Climate Change
Hutchy - cultural burning, I guess it is a more contemporary term for 'traditional Indigenous burning regimes'. It's going on in places already, and is reportedly having some success in reducing wildfire intensity and/or largely stopping wildfires in their track. But I'm not aware of any hard science confirming that, havent looked actually, but no doubt some academics out there will be pursuing it.
Gragagan - yeah, the widespread thinning will be a big job. For starters, governments (e.g. QLD, Vic, now WA) will have to reverse their wrongful decisions to lock up (convert to National Park) so many formerly productive State Forests. Once the timber resource is again available, investors would be attracted. This has to be a big part of the long-term carbon solution - lock up that carbon in long-term timber products, use some for wood-based bioenergy, and put a heap back into the ground as biochar. Surely a far better option than seeing it all go up in smoke...
note that I'm certainly not advocating for open slather on all forests - we absolutely need large largely untouched 'wilderness' areas. But for much of the rest, I advocate for an integration of conservation and production, sensible forest management for all its inherent values. That means that yes, Koalas and timber production can coexist
Adam - my post above shows most countries are struggling with the green transition . Most of them have 4 year electoral cycles . China doesn't and they are in the worst position at present .
As I said its not easy being green . Now that the green policies are causing inflation we will see what the majority think about it . It is easy to say , much harder to do .
The transition takes decades .
Greenjam - sensible views . The aboriginals would have perfected the art of regular controlled burning I think . Very much incentivised to protect the environment , fauna and flora . There must be some records of their practices . I will have a look .
Greenjam - There is heaps of literature on this . Not only in Australia .
There would be different practices for different places and climates .
Eg .Indigenous fire management involves the lighting of 'cool' fires in targeted areas during the early dry season between March and July. The fires burn slowly, reducing fuel loads and creating fire breaks. Not all the area is burnt, with the end result a mosaic of burnt and unburnt country.
Obviously it is not the dry season in Vic in March-July .
Hutchy, big boy, my old mate, the fucken UK Tories are going to Cop26 with 78% for 2035 enshrined in law, British conservatives! We are going with your mate Tony Abbott's plan for mid 20% from 2015 based on land clearing reductions that had nothing to do with the federal Libs. It's a crock of shit. Australia could and should be leading the world in this except your mob, the LNP are a pack of crooks, fucken drunkards, sociopaths and little Napoleans. We could do way better but too many rich cunts in this joint make way too much money fucking the planet to give a fuck. If it's too hard for them then get out of the fucken way and let someone with the balls take it on. As you can tell, I am in a good mood at the moment, my fucken car won't start and I want to go for a quick surf. Talk to you soon!
"Why is the same modeller that claimed Labor’s climate policies would cost the economy $542 billion and 150,000 in job losses, and who was criticised for failing to account for the economic benefits of taking action while overestimating the cost of renewables, now finding $2000 benefits for all Australians from the Coalition’s so-called plan?"
Scott Morrison may have yesterday made a mockery of Australians with his modelling-free, policy-deficient, assumption-heavy, technology-reliant “plan” to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, but today the shoe is on the other foot. Ridicule has been widespread (“laughable”, “embarrassing”, “a joke”), and critics agree that the plan is unlikely to stand up at the COP26 climate talks, for which the PM departs on Thursday. Morrison and Energy Minister Angus Taylor this morning bluffed their way through media rounds, in which even breakfast TV hosts labelled it “more of a prayer than a policy”. Morrison, however, insisted he was “not embarrassed” by the criticism, and it’s clear he believes his strategy of turning this into an economic debate between Labor and the Coalition (with no small help from the writers at The Australian and the AFR) will work on the voters that matter. But despite the PM’s booming confidence that his scheme is economically sound, the government is still yet to publish the evidence upon which its claims are based – including the assertion that it will leave Australians $2000 better off by 2050, and create up to 62,000 new mining and industry jobs. Journalists have continued asking after the elusive modelling, which the government has also refused to release in the Senate and in estimates, claiming public interest immunity, with Taylor and Morrison updating yesterday’s “eventually” to “a later time” and “at the appropriate time”. The plot thickened in today’s Senate estimates, where Treasury secretary Steven Kennedy revealed that his department hadn’t done any climate-related modelling “at least for the last few years”. So where is this supposedly incredible modelling? Who put it together, and why wasn’t Treasury properly involved? And when exactly will be an “appropriate” time to release it to the public, if not now?
