An important case for paying an add on cost for Green Energy in a business case.
When an Organisation commits to paying an add on cost for Green energy the add on cost appears on that organisations books.
As soon as such a cost is present, there exists an opportunity for anyone in that organisation to propose changes that reduce that cost, and they have the ability to propose solutions that defray said costs.
That is any project that reduces energy and can transfer it to renewable can in part be funded by the savings that will be made in the add on cost.
Not withstanding that Green Energy also reduces obligations elsewhere as a result of carbon emission reduction.
This is about bringing the capacity to change into an organisation to reach its long term goals.
Arguing against climate change is like arguing the world is flat. There should be no surprise it is often treated with contempt. Climate change is not opinion but a carefully reasoned and empirically identified set of probabilities. Oh and lets use the real words not the weasel words of “climate change” – the issue is the “enhanced greenhouse effect”.
When was it that the mainstream belief changed from the world being flat, to the world been round ? was it, once more people than not believed it was round ? this would mean that anyone with a ridiculous argument will be in the minority and thus end up questioning the mainstream eventually, but just remember it was the “round worlders” who were first to challenge the mainstream.
Those with genuine arguments questioning an aspect of the research are listened to, considered and sometimes change the way we look at the enhanced greenhouse effect. The only way to question a carefully reasoned and empirically identified set of probabilities is with new carefully reasoned and empirically identified set of probabilities – this does not come from the sceptics with very few exceptions.
Anyone who argues against a policy without proposing an alternative to reach the same ends is not arguing about the policy but the reasons for the policy, and since most often they do not present their argument for their dismissal of the reasons for the policy, then they do deserve contempt if not demonization, ostracizing and labelling (which is a big part of their own behaviour).
Just face it, the level of maturity, knowledge and a desire to uncover the truth does not exist in the majority of people taking a position against either the enhanced greenhouse effect or in fact the policies presented to combat them.
Oh, and if you review the public debate you will see that it is those that argue against climate change doing the most of the demonising, ostracising and labelling – eg; anti-capitalist, left wing plot, communists etc…
The conservative position is to suggest that the climate remains static or bound to slow moving natural changes. Lets call this the Business as Usual viewpoint.
There is substantial evidence that this not the case, that there are observable changes and clearly identified reasons for those changes.
Thus the application of a skeptical view point, is best directed at those who suggest no change is occurring. That is we must be skeptical of those holding the “Business as Usual viewpoint”.
Given human activities have reached scales of a similar magnitude to global systems, the duty thus, falls on those claiming a Business as Usual viewpoint, to demonstrate how human activities ”do not” effect climate.
The Business as Usual viewpoint has the near impossible task of “demonstrating a negative”, suggesting it is an Argument from ignorance, or Absence of evidence. This is made further implausible, given the “demonstration of positives” by the alternate position.
I am seriously concerned about the diversity of ownership and the quality of journalism in Australia. I do not read most newspapers as on every occasion I do I see poor research, misinformation and vested interests dominating. Whilst I have considerable faith in Australians, how well can they avoid manipulation when the mass media is full of untruths and political miss direction. Poor media is clearly one of the most democracy threatening aspects today itself when it should be acting to protect our democracy.
Media in Australia is so focused on the bottom line they are threatening their own long term survival and destroying what journalism our society depends on. This includes assaults on the value of rational and scientific arguments, regurgitation of self serving press releases and a lack of real balance by including commentary from the unqualified to dismiss the qualified.
Self regulation does not work.
Simple reporting of other commentators without critical comment also act to spread miss-truths rapidly. Some things should never be reported unless some critical analysis is done otherwise the media is simply a mouth piece for the ignorant and corrupt.
I have little confidence that that the current review will achieve anything as complex problems are often not addressed, in part because of the oversimplification of issues in the media. My only option is to actively try and destroy those media organisations that fail to measure up. I now support independent high quality and online news services only and have plans to discredit the poor media sources. This is assisted by the current medias difficulties migrating to new technology, the level of discontent in society and the high level of bias in traditional media.
My specific experience with bad media is in the reporting of environmental and sustainability issues and all aspects of politics. This is followed quickly with the high degree of commercialism in most media organisations.
Have you heard this claim –
“Australia’s the first country in the world to impose an economy-wide carbon tax”
Notice how the phrase “Australia’s the first country in the world to impose a carbon tax” is false but by qualifying the statement with “economy-wide”. The proponents of this view try to say that “Australia is on its own” some how – but the fact is they would only be alone because of the qualification that the speaker added.
Now, I don’t know what the definition of economy-wide Tax is – when is it not economy wide ?, and are there any taxes that are wider than Australia’s ?
Australia’s so called Carbon Tax is so far from even been a tax, by many definitions and it is only levied on the top 500 carbon emitters, so I am not sure it even qualifies as economy-wide in any sense of the term.
However despite the almost useless application of this term you will hear it again and again. Especially by those who don’t want it, prefer to frighten everyone and possibly have a vested interest or right wing leaning that seems to dismiss any form of “communal action” through government.
Weasel words !
One of my observations has been that well educated Skeptics can betray themselves not by the issues they raise that require you to dig deeper, but those on the surface. The world government point is one, The other is the misrepresentation about if we stop all CO2 emissions now, we will not see cooling for a long time, as if it is evidence that CO2 is not to blame, when it is in fact that it will continue to keep the planet warm for one hundred years, thus the urgency in avoiding an increase in CO2. If the man needed any qualification to prove his ability he needs to avoid any clear cases of misinformation in his own arguments. this failing in this one point, suggests a person searching for evidence to prove his view, rather than someone trying to determine the truth. So I think is thus fair to discount his views entirely. I think a few bullsh-t detectors is all you need to uncover most skeptics arguments. It is not so easy with well informed expert scientists to detect bullsh-t.