Climate change

Discuss all the events of the day

Moderator: GH Moderators

RedRaider
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9032
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

At the opening of the NRMA 36th regional EV fast charger in Mudgee on Monday. At least 2 more in Northern NSW to open this year. Several Tesla vehicles attending. The owner of an X Model showed the X Model party trick which is for the car to dance. The below clip doesn't do it justice. Priced at around $160K it is an expensive party trick for most people.



Hopefully Elon Musk will begin to focus on the long announced $25,000 model. That will appeal to the mass market particularly City drivers as the range is not likely to be comparable to an Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicle for a similar price. Interesting that Tesla have bumped up the cost of using their EV chargers by more than 20%.

In other news MG (Morris Garages) has announced their new EV (Electric Vehicle) which is a small model SUV (Sports Utility Vehicle) type. Priced at $40K with on road costs taking it to mid-$40Ks. It is a good looking vehicle. The announced range of about 260km means it is more likely to appeal to city drivers/commuters. I expect to see far more EV makes and models for Sedans, SUVs and commercial vehicles in coming years.
RedRaider
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9032
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

Two more EV fast chargers opened last week. One in Tenterfield and the other in Armidale. The New England Highway now has EV fast chargers no more than 150km apart along its length. This will assist in opening up regional tourism and as Aussies cannot go overseas they are likely to holiday within OZ.

In other news the Australian Government released the below information this month.
https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/defau ... s-2020.pdf
RedRaider
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9032
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

The Nickman wrote: August 26, 2020, 11:29 am
papabear wrote: August 26, 2020, 9:32 am
gergreg wrote: July 4, 2020, 5:05 pm You are completely missing the point. You cannot complain about another country using coal when we friggen are the biggest exporter of coal to that country.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
How is he missing the point.

You appear to be missing the point.

We stop supplying good coal, they buy lower quality coal to cover that 1 percent and produce more emissions.

You dont solve a problem by value signalling and feigned intelligence.

Edited - sharing my feelings, whilst gerggreg certainly deserved that sentence the rest of the board should not have to read it.
This is such a valid point in ANY discussion about Australia's exports in coal and it blows my mind that it keeps needing to be explained.

Australia has the cheapest, most energy efficient coal with the lowest trace elements and other nasties such as sulphur. If we stopped selling coal tomorrow, completely stopped cold turkey, we would contribute MORE to climate change, not less. Not to mention the ridiculous effects it would have on our economy.

It's just such a ridiculous assertion for intelligent people to be making and has no place in the conversation.
The truth to what you have said Nickman is being played out right now. The CCP is not accepting Australian coal to be landed in China. That is their decision to make. So they either burn more of their own coal or import likely lower grade coal from elsewhere. Either way no reduction in Chinese emissions and a possible small increase in emissions. Australia not exporting coal to China will make those with views like gergreg very happy. Australia exporting around 1% of Chinese coal consumption is easily replaced.
User avatar
gergreg
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10672
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gergreg »

But the reality is, if nobody in the world sold coal to anybody...regardless of its purity (or whatever definition you put on it) as in completely ceased the trade in it. And no countries used coal as an energy source. And countries turned to renewable energy sources instead, the world as a whole, would be in a much better place. Wouldn't it?

Edit... actually Australia wouldn't be in a better place because we're a country so reliant on digging up resources and selling it to other countries.





Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Shoving it in your face since 2017
RedRaider
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9032
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

The reality is, renewables (wind and solar) for electricity generation are intermittent. Storage technology is not yet able to meet 24/7 demand. This is why I have been posting articles on 'million mile' batteries and Australian work on lithium-sulphur batteries. There needs to be some technology and engineering break throughs before these even become a possibility. Pumped hydro is a potential large battery as the storage is 're-charged' by pumping water up hill at a time when renewables have low demand. The produced power has to be shifted from the area of generation to where there is demand. This is why the Government (Federal and State/Territory) spend on inter-connectors is so important eg Tasmania to the mainland among others, for Battery of the Nation.