ABC News Breakfast host Michael Rowland’s efforts to get a straight answer from Taylor about when he would release the so-called modelling were admirable – and the responses very telling. “Why the secrecy about the modelling behind yesterday’s plan?” Rowland asked. “There’s no secrecy,” Taylor responded. “When will you release the modelling?” Rowland asked, half a dozen times, with Taylor alternating between “the outcomes of the modelling are laid out clearly” and “the detail of the modelling will be released at an appropriate time”, while continually throwing shots at Labor. Similar efforts were made in Question Time, to much the same effect. Shadow energy minister Chris Bowen asked the PM why Treasury wasn’t involved in the modelling, and why he wouldn’t release it. “It will be released in the next couple of weeks,” Morrison replied, noting that the modelling had been done by the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources (with assistance from Treasury), but failing to answer why he couldn’t release it. (McKinsey & Company, where Taylor was a partner between 1994 and 2001, was also involved, the AFR reports, while the Liberal-aligned modeller used to attack Labor policies was hired to “verify” it, Renew Economy reveals.) Labor leader Anthony Albanese asked Morrison if he would table the modelling, but Morrison merely repeated his claim that it would be released in the next few weeks (“I’ve made that very clear,” he blustered). He then launched into an attack on Labor (for which he was repeatedly called out by Speaker Tony Smith) and uttered confusing boasts about what his modelling shows (then why not release it?). Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce failed to answer questions about whether he had seen the modelling in question, referring instead to different modelling (“the modelling seems pretty good,” he said, twice), and implying Labor was showing an insulating lack of faith in the experts. The entire exercise was reminiscent of the Coalition’s earlier refusal to release Doherty Institute reopening advice, seemingly only because Labor was asking for it.
But is there something more suspicious about this latest round of pig-headed secrecy? It’s hard to understand why the government wouldn’t want to release modelling that proves such wonderful outcomes from net zero by 2050, if it is sound. But it’s also hard to understand how models could even make such predictions, what with an emissions-reduction strategy that is at least 30 per cent based on a vague combination of “global technology trends” and “further technology breakthroughs”. As George Washington University economics professor Steven Hamilton writes and argues, “What is truly laughable is that we have advanced to a net-zero-by-2050 target without a single change in policy.” Especially considering such a target was previously considered economy-wrecking. What has changed? Why is the same modeller that claimed Labor’s climate policies would cost the economy $542 billion and 150,000 in job losses, and who was criticised for failing to account for the economic benefits of taking action while overestimating the cost of renewables, now finding $2000 benefits for all Australians from the Coalition’s so-called plan?
I guess we’ll find out “eventually” or “at the appropriate time”, when the government is good and ready (and whenever it decides that it’s no longer a threat to national security to release it). Maybe that will be around the same time we finally learn what trade-offs the National Party secured in return for its support. (Taylor says he can’t name them because they’re not yet approved by cabinet.) In the meantime, we can expect to hear plenty about the magical benefits of the government’s “plan”, with the Coalition having committed $12.9 million of taxpayers’ money to advertising its climate policies. The Energy Department is now investigating whether Liberal MPs breached rules by publishing such ads on their social media accounts. One thing is for sure: the Coalition’s climate “plan” will be powered by technology and lots of taxes.
ABC News Breakfast host Michael Rowland’s efforts to get a straight answer from Taylor about when he would release the so-called modelling were admirable – and the responses very telling. “Why the secrecy about the modelling behind yesterday’s plan?” Rowland asked. “There’s no secrecy,” Taylor responded. “When will you release the modelling?” Rowland asked, half a dozen times, with Taylor alternating between “the outcomes of the modelling are laid out clearly” and “the detail of the modelling will be released at an appropriate time”, while continually throwing shots at Labor. Similar efforts were made in Question Time, to much the same effect. Shadow energy minister Chris Bowen asked the PM why Treasury wasn’t involved in the modelling, and why he wouldn’t release it. “It will be released in the next couple of weeks,” Morrison replied, noting that the modelling had been done by the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources (with assistance from Treasury), but failing to answer why he couldn’t release it. (McKinsey & Company, where Taylor was a partner between 1994 and 2001, was also involved, the AFR reports, while the Liberal-aligned modeller used to attack Labor policies was hired to “verify” it, Renew Economy reveals.) Labor leader Anthony Albanese asked Morrison if he would table the modelling, but Morrison merely repeated his claim that it would be released in the next few weeks (“I’ve made that very clear,” he blustered). He then launched into an attack on Labor (for which he was repeatedly called out by Speaker Tony Smith) and uttered confusing boasts about what his modelling shows (then why not release it?). Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce failed to answer questions about whether he had seen the modelling in question, referring instead to different modelling (“the modelling seems pretty good,” he said, twice), and implying Labor was showing an insulating lack of faith in the experts. The entire exercise was reminiscent of the Coalition’s earlier refusal to release Doherty Institute reopening advice, seemingly only because Labor was asking for it.
