Climate Change

blowfly's picture
blowfly started the topic in Wednesday, 1 Jul 2020 at 9:40am

.

Fliplid's picture
Fliplid's picture
Fliplid Thursday, 14 Oct 2021 at 9:49am

Worth a listen as not only does he lay out a good argument for what he is doing he mentions his discussions with the recalcitrant politicians. Basically lays bare their bullshit arguments

https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/mining-magnate-a...

Spot on Indo, blue or as Angus Taylor calls it "clean" hydrogen is just fossil fuel dressed up

stunet's picture
stunet's picture
stunet Thursday, 14 Oct 2021 at 9:56am

'Twas replying to your comment one above, Indo.

I'm very dubious of the conversation that says - or has said - that certain renewable energies can't be done. That conversation is led by capital and echoed by vested interests (such as our government) looking to extract the last great fortunes from the ground. It's now also capital who, realising they can profit, is saying it can be done.

The only thing that changed is will.

Blowin's picture
Blowin's picture
Blowin Thursday, 14 Oct 2021 at 10:28am

What’s the point of using one energy source to power another?

Roker's picture
Roker's picture
Roker Thursday, 14 Oct 2021 at 10:53am

Twiggy pirouetted gracefully around the question of whether after making a fortune from fossil fuels he should be profiting from the government subsidies soon to flow to assist in the production of clean energy.

Don't think he'll be doing another backflip and advocating for the reintroduction of the MRRT in the interim.

But his enthusiasm is infectious.

And he certainly clouted Angus Taylor and Bridget Mackenzie with dismissive backhanders, set up Scomo for a kicking he gives Glasgow the flick, and poured scorn on ‘clean hydrogen’ and carbon capture and storage.

I saw a report that questioned the wisdom of Macron’s proposed smaller nuclear power stations, saying that, all things considered, nuclear is only marginally cheaper per kWh than wind, then on the other hand cited Germany turning off their nuclear power stations only to recently face days on end with neither wind nor sun, with the result that prices soared.

Supafreak's picture
Supafreak's picture
Supafreak Thursday, 14 Oct 2021 at 11:42am

I wonder if the Australian government will introduce these same incentives to get people into electric cars . https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/the-electric-car-revolution-putting-...

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Thursday, 14 Oct 2021 at 11:45am

Carpetman - 1kWh of electricity in = 0.79kWh of hydrogen out.

If this is true ( I have no reason to doubt you ) why would we even consider using hydrogen ?????

We loose energy producing it . What am I missing ?

Craig - I doubt that the 2025 prediction has taken into consideration the explosion of gas and coal needed in the last few months .

Supafreak's picture
Supafreak's picture
Supafreak Thursday, 14 Oct 2021 at 11:49am

And for the dummies like me that don’t totally understand what is meant by net zero, this article may help . https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-14/what-is-net-zero-carbon-emissions...

Roker's picture
Roker's picture
Roker Thursday, 14 Oct 2021 at 11:49am

Because it's the best clean - only? - option for powering things such as big shipping and possibly airliners?

Westofthelake's picture
Westofthelake's picture
Westofthelake Thursday, 14 Oct 2021 at 12:10pm

Someone's got the blues...

245524299-4327718583949525-4803796486993502706-n
upload images

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Thursday, 14 Oct 2021 at 12:13pm

Thanks Supa - I needed that article .

I need to think on this but my first thoughts are that this will be impossible to achieve . The world will need to produce more solar panels , wind farms , nuclear plants after 2050 which will create more CO2 .

We will not plant enough trees to take up this CO2 ( I would like to be wrong ) .

Unfortunately , offset programs , carbon storage , carbon trading systems are all potentially a scam .

We don't have and are not developing these technologies . Even if we were they need CO2 to create and use .

The numbers don't add up .

The only way to get to net zero is to stop human activity and who wants that ?

Net Zero is total fantasy but I hope to be proved wrong !

gragagan's picture
gragagan's picture
gragagan Thursday, 14 Oct 2021 at 12:13pm

Considering there's a federal election early next year I don't think we should believe anything the LNP gov says. Especially when it comes to anything to do with the climate. They say they'll commit now, but if re-elected it'll soon be forgotten. As with all the rhetoric on china, keep talking up the threat way out of proportion, then when nothing happens they can say it's because they kept us safe. Typical re-election strategies used the world over.

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming Thursday, 14 Oct 2021 at 12:21pm
Supafreak wrote:

I wonder if the Australian government will introduce these same incentives to get people into electric cars . https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/the-electric-car-revolution-putting-...