No nation is going to just 'turn off' coal imo. It will be wound back and replaced by other power sources. China is by far the largest user of coal in the World. China will continue to dig up and burn around 5 billion tonnes of coal each year until they have exhausted their reserves most likely in the decade 2050-2060. (See previously posted link on World energy resources produced by BP each year.) They are also using their 'belt and road' initiative to build more coal fired power stations in other countries with Chinese built coal fired power stations already opened in Pakistan with more building and/or planned for Vietnam, Egypt, Turkey, Bangladesh and the Philippines.

To see where the Worlds coal plants are closing, operating and being built see below link.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worl ... wer-plants
User avatar
gergreg
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10672
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gergreg »

Well maybe if countries actually paid any level of attention to the science... what 30 ... 40 + years ago ? We wouldn't be in the situation we are in now. Politicians in many countries, including our own were denying that climate change was occurring up until quite recently, with our current PM using a lump of coal as a prop in parliament.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13892
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

Gergreg I don’t think it’s fair to use past tense for a government that has plenty of climate change denial left in it.
The Nickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 47498
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Climate change

Post by The Nickman »

gergreg wrote:But the reality is, if nobody in the world sold coal to anybody...regardless of its purity (or whatever definition you put on it) as in completely ceased the trade in it. And no countries used coal as an energy source. And countries turned to renewable energy sources instead, the world as a whole, would be in a much better place. Wouldn't it?

Edit... actually Australia wouldn't be in a better place because we're a country so reliant on digging up resources and selling it to other countries.





Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Fantastic scenario, most of the world wouldn’t have power, but you’d certainly cut down emissions.

Hope you enjoy cutting firewood, gerg. You’ll have to get used to it pretty bloody quickly.

And say goodbye to steel too, maybe try and build your next bike out of wood too?
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush
User avatar
gergreg
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10672
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gergreg »

The Nickman wrote:
gergreg wrote:But the reality is, if nobody in the world sold coal to anybody...regardless of its purity (or whatever definition you put on it) as in completely ceased the trade in it. And no countries used coal as an energy source. And countries turned to renewable energy sources instead, the world as a whole, would be in a much better place. Wouldn't it?

Edit... actually Australia wouldn't be in a better place because we're a country so reliant on digging up resources and selling it to other countries.





Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Fantastic scenario, most of the world wouldn’t have power, but you’d certainly cut down emissions.

Hope you enjoy cutting firewood, gerg. You’ll have to get used to it pretty bloody quickly.

And say goodbye to steel too, maybe try and build your next bike out of wood too?
Like I said in my follow up. If the world had actually listened a long time ago we wouldn't still be so reliant on coal.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13892
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

While why we can’t turn off coal tomorrow, focussing on that just distracts from actually doing something to get to the point where we can.
The Nickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 47498
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Climate change

Post by The Nickman »

I’m just glad none of you blokes drive petrol fueled cars, seeing as cars contribute just as heavily to climate change as thermal coal plants, maybe even moreso

There’s no point just talking about it if you’re not prepared to make the change yourself
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 140252
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

The thing is... you are able to find alternatives to coal for energy generation, but you definitely need coal to make steel. Unfortunately, the debate on climate change is mired in people wanting to ban this or that or people pushing their particular preferred alternative to carbon polluting activities. We see it in this thread all the time.

What is really needed is a price to be placed on carbon pollution so as to achieve a desired, set amount of reduction in carbon emissions... and you let the market work out the best way of getting there. No need to ban things like conventional light bulbs, no need to pick winners, like electric cars. The world will need coal for a very, very long time - and Australian coal is the best coal to use. The horrible legacy of the climate change denialists is that we will first, take inadequate action to ameliorate climate change, and second, we will not reduce carbon emissions at least cost when we do take action.
Image
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13892
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

There we have Nickman unable to disagree with what was written so has to resort to hypothetical ad hominems instead.

Sad.
User avatar
gergreg
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10672
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gergreg »

The Nickman wrote:I’m just glad none of you blokes drive petrol fueled cars, seeing as cars contribute just as heavily to climate change as thermal coal plants, maybe even moreso

There’s no point just talking about it if you’re not prepared to make the change yourself
I've never driven a car... over to you old friend.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13892
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

Oh dear, looks like he’ll be picking that out of his netball or some such
RedRaider
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9032
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

greeneyed wrote: December 20, 2020, 1:19 pm The thing is... you are able to find alternatives to coal for energy generation, but you definitely need coal to make steel. Unfortunately, the debate on climate change is mired in people wanting to ban this or that or people pushing their particular preferred alternative to carbon polluting activities. We see it in this thread all the time.