But is there something more suspicious about this latest round of pig-headed secrecy? It’s hard to understand why the government wouldn’t want to release modelling that proves such wonderful outcomes from net zero by 2050, if it is sound. But it’s also hard to understand how models could even make such predictions, what with an emissions-reduction strategy that is at least 30 per cent based on a vague combination of “global technology trends” and “further technology breakthroughs”. As George Washington University economics professor Steven Hamilton writes and argues, “What is truly laughable is that we have advanced to a net-zero-by-2050 target without a single change in policy.” Especially considering such a target was previously considered economy-wrecking. What has changed? Why is the same modeller that claimed Labor’s climate policies would cost the economy $542 billion and 150,000 in job losses, and who was criticised for failing to account for the economic benefits of taking action while overestimating the cost of renewables, now finding $2000 benefits for all Australians from the Coalition’s so-called plan?
I guess we’ll find out “eventually” or “at the appropriate time”, when the government is good and ready (and whenever it decides that it’s no longer a threat to national security to release it). Maybe that will be around the same time we finally learn what trade-offs the National Party secured in return for its support. (Taylor says he can’t name them because they’re not yet approved by cabinet.) In the meantime, we can expect to hear plenty about the magical benefits of the government’s “plan”, with the Coalition having committed $12.9 million of taxpayers’ money to advertising its climate policies. The Energy Department is now investigating whether Liberal MPs breached rules by publishing such ads on their social media accounts. One thing is for sure: the Coalition’s climate “plan” will be powered by technology and lots of taxes.
Ever get the feeling your still being had? All the while the obvious stares us blankly down. Scomo is useless on matters that count.
All the key data on climate change in one place.
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/the-charts-you-need-to...
Why haven’t all the Christian confessions united and sent a delegation to Glasgow for COP 26? If God created the Earth, it follows that knowingly destroying it is the most mortal of mortal sins. I mean, especially if you’re a creationist, saving the planet should be your cause célèbre.
Does Christianity not accept the science?
Or has the dogma that God gave those he created in his image, Adam and Eve, dominion over nature and the right to exploitation, made this a purely secular concern for Christians? Another hill to be fought over in the culture wars. Of much lesser import, say, as our PM has pointed out, than identity politics and modern gender pronouns, which unquestionably subvert the teachings of the gospel. And theology has further developed to allow Christians to separate practical and competitive everyday mercantile actions with faith and piety. Which is would certainly help the Christian CEO of a mining company.
However Pope Francis, taking inspiration from Saint Francis of Assisi (no coincidence, the Pope’s name), has written, “Praise to you my lord through our Sister, Mother Earth, who sustains and governs us”, which seems to invert prior doctrine, and implies that it’s the Earth who should decide how we should act.
Perhaps then, something of a theological shift is occurring and Christianity, some of it at least, will become the real and practical progressive force on climate, garnering popular support on the road to net carbon zero.
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/religionandethicsreport/cl...
Just read an article that was scathing of Scomo .
Remember Elon Musk is offering anyone $US100m to come up with a scalable and durable carbon absorption technology . He would know that we don't have one yet . My quick comment after the suggestions .
"Clean hydrogen: Can be used to heat buildings, power factories and even run cars with no emissions"
Clean Hydrogen is unproven at the moment to provide Mega Scale energy .
"Ultra low-cost solar: Solar electricity generation at $15 per MWh "
Great but what do we do at night or when the wind doesn't blow . Peak times .
"Electricity storage: Huge lithium-ion batteries can store energy generated by solar and wind power so it can be released at peak times"
Ridiculous - They could but there is not enough Lithium , cobal , nickel , rare earths etc to cater for the worlds EV's let alone the 1000 times plus larger need for the worlds Mega Batteries that aren't even invented yet .
