what you said.
Instead of having strict limits on carbon output, have "carbon credits" that make people money, and if you want to pollute more, just buy more.
That does not say "carbon credit system is dumb". That says don't limit carbon, have carbon credits to pay more to pollute more.
Nothing there says the carbon credit system is dumb.Far out, learn to read. More coal fired is what is happening, not what is better.
I can read. You need to learn to write.
Need to know if I should just give up replying
Reply but learn to write what you want to say.
@spaceflight: Ok, others don't seem to have an issue, the common link with the problem, and my posts, is you. I'm typing on a phone so sometimes autocorrect or this stupid swiping thing deletes a word, most people can put it together when they think about it.
You are welcome to believe whatever is rammed down your throat, that's your prerogative.
I'm typing on a phone so sometimes autocorrect or this stupid swiping thing deletes a word
So am I but I don't have a problem typing what I want to say so it can be understood.
No autocorrect or swiping thing can change the complete meaning or lack of meaning that some of your comments have. I think you are just not describing what you want to say very well, it probably makes sense to you because you know what you want to say.
Instead of having strict limits on carbon output, have "carbon credits" that make people money, and if you want to pollute more, just buy more.
Which is what you said.
To
Instead of having strict limits on carbon output we now have have "carbon credits" that allow people to pay money to pollute more. That doesn't help reduce carbon output.
Which is what I think you wanted to say.
@brendanm: I only figured it out or after you attacked my ability to comprehend and then corrected yourself to say
"I am saying the carbon credit system is dumb"
If you didn't correct yourself it would still seem like you wanted to say what you typed.
@spaceflight: If you read it with everything else I have stated, you can tell I think the whole thing is stupid, and no one actually does anything that will have a worthwhile effect on worldwide pollution.
Between 2000 and 2012, 2.3 million square kilometres (890,000 sq mi) of forests around the world were cut down.[10] As a result of deforestation, only 6.2 million square kilometres (2.4 million square miles) remain of the original 16 million square kilometres (6 million square miles) of tropical rainforest that formerly covered the Earth.[10] An area the size of a football pitch is cleared from the Amazon rainforest every minute, with 136 million acres (55 million hectares) of rainforest cleared for animal agriculture overall.[11]
More than 3.6 million hectares of virgin tropical forest was lost in 2018.[12]
Hurray! Let's get the population even larger so we have to cut down even more forest!
@brendanm: Ok so let's say we aren't the cause of climate change. So we should just keep on polluting with no real care to want to try and cut down or minimise it? I really don't see how denying climate change could be a positive. Either true or false cutting emissions is a positive. If it's false then we only got wrong the cause of the change in climate and it's another factor we haven't seen yet.
So what exactly are people that deny climate change for? That the science is incorrect or that we don't affect the environment?
@Cletus vandamme: Should read my other posts. I don't agree with polluting like crazy, I simply think that it's being overstated to make people money. There are much more effective things to do, that no one wants to do.
I applied it when everyone was whining about y2k and how it was going to be catastrophic, and I was correct.
Strange to use this for your argument, wasn't Y2K the non-catastrophe because we saw it coming, took steps to see what needed to be done, and people fixed their problems locally, which together helped us get through relatively unscathed? I for one know that had we not fixed legacy code we'd have had a heap of problems that E managed to avoid by fixing things when we had time to plan and do it properly.
Isn't that analogous to everyone taking steps to address climate change in whatever ways they can locally to lessen the impact globally?
It's amazing how governments commission expert reviews into things and then do nothing with their recommendations because they and the public emotionally reject it. Mystifying.
Public transport is already taxpayer subsidised. I don't want to sit in a small space with a bunch of weirdos, to take a thing that's likely not on time, to a place that I don't want to go to, where I then have to take another form of public transport to actually get close to my destination.
Also there are much bigger fish to fry in relation to "climate change". Even if we assume that "climate change" is manmade, personal transport makes up a tiny fraction of global emmisions, and you taking the bus to work is going to make no difference.
and you taking the bus to work is going to make no difference.
And if everyone had that attitude nothing would ever change.
A lot of small things equal something big
In this case, they actually don't. Transport in total is about 15% of global man made emissions emmisions. This is ignoring the massive amounts of natural CO2 emissions. Passenger vehicles are a small part of this. Ev vehicles still have to get power from coal in Australia, so the effect is even less.
Surely ocean liners and cargo ships running fuel barely better than crude oil with no emissions controls must have you fuming. 16 tonnes of bunker fuel consumed per hour.
In this case, they actually don't. Transport in total is about 15% of global man made emissions emmisions
So if a lot of people made a small change and that reduced transport emissions to 10% that isn't worth doing?