What is really needed is a price to be placed on carbon pollution so as to achieve a desired, set amount of reduction in carbon emissions... and you let the market work out the best way of getting there. No need to ban things like conventional light bulbs, no need to pick winners, like electric cars. The world will need coal for a very, very long time - and Australian coal is the best coal to use. The horrible legacy of the climate change denialists is that we will first, take inadequate action to ameliorate climate change, and second, we will not reduce carbon emissions at least cost when we do take action.
'pick winners' the dreaded Canberra Press Gallery term for risk. Industry, commerce and governments take risks - read pick winners - every year. The auto industry is moving towards electric vehicles with perhaps plug in hybrid electric as an interim. Other technologies such as hydrogen fuel cells are also in the mix but perhaps further down the track as the current supply of hydrogen is limited. Countries around the world are making announcements about the final years of petrol/diesel fuel for internal combustion engines. Every human endeavour has been about risk or dare I say it, picking winners. Sometimes humans get it right and sometimes they get it wrong. Same with the market. The market is comprised of people taking risk. Sometimes it will be right and sometimes it won't. To presume the 'market' along the way will not make costly errors is 'tell him he's dreamin' territory.

I know you are wedded to a carbon price, read tax, GE, but the Australian people have never voted for it and until they do it is off the table. If there is a future push for a world wide carbon price then I think that could work. To have every nation sign up to such a carbon price will be a monumental task. Imo individual countries adding to their cost base will simply be placing local industry at a cost disadvantage. Industry will either be overwhelmed by cheaper imports or simply move offshore where business costs are lower. Unemployment rising is the likely outcome for cost base increases which are not matched by other nations imo.
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 140252
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

Governments should never "pick winners". It is awful public policy. "Industry policy" is something governments should neven engage in. They should be providing frameworks in which business and industry can thrive. Market signals should guide the private sector into making investments... as they're much better at taking these sorts of decisions. If they fail, they should be allowed to fail... the wrong investments get weeded out. Governments, unfortunately, are poorly placed to do that. If, say, electric vehicles prove successful, without the need for government "support", great. I don't have a particular view on what is going to be the cheapest and best ways of reducing carbon emissions - or any interests in or promoting one technology or another. But I am very keen on adjustment costs for the economy (and consumers/taxpayers) being kept to a minimum. That's why we need a carbon price. The people who've undermined a carbon price have condemned us to higher cost and less efficient adjustment and greater costs to economic growth and living standards.

Early movers to a carbon price benefit over others, particularly if domestic permits can be traded internationally - allowing Australia's carbon emission reductions to be met by low cost opportunities off shore. Sadly, those opposed to dealing with climate change at all have scuttled our chances of the best possible adjustments for the Australian economy, through spreading false information. Sadly, it seems to be becoming more and more prevalent. We are going down the path of the US.
Image
RedRaider
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9032
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

GE I think Medicare was a case of Government 'picking a winner' in the public good which has been successful. The glaring weakness of lack of dental cover needs to be addressed imo, but on the whole, a risk with a positive outcome. My point though, is that if something like a carbon tax is to be introduced into Australia, then it is up to the Australian people to vote on it.

As to your point on infrastructure spending, I think Governments have a vital role in providing enablers in the public good. Interconnectors between points of power generation and where the people who need the energy are located, being a stand out for me.

As for the US - 'Well the times, they are a changing' (Bob Dylan) See below from President elect Joe Biden as quoted from CNN on December 19:
'The President-elect touted his ambitious climate plan, which seeks to end carbon emissions from power plants by 2035 and proposes broader public investment in green infrastructure, including $2 trillion for clean energy projects. He spoke about creating jobs, modernizing the nation's water, transportation and energy infrastructures, turning the country toward electric vehicles and lowering the nation's carbon emissions.'
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 140252
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

Medicare is not an industry policy. It’s not “picking a winner”, it’s a social and health policy. It’s a public good... as simple private provision doesn’t produce optimum community outcomes. Health is a “mixed” good... but Medicare is designed to produce public health benefits overall which would not result purely through private provision.