"Low carbon materials: Steel and aluminium made by burning hydrogen instead of coal to reduce carbon emissions ."
See above re Hydrogen . If it works it will be used in cars , planes , trains and de sal plants etc before Steel furnaces . Not in a 100 years .
"Carbon capture: The process of capturing carbon dioxide from factories and power stations and storing it underground ."
Unproven even at small scale . Even Blind Boy doesn't think it will work .
"Soil carbon: Growing more plants and trees to return carbon from the air to the soil"
Not enough room on the planet to grow enough trees . Will take 30-50 years before they are full grown . BB says its impossible .
So no absorption on the horizon and the world needs to do all of the above to get us to net zero in 2050 .
Who thinks the goal is realistic ?
You’ve been winning this argument with yourself for weeks now Hutchy. We all understand current technology has limitations and challenges to overcome.
We have no choice but to back the technology as hard as we can. It’s a requirement for life on earth.
30 years ago my dad came home with a mobile phone that needed a brief case to be able to make a phone call and I was running a Commodore 64.
There’s a hell of a lot of brain power going into new technologies, they will evolve.
You sound like the smartest guy in the bicycle shop in 1921.
Stu said: ”Why is the same modeller that claimed Labor’s climate policies would cost the economy $542 billion and 150,000 in job losses, and who was criticised for failing to account for the economic benefits of taking action while overestimating the cost of renewables, now finding $2000 benefits for all Australians from the Coalition’s so-called plan?"
Well, someone is definitely going to be better off. With $2.6 billion being divvied up there are going to be a few bank accounts and, dare I say, family trusts that are all the better off due to the governments generosity
http://cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/project-and-contracts-registers/c...
A closer look at who is getting paid and what is actually being paid for with this program would no doubt show up another layer of fraud like the water buybacks.
For instance, one project is increasing soil carbon with the innovative idea of "undertaking new irrigation" and the rest of the other projects are basically regrowth utilising the technique of “…assisted regeneration from in-situ seed sources (including rootstock and lignotubers).…”.
In other words, not letting the cattle in the paddock for a few years, or even just getting paid for land that is already laying idle and is unproductive anyway.
The money being spent on this scheme is likely to be just the start as the National Party and farmers were calling for even more compensation to be paid for not cutting down trees as part of the recent negotiations with the Liberals.
It’s no wonder really that infantile distractions keep getting wheeled out to the media to keep stuff like this from having too much scrutiny.
Given the history of this government a rort is a near certainty. As always their priorities are money to the mates and buying off the punters. The dubious benefits of carbon sequestration and the difficulties in assessing it make it an ideal vehicle for their usual approach.
Scott Morrison must have extremely thick skin or fuck all grey matter between his ears. Watching him board the plane to fly to Glasgow yesterday to go to a meeting with some very important people with a plan hatched up in a few days on some very important issues is not going to end well.
I would compare it to a project manager on a multi million dollar construction project going to a site meeting with no construction program, no site meeting minutes and no financial reports. Just a piece of paper saying "she'll be right mate we'll finish on time". I know how that would end - the same way it's going to for Scotty. A complete embarrassing mess.
Dawn you even admit -"There’s a hell of a lot of brain power going into new technologies, they will evolve."
"We have no choice but to back the technology as hard as we can. It’s a requirement for life on earth."
I TOTALLY agree .
But I am a realist and admit I have no idea ( I can guess ) when these technologies will be ready , installed and working .
Who would be willing to put their credibility on the line and guarantee they WILL be ready , installed and working in 2050 ?
Easy answer - a politician , a greenie or someone who thinks they have god like predictive powers .
garyg1412 wrote:Scott Morrison must have extremely thick skin or fuck all grey matter between his ears. Watching him board the plane to fly to Glasgow yesterday to go to a meeting with some very important people with a plan hatched up in a few days on some very important issues is not going to end well.
I would compare it to a project manager on a multi million dollar construction project going to a site meeting with no construction program, no site meeting minutes and no financial reports. Just a piece of paper saying "she'll be right mate we'll finish on time". I know how that would end - the same way it's going to for Scotty. A complete embarrassing mess.
Yet here he is as PM and here you are just a know it all loser dribbling shit on a forum.
"Yet here he is as PM and here you are just a know it all loser dribbling shit on a forum."
Well, Gary doesn't have powerful friends to make sure he fails upwards.
