4 ms·

Australians have continuously voted for parties who have a track record of either dismissing or doing nothing about climate change. The currently elected party

by jamil7 7y ago

Australians have continuously voted for parties who have a track record of either dismissing or doing nothing about climate change. The currently elected party in particular. It's extremely sad to watch all this unfold in my home country from abroad but at the same time I'm not sure how you can argue with what the general public are voting for.

perfunctory 7y ago
> I'm not sure how you can argue with what the general public are voting for. You can absolutely argue against the general public. General public once voted for the segregation law.
- jamil7 7y ago
  Good point
adrianN 7y ago
The general public votes for anyone supported by the press. Thank Murdoch for the past few governments.
- SiempreViernes 7y ago
  The connection is not that direct, the media is influential but not the primary factor. Advertising isn't magic after all.
  - tialaramex 7y ago
    The Americans are currently getting a worked example of how a billionaire spending their money on advertising can ensure voters know who they are but those voters might still say "Oh that guy, he's fucking awful, No".
    - JauntyHatAngle 7y ago
      That is a different example though. Bloomberg is spending money on himself and is an obvious outlier. The media/coorps in most cases of lobbying/bias are not batting for themselves directly, they're batting for their own interests in (somewhat) more subtle ways and/or supporting a candidate who aligns with their own interests. Murdoch in Australia owns 70% of the press, and in a mostly ignorant society, that leads to the narrative being highly skewed for many decades.
patrickaljord 7y ago
There is nothing Australia could have done on its own to curb climate change. Even if we removed every single human and factory from the country it wouldn't have influenced climate change one bit. Now I know "we need to start somewhere", but this somewhere needs to be the biggest polluters not Australia. The best thing Australia could have done is to decrease their consumptions of goods manufactured by these big polluters by imposing heavy tariffs maybe, although this could have triggered a local industry to build this tariffed stuff which could have only been stopped by imposing very heavy taxation on those local industries, I don't think any politicians would like to commit political suicide though.
- tomlock 7y ago
  Australia is the largest coal exporter in the world.
  - tomhoward 7y ago
    ...to countries [1] who need it for their societies and economies to function and grow. Is the argument that the noble thing to do would be to refuse to sell the coal, and force these countries to use more expensive forms of energy, regardless of whether it keeps more of their people in poverty for longer? It's an easy thing to say for those of us already living in first world countries with access to all the modern comforts. And sure, Japan and Korea are not poor countries, but they are populous, resource-poor countries with huge manufacturing industries (producing some of the world's most fuel-efficient cars, no less), so they have to import their energy from somewhere. [1] Major importers of Australian metallurgical coal are India, Japan and China. Major importers of Australian thermal coal are Japan, China, South Korea and Taiwan https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/minerals/mineral-resources-and-advice/australian-resource-reviews/black-coal https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/minerals/mineral-res...
    - tomlock 7y ago
      If you excluded metallurgical coal from our exports, we'd still be the largest exporter of coal in the world.
JauntyHatAngle 7y ago
Popular opinion held by non-experts on topics where objective fact from experts exists, is the way to argue it. Also, statistically Australians believe in climate change. They're just not voting on that issue in elections over others. I could go into media bias/propaganda in Australia, but that is off topic, but the pertinent part is that Australians are (in my opinion) ill informed on many subjects, especially ones where experts should be listened to, and not media mouthpieces.

by jamil7 7y ago

perfunctory 7y ago

> I'm not sure how you can argue with what the general public are voting for. You can absolutely argue against the general public. General public once voted for the segregation law.

jamil7 7y ago
Good point

adrianN 7y ago

The general public votes for anyone supported by the press. Thank Murdoch for the past few governments.

SiempreViernes 7y ago
The connection is not that direct, the media is influential but not the primary factor. Advertising isn't magic after all.
- tialaramex 7y ago
  The Americans are currently getting a worked example of how a billionaire spending their money on advertising can ensure voters know who they are but those voters might still say "Oh that guy, he's fucking awful, No".
  - JauntyHatAngle 7y ago
    That is a different example though. Bloomberg is spending money on himself and is an obvious outlier. The media/coorps in most cases of lobbying/bias are not batting for themselves directly, they're batting for their own interests in (somewhat) more subtle ways and/or supporting a candidate who aligns with their own interests. Murdoch in Australia owns 70% of the press, and in a mostly ignorant society, that leads to the narrative being highly skewed for many decades.

patrickaljord 7y ago

There is nothing Australia could have done on its own to curb climate change. Even if we removed every single human and factory from the country it wouldn't have influenced climate change one bit. Now I know "we need to start somewhere", but this somewhere needs to be the biggest polluters not Australia. The best thing Australia could have done is to decrease their consumptions of goods manufactured by these big polluters by imposing heavy tariffs maybe, although this could have triggered a local industry to build this tariffed stuff which could have only been stopped by imposing very heavy taxation on those local industries, I don't think any politicians would like to commit political suicide though.

tomlock 7y ago
Australia is the largest coal exporter in the world.
- tomhoward 7y ago
  ...to countries [1] who need it for their societies and economies to function and grow. Is the argument that the noble thing to do would be to refuse to sell the coal, and force these countries to use more expensive forms of energy, regardless of whether it keeps more of their people in poverty for longer? It's an easy thing to say for those of us already living in first world countries with access to all the modern comforts. And sure, Japan and Korea are not poor countries, but they are populous, resource-poor countries with huge manufacturing industries (producing some of the world's most fuel-efficient cars, no less), so they have to import their energy from somewhere. [1] Major importers of Australian metallurgical coal are India, Japan and China. Major importers of Australian thermal coal are Japan, China, South Korea and Taiwan https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/minerals/mineral-resources-and-advice/australian-resource-reviews/black-coal https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/minerals/mineral-res...
  - tomlock 7y ago
    If you excluded metallurgical coal from our exports, we'd still be the largest exporter of coal in the world.

JauntyHatAngle 7y ago

Popular opinion held by non-experts on topics where objective fact from experts exists, is the way to argue it. Also, statistically Australians believe in climate change. They're just not voting on that issue in elections over others. I could go into media bias/propaganda in Australia, but that is off topic, but the pertinent part is that Australians are (in my opinion) ill informed on many subjects, especially ones where experts should be listened to, and not media mouthpieces.