Climate Change

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

.

Constance B Gibson's picture
Constance B Gibson's picture
Constance B Gibson Sunday, 20 Mar 2022 at 11:54pm

Hahahahahaha. Straw clutcher.

soggydog's picture
soggydog's picture
soggydog Monday, 21 Mar 2022 at 12:17am

Hey Indo, no one is saying that we should shut down mining……no one.
People, and more importantly for you if you follow capitalist ideology should follow the market, which is pretty heavily skewed to taking climate action and sooner rather than later. Take insurance for example as an indicator of where markets are moving. Previously insurable assets are now no longer insurable at a reasonable rate, changes that are drivin by predicted outcomes associated with climate change. Now should we follow the market and make changes. Or should we intervene on insurance as Dutton has suggested. Which would be more along Government intervention lines that I think you are against?

People are calling for the reduced use of fossil fuels and the market is reflecting this. The only dinosaurs not on board seem to be from those great free market capitalists( roll eyes) the LNP. ( the ALP is pretty hooked on coal too). They are protecting a market and heavily subsidising it.

Read a good article somewhere on state capture. We’re there.

Craig's picture
Craig's picture
Craig Thursday, 31 Mar 2022 at 10:08am

A record 38.5°C warmer than normal temperature recorded in Antarctica...

Craig's picture
Craig's picture
Craig Thursday, 31 Mar 2022 at 10:13am

This is also just after the Conger Ice Shelf collapsed..

flollo's picture
flollo's picture
flollo Thursday, 31 Mar 2022 at 3:16pm
soggydog wrote:

Hey Indo, no one is saying that we should shut down mining……no one.
People, and more importantly for you if you follow capitalist ideology should follow the market, which is pretty heavily skewed to taking climate action and sooner rather than later. Take insurance for example as an indicator of where markets are moving. Previously insurable assets are now no longer insurable at a reasonable rate, changes that are drivin by predicted outcomes associated with climate change. Now should we follow the market and make changes. Or should we intervene on insurance as Dutton has suggested. Which would be more along Government intervention lines that I think you are against?

People are calling for the reduced use of fossil fuels and the market is reflecting this. The only dinosaurs not on board seem to be from those great free market capitalists( roll eyes) the LNP. ( the ALP is pretty hooked on coal too). They are protecting a market and heavily subsidising it.

Read a good article somewhere on state capture. We’re there.

How did I miss this post? Scotty and the team, the great free marketers! I remember him coming out with 'can do capitalism'. Out of nowhere, he started portraying this picture of himself as a defender of the free markets.

I pissed myself laughing. This government has done a lot to undermine those same free markets they pray for. Fuel subsidies etc were discussed many times, I will highlight a few less-known examples:

- Goes aggressive against Huawei citing Chinese government involvement in the company. Gives Telstra 85% of funds required to purchase Digicel Pacific in another country. Directly uses taxpayer dollars to take over a telco asset in the foreign country

- Goes against AGL takeover bid by Cannon-Brookes and Brookfield to ‘Sweat those assets’ as long as possible. And all of that after promoting his 'can do capitalism' and technology to solve climate change. Well, this bid was a clear-cut answer to his pledges. If he was a true free marketeer he would celebrate this offer rather than go against it.

- My favorite one - The Cashless Debit Card. What a ridiculous idea. Here we have so-called free marketers directly controlling what people are allowed to buy with their benefits. To quote: "The objective of the Cashless Debit Card is to ensure that welfare payments are spent in responsible and meaningful ways, and reduce high levels of social harm". And who decided what responsible and meaningful ways are? What kind of bureaucratic system is required to control that? A free marketer will let people spend whichever way they want to spend. I'll even say they are uneducated and should toy with Milton Friedman's negative income tax concept (or a modern UBI version). And if anyone was a defender of free markets it was Milton Friedman so this policy goes directly against those basic principles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax#Friedman's_NIT

I could keep going but no point. My conclusion is that LNP is a sponsor of state capitalism, cherry-picking areas where they can focus capital to suit their interest. There is nothing free in that, it's like a proxy war; 'we are not in a war but in reality, we are fighting through someone else'. Same here, we are not getting involved in the market directly but we are shuffling billions around to get the outcomes we want.