Public and private investments are two different things. I wasn’t referring to “infrastructure” above, I was referring to private investment. There is a case for government provision of infrastructure if it is a genuine public good. Interestingly, technological change and the development of innovative market frameworks has seen some infrastructure no longer considered a public good... it can be supplied by the private sector, if you set up the legal frameworks properly. A properly constructed carbon price stimulates sensible private sector investments, in efficient alternatives to carbon intensive activities. That was my main point.

Joe Biden’s climate change policies are just as poor as those in Australia. The USA is one of the main obstacles to properly addressing climate change... and they’re going down the same route of substandard climate change policies as a result. The USA is, sadly, a basket case in terms of good public policy these days, due to an awful standard of public debate and leadership... where lies become true if you repeat them often enough... and powerful vested interests prevail because they’re big political financial donors.
Image
RedRaider
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9032
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

gergreg wrote: December 20, 2020, 2:58 pm
The Nickman wrote:I’m just glad none of you blokes drive petrol fueled cars, seeing as cars contribute just as heavily to climate change as thermal coal plants, maybe even moreso

There’s no point just talking about it if you’re not prepared to make the change yourself
I've never driven a car... over to you old friend.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
You may not need to drive a vehicle soon gergreg. The vehicle will take you where you want to go. See below what is coming in autonomous vehicles:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... green-move

The technology we will see - simply amazing.
https://www.mynrma.com.au/cars-and-driv ... f-mobility
RedRaider
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9032
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

Speaking of amazing technology, see below some possible future applications for generating solar electricity. I had not read about clothing using PV technology before.
https://www.solarreviews.com/blog/solar ... production
RedRaider
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9032
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

General Motors in the USA to be producing only Electric Vehicles in the passenger and SUV market by 2035.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate- ... -electric/

No risk taking fears or 'picking winners' concerns for them or VW group or Toyota or most of the other major vehicle manufacturers who have already announced their plans. The future of transport will be largely electric. I also expect Hydrogen fuel cells to play a part but the technology is not as advanced as the interim Plug In Hybrid Electric vehicles and Battery Electric Vehicles. Large scale production will bring the initial purchase prices down. There are still range anxiety issues with the BEVs particularly in large countries like Australia. I expect that improved battery technology will solve this issue and with an EV charger infrastructure spend, the take up of EVs will grow exponentially.
RedRaider
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9032
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

I am constantly amazed at the creativity of people. Could the future of Hydrogen power for motorcycle use be using hydrogen fuel as a paste? This would eliminate the need for high pressure hydrogen fuel tanks which are not practical for use on motorcycles. The great advantage of hydrogen is that burning it produces water. If it can be made safer and more useable in paste form then one of the great drawbacks of hydrogen - it is a volatile fuel - can be reduced.

https://hackaday.com/2021/02/06/the-fut ... -is-paste/
User avatar
Mickey_Raider
David Furner
Posts: 3389
Joined: March 16, 2008, 7:15 am
Favourite Player: Big Papa
Location: North Sydney

Re: Climate change

Post by Mickey_Raider »

First time reading this thread...

In regards to coal, it is so blindingly obvious where the industry is headed. Libs know it, Greens know, Labor knows it, the banks know it, Matt Canavan knows it.

At this stage it is all about who can create the best narrative for protecting jobs, all the while (albeit way too slowly) trending in generally the same direction, notwithstanding the predictable mavericks who are doing it for reelection purposes in their electorates.

It would be political suicide to be an outright climate change laggard if you're Scott Morrison, whilst it would also be political suicide if Albo was too ambitious on climate change by, for example, embracing a 2030 reduction target; lest he be (most probably unfairly) branded a jobs destroyer.