Ev vehicles still have to get power from coal in Australia, so the effect is even less.
A coal powered ev still makes less pollution than an average petrol car.
Surely ocean liners and cargo ships running fuel barely better than crude oil with no emissions controls must have you fuming. 16 tonnes of bunker fuel consumed per hour.
Unlike coal power plants, petrol engines and other forms of pollution there is no real viable alternative to ocean liners yet.
However in terms of tones of cargo transported ocean liners are less polluting than planes or cars.
Cargo ships are responsible for around 3% of all global CO2 emissions.
Cargo ships do have emission controls, and next year they are getting even tighter.
Starting January 1, 2020, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) will require that all fuels used in ships contain no more than 0.5 percent sulfur. The cap is a significant reduction from the existing sulfur limit of 3.5 percent and is well below the industry average of 2.7 percent sulfur content. Public health experts estimate that once the 2020 sulfur cap takes effect, it would prevent roughly 150,000 premature deaths and 7.6 million childhood asthma cases globally each year.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/at-last-the-shipping-industry…@spaceflight: Yes, because CO2 is the only pollutant worth worrying about from burning bunker fuel…
Shipping fuel contains sulphur concentrations more than 3,500 times greater than the diesel that triggered the emissions testing scandal at carmaker Volkswagen.
None of the things you propose is going to stop climate change.
Edit -
In response to your edit, you honestly think the Chinese etc are going to follow these rules?
None of the things you propose is going to stop climate change.
So reducing pollution won't do anything?
you honestly think the Chinese etc are going to follow these rules?
They will if they want to dock at international ports.
so reducing pollution won't do anything
Sure it will, just nowhere near as much as other things. I never said it won't do anything, I said it is minimal compared to a lot of other approaches. Swapping all of Australia's coal fired power to renewables or nuclear would make a much bigger difference.
They will if they want to dock at international ports.
They probably won't lie or fudge things, as they have no history of that.
Too much AOC
PT every time shock went people drive from Gold coast to brisbane CBD for work yell at them park and ride spent 90min enjoy reading and podcast well train quickly take you work know i get donot work near a station it not as good but still why people job run bus to station over more car in parking lot
The state government killed off a lot of my buses, so now I drive as often as possible.
Buses are money pits. A handful of passengers on buses that may take ~70 passengers.
As a public service they are not supposed to make a profit though
That is probably why they’ve cut your routes.
So having a handful of people on a vehicle the size of a bus is smart from a pollution standpoint?
@brendanm: Well, we have a hardcore Greens(!!!) local council member fighting to restore the buses. That reflects how badly public services are needed. It is not cool not being able to get home from the city after 9pm daily including Saturday.
@Fobsessive: I have no issue with public transport, or the taxpayer funding of it. It is ridiculous to have buses going around with a few people on them, or as is common to see around here "not in service", while spewing out the emissions they are supposed to be helping with.
Public transport is rubbish in most od Australia, people don't use it for this reason.
queensland public servants can salary sacrifice bus travel to and from work. #winning
Instead of costing $100 a week to catch a congested nightmare, as well as trying to find parking at the station, you only have to pay $80. #notwinning
Don't need stations for buses mate. you're confusing buses with trains. Any saving is a saving. That's money in my pocket that's not in yours. I've always caught the bus. Don't have to worry about driving, parking, paying for fuel, wasting km on car. i get on watch foxtel or optus and switch off. Brisbane also has dedicated bus lanes and more on the way so catching a bus is quicker than driving your own car.
Can't really catch a bus from my house. Or a bus from Gold coast to Brisbane. Or a bus from my house to the train. My wife works in bris and is far better off driving than taking the train.
@brendanm: I also work in Brisbane from Gold Coast and I find that really hard to believe, the train is much more convenient and you'd have to be very stubborn to drive that commute everyday.
@Ononono: More convenient? No parks at the train station, $100 a week, wait around for the next train if you stay back 5 minutes at work, have to sit with a bunch of derros through Logan/Beenleigh. Train doesn't run if there is a tonne of rain.
If it was cheap and you could get a park at the train station it might be worth it.
@brendanm: Always parking at Nerang Station and Helensvale/Coomera both have shopping centres across the road where you could park. Parking in CBD is over $600 a month if you can find one, not to mention petrol costs, running up your car kms and the 2 hours of time lost spent driving. I'd rather spend 2 hours answering emails/reading/watching movies than staring at car bumpers. Train runs every 15 mins, not much waiting there. The traffic in the morning is usually so bad it ends up taking longer than the train anyway. If everyone drove then the problems would be even worse, there are only so many cars you can pack into roads. Instead of slagging on public transport the real goal should be to improve the service.
