His point, that she was unable to address, seems to have been that Australias contribution to current co2 levels is immeasurable on a global scale and curtailing it would not cause any difference so why
That's an invalid point. Every individual's contribution to any kind of pollution is tiny, and then why stop littering if my contribution is so tiny? The reason is because you can't have everyone reducing their share if nobody is reducing their share. That's a tautology, by the way.
His point was valid, when looking at a cost vs benefit perspective, which he mentioned.
Global reduction of overall CO2 amounts would virtually non existent vs crippling the economy of millions of people.
It's not that people don't think that climate shift is a thing, it's just that the solutions that the people who most vehemently talk about it are impractical and costly.
They also ignore the majority of the larger issues while tackling the smallest possible portions of it.
Get the biggest return for the least input first.
(post is archived)