batfink
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
Joffa wrote:batfink wrote:Joffa wrote:So how is the unemployment rate a symptom of a two track economy, people are either working or the aren't? The state of affairs in the USA: Unemployment - 8% inflation - 2.7% interest rates way way lower....so in your theory their economy is whooping ours?????? How is that my theory? I never mentioned the US well you elude that because we have low unemployent,low inflation and a low cash rate everything is hunky dorey.....but it aint....and then compare with the USA and figures arent that different...are they hunky Dorey????? i think not.....
|
|
|
|
batfink
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:How shall batfinks idol Andrew Bolt spin this one? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-15/report-says-australia-seventh-worst-polluter-on-earth/4012070Australia seventh-worst polluter on Earth: report Quote:A report ranking the world's biggest polluters puts Australia in seventh place.
Conservation group World Wildlife Fund (WWF), which compiled the report, says the spiralling global population and over-consumption are threatening the future health of the planet.
Australia has risen one place since 2010, and is now sitting behind Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Denmark, Belgium and the US, in terms of its impact on the world's natural resources.
WWF chief executive Dermot O'Gorman says there is no excuse for Australia to be so high on the list.
"Interestingly other countries which have similar or higher living standards than Australia also rank lower," he said.
"So it shows that we can reduce the impact that we have on the planet while still maintaining the level of development."
The results of the survey were calculated by comparing renewable resources consumed against the Earth's regenerative capacity.
The demand on natural resources has become unsustainable and is putting "tremendous" pressure on the planet's biodiversity, the body said.
The Living Planet Report found that high-income countries have an ecological footprint on average five times that of low-income ones.
Across the globe the footprint has doubled since 1966. "We are living as if we have an extra planet at our disposal," WWF International director general Jim Leape said.
"We are using 50 per cent more resources that the Earth can sustainably produce and unless we change course, that number will grow fast - by 2030 even two planets will not be enough."
The survey, compiled every two years, reported an average 30 per cent decrease in biodiversity since 1970, rising to 60 per cent in the hardest-hit tropical regions.
The decline has been most rapid in lower income countries, "demonstrating how the poorest and most vulnerable nations are subsidising the lifestyles of wealthier countries," WWF said.
Globally, around 13 million hectares of forest were lost each year between 2000 and 2010.
"An ever-growing demand for resources by a growing population is putting tremendous pressures on our planet's biodiversity and is threatening our future security, health and well-being," the group said.
The report comes ahead of June's Rio+20 gathering, the fourth major summit on sustainable development since 1972.
Global leaders at the summit will seek to outline a path towards an economy that can balance economic growth, poverty eradication and protection of the environment.
The WWF wants to see more efficient production systems that would reduce human demand for land, water and energy and a change in governmental policy that would measure a country's success beyond its GDP figure.
But the group says the immediate focus must be on drastically shrinking the ecological footprint of high-income countries, particularly their carbon footprint.
"Rio+20 can and must be the moment for governments to set a new course towards sustainability," Mr Leape said.
"This report is like a planetary check-up and the results indicate we have a very sick planet," said Jonathan Baillie, conservation program director of the Zoological Society of London, which co-produced the report along with the Global Footprint Network. well the very first thing i would say is how does china not make the list??????
|
|
|
batfink
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
batfink wrote:well the very first thing i would say is how does china not make the list?????? Page 8 of the WWF report.
|
|
|
batfink
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
batfink wrote:http://www.prlog.org/10449030-worlds-top-10-biggest-polluting-countries.html check this link and it puts china number 1......
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
I read it. It's a link from 2009, and it's focused only on total output. It also mentions that China has renewable energy and carbon reduction targets that it is working towards.
The WWF report is more up to date. China is doing very well in the output per person stakes, and getting closer to their targets than Australia could dream of (mostly because of denialist fuckwits like Bolt & Jones).
Edited by notorganic: 15/5/2012 01:40:26 PM
|
|
|
batfink
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:I read it. It's a link from 2009, and it's focused only on total output. It also mentions that China has renewable energy and carbon reduction targets that it is working towards.
The WWF report is more up to date. China is doing very well in the output per person stakes, and getting closer to their targets than Australia could dream of (mostly because of denialist fuckwits like Bolt & Jones).
Edited by notorganic: 15/5/2012 01:40:26 PM well i would say it would be more beneficial if the generators of the power didn't discount power to the likes of woolies and coles to 6 cents per KW/hr when you and i are paying 22 cent and getting them to invest in higher levels of alternare power as well....i'm cool with the steel industry and similar industries getting reduced rate, but woolworths and coles????? i'm not sure bolt and jones are denying it, i think thet are just questioning how fuckwitts like Flanney go around alarming everyone and making predeictions that have so far been way off the mark......not a little off the mark but fucken heaps off the mark....
|
|
|
batfink
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
its also interesting that many reports are commissioned and released and its very helpful to see who commissioned them.....vested interests...
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
batfink wrote:i'm not sure bolt and jones are denying it False. They have repeatedly been caught out in throwing misleading, incorrect, fallacious & outdated data at the masses in the hope that it will stick. It's just unfortunate that when they are called on it and proven to be incorrect, people like you just wave it off as "left-wing conspiracy".
|
|
|
batfink
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:batfink wrote:i'm not sure bolt and jones are denying it False. They have repeatedly been caught out in throwing misleading, incorrect, fallacious & outdated data at the masses in the hope that it will stick. It's just unfortunate that when they are called on it and proven to be incorrect, people like you just wave it off as "left-wing conspiracy". False. similar to Flannery i guess....lies and deception
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
What has Flannery lied about?
