
Australia Is Committing Climate Suicide - thomasfoster96
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/opinion/australia-fires-climate-change.html
======
bobosha
Unfortunately, the US and multiple other countries aren't too far behind.
Climate-change denial is our generation's ignominy for the future - however
long that might be.

------
projektfu
Alternate link: [https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/comment-
australia-i...](https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/comment-australia-is-
committing-climate-suicide/ar-BBYArAP#interstitial=1)

------
t-h-e-chief
Australia not committing suicide; we are already dead - that's why they call
us the down-under; the grave of the world. Killed by our wanker leaders.

~~~
trfuklefger
Speak for yourself, maybe you're dead, i'm not.

------
FranzFerdiNaN
Australia knew the science and yet went ahead and kept electing conservatives
who promised more coal, less taxes, less money for fire brigades and
preventing fires, and to do nothing about climate change. They now experience
the consequences of their choices. Hopefully next time they make better
choices, like putting their current PM in jail for gross negligence and
electing people who acknowledge the causes of this heartbreaking disaster and
actually do something about it.

~~~
Youden
I don't hold much hope. This is the same country that elected the Liberals
(the current government) on a policy of "stop the boats" and "the opposite of
what the other party wants".

Murdoch's ownership of the media is extremely effective.

~~~
cam_l
Murdoch newspapers in question.. caught not actually covering the fires.

[https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/04/the-
australian...](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/04/the-australian-
murdoch-owned-newspaper-accused-of-downplaying-bushfires-in-favour-of-picnic-
races)

------
stuqqq
California, Brazil and Australia. I have lost my hope. Next summer, there will
be more. Nothing can reverse the damages made by humans. The only way seems to
be reducing population to a sustainable level.

~~~
trfuklefger
The "there will be more" part happened last summer, but thanks to media
propaganda/manipulation/disinfo[0] you didn't noticed it, your attention was
on Evil Bolsonaro and the Hong kong protests.

[0] [https://www.npr.org/2019/09/18/761591604/bolivia-is-
fighting...](https://www.npr.org/2019/09/18/761591604/bolivia-is-fighting-
major-forest-fires-nearly-as-large-as-brazils?t=1578141160887)

------
csanivar
Forgive my ignorance but can someone explain how these kinds of fires usually
start and why couldn't they stop them when they were small and easy to put
away?

~~~
benmmurphy
I think the main sources are lightning strikes, accidental human ignition and
deliberate arson. A lot of people have been arrested for deliberate arson
recently ([https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/nsw-firefronts-
uncon...](https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/nsw-firefronts-
uncontrollable-as-state-braces-for-heatwave/news-
story/4f006855e6b1598ba3a6d53c66391516)).

I would guess a combination of winds and high fuel load means a small fire can
become an uncontrollable roaring blaze very quickly. I guess also a lot of
fires could be started in areas that are not easily accessible to fire
fighters so it might not even be an option to stop them while they are small.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
...and a fair few from the native Australian species, the Eucalyptus. Known to
spontaneously combust and even spontaneously explode when spots of resin
magnify sunlight. The leaves give off enough oils into the air that they can
also spread a fire across a wide area through the tree tops. The plants and
seeds are adapted to use fire as part of reproduction, and the seeds fire
resistant. Just never normally on this scale.

------
pasttense01
While Australia has the wrong climate plan, Australia only contributes 1% of
the CO2 produced in the world. So even if Australia went carbon free, it would
still have the same problems--carbon dioxide circulates throughout the world.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_Au...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_Australia)

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Worlds largest coal exporter, at near 40% of the world's coal, puts Australia
as the third highest global export source of CO2. Behind only Saudi and Russia
(oil and gas respectively).

[https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-08-19/australia-
co2...](https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-08-19/australia-co2-exports-
third-highest-worldwide/11420654)

~~~
ginko
I'm not sure it's fair to count a country's fossil fuel exports to its CO2
contributions. Arguably Australia could increase the price of coal by stopping
its coal production but the effect would just be that mines elsewhere would
reopen or increase production to meet demand.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
I'm not sure it's fair to give production and export a free pass in the
accounting, as we do.

If coal prices increase it strengthens the case everywhere, for switching to
alternative fuels. More solar, wind, hydro schemes will start, and some will
replace coal with gas -- which although fossil is, at least, a step in the
right direction. Of course mines may reopen, but if the world is ever to be
serious about solving the problem that should be restricted, regulated or
taxed by the nation with the reopening mines.

------
syshum
Economic Suicide or Climate Suicide, those were the options.

People can call is climate claim denial all the want, but that is mostly down
to them not understanding economics, and the economic realities

The climate issues can not be solved by banning things, taxing things, or
regulating things. It can only be solved in the same way every other human
problem has been solved. Innovation, we need to innovate our way out of the
problem.

Looking to government solutions to the issue will always result in
disappointment and no solution

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Radium, Heroin and other patent snake oil medicines were solved by innovation
not regulation?

How did we innovate around lead in petrol or pipes? Or the health consequences
of smoking? Adulteration of food?

CFCs?

Seems like appropriate use of regulation, punitive taxation and banning has a
long history of working well, despite your economic dogma.

~~~
syshum
You believe the Heron problem has been solved by government regulations? Or
there are not Snake Oil product today sold with the complete approval of the
government? And I am not sure what regulations your referring to around
Radium...

The others are more of the same, some of it is misappropriation to how much
the government actually impacted things vs normal market pressures, the
government has the habit of coming in after society has already starting
phasing out a product or practice then "regulating" the last few companies
that have not changed yet as the pressure of the market leaders, it is form or
protectionism to put competition out of business.

But continue to believe the government work for you, and not Large Multi
National corporations. All evidence speaks to the contrary...

~~~
NeedMoreTea
It has been solved in the sense of no longer being an OTC non addictive
medicine suitable for baby. The war on drugs is an entirely unconnected issue.

No market pressures were affecting adulteration of food or tobacco until
governments started acting. Post war the vast majority of adults smoked thanks
to US marketing led campaigns to promote wider adoption, and their "torches of
freedom" campaign to get adoption started among females. Nor was lead in any
way declining, quite the contrary it was constantly increasing as car use
spread. Asbestos was being used profligately until regulation came in.
Thalidomide was outlawed in developed nations, yet those multi nationals quite
happily sell it to the developing world, off script. There is _no_ evidence
for their being on the side of the public interest whatsoever, yet countless,
endless examples of their working against, from disinformation campaigns on
smoking, fire retardants, DDT, lead in fuel, Bhopal, enough to fill a book.
Capitalism _needs, absolutely needs_ constraining.

If governments today do not work for us, as they did in the fifties, sixties
and seventies, it is because they have been mainly captured by the cult of
neoliberalism and small laissez-faire hands of governance, and the libertarian
think tanks and lobbyists, such that even the "left" is right leaning...

