Encouraging meaningful discussions - what are your thoughts?

A very fuzzy line.

I’d consider two of the three most recent posts are not about the effects of climate change on Australian Consumers, or consumers directly but arguing mostly that climate change is real. The report on Norway is observational and anecdotal in many ways. There may be hard data, but it has been simply left to one side. The proposition that climate activists in Australia may be under personal threat is a long bow to draw from OS stories that appear to martyr climate activists. Not really about the effects of climate change on Australian consumers.

The third might be seen to be encouraging support for a particular political action is partisan. Perhaps too much so unless Choice as an organisation supports this particular initiative as a consumer based action. Zali Steggalls private members Bill is news, most of us are already aware of. Posting a link in support is questionable. It is a challenge to a great many Choice members views of impartiality.

P.S.
I don’t necessarily disagree with the action being taken by Zali. It just seems contradictory if Choice is seen to be supporting that action over any other at this point in time. I’d rather see a considered critique of the policies of each parties policies vs consumer outcomes. But that would be a different discussion?

ClimateActNow appears to be sponsored by the Member for Warringah, although not clear from the lead into the link. It’s an ad calling for direct support from the Member. Not news!

And no offence intended to @Drop_Bear, it’s all very interesting content.

3 Likes