thatfatkid posted:

Not to mention that western nations have outsourced their manufacturing to "developing nations" like China so that they take the blame for those emissions. And then at the same time Australia's economy is heavily dependent on exporting resources to China. Love that neo-colonial mindset.

JBP posted:

I wish George was in charge again tbh he seemed nice on a personal level

fauna posted:

this link is a bit timelier than my last one, it's from 2014. it came from anu but i've never seen it linked anywhere so might be new to some of you too, it's blowing my mind. they knew exactly what was going on and even how to fix it back in the 80s and the ideas received bipartisan promotion, in the early 90s australians were judged the best-informed in the world on the issue of climate change (or the greenhouse effect, as it was called back then) but then it was just magically wiped from our collective perception and memory by very deliberate media sorcery

global warming and climate change: what australia knew, and buried

quote:

Cognitive scientist George Lakoff applied this understanding to techniques used in politics and by public relations practitioners to reinforce certain ideas and values. A common technique is to tap into a metaphorical pathway that has positive emotional values, such as freedom, home or family, in order to frame how to think about things (Lakoff 2004).

(...)

National interest, jobs, family, battlers, Australian working families, Australian mums and dads: these terms and phrases are intended to evoke a framework of emotional responses. Family and jobs and country are cross-cultural themes and most Australians can understand or respond to these emotional levers. By linking ‘jobs’ and ‘family’, ‘national interest’ and ‘responsible science’, or ‘needing more research’ to messages about delaying action or challenging the science of climate change, members of the public may be induced to change their understanding—forgetting that once they were responding to frames about risk insurance, win-win energy policies, and responsible global citizenship.

The Peccadillo posted:

quote:

Also revealing where the country was headed was a November 1989 report, again in the Financial Review, that the Treasury under Paul Keating—in an internal argument about emission reduction targets—was advocating the position that Australia could increase its pollution as a specialist energy user.

It was reported that:

Senator Richardson wanted to set a 20 per cent reduction target by the year 2005 but was defeated by the intervention of the Treasurer, Mr Keating. The Treasurer convinced Cabinet that Australia should instead promote itself as an energy-efficient industrial centre. The argument was that while pollution might increase in Australia, there would be an overall reduction worldwide. (Dunn 1989: 8)

quote:

The national broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)—which in the early 1990s had led the way with comprehensive science coverage of greenhouse gas emission risks and response strategies—became increasingly dominated by a conservative board of directors appointed by the Howard government (Dempster 2005). The ABC then largely restricted itself to amplifying the political story spun by the federal government (or the opposition), reporting issues framed through the echo chamber of the parliamentary press gallery.

Australia’s only national newspaper, News Limited’s The Australian, took a largely sceptical stance during the 1990s and has continued that stance to the present day. News Limited tabloids in every major city took a similar line and have only become shriller in the 2000s. Media analysts have linked this to the strong market fundamentalist editorial stance held by management, where action on climate change was seen as a threat and an unwelcome cost to doing business (McKnight 2005a).

Climate change coverage at the editorially more neutral Sydney Morning Herald also changed by the second half of the 1990s. A sceptical ‘balance’ was introduced when discussing the science, often deploying armchair sceptics who countered news reports of a scientific development. This trend also reflected a 10-fold increase from 1988–1989 to 2001 in opinion pieces by non-staff writers on the subject, along with a shift away from always using scientists and experts as the primary source of information.

In the concentrated Australian media market (with one major player, News Limited, running a sceptical line and the business press becoming partisan) these changes had significant influence on the dominant narrative. It increasingly made a discussion about climate change appear to revolve around opinion and belief rather than evidence.

(...)

Those who did not agree—the environmental groups, other countries including vulnerable Pacific Islands, Europeans, or the United Nations itself—were framed as the opposition to Australia’s growing prosperity enjoyed by the mainstream, particularly Australia’s aspirational voters and ‘battlers’. In 1997, the prime minister put it this way: ‘We are not prepared to see Australian jobs sacrificed and efficient Australian industries, particularly the resources sector, robbed of their hard-earned competitive advantage’ (Howard 1997). The speech in fact canvassed response activities that the government proposed to take to the upcoming Kyoto negotiations­, but the public heard metaphorical messages of theft and ‘it’s unfair’.

fauna posted:

you know how charismatic preachers who earn loads of money from their congregation are always top salesmen who know exactly what their audience want and manipulate their religious faith to whip them into a complete emotional frenzy? that's where scomo learnt it from, but he's not servicing that audience, he's working on one that wants National interest, jobs, family, battlers, Australian working families, Australian mums and dads

fauna posted:

all of you people go read the drat book

this is from 2014. this is what i mean when i say scomo gives me the creeps, he is manipulating the public on a neurological level with full awareness of what he's doing and i'm fairly sure he's a sociopath

The Peccadillo posted:

Foolish. The children can no longer be mollified by simply kicking the footy, they have been bewitched by the old magic

https://twitter.com/FDRLST/status/1177236386296078336

Zenithe posted:

Apparently there is a new road rule in NSW: the speed limit is 40 when passing an emergency vehicle on the side of the road that has lights flashing. Only applies to limits 80 or lower.

Amethyst posted:

remember this lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDYla-gjgRs

BrigadierSensible posted:

Forgive me if I am stating the obvious here, or if this comes across as a hot take(tm).

But it is not about Climate Change at all. It is all about boomers, and how they hate and fear change. Also how they view any attack, (real or perceived) on them or their comfortable unsustainable lifestyle as literal Evil. And how they are very easily whipped into a frothing irrational frenzy against "gay satanic communist baby raping homosexual muslims" etc.

It's also a tribal Left vs Right thing. The science is clear, and universally accepted. But because it is perceived as a "left wing" issue, the right will fight it tooth and nail and wrap themselves into all sorts of contortions to prove that they are right and the greenie commos are wrong.

Like I never understood why Climate Change was one of Bolt's bugbears, but it makes sense if you can use 'Climate Change' as a dogwhistle for "young people and progressive change for the better". Then his rants make more sense in terms of ideology.

Then there is this new tactic of "Hey young person, you are sad and angry that the world is being actively destroyed. Well the real problem must be that you are sad and angry. Cheer up and play some footy whilst we continue to actively and aggressively gently caress the planet. What? you aren't happy yet? Must be communist brainwashing in schools." I hate it so much.

Amethyst posted:

Climate change is a left wing issue. Climate action will affect company bottom lines while lack of action will mainly affect the poor.

JBP posted:

Not if you're a climate change company.

The Peccadillo posted:

Really is astounding how handily and rapidly it's been made into Culture War over the past few months

quote:

"Australia won't ratify the Kyoto Protocol until the ratification of that protocol will protect the long-term national interests of this country," Mr Howard told parliament.

"The problem with the Kyoto Protocol, as presently cast, is that developing countries such as Russia and China would not be subject to the same strictures as developed countries such as Australia.

"If we adhered to the protocol, as requested by the leader of the opposition, that would disadvantage the resource industries of Australia.

"They would incur burdens that the resource industries of countries like Russia and China would not incur."

quote:

Consider this 1988 article in the business-focused Australian Financial Review, aptly titled ‘Government officials start to feel the climate of change’:

… yesterday, Queensland’s Water Resources Minister, Mr Don Neal, was at the forefront of the discussion. He pointed out the possible economic impact on Governments from increased flooding, more severe droughts, the effect on agricultural and pastoral industries and the need to redefine engineering design codes for roads, bridges, railways, dams and even housing … ‘There is no longer any serious doubt that climate will change more rapidly over the next 50 years than ever before in natural history’. (Massey 1988: 28)