NSW has removed stamp duty tax on EVs and ensured no user tax for 6 years, like the milage tax being introduced in Vic on EVs

Weird situation, a LNP policy trying to encourage EV uptake and a Labor state government policy that could be argued discourages EV take up, go figure.

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Thursday, 14 Oct 2021 at 12:34pm

Interesting I post about net zero and then I read this . Again reminded it is all about money . The old adage
"follow the money " is always a reliable guide .

"So what is going on, and why is it that virtually every topic these days has to do with climate change, "net zero", green energy and ESG?

The reason - as one would correctly suspect - is money. Some $150 trillion of it.

Earlier today, Bank of America published one of its massive "Thematic Research" tomes, this time covering the "Transwarming" World, and serves as a massive primer to today's Net Zero reality. The report (which is available to all ZH pro subs) is actually a must read, interesting, chock-full of data and charts such as these...

But while we don't care about the charts, that cheat sheets, or the propaganda, what we were interested in was the bottom line - how much would this green utopia cost, because if the "net zero", "ESG", "green" narrative is pushed so hard 24/7, you know it will cost a lot.

Turns out it does. A lot, lot.

Responding rhetorically to the key question, "how much will it cost?", BofA cuts to the case and writes $150 trillion over 30 years - some $5 trillion in annual investments - amounting to twice current global GDP!

At this point the report gets good because since it has to be taken seriously, it has to also be at least superficially objective. And here, the details behind the numbers, do we finally learn why the net zero lobby is so intent on pushing this green utopia - simple answer: because it provides an endless stream of taxpayer and debt-funded "investments" which in turn need a just as constant degree of debt monetization by central banks."

I would bet a trillion that the ones pushing for net zero are the ones that will make the most money .

Everyone else who pushes for it will help them line their pockets .

I will not be advocating for net zero !!!!!!!!!

Roker's picture
Roker's picture
Roker Thursday, 14 Oct 2021 at 12:42pm

Which just makes one shake one's head even more at the Green's voting with Abbot against Labor's ETS over a decade ago.

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Thursday, 14 Oct 2021 at 12:54pm

No Roker Abbott was right on this imo . An ETS like a cardon trading system is ripe for abuse , expensive ( think bureaucrats ) to run and not hence not effective . What difference would it have made to the world wide production of CO2 ?

You should be shaking your head about the figure of $150 TRLLION . Wondering who would be making all the profits from this and are they deserving !

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Thursday, 14 Oct 2021 at 1:01pm

Hutchy you won't be advocating for net zero because you are profoundly ignorant.
You sound like you have lived your life in an intellectual puddle a couple of millimetres deep and have been such a loud mouth self opinionated fuckwit that people just gave up on trying to draw your attention that it is no longer 1973.

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Thursday, 14 Oct 2021 at 1:19pm

BB - thanks for your reply . You seem a bit touchy today .

I am very happy to advocate to reduce CO2 emissions . Craig and more research coninced me my old view was wrong .

I will not advocate for a policy that is unlikely to be achievable ( I said above I am happy to be proven wrong ) . If I believe it is achievable I am all for it .

I will be especially dubious advocating for a policy that costs $150 trillion ( and counting ) and that people who are probably already rich will make more money from . I am very wary of anyone telling me that something needs to be done when they stand to make a fortune .

I did have the same views in 1973 .

You can and undoubtedly will .

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Thursday, 14 Oct 2021 at 1:26pm

Mate, your only positive contribution so far had been to make some of us laugh out loud.

" If I believe it is achievable, I am all for it"

Mcface's picture
Mcface's picture
Mcface Thursday, 14 Oct 2021 at 1:45pm
Hutchy 19 wrote:

No Roker Abbott was right on this imo . An ETS like a cardon trading system is ripe for abuse , expensive ( think bureaucrats ) to run and not hence not effective . What difference would it have made to the world wide production of CO2 ?

You should be shaking your head about the figure of $150 TRLLION . Wondering who would be making all the profits from this and are they deserving !

Hey hutchy you might find this clip funny of your mate Tony Abbott advocating for a carbon tax (Before Jules and swanny got a hold of the same idea). The schadenfreude is strong here.

Anyway mate good to hear you've taken on board some of the CO2 stuff and I appreciate that. Sounds like we still disagree on a lot mind you.

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Thursday, 14 Oct 2021 at 2:21pm

Thanks Mc . Always happy to listen to views I disagree with if given in good faith . I don't automatically assume I am right and very happy to change and be an advocate of a new view .

Happy that Tony was able to do the same .

BB - did this in 1973 as well .

