Global warming?

OH....one Aussie proposal that is leading the way.....

Aren't incandescent light bulbs banned in Australia beginning this year (or next) to be replaced by the more energy efficent CFL bulbs. The result will be lowering the nation's GHG emissions, granted not in huge numbers, but every step makes a difference.

As to cost, while the initial consumer cost of the CLF bulbs may be higher, wont the energy savings (estimated as much as 60%) to the individual consumer offset that cost?

As a result of Australia's lead, the US adopted legislation last year to phase out incandescent bulbs...but wont begin until 2012 and not fully in place until 2020.

[Aliantha]

The government has a number of energy saving programs in place including a 'health check' where you pay $85 and they come in and put a switch on so you can see how much energy you're using as well as replace all your old lightbulbs with energy saving alternatives. They also check your metre box and suggest ways in which you could save energy.

We also now (as part of one of the stimulus packages) have the option of claiming up to $1600 to insulate the roof of your house in order to save on heating and cooling bills.

As you probably know, our new government signed off on Kyoto last year and are in the process of refining a carbon emissions trading scheme which was due to begin in a couple of years, but due to the financial crisis, it might be put off. Time will tell with that one, but it's in the works, and it'll happen one way or another sooner or later.

I support all these moves, and believe Australia is heading in the right direction. We still have one of the highest emission outputs per capita in the world though, so we need to work on that. Our population is so small though, that in real terms, we're responsible for less than 1% of all pollution in the world. It's the per capita that I personally think we need to be more aware of though.

Ali.....From your examples, the natural progression towards energy conservation and alternative energy sources has been encouraged and supported with government policies and actions for which Australia should be applauded.

And as I noted, in the US, the policies and actions of the last eight years resulted in more of a regression.....eight wasted years, IMO.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Redux

Ali.....From your examples, the natural progression towards energy conservation and alternative energy sources has been encouraged and supported with government policies and actions for which Australia should be applauded.

And as I noted, in the US, the policies and actions of the last eight years resulted in more of a regression.....eight wasted years, IMO.

Well Redux, since Jimmy Carter was pretty big on creating alternative energies, I would say we are actually decades behind.

Do you still work in government? I'm curious, because there is something I want them to work on.

[Aliantha]

Well, with any luck and a bit of hard work, that regression will be repaired. I personally believe it's happening as we speak anyway; in small ways by individuals who realize that the buck stops with them.

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Well, with any luck and a bit of hard work, that regression will be repaired. I personally believe it's happening as we speak anyway; in small ways by individuals who realize that the buck stops with them.

Individuals can do alot...but IMO, it still requires public policy to take that leap to having a significant impact.

The repair of US policies and programs has begun, with broad public support and a significant investment in the stimulus bill, despite the wishes of some to wait:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Get China and India on board then give us a call.

[Aliantha]

I've had this discussion with Merc before. I don't agree with his point of view. There's not much point in he and I discussing it further.

[classicman]

bruce

[Undertoad]

Now, the lobbyist have ruined the political process, somehow preventing any action on GHG emissions - you forget that friends of big oil are no longer in the WH or the majority of Congress...

BALL ONE

and proof the batter shouldn't be the one calling balls and strikes

Originally Posted by Undertoad

BALL ONE

and proof the batter shouldn't be the one calling balls and strikes

LOL...good one.

How about if the numbers speak for themselves:

oil and gas political contributions, last election: 77% - R, 22% -D
(since 1990 - 75% - R, 24% - D)
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01

oil and gas PAC contributions in last election: 76% - R, 24% - D
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/indu...E01&cycle=2008

energy and natural resources political contributions, last election: 66% R - 34% -D
(since 1990: 70% - R, 30% - D)
http://www.opensecrets.org/industrie...goButt2=Submit

Instant replay - STRIKE THREE!

Swinging and whiffing at the air - three bogus reasons for the US not to act on GHG emissions...none supported by facts.

[TheMercenary]

Yet you choose to ignore the facts I posted about the contributions of China and India to the worlds problems. You are among those partisans that would love to see us spend ourselves into the third world cleaning up our emissions while these "emerging countries" have to do absolutely nothing. You fail. Again.

[Undertoad]

I think next we will see how the numbers change once power changes.

ETA: donations to Ds up more than 100% from 2006 to 2008. Q.E.D.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I think next we will see how the numbers change once power changes.

ETA: donations to Ds up more than 100% from 2006 to 2008. Q.E.D.

Donations generally increase in presidential election years as opposed to off years.

I dont expect the Obama/Dem Congress energy/environmental legislation will be as sweeping as I would like...but far more than the obstruction during the last eight years.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Redux

Donations generally increase in presidential election years as opposed to off years.

The R donations didn't more than double. Spin it like a top baby!

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The R donations didn't more than double. Spin it like a top baby!

If its spin to note that the Ds only received 22% of oil/gas industry political contributions last year, I accept that.

IMO, industry contributions to Ds increasing from 18% to 22% does not change the scenario in any meaningful manner or to any significant degree.

The spin is to suggest that the oil/gas lobby has as much influence now as it did during the Bush/Republican majority years...which is how I interpreted Merc's "fantasy because of lobbyists" remark.