ACT a leader on climate change

Yeah – just think of it as investing in a business that is a going concern, with local employees, but will struggle to stay in Canberra without assistance – much like the Hume timber mill.

so we should all just accept climate change, go on plundering the planet and have the poles become the last bastion for the few million who may be lucky enough to be the sole survivors of the human race by the end of the century, the rest of the planet desertified or inundated by the sea. nice way to die.

the centre, on money, is taking $2.5m if we paid half, and this is less than an additional amount pledged to the new hume prison, additional ’cause they couldn’t estimate properly and are covering a shortfall. almost $3m… couldn’t that money be better spent locally to maybe reduce the no. of people likely to end up in this institution? does anyone weep and wail and complain about that expenditure? what will a gaol acheive? what is the point of $200m+ when there are all these potholes and stuff needing atention? what’s wrong with sending the baddies to goulburn?

the point is that canberra happens to be home to a research institute of renown and the govt is wisely investing in its jewel. doesn’t that make sense?

No, we do not excuse inaction at a federal level because they have done nothing, we just take it up at the appropriate medium.

You must realize that switching from fixing potholes to engaging the international community on the intricacies on climate change takes a great deal of your money to provide ?

Moreso – is it entirely relevant for your money to be spent on something that is not worthwhile where it could be appropriately invested in something that will actually make a change ?

I submit for example giving money to {charity} asking for money to go to African starving children. They have been asking for money since at least 1980.

If you give them a million dollars, are they more likely to ask you for more, or never ask you for a dollar again ?

Therein lies the problem – they are attempting to fix an issue that no matter how much money they push at it, will still remain – no matter how stupid people are in supporting lost causes.

So we excuse inaction at a state/territory, or even a personal level, because the federal govt has done nothing?

It’s a copout. Real change starts with the individual. Stop sitting on your asses crying “woe is me” and take some action. Once the federal govt see that individual behaviour is changing, we might see some action at a federal level…

Climate Change is a federal issue and Standope should mind his own business. Like potholes.

If he wanted to do something actually useful, he’d be ensuring that green building codes were implemented and perhaps publish a few informative pamphlets on which {insert item here} is greener for the environment on a comparative scale.

Even then, he’s up against a number of reputable organisations already doing that already.

Perhaps he might want to really-seriously-focus on making sure I have water, on account of that’s what my taxes are paying him to do.

I heard that the Stanhope government failed on water.

Agree climate change is a problem.

But the Feds should fund a project at ANU, not the local council.

The local council should fix the roads, especially the potholes in Civic!

And if they’ve got so much money floating around, why don’t they reopen a few schools and stop cranking up rates!!!

Well, I tried to avoid the hippie argument about gorebull warming.

But it always comes back – it’s circular – you say we’re all doomed – I say it’s part of the natural cycle and we’ll all adapt to the miniscule changes as they arrive.

My point is, again, wtf has this expenditure to do with the administration of the ACT?

It’s just another example of the mayor using us to push a personal agenda.

last first – the recipients of outcomes (actually in my third sentence, but who’s counting?) mean they fund the research, theythus have access to the outcomes of the research, thereby guaranteeing the best response to the issues.

and if you still think this is all just a hippie tree-hugging piece of crap then i would urge you to actually sit down and read the IPCC reports. it isn’t a matter of climate ‘changing’, it is a matter of climate being altered due to anthropogenic causes (ie human intervention into the otherwise natural balance) meaning deleterious effects on the environment in which we all have to try to live – making it less likely we will be able to continue to do so.

i guess you don’t mind seeing a goodly proportion of the planet become uninhabitable, with dimishing access to water and food, in the next fifty years or so? i wonder what you imagine you life expectancy to be; and your children’s, if you have them…

what issues are of greater importance? (not, i agree, that there aren’t many many issues that we want a government tasked to address on our behalf)

No astro I don’t. It’s just a great big tree-hugging hippie piece of crap.Climate will change no matter how many grants are put into the trough.

In fact, the more grants, the more hot air (CO2). But that will be good for the plants I suppose.

And your 1st sentence reads like kruddspeak. ‘recipients of the outcomes’ wtf is that?