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Thursday, 14 Oct 2021 at 3:39pm

Given the sudden shift of the COALition and the Business Council of Australia towards a commitment to net zero by 2050 after decades of denial, obfuscation and delay, more than a little scepticism about their motives is well justified. The evidence, not just for the reality of climate change, but for its potentially catastrophic consequences has been on the table for a long time now.

This year’s Sixth Assessment Report from the IPCC broke some new ground but the big picture supported earlier predictions all the way back to their very first report in 1990. So why the sudden shift after more than 30 years? The answer is that the excuses have worn thin. Too many voters have now been educated about the issue and can see through the lies of the Murdoch press and the bullshit of politicians waving lumps of coal.

So we see the opportunistic change of political direction and the moves to make sure power and wealth remain in the same hands through the transition and beyond so the great consumerist catastrophe can continue. Climate change is the main issue. Reducing emissions has to remain the main target but, with the approach planned, it will do nothing to address the other fundamental environmental, social and economic problems we face.

There is a lot of talk about sustainability but in many ways we should be much more worried about stability. The economic wobbles of 2008 never quite went away and the pandemic has only intensified them. The growing inequality has been creating social unrest across the globe for decades. Deeply entrenched poverty and disadvantage exist in many developed countries including our own.

Looked at from the outside this situation is almost incomprehensible. Globally we have the resources to feed, house and clothe every person on the planet at the same time as we reduce emissions, with little or no disadvantage to those already doing well. In 1900 global production was $3.42 trillion adjusted for inflation by 2014 it was $104.72 trillion, an increase of over 30 times. Over the same time population has grown from 1.4 billion to 7.7 billion, an increase of less than 5 times. On the raw statistics every person on the planet should be 6 times wealthier, in real terms than their great-grand parents in 1900. If you want to try and explain those figures and the current global situation without using the words “greed”, “exploitation” and “injustice”, you are kidding yourself.

More later

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Thursday, 14 Oct 2021 at 4:40pm

BB- The world has got richer since 1900 .

A huge percentage of the poor are no longer poor . Very easy for them ALL to be more than 6 times richer .

I don't consider that they have exploited , been greedy or that their wealth is an injustice .

I would also expect the rich to have got richer in 120 years . Six times sounds way too small to me . Work out the annual increase and it will be much less than how house prices have performed in Australia in the last 120 years .

Unfortunately you again get excited about large figures without knowing what they really mean . A typical non real world economist view .

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Thursday, 14 Oct 2021 at 4:56pm

700 million in extreme poverty. You really have no idea at all do you? Clueless doesn't even begin to describe the profound depths of your ignorance and the persistence of your delusions.
https://worldpoverty.io/headline

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Thursday, 14 Oct 2021 at 5:03pm

Explain to me then the number and percentage of poor people in 1900 and the number and percentage in 2014 then mr smarty pants so I can work out who is ignorant . I will be happy to admit it is me if proven but I think you wont give me the numbers .

I will keep an eye out as you must have these numbers at hand .

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming Thursday, 14 Oct 2021 at 5:53pm

Its kind of good with this new time limit on editing, some people do look really silly now and it aint Hutchy this time thats for sure.

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Thursday, 14 Oct 2021 at 7:23pm

The graph shows the data for extreme poverty as in surviving on less than $2 a day. The 10% is 700 million human beings.......presumably you find that acceptable. I don't.

I also have suspicions about the claim that 90% of people lived in extreme poverty in 1890.

I focus's picture
I focus's picture
I focus Thursday, 14 Oct 2021 at 8:48pm

BB the move on climate by corporates (Coalition sponsors and policy providers) largely due to being hit by tariffs if they don't IMHO nothing to do with the better good.

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Thursday, 14 Oct 2021 at 9:05pm

Yeh I think that is a factor but there is also electoral pressure. The Libs have wedged themselves. If they do not act on climate they will be slaughtered by independents in some of their safe seats. If they do act then they risk the Nationals losing seats in coal country. Either way they are going to struggle. Lots of pigs going to end up as salted pork before the next election.

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Thursday, 14 Oct 2021 at 9:05pm

Just give me your numbers BB ( and the link as your credibility is in question ) from the dates you used .

Leave the rest to me .

What's taking you soooo long ? The more you delay the more ignorance moves from me to you . I am sure you wouldn't like that !

Supafreak's picture
Supafreak's picture
Supafreak Friday, 15 Oct 2021 at 1:32pm

No doubt there will be a special spur line for Clive Palmer station. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/joyce-promises-multibillion-doll...

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Friday, 15 Oct 2021 at 2:13pm
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Friday, 15 Oct 2021 at 2:55pm

Thanks BB - asking me to find a needle in a haystack .