Robwilliams's picture
Robwilliams's picture
Robwilliams Thursday, 31 Mar 2022 at 4:05pm

Ah the great reshuffle bit like re packing the car. The problems remain the same. As does the inaction. Why did Scomo get booed at Warnies? Because he's failed to address anything with substance thats a present challenge. Waiting for Scomo's mob to act on climate change is a bit like watching an Ice cube re freeze. Pointless. Pathetic and Painful. He's been a sham his whole term. What a waste.
Soon they will be telling us it's the climate problems (issues) we had to have.
What?

Ohh the already are. What a legacy.

oxrox's picture
oxrox's picture
oxrox Thursday, 31 Mar 2022 at 5:00pm

Would love for a party to come out before the election with policies to fix Climate Change whilst keeping the country running with stable electricity for households and industry, bring the cost of living down, reduce fuel prices, reduce taxes, increase wages, get rid of covid, not be corrupt in any shape or form (would be a first for any government) stop floods, bush fires and still maintain our standard of living. They will get my vote. Can't see anybody putting their hands up. Because it's impossible now and in the immediate future.

Robwilliams's picture
Robwilliams's picture
Robwilliams Thursday, 31 Mar 2022 at 5:48pm

Bullshit
inaction and the in ability to act or respond is where we are. Our progressions mean nothing otherwise. Is it in the to hard basket. Why have government? Attitude to find change is whats needed. Saying it can't be done when the attempts are weak at their strongest are pathetic. Easy to achieve nothing with these as our ideals. And yes the world isn't perfect. But fuck following them to a slow pathetic death. Or being told it can't be done.

What, have they given up or just show no for-sight other than the next four years. Wouldn't look to an incapable government to provide a anserw on my last whelm of hope in regards to the current approach. It doesn't inspire me at all with words like those. Only cements the truths of a lifetime of denial from government that has shown a complete generation they couldn't be assed. Fuck the incompetence off. Are we not capable of change when it matters? If so why not? Why do government ministers all of a sudden need more protection? Because people are turning. Our perfect world is failing due to our own incompetence.

What anserw's do we have or are we just happy being comfortable until it implodes. live with it? Fuck why not fix it? Or should we just add it to the too hard basket because it's easy and not our problem.

Don't be just another idiot waiting for a wind change. They will continue to say change is impossible because they never wanted it or couldn't fore see it when it was right in front of them all along.

oxrox's picture
oxrox's picture
oxrox Thursday, 31 Mar 2022 at 5:38pm

So who's doing it? I wasn`t talking about what the current government is doing. I'm asking who is coming forward with strong policies to do the above and a clear path as to how they do it.

oxrox's picture
oxrox's picture
oxrox Thursday, 31 Mar 2022 at 5:38pm

So who's doing it? I wasn`t talking about what the current government is doing. I'm asking who is coming forward with strong policies to do the above and a clear path as to how they do it.

Robwilliams's picture
Robwilliams's picture
Robwilliams Thursday, 31 Mar 2022 at 6:25pm

Not many. Hard to get honest representation at the moment. Too easy to bang the same old drum with out providing a healthier outcome. But that is no excuse when shit hit's the fan as we have seen. Try voting for values rather than outcomes? The outcomes always change but the values do not. Risk is everywhere and look where it has got us. Not far. Success of a young country depends on how your are lead. We are being lead up shit creek by common avoidance. Easy to dismiss, hard to visually ignore.
Scomo ain't got our backs! But he sure has had his hand in our future. Fuck him and what he has delivered. Future generations wouldn't respect it. Neither can I.

The two major parties know they have got us in a position (mainly financial) where we are somewhat afraid of making major political change. Fear of our own making? Or just accepting it can't be done? Maybe it's time to break free of current political restraints. Why do volunteer groups, community groups do so much? Because the current government system in failing those communities it should serve. And serve with positive results and outcomes. We pick up the pieces every time they fail to deliver. Promises or not. This party or that until their action changes nothing does.

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming Thursday, 31 Mar 2022 at 6:53pm
flollo wrote:
soggydog wrote:

Hey Indo, no one is saying that we should shut down mining……no one.
People, and more importantly for you if you follow capitalist ideology should follow the market, which is pretty heavily skewed to taking climate action and sooner rather than later. Take insurance for example as an indicator of where markets are moving. Previously insurable assets are now no longer insurable at a reasonable rate, changes that are drivin by predicted outcomes associated with climate change. Now should we follow the market and make changes. Or should we intervene on insurance as Dutton has suggested. Which would be more along Government intervention lines that I think you are against?