@Ononono: They don't improve the service though. Neither of those stations are near us. Her parking is nowhere near $600 a month, and KMs on car I don't care about at all, it's paid for and owes me nothing, and is very fuel efficient.
If the service wasn't crap and expensive I'm sure she'd be happy to take it, because, as you say, sitting in traffic is horrible, it's part of the reason quit my job in southport.
Off peak should be free but peak hours are packed to the rafters in Sydney so I don’t want to encourage more people into the sardine can (bus and train).. last place I lived where no trains and was all buses - if i left for work 7-8am buses would just fly by the bus stop as full - this was about 7 years ago so would be worse now
Denial of anthropogenic climate change on OzB.
You cants are ducked.
Scientific consensus, beaches.
Did you expect any different? It's been politicised and people align with their side.
I completely agree but because it's been politicised, people don't care. If their self esteem is tied up with being seen as 'right' or 'left', off they go with whatever that side is aligned with, regardless of the science. And since it's OzB, I am not at all surprised by all the denialist stuff on here at all.
Create a better world by making a few people richer, while most continue to pollute, and we increase population exponentially? Sounds like a great idea.
@brendanm: wait so you want climate catastrophe to happen and decimate the population to lessen the impact on the… climate?
@abuch47: No brendanm says things they don't mean and then calls you an ESL when you take what they have typed as what they want to say.
This is blatantly false, and also ignores the amount of methane produced by cows. Methane is 20 times worse as a greenhouse gas than CO2.
How did a cow write that?
my opinion ignores all climate change discussion. which - imo is a moral/emotional decision, is not part of an objective cost/benefit time/money analysis.
there will always be traffic, irrespective of if you charge people more or less to use public transport.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4PW66_g6XA
It's a balance of benefit. People will see a benefit to drive, others will not. Thresholds change.
For example, it costs me about double the cost to drive to work, rather than take public transport, even though public transport stops right outside my house (convenient). I weigh up the time to get to work as a factor - and drive. If the bus prices become free, and more people take it up. Others will take up their position on the road. I would re-assess my need to drive to work, i'm not sure if it would change though.
Climate change is more a future-proofing decision in my mind. I trust consensus science on this and I think the emotion around has been whipped up for political expedience - hating on it buys votes, rabidly going for it buys votes. Both sides just use it to push people harder into a direction, but really it just is - whether you care about it or not.
But how can that be when there is so little done by our governments to work towards that scientific consensus. That clearly points to conservatives arguing in bad faith (ue the 4chan method) and the others having to halt progress to stay relevant.
It's because they don't really care. There are true conservatives in the Liberal party who want to take a sensible business-protecting approach to this but if they speak up they lose their jobs to the current populist incumbents. There are Labor party folk who also care but that crowd are a dogs breakfast of narcissism and hugely differing political trajectories. And the Greens got smart for about a second 5 or so years ago then also became a black hole of ridiculousness. There's just too many competing egos in politics and at the moment, it's whoever appeals to the most extreme wins.
Climate change is more a future-proofing decision in my mind.
As i said, "is a moral/emotional decision, is not part of an objective cost/benefit time/money analysis."
Why do people want cash back for using public transport? It's subsidised already. Entitled much?
In my opinion Public Transport should be much cheaper than it is, but no completely free.
Using the trains in Melbourne to get to work would cost me $8.80 per day. Which may not sound like much, until you consider the cost of using a scooter to cover the same distance is ~$5 per WEEK. Which is effectively 90% cheaper.
Public transport should be similarly priced. Anything over $2 a day is too expensive and will push people towards other options.
Why are you using public transport if using a scooter is cheaper?
I do use a scooter… "would cost me $8.80 per day".. IF I used it.
The scooter paid for itself $3,500 (through these savings) within 18 months.
You climate change nutters are worse than the Scientologists….
How so?
You believe something false
As opposed to your beliefs that are based on what, exactly?
@Pantagonist: Truth? :D
I'm just replying based on my assumptions on what moggott would've probably said :D
@Danstar: Oh right, so you don't personally hold those views but just thought you'd reply on behalf of someone else?
@Danstar: So your argument against the data and opinions of scientists that are based on it is the word truth?
@Danstar: In other words, it's the scientific method that you're criticizing rather than the conclusions drawn.
Scientists disagree with each other. That robust debate assists in bringing us closer to the objective truth through employing more rigorous methods. The fact that there is disagreement in some areas of the scientific community does not mean the whole suggestion of humans having an impact on the planet's climate should be thrown out. This isn't politics where everyone has to be singing from the same hymn sheet otherwise it means disunity and chaos.
