Climate Change
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.
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 !
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.
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 .
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"
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.
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 .
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
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 .
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
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 .
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 !
No doubt there will be a special spur line for Clive Palmer station. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/joyce-promises-multibillion-doll...
Hutchy all the data is here.
https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth
and here.
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 .
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.
Just your poor research skills Hutchy. It is all there. Try a bit harder, it will be good practice.
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?
As you like mate.
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.
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.
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.
Hopefully Greta puts in an appearance and says..blah blah blah....blah blah blah..and still has no answers.
The Prime Marketer rockin' it to Glasgow
I’ll have a hundred Morrison gets to the target before the rest of the worlds big talking bullshitters….any takers.
Mate give a bookie a call I reckon you'll get crackin' odds on that one!
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.
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.
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.
So what odds did you get? Anything less than 100-1 would be a rip off.
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...
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.
I have zero interest in what Morrison announces because it will be all smoke and mirrors bull shit based on yet to be developed technologies and the price paid to the Nationals will be obscenely high in dollar terms (ICAC now) and in environmental terms e.g. railroad into central Qld to aid the export of coal FFS.
All this fluff and fizz is about winning an election; the LNP have had 10 years to get a policy together and two weeks before Glasgow we’re still waiting, seriously.
Im really happy about the change in mindset on this issue, ive always though Scomo should just keep them happy and just draw up some close to irrelevant climate policy and say we will be 100% carbon free by 2050.
Yeah off course the opposition will attack them on how this will be done and say its not realistic, it won't matter what is put down that will always happen, but it will blow over and most people will still be happy, even if its not realistic now, advances in tech will be the game changer and its not like Scomo is going to be around to care by 2050 even if it never happened, plus surely Labor will get in for a couple years between now and then, so wont all be on LNPs shoulders.
It will instantly see us look much much better on this issue on the world stage, and change public perception, while really not changing much at all, possibly grab some swinging voters and any that dont vote LNP because of the change will just vote for someone like One nation who's preference will just go to LNP anyway.
Scomo should just go into this Glasgow thing and be proud of the fact that Australia is leaders in renewables, stand proud and dont take any shit, tell it how it is,
The whole issue isn't going to affect things like coal or gas exports that will still all happen its determined by demand and these companies are making changes to reduce emissions as much as possible anyway during mining etc and in many cases heavily invested in renewables too. It wont even change the use of coal or gas locally, coal fired power stations will close when its realistic and gas will still play its part in supporting renewables during the transition, (Only difference is the idea of a new coal power station from the nationals will have to be put to bed, which is should anyway, its completely unrealistic )
Off course the big problem is the Nationals and keeping them happy, im not a fan of that aspect of the coalition.
BB - looks like the Chinese are unveiling their long term plan .
"Update: As if to confirm the shitshow we expected below, just two weeks before a crucial summit in Rome, Bloomberg reports that the world’s major economies are gridlocked in their efforts to agree concrete steps to tackle climate change.
Preparatory talks between G-20 officials this week failed to end in an agreement to reduce coal subsidies and curb methane emissions. There wasn’t even a consensus on striving toward net-zero emissions and limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees from pre-industrial levels, according to three people familiar with the matter.
China and India, two of the world’s biggest emitters and largest coal users, have failed to submit updated climate pledges.
One person described the negotiating round as a disaster.
Are they all suddenly realizing at once - amid the glorious FUBAR situation occurring in global energy markets - that their goals are a) infeasible, b) a giant waste of time and money without China's firm commitment and c) will create social unrest and lead to them losing their political power.
* * *
The imminent COP26 Climate Summit - heralded with the mighty goal of 2050 net-zero emissions - looks like being a giant nothing-burger (vegan of course).
According to the study co-authored by a former Obama admin climate policy official, energy modelers and emissions experts (just go with it), China is now responsible for 27% of total global emissions - more than the combined total produced by the United States (11%), India (6.6%) and the 27 EU member nations together (6.4%)."