People are calling for the reduced use of fossil fuels and the market is reflecting this. The only dinosaurs not on board seem to be from those great free market capitalists( roll eyes) the LNP. ( the ALP is pretty hooked on coal too). They are protecting a market and heavily subsidising it.

Read a good article somewhere on state capture. We’re there.

How did I miss this post? Scotty and the team, the great free marketers! I remember him coming out with 'can do capitalism'. Out of nowhere, he started portraying this picture of himself as a defender of the free markets.

I pissed myself laughing. This government has done a lot to undermine those same free markets they pray for. Fuel subsidies etc were discussed many times, I will highlight a few less-known examples:

- Goes aggressive against Huawei citing Chinese government involvement in the company. Gives Telstra 85% of funds required to purchase Digicel Pacific in another country. Directly uses taxpayer dollars to take over a telco asset in the foreign country

- Goes against AGL takeover bid by Cannon-Brookes and Brookfield to ‘Sweat those assets’ as long as possible. And all of that after promoting his 'can do capitalism' and technology to solve climate change. Well, this bid was a clear-cut answer to his pledges. If he was a true free marketeer he would celebrate this offer rather than go against it.

- My favorite one - The Cashless Debit Card. What a ridiculous idea. Here we have so-called free marketers directly controlling what people are allowed to buy with their benefits. To quote: "The objective of the Cashless Debit Card is to ensure that welfare payments are spent in responsible and meaningful ways, and reduce high levels of social harm". And who decided what responsible and meaningful ways are? What kind of bureaucratic system is required to control that? A free marketer will let people spend whichever way they want to spend. I'll even say they are uneducated and should toy with Milton Friedman's negative income tax concept (or a modern UBI version). And if anyone was a defender of free markets it was Milton Friedman so this policy goes directly against those basic principles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax#Friedman's_NIT

I could keep going but no point. My conclusion is that LNP is a sponsor of state capitalism, cherry-picking areas where they can focus capital to suit their interest. There is nothing free in that, it's like a proxy war; 'we are not in a war but in reality, we are fighting through someone else'. Same here, we are not getting involved in the market directly but we are shuffling billions around to get the outcomes we want.

Missed this post too.

About Free markets, yes ideally common sense dictates the best thing is to try to allow free market to decide something because its natural and clean and kept things as simple and as uncomplicated as possible, the more you interfere with the things the more complicated, messy and confusing things get.

But life isn't always perfect or black and white there is times you need to tinker with things to ensure something is provided or encourage investment.

For example energy production, obviously the public needs reliable energy 24/7 and energy companies once had to provide this too operate, but Rudd took away the policy to encourage renewables (im not bagging the move, it probably had to happen)

So now you have companies that can provide energy when they want and do not have to provide reliable 24/7 energy, a solar farm for instance only provides energy roughly 12 hours of day.

Now you could let the market decide things, and one day im sure the market will look after things, but for now, what happens? if renewables provide energy during the day cheap, but fossil fuel companies decide its not worth the effort to keep providing energy at night as they aren't making the money and the life span of the plant is coming to the end of its life anyway and no worth maintenance cost etc

Do you just let the country have a black or brown out during the night????

Or do you subsidise these companies to ensure they keep operating until one day the gap will be filled by storage or other reneweable energy forms???

Off course its sensible to subsidise these companies until the market naturally catches up, or to encourage investment in areas like storage or gas peaking plants etc to ensure an energy secure future.

It's called the real world.

BTW. in regard to most so called subsidies on fossil fuels, they aren't subsides at all, the bulk is made up by Diesel rebate that companies receive back 42.7c for every litre, the tax is for public road users but diesel used on private property doesn't pay the tax as don't use public roads, so they get it back.

@ Follow WTF are you going on about???

How on earth does a cashless debt card have anything to do with free markets??

It's the governments money provided to people for housing, food etc the card is to ensure the money gets spent where it should and kids get feed, instead of dubfuck loser parents blowing the money on the pokies or getting pissed, if these dumbfuck parents dont like it, go get a job.

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming Thursday, 31 Mar 2022 at 6:54pm

BTW. We missed this one from the other week.