I looked through both articles and could not find ONE that started at 1900 . Where have you dug up your numbers from ?

Are you being deliberately evasive !!!!!!!

Just give me YOUR numbers for " the number and percentage of poor people in 1900 and the number and percentage in 2014 then mr smarty pants so I can work out who is ignorant . " - as I asked .

I will then try and cross reference on the charts that go back to 1200 .

dawnperiscope's picture
dawnperiscope's picture
dawnperiscope Friday, 15 Oct 2021 at 3:05pm

We will produce hydrogen for the same reason we charge a battery or refine oil. It's just a form of energy storage.
The energy losses are unavoidable when changing one form of energy to another. How much of the energy in your diesel tank actually goes into propelling your car? about 40%.
Comparing the energy density is relevant, as storage is a big challenge. However comparing the $ for production is irrelevant because it has just changed while I'm writing this post .. and again while you're reading it. There are currently 2 billionaires making sure we can all afford it.

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Friday, 15 Oct 2021 at 3:29pm

Just your poor research skills Hutchy. It is all there. Try a bit harder, it will be good practice.

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Friday, 15 Oct 2021 at 3:32pm

Get stuffed . I am offering YOU the chance to make me look stupid . You try harder if you dare .

Or are you chicken Mc Fly?

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Friday, 15 Oct 2021 at 3:37pm

As you like mate.

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Friday, 15 Oct 2021 at 3:56pm

Many articles about energy price exploding in China , India and Europe today .

Talk of Australia needing to look at more nuclear exports . Uranium stocks are exploding higher on the ASX .

The energy supply demand situation has broken down .

The thermal coal ( used for generating electricity ) has gone up from $US 51.35 on the 21st of August 2020 to $243.35 today shows this clearly .

The implications for CO2 zero in 2050 are immense . Inflation the same .

What do we do ? Freeze ?

In the US .

So far, Americans have been watching the money-depleting energy crisis that hit Europe and Asia with detached bemusement: after all, while US energy prices are higher, they are nowhere near the hyperinflation observed in Europe. That is about to change because as the Energy Information Administration warned this week, much higher heating bills are coming this winter.

According to the IEA's October winter fuels outlook (pdf), nearly half of U.S. households that warm their homes with mainly natural gas can expect to spend an average of 30% more on their "multi-year high" bills compared with last year. The agency added that bills would be 50% higher if the winter is 10% colder than average and 22% higher if the winter is 10% warmer than average.

The forecast rise in costs, according to the report, will result in an average natural-gas home-heating bill of $746 from Oct. 1 to March 31, compared with about $573 during the same period last year.

Optimist's picture
Optimist's picture
Optimist Friday, 15 Oct 2021 at 5:08pm

Apparently at the UN climate summit in Glasgow they have had to set up oil burning generators everywhere to charge the prestige electric cars the visiting politicians will be driving. Hopefully things will get a bit more genuine after all this as it seems a bit of a wanky start.

Vic Local's picture
Vic Local's picture
Vic Local Friday, 15 Oct 2021 at 5:32pm

So Scumo is going to Glasgow. He had the choice of staying at home and eating a shit sandwich or going to Scotland and eating some badly cooked haggis.
I can't wait for his speech. He won't get up and pontificate about "great moral challenges" or "existential threats to the survival of humanity".
He will just give a non-committal vanilla talk because he, A) has already decided to dump any half arse plan for Australia to reduce emissions or B) knows the Nats will blow up the plan either before the election or shortly after it.
Bon appetite Scumo.

Roadkill's picture
Roadkill's picture
Roadkill Friday, 15 Oct 2021 at 5:37pm

Hopefully Greta puts in an appearance and says..blah blah blah....blah blah blah..and still has no answers.

Westofthelake's picture
Westofthelake's picture
Westofthelake Friday, 15 Oct 2021 at 7:15pm

The Prime Marketer rockin' it to Glasgow

245780374-10157853211461230-5421004055977936721-n

Constance B Gibson's picture
Constance B Gibson's picture
Constance B Gibson Friday, 15 Oct 2021 at 7:38pm

Nice one, Westie.

Now where's SN's own Carcheron Dundee when you need him? Having a big sleep, I hope.

And there's this:

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/world/us-news/2021/10/15/dan-ilic-times-...

Optimist's picture
Optimist's picture
Optimist Friday, 15 Oct 2021 at 8:04pm

I’ll have a hundred Morrison gets to the target before the rest of the worlds big talking bullshitters….any takers.