Honestly one of the major things the Labor party should be doing right now is crafting a comprehensive and sophisticated jobs transition program for those in the Hunter and other soon-to-be-obselete job hubs. Once that is in place you can come to the table as an actual friend of the coal industry, rather than it coming across as a sheepish concession after a humiliating 2019 loss.

In conclusion, get to work ASAP on the transition jobs framework. And while you're at it it can be part of the broader green jobs policy platform. This would go a fair way to 2021/2022 success, I am sure of it.
Up The Milk
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13892
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

You got it Mickey. It’s pretty bloody obvious.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13892
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

Well another year goes by and we continue to have an incompetent government **** up climate action.

I made the mistake of reading through the first few pages of this thread and it made my blood boil. I wonder whether some of our anti-climate action posters are willing to admit they were wrong? And see parallels in their arguments with those of anti-vaxxers currently (“98% of scientists say that? Well what about what this guy on a YouTube video says?”).

I think what made me angriest was some of the responses from “enlightened centrists” who came in here and made remarks to me about being condescending or cultist, but were never willing to cite actual examples.

I don’t actually expect RR to admit he was wrong or change his view. But I did expect better from others to not come in and help him feel validated with unsupported jibes at the opposing poster, while the other side of the argument is making fundamental errors in the science and has logical holes in their argument that trucks can be driven through.
Last edited by gangrenous on October 30, 2021, 7:12 am, edited 5 times in total.
User avatar
BadnMean
Ruben Wiki
Posts: 5783
Joined: May 13, 2013, 5:30 pm
Favourite Player: chicka

Re: Climate change

Post by BadnMean »

It's a bit weird we were prepared to lose our manufacturing jobs when it became clear they were uncompetitive.

Now coal mining is heavily subsidised (e.g uncompetitive) and our most exhaustive studies have concluded more expensive now than green energy... but coal mining jobs are sacred. Stuff the tourism, hospitality and travel industry jobs the climate change is already costing us (dying reef, Australia being crossed off everyones holiday list after they watched the whole place burn to a cinder while Scummo was in Hawaii, not holding a hose...) ... apparently those jobs don't count either. Just miners.

If we spent even just ONE PERCENT of the $10 Billion given to subsidise fossil fuels in this country in 2020/2021 alone (https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/ ... n-2020-21/ ) then we'd have $100 mill to support retraining and placing said miners into renewable energy (or other fields)...

We'd also have the chance to invest BILLIONS into developing the green energy sector, providing more of said jobs and maybe, just maybe, creating some of the "new technologies" which don't yet exist but which Scummo has made central to our climate change "plan".
User avatar
Mickey_Raider
David Furner
Posts: 3389
Joined: March 16, 2008, 7:15 am
Favourite Player: Big Papa
Location: North Sydney

Re: Climate change

Post by Mickey_Raider »

The cynicism and vacuousness from the LNP is nothing short of breathtaking.

I wouldn’t bet my house against the eventuality that voters will let them get away with it in a few months too.
Up The Milk
User avatar
Mickey_Raider
David Furner
Posts: 3389
Joined: March 16, 2008, 7:15 am
Favourite Player: Big Papa
Location: North Sydney

Re: Climate change

Post by Mickey_Raider »

gangrenous wrote: October 30, 2021, 7:12 am I think what made me angriest was some of the responses from “enlightened centrists” who came in here and made remarks to me about being condescending or cultist, but were never willing to cite actual examples.
I think it is because some posters feel like if they don’t present as a so called centrist they look like an agenda drive *insert party here* flunky.

I openly admit my agenda is to highlight maladministration. it is not my fault that there is just an interminable amount of evidence which indicates this government is a rolling maul of incompetence and malfeasance.

This climate change “plan” is an absolute joke and in my mind emblematic of the governments ethos and body of work over the last couple of years at least.
Up The Milk
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 140252
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

The “plan” is nothing more than a booklet, the sort of booklet which normally covers an actual plan. It is reasonable to rely on unknown technological development over the next 30 years. But a third of the abatement is wishing and hoping it emerges, without anything to drive or guarantee the abatement. 15 per cent each from “global technology trends” and “further technology breakthroughs”. As if they are different things.

https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/ ... 314748.pdf

The slogan is technology not taxes. It actually is our taxes funding $20b of the uncertain 40 per cent abatement from the “technology investment roadmap”. The whole thing is based on existing policy settings.

