🚀 go-pugleaf

GERARD M. BRADY wrote:
> 
> Dear Nicole,
>         I'm afraid your fighting a losing battle if you are tryingto find
> anything that supports global warming and development has nothing to do
> with it...
>         I'm studying Enviro. Planning at Griffith Uni, and I tell ya its
> gunna get pretty hot soon... How can developers expect to pollute the
> environment and obtain resources in turn vital to progress of development,
> Its really the classic case of biting the hand that feeds you...
> 
>                                                         Gezz Brady
> 
> On 24 Jul 1996, Nicole Heng wrote:
> 
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Does anyone know any points that support the subject title?  There seems
> > to be heaps on the net against, but hardly any supporting it, and I have a
> > debate to do in a weeks time!  Can anyone help?
> >
> > Thanks heaps in advance,
> >
> > -Nicole.
> >
> >

Try Business Council of Australia ph 06 247 8208, fx 06 257 1539.  You 
could also contact the Qld or NSW coal industry association for local 
contacts on the Industry Greenhouse Network.

The basic argument is two-fold.

i) sustainable development means meeting the needs of the future without 
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

In Australia this means continuing to improve on what we do best, while 
taking 'no regrets' measures to reduce emissions of all types.  A good 
example would be to stop the clearing of marginal agricultural land 
because this will protect biodiversity, maintain water quality etc as 
well as significantly reducing CO2 emissions as vegetation decays, and 
avoiding methane emissions from cows and sheep that will graze in the 
area.  You also might like to consider the social and political impact of 
such a decision.

ii) the projected temperature and climate effects have a high level of 
uncertainty, and are well within the natural weather variations

Humans have always been highly adaptable and we can cope as individuals 
and as groups with all sorts of changes.  The question really becomes 
whether the possible, small changes in frequency of some influences on 
our (and the world) economic and environmental systems (e.g. drought, 
flood, cyclone, frosts and snow, rainfall, evaporation, sea level - 
average and surge - etc) warrant major changes in the way we do things.  
I say no.  Small threats warrant small responses.  e.g. there is a high 
level of risk in driving motor vehicles, therefore there is a high 
proportion of the cost of a car devoted to safety features and a whole 
body of law devoted to risk management; on the other hand there is a 
relatively low risk of your house burning down with you in it, therefore 
the cost of a smoke alarm may be warranted but fixed automatic sprinklers 
are not.

I hope this is helpful
Martin