If it was demonstrably proven through the scientific method that humans have no significant impact on the planet's climate, I would accept those findings. Would you do the same if the opposite was proven?
I do enjoy the irony of the "climate change believers are religious zealots" false equivalence when the "non-believer" argument is much closer to a religious defense.
Religious people: "God created the universe and everything in it"
Scientists: "Here's an idea based on quantum physics that could go some way towards explaining the origins of the universe"
Religious people: "OK, so what you're saying is that you don't have the whole answer that you can drop into my lap in an easily digestible form so I'm going to dismiss your ideas outright until such time as that happens"
Scientists: "We may be wrong in our assessments and current understanding but we won't know until we put our theories into practice and test them out"
Religious people: "So what you're saying is that you can't explain everything which demonstrably proves that God exists"
Scientists: "…"
@brendanm: Elsewhere in this thread I mentioned to tshow that I wasn't interested in having a religious debate about whether the data can be believed or not.
I've read arguments on both sides of the fence and I generally come down on the side of the data being reliable.
Of course, it's difficult to know what data you're calling into question when you just use the word in quotation marks. Plenty of examples where the data has been called into question so it's hard to know what specific case you're talking about.
@Pantagonist: The data that simply correlates human CO2 emissions (which are guessed as there is no way to actually measure it), with change in climate. I can do the same thing with world cattle population and change in climate, the correlation will be similar. Funnily enough, as cows produce methane, which is 20 times worse as a greenhouse gas compared to CO2, the cows are probably worse.
Proper scientific studies limit the number of hidden variables, independent variables etc. Climate change studies have no control variable, as every variable is constantly changing, and none are under the researchers control.
There is no control experiment where CO2 has remained constant to compare against. It is literally only correlation, and not even a unique correlation, lots of things would give roughly the same plot against climate change, as human CO2 output (assumed) does.
It's like shutting your eyes to every other possibility, and simply hoping on hope that CO2 is the one and only thing that correlates to global temp increase.
You know what absorbs CO2? Trees. What are we chopping down at crazy rates to support increasing populations? Trees.
What does Australia have lots of that would produce zero CO2 if used as an energy source? Uranium. We have no earthquakes, still don't have nuclear power. Still dig coal out of the ground, using fossil fuel powered machinery, then burn it.
@brendanm: I don't think any scientists are shutting their eyes to every other possibility. I mean, NASA has published articles about excessive methane release from Arctic permafrost and have acknowledged that such releases aren't included in existing models. Scientists looking at climate are researching a wide range of theories and don't seem to be 100% focusing on CO2 as far as the reading that I've done. Methane emissions are also a huge problem which is why there's a parallel debate going on about the impact of dietary choices and agricultural practices.
The human CO2 emissions issue gets a run because the last time the concentrations of the gas were as high as current levels (~400ppm) was around 3 million years ago (which is a fair while before we started walking on the planet). CO2 is also a problem greenhouse gas if there's excessive amounts of it that build up in the atmosphere. We've only been consistently measuring CO2 concentrations since about 1958, and the concentration then (in Hawaii) was 316ppm. Pre-industrial levels were around 280ppm. Methane levels are also increasing.. To me it's fair to propose that there could be a pattern there.
It's also fair to say that correlation does not necessarily equal causation, but not that it never equals causation. I know that you're intelligent enough to already understand that, but if we never investigated a phenomenon based on an apparent correlation then we'd probably still be spraying CFCs around everywhere.
I've seen you mention Y2K a few times as (presumably) an example of when science got it wrong and it was a fuss about nothing. Based on my recollection, the issue was identified early and a fair bit of updating and preparation happened before the date itself which is why nothing really happened. Sure, there were the usual doomsayers at the time but I don't think many of those voices came from the IT/science/programming community. As per usual, it was politicians and commentators wetting the bed that got the most media coverage.
I agree deforestation and land clearing is another major issue that needs to be dealt with. The response to what's going on needs to be multi-pronged until we work out what the main drivers of the changes we're seeing are. Personally my view is that while the long term storage of decaying radioactive waste is still required, nuclear power is just booking up more on the environmental credit card that a future generation will have to deal with. It's perhaps justifiable as an interim energy solution if we absolutely have to reduce carbon emissions to zero or perish, but without a better waste management strategy I can't see it being a viable and cost-effective option long term.
I would be pretty amazed if the perceived link between our industrialisation as a species and the changing climate was found to be a gigantic coincidence, but it's certainly possible. To me it seems like a bigger risk to do nothing on the off chance that it's a coincidence rather than investigate whether the correlations we see are valid.