Remember the 20 per cent reduction so far is driven by land use. The other emissions have gone up 7 per cent. Not really a sign of restructuring the economy.
Image
User avatar
gergreg
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10672
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gergreg »

You've got to hand it to the Liberal party. This is nothing more than an election stunt and it will probably work.
Shoving it in your face since 2017
User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 16728
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: Climate change

Post by T_R »

gergreg wrote:You've got to hand it to the Liberal party. This is nothing more than an election stunt and it will probably work.
If it doesn't work now, maybe it'll work by utilising currently undefined technological improvements prior to the election.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
User avatar
papabear
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6804
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: leafy part of sydney

Re: Climate change

Post by papabear »

gergreg wrote: December 19, 2020, 3:34 pm Well maybe if countries actually paid any level of attention to the science... what 30 ... 40 + years ago ? We wouldn't be in the situation we are in now. Politicians in many countries, including our own were denying that climate change was occurring up until quite recently, with our current PM using a lump of coal as a prop in parliament.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
I am part of the world. I took notice of climate change when my teacher put on saving heironymus in the 4th grade.

You are also part of the world and you took notice.

Just for the record, what is it that you have done re climate change and what is it that you are advocating to be done in addition to a ban on the coal trade?
User avatar
papabear
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6804
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: leafy part of sydney

Re: Climate change

Post by papabear »

greeneyed wrote: October 31, 2021, 9:47 am The “plan” is nothing more than a booklet, the sort of booklet which normally covers an actual plan. It is reasonable to rely on unknown technological development over the next 30 years. But a third of the abatement is wishing and hoping it emerges, without anything to drive or guarantee the abatement. 15 per cent each from “global technology trends” and “further technology breakthroughs”. As if they are different things.

https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/ ... 314748.pdf

The slogan is technology not taxes. It actually is our taxes funding $20b of the uncertain 40 per cent abatement from the “technology investment roadmap”. The whole thing is based on existing policy settings.

Remember the 20 per cent reduction so far is driven by land use. The other emissions have gone up 7 per cent. Not really a sign of restructuring the economy.
Would you be happier if it read 30 percent from global technology advances and trends?

Are you suggesting the government shouldnt invest technology?
User avatar
papabear
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6804
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: leafy part of sydney

Re: Climate change

Post by papabear »

BadnMean wrote: October 30, 2021, 7:53 am It's a bit weird we were prepared to lose our manufacturing jobs when it became clear they were uncompetitive.

Now coal mining is heavily subsidised (e.g uncompetitive) and our most exhaustive studies have concluded more expensive now than green energy... but coal mining jobs are sacred. Stuff the tourism, hospitality and travel industry jobs the climate change is already costing us (dying reef, Australia being crossed off everyones holiday list after they watched the whole place burn to a cinder while Scummo was in Hawaii, not holding a hose...) ... apparently those jobs don't count either. Just miners.

If we spent even just ONE PERCENT of the $10 Billion given to subsidise fossil fuels in this country in 2020/2021 alone (https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/ ... n-2020-21/ ) then we'd have $100 mill to support retraining and placing said miners into renewable energy (or other fields)...

We'd also have the chance to invest BILLIONS into developing the green energy sector, providing more of said jobs and maybe, just maybe, creating some of the "new technologies" which don't yet exist but which Scummo has made central to our climate change "plan".
I 100% agree that our government and any government globally should not subsidise fossil fuels at all. Not one cent.

Now I am going to semantics - because in this rare case it is important, like religion has bastardised the word truth, political organisations have bastardised the word subsidy.

verb: subsidise
support (an organization or activity) financially.
"the mining industry continues to be subsidized"
Similar:
give money to
pay a subsidy to
give a grant to
contribute to
make a contribution to
invest in
sponsor
fund
finance
provide finance/capital for
capitalize
underwrite
back
support
give support to
keep
help
aid
assist
shore up
prop up
buttress
pick up the tab for
foot the bill for
shell out for
fork out for
cough up for
chip in for
bankroll
pony up for
pay part of the cost of producing (something) to keep the selling price low.
"the government subsidizes basic goods including sugar, petroleum, and wheat"

above is from google - oxford languages.

