This actually seems pretty positive, but I guess also demonstrates how responsible Howard is for helping set in motion Australia's apathy towards environmental destruction, especially when it gets in the way of fossil fuel operations.
Possibly, but Turnbull did take over as head of https://murdochroyalcommission.org.au/ after K Rudd stepped down to take whatever diplomatic job it was he took.
I think the Murdoch press had a big hand in Turnbull being replaced as PM, because he was actually considering implementing renewable energy policies https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/sep/19/turnbull-warned-rupert-murdoch-trying-remove-him-prime-minister
That same day the Daily Telegraph had warned of “a toxic brawl” over energy policy. On Sky the night-time commentators Peta Credlin and Andrew Bolt ramped up their negative assessments of the national energy guarantee and of Turnbull himself.
So he is probably butthurt for other reasons too
I cant say for certain, but I can definitely speculate. I do know cotton requires a fair amount of water to grow, but I don't think it would use as many petrochemicals in the production. Though it would still use some, even if that is just in the supply chain through things like diesel for trucks and ships. The chemicals they use (like pesticides) may be derived from petrochemicals, but even if they aren't they could be damaging to the environment in many other ways. So I think polyester could have the greatest emissions of the two.
I guess it could depend on the scale of production too. Like if we were to try and replace all polyester clothing with cotton, that could have a massive impact due to the amount of land and water needed to produce such quantities of cotton clothing and such. But at the same time, creating clothes out of plastic isn't going so well either.
Ultimately we will probably still have to have some diversity materials for sustainable clothing production. It will really come down to a balance of land use, water use, what uses the least amount of chemicals, and probably a lot of other considerations.
I think bamboo is a good up and coming fabric. Bamboo grows like a weed so it's pretty sustainable and I'd say it's pretty durable as well. I've got some bamboo work socks a couple of years ago and they are still going hard. Super soft and comfortable too.
I don't think there are heaps of options available in terms of shirts and shorts, pants, etc yet. I'd say the ones that are out there would be more expensive than polyester or even cotton. But hopefully as the industry grows they get cheaper.
Edit: I think bamboo breathes really well too. Well it at least seems to with those socks I have. So it could be a good fabric for hot weather too.
Yeah I'm at the point of life where a lot of my friends are having kids and I am terrified for their future, but hate the idea of having to have these kinds of conversations with them because they deserve to have hope for the future, for their kids future.
But I'm also torn because I think these discussions need to be had if we want people to get active, so we can effect the necessary change in time. And if anyone deserves to truly be angry, its parents.
Am I being crazy thinking that if Australia was reamed by extreme weather this summer it would be better than not, as all the climate change deniers will use non-extreme weather as a 'see the climate isn't warming' argument. At least if this summer was fucked up, they would then have a more difficult time arguing climate change doesn't exist, which could be good timing as extreme weather is still dependant on local and global climate patterns, so there will be a return to less extremes once La Nina returns.
At the same time, more extreme weather is the last thing I want people to have to experience, especially as those who suffer the most from the extreme weather will probably be those least likely to deny climate change.
In summary, I think I'm being a little crazy sitting here hoping shit burns to the ground to prove a point.
I guess maybe, a $15k fine might not be high enough if they are willing to keep doing it.
Just another example of a fines being seen as the cost of doing business.
I think the reason why the working class continue to undermine themselves (especially people from the older generations) is the main stream media channels (9, 7, sky, any Murdoch newspaper) are owned by billionaires with vested financial interest in getting the working class to vote against their own financial interest, by convincing them it is good for the economy, when really the billionaires consider themselves to be the economy, and what they mean by it will impact the economy is that it will impact them.
This is why those news sources have always actively promoted the LNP, while actively demeaning the Labor party. They don't even need to say any of these things outright, they get away with it by allowing LNP MPs to blame everything wrong on labour while the LNP are the government, but actively promote the LNPs active opposition as good when they aren't in government. This is completely contradictory to how they neg Labor for being an opposition to the LNP when they are in opposition.
Ultimately, they created a cognitive dissonance within the working class to get them to vote against their own interests.
Is this the great Factorio Square spitter massarcre?
I identify as 'meme'
“It became clear that they’re motivated by profits,” said Roberts, adding that the drive is unsurprising, since CEOs of public companies can be removed if they do not maximize profit growth.
We really need governments to force triple bottom line accounting onto corporations for the very reason stated in the above quote. While CEOs are only accountable to the shareholders of the company (single bottom line accounting) then they will only ever work for profit.
With triple bottom line accounting, CEOs would not only be accountable to the shareholders (economic accouting), but to stakeholders (social accounting) and the environment (ecological accounting).
To use fossil fuel companies as an example, a stakeholder to that company would be any person who has to breathe in the pollution that said fossil fuel company released into the atmosphere. The way in which companies would be accountable to the environment is that they could no longer ignore the externalities of their product (e.g. pollution from fossil fuel use) and the cost of those externalities would need to be included in the upfront cost of the product. Accounting for these things would then allow us to see the true upfront cost of fossil fuels, which should aid in actually getting companies to act on these issues, as it will less profitable to sell such a damaging product. It will also further demonstrate that the upfront cost of renewable is far lower than that of fossil fuels.
It still isn't a perfect solution, and we will still be living under capitalism and the idea of infinite growth, but it would at least be a step in the direction of corporate accountability.
Did a quick google search of his name, turns out his time at News Corp was limited, and it didn't end on good terms
The source of the above quoute: https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/making-the-wrong-enemies-how-williams-was-cut-down-at-news-20130809-2rnsx.html Which was a Wikipedia citation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Williams_(media_executive)
If he managed to anger them so much while he was employed by them, hopefully he can anger them even more de-shitifying the ABC.