@Pantagonist: I suppose I think there are far more important things that we could be focussing on than every increasing emissions reductions on cars, motorbikes etc, that have very little effect overall. There are some massive changes that could be made to actually have an effect.
The focus being on the one thing of CO2 emissions is incredibly annoying, as we are destroying the planet in far more ways than this. Look at the island of plastic in the ocean. Nothing is done about this as it would cost money, and no one would make anything out of it. We have singular fruits wrapped in plastic at the supermarket for gods sake.
Nuclear isn't ideal long term, but its far better than coal, and gives us time to work on renewable technology, we are already coming leaps and bounds with pv technology.
It's possible that the money and hypocrisy involved is my main issue with it, I'll have to ponder that. There is also the constant bending of the truth, or outright lies, as an example, according to Al Gore we should have no polar ice caps right now. Another is the "97% of scientists lime". If something is so compelling, people shouldn't need to lie about it, and make things up, unless they have something to gain by doing so.
@brendanm: Yes, the world is certainly screwed in numerous ways and sometimes it's hard to come up with a reason to bother as it all seems so beyond saving.
I always find it's better to try and read the actual climate research papers or executive summaries thereof rather than rely on the opinion of pundits and commentators on both sides of the fence.
Snopes has a good summary of Gore's predictions which, surprise surprise, include misinterpreting / cherry picking findings and then relaying them in language that didn't accurately capture what was actually found.
Then you've got Tim Flannery's opinion piece from today which is essentially one long appeal to emotion and pondering whether organisations like Extinction Rebellion are the model for climate change activism going forward (even though they also engage in hyperbole and emotional appeals based on zero evidence).
I don't make a habit of reading similar pundits on the anti climate change side of the debate, but I'm sure they're just as guilty of similar tactics.
We're definitely floundering a bit when it comes to engineering a response to the challenge, hence why the approach is so scattershot. At this point I honestly think most governments are just waiting for industry to come up with a magical solution to save us all and drag us into a new energy future because the idea is so good that everyone wants to jump on board regardless of their views on climate change.
@brendanm: but its a net positive as the cities air is not as polluted, the EV batteries can be used as energy storage overnight or during the day from the PV generation. Cars will be faster, less noise polluting, less mechanical issues making autonomous driving simpler and reducing wear to the consumer. big issue is obviously battery tech and storage.
Al gore/elon etc is still much better than every fossil fuel, tobacco etc lobbyist. Our world works on capitalism and marketing your angle.
nuclear has already had case studies done and its too late for it plus the voterbase being so against it means not politcally viable either.
While it seems nice, I have 2 main problems with this:
The public transit system is already pretty bad as it is. A large influx in usage is probably going to tank it. Needs better infrastructure and services if it wants any more load.
I'm pretty sure most Australians are aware of the climate situation as it is. Those that care already care, and those that don't probably won't change their minds because of this. Besides, all things considered, Australia's climate impact caused by motor vehicles is pretty insignificant compared to that caused by countries like China and India and their industries. Ceasing all emissions here would be like having a house engulfed in flames and only putting out the fire in one room.
I'd use public transport, if it wasn't for the
publicother passengers! ;)Well this is interesting. If getting some rewards is not going to help increase public transport usage, what tangible effects could be done?
- Government rebate?
- Reduced prices?
- Completely free?
- Cheaper alternatives to public transport?It is straight up cheaper to ride a motorbike to work than to catch public transport, Excl. cost of the bike.
The best thing that can help public transport usage is improving service - delivering more frequent and on-time services. The unreliability, even a little bit, adversely affects public opinion on public transport. Most people are just not close enough to stations, and buses come and go as they please. CCN trains are frequency delayed more often than not.
Its not something that can be changed overnight, but poor planning in the past has led to what poor public transport systems are today.
I use public transport because I love it and it is so convenient. I barely use my car.
No option for this.
However I don't support changing my or anyones habits for some whimsical green reason that is going to make no discernable difference to the environment. The fact is that Australia contributes 4% of the worlds carbon so it will make no difference even if we radically change our habits. That is where any argument stops, you can't fight facts.
There is no need to raise awareness. Everyone is aware of climate change. The reason there is inaction is that there is nothing we can act on as individuals to make a difference on a worldwide basis. The Chinese government realises there is an issue and is acting. The USA government doesn't care. Technology change is the only thing that will bring about a global change able to be acted on by individuals. As costs of electric cars go down we will all make a difference to the climate by changing to electric, as sure as we all replaced our old energy hog CRT TV's with low energy flat screens, as sure as we developed tech to remove CFC's from fridges and save the ozone layer.
would u like more room on train so mean bigger trains