Scumo really is an amazing story. Here's a man, an intellectual nobody who has no personality, he needed to construct one with the help of a marketing team who gave him a bogan makeover. He failed miserably as a tourism CEO. He was fired due to alleged corruption. He lost preselection badly for Cook, but managed to get pre selected due to a defamatory campaign against the person who won pre-selection. He became a ruthless control freak minister, stood by his prime minister, stabbed him in the back, and managed to bag the top job because Dutton couldn't count.
The PM is middle management at best. His only real talent is knowing the right people to clear the path for him, and the fucker keeps the top job because he's happy to turn a complete blind eye to all the corrupt shitfuckery by his colleagues. The man is an absolute cvnt.
Done alright through the pandemic though hasn’t he……we are still not in recession so maybe we will have some money to actually address these issues rather than make hollow promises like others who won’t back them up anyway.
"Done alright through the pandemic though hasn’t he"
Really. Like fucking up vaccine procurement, punting quarantine onto the states, and utterly failing to build a fit for purpose quarantine facility.
Shovelling out $$$ to the electorate is the easiest thing in the world for politicians to do. Scumo just hasn't done any of the hard stuff.
If Australia doesn't go into recession it will be because Scumo has loaded up the country with debt. And to make matters worse, the recent long lockdowns were so avoidable. If scumo hadn't fucked up vaccine procurement or got his shit together re quarantine, we wouldn't have had the huge outbreaks. He's a chump. worse than Abbott.
Not to mention handing over the reins to the fossil fuel industry to “Map our economic recovery” from Covid. Gets the top job, gives it to his real boss.
@Vl
You can spin all the hate you like, the fact still remains he is PM the top dog only 29 others have been PM in our history, countless others have dreamed of being PM, and many others have tried but failed the most recent Bill Shorten.
He didn't get there through any faults he got there through hard work being, smart, driven and likeable to some extent. (at least for a politican)
Vic Local wrote:"Done alright through the pandemic though hasn’t he"
Really. Like fucking up vaccine procurement, punting quarantine onto the states, and utterly failing to build a fit for purpose quarantine facility.
Shovelling out $$$ to the electorate is the easiest thing in the world for politicians to do. Scumo just hasn't done any of the hard stuff.
If Australia doesn't go into recession it will be because Scumo has loaded up the country with debt. And to make matters worse, the recent long lockdowns were so avoidable. If scumo hadn't fucked up vaccine procurement or got his shit together re quarantine, we wouldn't have had the huge outbreaks. He's a chump. worse than Abbott.
The reality is from a health and economical perspective Australia has faired better than most of the world during covid.
And yeah ideally states and governments should work together.
As for debt, countries all around the world have been increasing debt due to low borrowing rates, our debt to GDP is still low compared to most countries, some here even think debt is not important and we should borrow more.
Vaccine roll out, if so easy, why didn't NZ get supplies earlier instead of at the same time as Aust?
Same deal on quarantine centres, what countries built them?
Even NZ found it not viable, maybe one could be built but in the future you would expect it would barely be used.
Anyway its looking like Australia will also have one of the worlds highest vaccine take up rates.
You're right ID, he is a dog.
"He didn't get there through any faults he got there through hard work being, smart, driven and likeable to some extent."
no ID, he got there due to manipulation, certainly not talent. The guy is a walking talking fuck up and I've seen many CEOs just like him. Blame shifters and credit takers. Short term thinkers who do what is best for them, not what is best for the people / organisation he's supposed to represent. Brand obsessed sociopaths, who aren't results driven (unless it's personal advancement).
This dog's entire climate change policy is designed to paper over the cracks in his shithouse coalition and limp it through to the next election. They've spent more time and effort on the frickin pamphlet and catch phrase than the actual policy. It's The Scumo Way.
"All talk and no trousers" Scomo does a Fraser.
https://www.economist.com/asia/2021/10/30/australias-climate-policy-is-a...
Just watched the US news and it looks like Biden is going to spend up big on climate but the yanks may need electric 4x4's as there doesn't look like any money left for infrastructure maintenance. At least they are looking like they want to get cracking in the right direction on climate which is good. The Brits with the influence of Prince William should do OK as well. You would think that with solar panel factories being all robotic, Panels should be made in the same countries that are using them as its not a wages issue so why make them in China.