The key being a subsidy is when someone tips money into something.

If I give you 50 bucks to go drinking, I am subsidising your night of drinking. If I am some mafia bully bastard who takes money of you for protection, and instead of taking my weekly $100, I only take $50 so you can still afford to go drinking. That is not me subsidising your night.

A "tax break" / tax deduction is not a subsidy. The government is not subsidising office works / stationary industry. Same as is not subsidising the accounting / insurance or any other cost to your business that is legally a tax deduction.

Lets look into this report:-
In fact, $10.3 billion in Government subsidies means that in 2020, every minute of every day $19,686 was effectively given to coal, oil and gas companies and major users of fossil fuels.

Key findings:

The Commonwealth’s main tax break to major fossil fuel users cost $7.84 billion, exceeding the $7.82 billion spent on the Australian Army
This is light on the detail, my guess is its in reference to fuel tax credits.. to call this a subsidy is straight up deceptive and loses the report credibility.

That said, the report does provide some good stuff down the bottom when it gets over its headline grabbing garbage:-

Queensland upgraded its coal and gas power stations, ran a ‘mine dozer replacement program’ and provided other assistance measures worth $744 million last year, only slightly less than the $818 million spent on Fire and Emergency Services.
This is an interesting one - it sort of depends on the state of the economy at the time and what they were mining. Some mining is crucial to the renewable industry as well. For example if it was a lithium mine the backbone of renewables would you be against this program? I am not sure where I stand other then to say it is an interesting point.
Over the longer term, the Northern Territory is the biggest backer of the gas industry, with almost $4 billion committed to an offshore gas project and $1 billion for pipelines.
Is this a terrible thing? Again not really a subsidy if they are getting a ROI more an investment.
Western Australia is spending hundreds of millions on fossil fuel-fired power stations, including $93 million on a gas-fired power station in a town of 848 people in partnership with Chevron. this one just sounds ridiculous as opposed to just running power lines to that town... more details would be good, as this could be a really good point of government bullcrap.
New South Wales is putting $100 million into ‘coal innovation’, but much of the research remains mysteriously unpublished, such as a cost benefit analysis of carbon capture and storage in the state. Ok this is a massive waste of money - I think this is part of a bigger problem, both parties (in particular the LNP) loving jamming money down the toilet for reports from the big 4 accounting firms on whether to do X or Y. Honestly, I would prefer the govt to stop wasting their money on reports and just do what they think is good, and be voted in or out on it.
Victoria is spending $8.8 million to re-start an onshore gas industry and develop a ‘gas roadmap’, spending dwarfed by the $100 million going to turn brown coal into hydrogen and export it to Japan.
I didnt know hydrogen technology was so on the nose. To be honest if its a profitable venture it isnt a subsidy, if it isnt profitable its a waste of money but it doesnt really sound like this is subsidising traditional fossil fuels at the expense of renewables. Eitherway more detail is needed to be clear whether this is the joke it sounds to be.
South Australia put $10.5 million into a program that aims to accelerate gas exploration and has also budgeted $30 million for a jetty mainly used by gas company Santos.

10M for a decent size jetty built by the government doesnt sound to bad, it depends on what the govt take is from the gas operations but this is hardly massive biccies.
Tasmania’s 2020-21 budget has no clear assistance for fossil fuels, although $73,000 was given to coal companies in 2019.
73000 really? I imagine thats probably less then what was given to other companies generally....
The ACT is the only jurisdiction in Australia with no subsidies for fossil fuels, along with the most ambitious climate targets in the country. OK why is this included??

Eitherway, I think you should be a lottle bit more critical in your thinking when people post bullcrap like 10B in subsidies for fossil fuels.

Make no mistake fossil fuels will eventually die, it is just a question of when and the management of the how.

In terms of retraining workers, we already have a great retraining program for jobseekers put in by Mrs Therese Rudd, I am sure you would be excited for the Government to start some more retraining workers companies, because they are always a great use of funds *eye roll*.
Post Reply