"Australia to send 70,000 tonnes of Whitehaven coal to Ukraine"

https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/vladimir-putin-uses-ukraine-talks-t...

Cockee's picture
Cockee's picture
Cockee Thursday, 31 Mar 2022 at 7:19pm

I honestly believe Ukraine should send it straight back to Oz. Why can't they use wind turbines/solar panels like every body else and use electric tanks? (Cue outrage)

Supafreak's picture
Supafreak's picture
Supafreak Friday, 1 Apr 2022 at 5:13pm

The Morrison government’s $50 million gas handout undermines climate targets and does nothing to improve energy security. https://theconversation.com/the-morrison-governments-50-million-gas-hand...

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming Friday, 1 Apr 2022 at 5:57pm
Supafreak wrote:

The Morrison government’s $50 million gas handout undermines climate targets and does nothing to improve energy security. https://theconversation.com/the-morrison-governments-50-million-gas-hand...

What a complete load of BS, articles like this are totally irresponsible and just playing politics, they are not being realistic and creating unrealistic misleading narratives.

Forget politics, this isn't about politics if Labor get in they will have to back new gas projects to ensure energy security, our Coal powered power plants are fast approaching decommission dates and there is going to be a huge gap to fill from the Intermittency issues of solar and wind.

In the short term the only realistic option if we want to get rid of coal power fire stations is gas peaking plants, it's already happening around Australia, especially in SA you can watch it happen live, once the sun goes down
https://www.nem-watch.info/widgets/reneweconomy/

Gas fired turbines unlike coal can be fired up fairly quickly and create far far lower C02 emissions and can be converted to run on Green hydrogen one day when there is large amounts of excess renewables to create it.

Yeah sure one day batteries and other storage solutions will help fill the gap, but thats a very long term thing, currently no country on earth has decent percentage amounts of storage(especially batteries), and then you need days of energy storage security or a reliable energy back up system like gas peaking plants.

blackers's picture
blackers's picture
blackers Friday, 1 Apr 2022 at 7:56pm

Man you have it bad Indo. Take a breath and a moment to consider that there are other points of view, some contrary to yours, that are entirely valid. There are plenty who think your argument above is bs.

oxrox's picture
oxrox's picture
oxrox Friday, 1 Apr 2022 at 8:09pm

I'm 100% behind renewable energy but how will it work in a big city like Sydney for instance? There is a proposed hydrogen plant nearby to where I live and they are buying up huge amounts of coastal and farmland for wind turbines and solar. That's just for a hydrogen plant.
How much land is going to be needed to power cities and industrial areas and what happens to the solar and wind turbines etc when they are stuffed and need to be replaced? There is going to be a hell of a lot of them!

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming Friday, 1 Apr 2022 at 8:16pm

It's not a view it's reality, one that both major parties have to deal with and one we all have to deal with, articles that mislead the public and are looking for political points aren't helpful.

Supafreak's picture
Supafreak's picture
Supafreak Friday, 1 Apr 2022 at 8:30pm
indo-dreaming wrote:

It's not a view it's reality, one that both major parties have to deal with and one we all have to deal with, articles that mislead the public and are looking for political points aren't helpful.

Here’s the background on the person who wrote that article indo , don’t know what party she’s affiliated with . https://www.deakin.edu.au/about-deakin/people/samantha-hepburn. https://au.linkedin.com/in/samantha-hepburn-66648661

blackers's picture
blackers's picture
blackers Friday, 1 Apr 2022 at 8:30pm

Sorry champ,it’s your view of reality. Using the political points argument doesn’t really wash when you can only see things from your own narrow viewpoint. You dismiss the argument because it doesn’t sit with your views. Invest in renewables and they will get built, and then be available for use. Invest in gas/coal and you add to greenhouse emissions and exacerbate a widely accepted issue. Business is pulling out of fossil fuels, follow the money, it is something you seem overly concerned with.
Btw, glad you are feeling better.

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming Wednesday, 6 Apr 2022 at 6:14pm
blackers wrote:

Sorry champ,it’s your view of reality. Using the political points argument doesn’t really wash when you can only see things from your own narrow viewpoint. You dismiss the argument because it doesn’t sit with your views. Invest in renewables and they will get built, and then be available for use. Invest in gas/coal and you add to greenhouse emissions and exacerbate a widely accepted issue. Business is pulling out of fossil fuels, follow the money, it is something you seem overly concerned with.
Btw, glad you are feeling better.