Optimist - Remember that the Bank of America recently estimated $US150 Trillion has to be spent on getting the world ready for net zero in 2050 . Thats 5 trillion every year . Biden can't get his Build Back Better agenda passed which is a lot under 5 T .
He hasn't even started spending big .
I posted that the Danes have 72% EV's and their oil consumption HASN'T decreased . China has under 3% E/V's and will be a huge buyer of them . They will mostly be charged with electricity from burning gas and coal .
indo-dreaming wrote:Yet here he is as PM and here you are just a know it all loser dribbling shit on a forum.
Indo a while back Zen had some supportive advice for you which I thought was pretty relevant and helpful in that it actually made sense with all the commentary that goes on around here. Being one of the more avid posters I actually agree with some of your stuff and at other times I don't , but still enjoy reading through it. This comment has me stumped though and I'm wondering where it's coming from. And I'm not referring to the "know it all loser dribbling shit on a forum bit" because I can cop that kind of criticism. After all aren't most of us like that on here - some more than others (nudge nudge wink wink.)
What gets me is your brain actually ground into gear and thought up a comment that a lowly loser like myself instead of dribbling shit should aspire to be someone like Scott Morrison or PM. Well sorry to disappoint you Indo but your thought process on this one is completely wrong. My aspiration is to be a person way better than Scott Morrison and I think about how I achieve this goal every day by the simple act of picking up my dog's shit.
Back to dribbling shit it was actually just a simple analogy of the way I see things from my perspective panning out for Scotty in Glasgow and not having a go at your political hero - just a questioning of simple business or political acumen you could say. I'll happily be corrected if he comes back a climate hero and even offer my apologies for offending you, but until then I could say go fuck yourself but I won't.
Sorry it was bit of an impulsive emotional driven comment, even if we disagree i shoudnt have said what i did, i was in the wrong, my apologies.
No problem - accepted.
Now did you want to place a bet on if he comes back a hero or not???
Boags Red will do me :):)
gary - easy question to answer but is not a hero competition . China's not there so not a real comp as the main player is MIA .
If Greta is there she wins the hero media award hands down . No one will listen to her behind closed doors . I like her !
The Left media will bag Scomo and behind closed doors the other attendees will treat him with respect .
What new achievements are you expecting from the jaunt ? So as not to get disappointed expect nothing .
Do you think they will work out who is to pay the $US 150 trillion ?
"The Left media will bag Scomo and behind closed doors the other attendees will treat him with respect"
Oh there will be a few diplomatic niceties for the camera for Scumo, but behind the scenes there will be a shit load of diplomats telling our dog leader he either does something about greenhouse gases or they will slap a carbon tariff on Australian exports.
What a fucking joke that will be on Australia. We will get a carbon tax, and other nations get to spend the money!! And when the inevitable happens the usual suspects will act all shocked and play the victim card. It's hard to imagine how anyone could fuck this up as comprehensively as Scumo and the deputy drunk.
Blindboy, you stated - 'The dubious benefits of carbon sequestration and the difficulties in assessing it...'
really? I thought you were a science man? Carbon sequestration through the types of 'regeneration' (i.e. tree-planting, assisted natural regeneration) is fact. The right tree(s) in the right place and well managed will most certainly do a good job of sequestering carbon. The only dubious aspect I see is the often held view that these areas can then just be left alone to continue the job for 100 years (which is the usual contract period). Without good management they'll just be lost to fire, and up goes all that carbon. That's already happening overseas and we'l no doubt see it here too.
And it is not at all difficult to assess the rates of carbon sequestration in forests, both above and belowground, and in natural and newly planted forests.
so, your statement is incorrect
Vic -"We will get a carbon tax, and other nations get to spend the money!! And when the inevitable happens the usual suspects will act all shocked and play the victim card. It's hard to imagine how anyone could fuck this up as comprehensively " .
You maybe right ? What time frame do you think ?
I would guess it would be within 12 months .
You are probably an international diplomate . You wouldn't be commenting on this topic if you didn't know much about it as you told me .
My common sense tells me you are wrong . China are already doing whatever they can to stuff up our exports . They are the one that counts . What exports do we make to Europe , the US or UK that will cost us big bucks ? Maybe they won't travel here ( ha ha ) ?
