Are the political parties serious or not about emissions reductions?

Question

If one offers governments a means to incrementally lower emissions that at the same economicalyl enables poorer communities but government takes no notice should we take them serious about emissions reduction.
If one offers a solution about water in out back towns and government takes no notice should we listen to them about the drought?
If one offers a means that helps the non producive quintile of society to gain an accumulation of wealth that reduces emissions and political parties ignore this should we take them serious about their social aims.
If in theory there is not any need to ever again connect a building to the grid so all buildins can be self sufficient in power and governments ignore this should we take governments serious.
If politicians are offered a means to improve the care of the aged but they ignore this should we take them serious about aged care policies.
How can governments reduce emissions when it is actively increasing debt?

We require a review of the capitalist system so that power is not in the hands of private monopolies so long as it is so that power is monopolised then the ruse of involving shareholders is used to divide society then we will be divided about emissions reductions this is the game politicians are playing with us.
So long as we remain divided on pollutiowe are diverted from the major cause whic is debts to associations as well as debts for real estate investments.
real estate investment and the inflation that has caused is the greatest single stalling point of emissions reduction because of the reliance so many ofthose involved have on th profits from monopolies to play catchon propery status.

Climate change is the cause of ecological and economic problems the environments that are degraded the most will be in th living conditions of those affected by these costs on the economy.
The challenge we face is not climate change per se, it is that climate change has become monopolised as a a media eent and a celebrity matter solving many of throblems that will occur from a change in human ecological habitat is relatively easy compared with getting the politicians and media tarts out of the way.
How do we over come this that is the greatest problem we face.
What is worth more life or money? So long as power is monopolised in the hands of private corporations the debate about how we reduce emissions will be prevented by all those involved from being opened up to the public.
How do we over come the problem of the monopolisation of the media and the abilty tochallenge the present orthdoxy this is the challenge we must face to reduce emission.

Answer 1

We'll find out which one is serious by who implements a carbon tax first.

I still don't understand why people keep sprouting off nonsense like zero population growth as a solution though, we need to reduce emissions not keep them at the same level.

Answer 2

The government can do nothing.

It is up to the people. And the people will do nothing.

Only zero population grow can reduce pollution.

We have reduced our pollution emmissions by 50% during the last 40 years. But during the same period... the world population has doubled. Which means that one cancel the other out. And we are still emitting as much as 40 years ago.

Everything we do to reduce pollution goes towards accommodating more people on the planet. It is a crazy situation totally out of control.

Answer 3

I don't think they care at all, but I just want to see prices go back down under $3.