Listened to the most recent podcast episode of "Australia if your listening" today.
https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/if-youre-listening/can-we-keep-dig...

Series started out pretty neutral but got much more left leaning anti LNP as it moved onto more recent episodes, anyway while they dont go to the extent i have in my previous thoughts about gas and the presenter does try to tone things down at times even if his experts he talks to don't, they still do mirror many of the things ive said here about gas playing a part in our energy mix moving forward long after coal is gone.

From 27:00 onwards they talk about natural gas

A few point's they make

-That gas will be used in the future to support renewables even with batteries and pumped hydro, generally in the form of gas peaking plants (apparently we already have 50 of these operating in Australia, you can see them come on at night on the energy watch thing especially if low to no wind, especially for SA.)

-That the big challenge is we need 2 to 3 weeks of back up energy, Ive made this point many times in this thread, its unlikely its either going to be viable to have 2 to 3 weeks worth of battery storage when it might only need to be used a few times a year.

-Towards the very end of the podcast they even say "There are very few models that see gas peaking plants phased out before 2050"

BTW. Thanks for the well wishes :D

blackers's picture
blackers's picture
blackers Wednesday, 6 Apr 2022 at 9:29pm

Cool, but also missing the point somewhat. You often work in binaries; left, right, red, blue. The way forward is complex and nuanced, not black and white. We are not going to get there by ignoring renewables. Gas will be part of the mix no doubt but the investment that counts in the long run will be in renewables. Backup base load for the “what ifs” and bad days will be part of things but not the main answer. It’s my kids and your kids future. Let’s not fuck it up totally for them.

Robwilliams's picture
Robwilliams's picture
Robwilliams Wednesday, 27 Apr 2022 at 10:11am
GreenJam's picture
GreenJam's picture
GreenJam Wednesday, 27 Apr 2022 at 2:28pm

yes Robwilliams, that's a really good story. I've been watching it for a while, so it is good to see the scale-up from the trial stage.
there is no doubt in my mind that biochar, from many and various sources, including the biosolids example in this story, is a key part of the carbon drawdown solution. All councils should be learning from this example.

stunet's picture
stunet's picture
stunet Wednesday, 27 Apr 2022 at 3:00pm

Whatever comes of climate change and the renewables debate, I think everyone must concede that the very issue has created a surge in new technology and thinking, as evidenced by Rob William's link above, but also many other examples of accessing energy and harnessing waste.

Much of it is ingenious and only arose out of constant pressure and adversarial argument.

More power to the antagonists.

batfink's picture
batfink's picture
batfink Wednesday, 27 Apr 2022 at 4:15pm
blackers wrote:

Cool, but also missing the point somewhat. You often work in binaries; left, right, red, blue. The way forward is complex and nuanced, not black and white.

Hallelujah blackers.

Of course gas peaker’s will still be around for a while yet, almost certainly govt owned as they won’t be able to be profitable if they’re only running a few weeks per year. As to when the last one gets shut down, it is impossible to forecast. Who knows what will be invented by then.

The sooner we can shut down coal burners the better.

batfink's picture
batfink's picture
batfink Wednesday, 27 Apr 2022 at 4:24pm

While technology will bring unknowable achievements in the next 28 years, the existing technology of wind, solar and pumped hydro can be deployed to cover our entire energy needs into the future.

An ANU professor looking Into pumped hydro found something like 27,000 potential sites in Australia. We would need a few hundred at most, most of them quite small, distributed is best.

That’s without using batteries. Batteries just adds to the mix.

The technology exists, now. The political will, not so much.

Someone will invent a better mousetrap, eventually. Or a better political system.

Robwilliams's picture
Robwilliams's picture
Robwilliams Wednesday, 27 Apr 2022 at 5:26pm

The beautiful thing is the cat is well and truly out of the bag. People are looking at and developing alternatives. The more they do, the more the uptake their can be. Theirs no going back in a sense. Momentum and action is advancing as it is becoming undeniable that other concepts are out there. Waiting to be embraced. Love seeing science being used in bringing about healthy change.

blackers's picture
blackers's picture
blackers Tuesday, 3 May 2022 at 6:08pm