"Instantly see us look much better on the world stage...."
Wild optimism there Indo. 20 years of denialism and obstruction won't be forgotten because of a dubious last minute swerve for domestic reasons. Not to mention recent behaviour which pissed of the entire EU and embarrassed the US. Even in the UK I would be pretty sure more people agree with the Queen than with Boris.
Hutchy Glasgow is looking like disaster but you sound positively pleased. So denier or don't carer? Either way a pathetic response to the prospect of ever intensifying climate change. But being a bit slow on the uptake you probably think it won't impact your little bubble.
Existing commitments prior to Glasgow are nowhere near sufficient and yes countries will delay emission reductions to prevent their populations freezing over the coming winter. Our modern Neros continue to practice their fiddling.
Indo - you are exactly right . Zero 2050 is impossible . Might as well go along with it . I wouldn't but a politician has to .
Smiley - you could change the names in your post and say exactly the same .
No one has explained how we can get to net zero 2050 other than plant trees to soak up CO2 .
I have been told how much it will cost $US 150 TRILLION ( and that will probably double ) .
Which billionaire's will line their pockets more with this idea ?
Missed the bus a bit on that one eh Hutchy? Decades of technological progress on dozens on new technologies and you missed the lot apparently. Not surprised. I suspect we have not yet plumbed the depth of your ignorance. Mate you can't even use an interactive graph! Have a read of this and then let us know what you think about climate change, because until you do you are just another ignorant fuckwit sprouting your ill considered opinions probably because you need to do that to maintain them in the face of the evidence.
blindboy wrote:"Instantly see us look much better on the world stage...."
Wild optimism there Indo. 20 years of denialism and obstruction won't be forgotten because of a dubious last minute swerve for domestic reasons. Not to mention recent behaviour which pissed of the entire EU and embarrassed the US. Even in the UK I would be pretty sure more people agree with the Queen than with Boris.
Yeah thats why long ago we signed up to Kyoto and then Paris accord, spent billions on the issue and even have a government website explaining climate change.
It's all down to not having a policy that we rate badly compared to other countries, as soon as we have one we should rank higher than most countries.
Its lip service, give them what they want.
@Hutchy
It's not important if its realistic or not, it might not be now, but could be by then, I just think we should just tell the what they want to hear to keep them happy.
"It's not important if its realistic or not, it might not be now, but could be by then, I just think we should just tell the what they want to hear to keep them happy."
Yep, the conservative mantra - feed 'em shit while we rob the place blind.
Fucken pathetic.
blindboy wrote: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.
here BB check out these stats on Global poverty, amazing to read that China is the only country to bring 600m people out of poverty , 22,000 children die every day from poverty .
the real problem is mans acceptance/apathy of what goes on elsewhere in the world is irrelevant because it's not you!
What an incredible selfish world we now live in!
.....https://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
Indo - I said I agree with you that we should just humour them .
BB - so please tell me how carbon capture and storage has progressed and will be able to store all the CO2 we will need after 2050 to replace , solar panels , wind mills , de sal plants , build new homes ,cars etc etc . Store all the CO2 China , India and Africa will produce .
How an offsetting / carbon trading system will help ?
I am very ignorant on how this can be achieved other than growing more trees . Happy for you to teach me though .
Why don't we start with only ONE way ( other than trees ) that you ( or anyone else ) think this can be done !!!!!
I also agree with Optimist . Australia will be the most compliant country with CO2 in 2050 . We won't be net zero though as I don't believe ( yet ) it is possible .
Indo get your facts right. Howard demanded thst the Kyoto agreement allow Austrslia to INCREASE its emissions then refused to sign anyway. It was almost a decade later that Rudd signed it. This might cure some of your delusions.
https://theconversation.com/climate-wars-carbon-taxes-and-toppled-leader...
Carbon capture and storage is the COALition's favourite technology as, like most things they favour, it doesn't work.
The rest of your post doesn't make sense as you mix emission reduction technologies with emission sources. Read the IPCC report you dodo!
.