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
Here's a great example of the ethical behaviour your mate Jones espouses. http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3230989.htm
|
|
|
batfink
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
I think you're confusing "being wrong on a hypothesis" and "asserting false data when you know it's incorrect"
|
|
|
batfink
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
so tell me what should we do about cattle releasing methane Matt????
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
Eat more beef.
|
|
|
batfink
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:I think you're confusing "being wrong on a hypothesis" and "asserting false data when you know it's incorrect" lol....... so tell me Matt does smoking cause lung cancer?????
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
batfink wrote:notorganic wrote:I think you're confusing "being wrong on a hypothesis" and "asserting false data when you know it's incorrect" lol....... so tell me Matt does smoking cause lung cancer????? Let's just assume that I'm going to answer the questions to your analogy the way you want me to so we can get straight to the point you're trying to make.
|
|
|
batfink
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:Eat more beef. well some scientist suggest we all should be vegetarians.....because cattle are adding huging amounts of methane to the atmosphere and aiding global warming........ so of course these people look at the figues in isolation and convince themselves that it is happening, they dont take into account the whole picture...... Flannery predicted that no dams in australia would ever fill again........WRONG.....warragamba is pouring over the spillway and the gates are open...!!!! the records say that warragamba dam finally filled again for the first time in decades.....but no one mentions that it underwent an upgarde to raise the dam wall by some 16 m, so now the dam holds 20% more capacity than before.....but flannery would have you belive it would never fill again......why???? because he profits from the scaremongering and alarmist predictions he puts foreward
|
|
|
batfink
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
well just because some expert tells you it will happen doesnt make him right.....rather simple....many so called experts are pulling back from their initial predictions....like the scientist who came out this year and admitted he got it wrong that the great barrier reef would be gone by the year 2010.......
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
So... how does this all relate back to Australia being the 7th worst per-capita polluter in the world?
|
|
|
batfink
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:So... how does this all relate back to Australia being the 7th worst per-capita polluter in the world? how does the report arrive at these figures????
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
I thought the report was pretty clear about that...
|
|
|
batfink
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:So... how does this all relate back to Australia being the 7th worst per-capita polluter in the world? if was these experts advising the PM to include a tax on every bovine in australia due to methane gas, same with pigs......so called experts.....
|
|
|
batfink
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:I thought the report was pretty clear about that... didnt see anyting telling us where the figures were dirived
|
|
|
batfink
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
anyway dirgressing form the point here that flannery is less than accurate and is making money out of the doom and gloom just like al gore did......oportunists.......scum
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
Quote:The Ecological Footprint tracks humanity’s demands on the biosphere by comparing the renewable resources people are consuming against the Earth’s regenerative capacity, or biocapacity: the area of land actually available to produce renewable resources and absorb CO2 emissions.
Both the Ecological Footprint and biocapacity are expressed in a common unit called a global hectare, in which one gha represents a biologically productive hectare with world average productivity.
The Ecological Footprint shows a consistent trend of overconsumption (Figure 3). In 2008, the Earth’s total biocapacity was 12.0 billion gha, or 1.8 gha per person, while humanity’s Ecological Footprint was 18.2 billion gha, or 2.7 gha per person. The amount of forest land needed to sequester carbon emissions, is the largest component of the Ecological Footprint (55 per cent).
This discrepancy means that we are in an ecological overshoot situation: it is taking 1.5 years for the Earth to fully regenerate the renewable resources that people are using in a single year. Instead of living off the interest, we are eating into our natural capital.
If all of humanity lived like an average resident of Indonesia, only two-thirds of the planet’s biocapacity would be used; if everyone lived like an average Argentinean, humanity would demand more than half an additional planet; and if everyone lived like an average resident of the USA, a total of four Earths would be required to regenerate humanity’s annual demand on nature. The footprint they use is made up of 6 components: -Carbon Represents the amount of forest land that could sequester CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, excluding the fraction absorbed by the oceans which leads to acidification. -Cropland Represents the amount of cropland used to grow crops for food and fibre for human consumption as well as for animal feed, oil crops and rubber. -Grazing Land Represents the amount of grazing land used to raise livestock for meat, dairy, hide and wool products. -Forest Represents the amount of forest required to supply timber products, pulp and fuel wood. -Built-up Land Represents the amount of land covered by human infrastructure, including transportation, housing, industrial structures and reservoirs for hydropower. -Fishing Grounds Calculated from the estimated primary production required to support the fish and seafood caught, based on catch data for marine and freshwater species. If you look at Figure 3 on Page 6, it's Carbon that's driving the push into unsustainability.
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
batfink wrote:notorganic wrote:I thought the report was pretty clear about that... didnt see anyting telling us where the figures were dirived Page 8. Figure 4: Ecological Footprint per country per person This comparison includes all countries with populations greater than 1 million for which complete data are available (Global Footprint Network, 2011).
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
batfink wrote:anyway dirgressing form the point here that flannery is less than accurate and is making money out of the doom and gloom just like al gore did......oportunists.......scum That was never a valid point because you have no evidence to support it.
|
|
|
batfink
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
would it occur to you that 4 out of the top 7 are countires with massive deserts so therefore the ratios would be tilited against the end result??????
|
|
|