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Friday, 15 Oct 2021 at 8:22pm

Mate give a bookie a call I reckon you'll get crackin' odds on that one!

adam12's picture
adam12's picture
adam12 Friday, 15 Oct 2021 at 8:34pm

Not only will Scomo not meet any net zero targets for 2050, by 2030 his political career over he will be targeting vulnerable idiots as a Pentacostal preacher in some half arsed scam church dressed in a stupid robed outfit thinking jesus lives in his hands.

I focus's picture
I focus's picture
I focus Friday, 15 Oct 2021 at 11:17pm
blindboy wrote:

Y Either way they are going to struggle. Lots of pigs going to end up as salted pork before the next election.

I hope so along with and after the election a very strong federal ICAC, now that would be entertaining.

Optimist's picture
Optimist's picture
Optimist Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 5:30am

Morrison’s still the best out of the current bunch. I’d like to think there was someone better to vote for but old Albo was in the hunter the other day saying he was going to save all the coal jobs. Al least our new NSW premier is going to replace coal jobs with hydrogen and renewables manufacturing jobs he reckons and I think he just might do it too. He Seems like a good 39 year old go getter and some young fresh blood. Hope he does well.

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 6:40am

So what odds did you get? Anything less than 100-1 would be a rip off.

Fliplid's picture
Fliplid's picture
Fliplid Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 6:58am

The Coalition’s election war-chest will be brimming with fossil fuel donations thanks to demands by Barnaby Joyce and Keith Pitt to transfer $250bn from Australia to Chinese and other coal and gas companies.

Looks can be deceiving. Former PM Tony Abbott might be running about Taiwan “beating the drums of war” with China but the National Party leadership, Misters Bā nà bǐ Joyce and Li Jing Pitt, are hell-bent on giving the Chinese big wads of Aussie cash. 

The looming Federal Election will be like nothing Australia has seen before; the campaign funded by a deluge of political donations from the fossil fuel sector in return for massive public subsidies; and the irony is that a goodly chunk of it will go to Chinese companies, which are in turn controlled by the Chinese Communist Party.

Bā nà bǐ Joyce and Li Jing Pitt, the two senior National Party reps in the government, are demanding a $250bn slush fund to subsidise the fossil fuels sector.

This is the quid pro quo, their trade-off, for signing up with the rest of the world to net zero emissions, for agreeing with the “neo-moderates” Scott Morrison and Josh Frydenberg who have recently seen the light on climate action, apparently along with Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp.

The supreme irony of this grotesque grab for coal and gas donations is that it would transfer billions to the Chinese.

Chairman of the Energy Security Board, Kerry Schott, said the other day that coal power would be gone from Australia by the mid-2030s. But instead of letting financial markets do their thing, Deputy Prime Minister Joyce, Resources Minister Pitt and of course Nats senator Matt Canavan are galloping to the rescue of foreign corporations with their proposed $250bn “loan facility”.

Why should Australians prop up foreign fossil fuel corporations? Should not old-fashioned capitalism prevail? “Bugger off,” Matt Canavan told Sky News.

“We should tell them (international financial markets) to bugger off … even if it was to mean we pay more”.

“If we are forced to pay a little bit more on our mortgages, we should do that,” he said. Matt and his National Party colleagues Barnaby and Keith – or rather, Bā nà bǐ Joyce, Li Jing Pitt and Mǎ xiū Canavan – ought to be shortlisted for the Mao Tse Tung Medal of Honour for Services to the People’s Republic for advocating this inspirational concept that Australian home-owners must subsidise China’s business elite.

Their slush fund proposal would not merely bail out the Chinese, it would rescue a host of other multinational corporations too, almost all of which deploy tax haven structures to eliminate their contribution to Australia.

Much of the subsidies proposed by Bā nà bǐ Joyce, Li Jing Pitt and Mǎ Xiū Canavan go to the likes infamous global tax cheat Glencore, US oil giant Exxon, the Anglo-Dutch Shell, the biggest coal company in the US, Peabody Coal and the Queensland gas frackers such as BG International.

Already, most of the companies mentioned above are spectacular freeloaders. Gas giant Jemena, 60% owned by State Grid of China, is in a long-standing stoush with the Tax Office, Yancoal pays zero. So do Peabody, CITIC and gas fracker BG.

https://www.michaelwest.com.au/reds-under-bed-barnaby-and-keiths-plot-fo...

Optimist's picture
Optimist's picture
Optimist Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 7:00am

Ben or Stu can hold the bets, trouble is, by 2050 my hundred wont buy a block of wax...I think people like Dominic will be the real game changers at state level. The Feds are too "please like me " to do anything radical.