Greenjam not much time now
"One recent paper suggested that with the large stock of carbon in global soils (about 2500 billion metric tons), we could mitigate fossil fuel emissions (10 billion metric tons) by increasing the soil carbon stock by only 0.4% per year. Sounds good, but the calculation assumes that all global soils could be involved, overlooking that vast areas of land are arid or unmanaged, and that large areas that are destined to warm in the coming years are likely to be sources, not sinks, of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Sequestration of carbon on the lands under active agriculture management would require rates exceeding 1000 gC/m2/yr to balance fossil fuel emissions—values never achieved in long-term field experiments.
So, when you hear of the Biden administration’s plans to encourage farmers to store carbon in soils as a climate change solution, be skeptical. We can and should try to reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide from agriculture, but a net uptake of carbon dioxide from other sources is just not in the cards."
https://www.caryinstitute.org/news-insights/blog-translational-ecology/s...
More later
This is what the IPCC say about it.
B.1.4
Land-based options that deliver carbon sequestration in soil or vegetation, such as afforestation, reforestation, agroforestry, soil carbon management on mineral soils, or carbon storage in harvested wood products, do not continue to sequester carbon indefinitely (high confidence). Peatlands, however, can continue to sequester carbon for centuries (high confidence). When vegetation matures or when vegetation and soil carbon reservoirs reach saturation, the annual removal of CO2 from the atmosphere declines towards zero, while carbon stocks can be maintained (high confidence). However, accumulated carbon in vegetation and soils is at risk from future loss (or sink reversal) triggered by disturbances such as flood, drought, fire, or pest outbreaks, or future poor management (high confidence). {6.4.1}"
https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/summary-for-policymakers/
The point being that there is very little certainty that the carbon will stay in the soil long enough to have an impact. Then there are the difficulties with actually implementing it on a large scale when there is, to the best of my knowledge, no standarised method of determining how carbon levels have changed. I am not suggesting that it is no value only that the undcertainties mean that any money invested in it would probably be better spent elsewhere, unless of couse your primary coincern is votes.
trechery not taxes
garyg1412 wrote:No problem - accepted.
Now did you want to place a bet on if he comes back a hero or not???
Boags Red will do me :):)
Love Boags grew up on it as a grommet in Tassie, but no bet, im not sure how the media will paint things when he comes back.
Maybe positive in one regard having gone, but they also like to be critical too, so maybe more of the same.
Either way im glad he went and glad he has got the Zero 2050 target done.
"Morrison is among the G20 leaders who failed to raise their country’s 2030 targets. After the release of Morrison’s net zero by 2050 plan, Sharma (the COP26 president, Alok Sharma) tweeted with a call for Australia to be more ambitious in 2030, “to keep 1.5 degrees in reach”.
"Sharma is pleading with world leaders that if they effectively abandon the 1.5 degree goal in Glasgow, the impact will be felt for generations. “At 1.5 degrees warming, 700 million people would be at risk of extreme heatwaves. At 2 degrees, it would be two billion. At 1.5 degrees, 70 per cent of the world’s coral reefs die. At 2 degrees, they are all gone. If temperatures continue to rise, we will step through a series of one-way doors. And the end destination of which is climate catastrophe.”
https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2021/10/30/how-the-gas...
But why would Scotty care? He's happy clapped his way to heaven!
Fascinating. Climate change is a geopolitical game in which Scomo is an absolute loser. United West needs to align to gain upper hand on China (and other proxies). We are strategically and ideologically aligned with the West but provide vast resources to China and other big polluters. This puts us in a unique position where a good balance of power can help us achieve great results.
And somehow, Scomo managed to get us into a situation where we are condemned by both. Instead, he should be playing the game so we can benefit from both. For example, West will be pushing hard to phase out our coal production which will put certain pressures on China. Evidence for that is Macron requesting exactly this to happen literally today at G20. Scomo goes and dismisses it rather than leaving it open. I am of an opinion that aligned West would provide substantial benefits to Australia to drop its coal production, especially if Australia is to take a more neutral stance and have warmer relationships with China.
There are good historical examples of such balances. The one I am best familiar with is Tito's balance between Western and Eastern block in ex-Yugoslavia (as I'm from that area). Famously, Tito defied Stalin at height of his power which resulted in the Tito-Stalin split in 1948. To make it clear, Yugoslavia was a communist country, and Tito was its dictator however, he decided to split from Eastern block and drive his own, independent version of communism (more explanation on the link below). Honestly, I hate the old bastard for many reasons but going into conflict with Stalin in 1948 requires some serious courage and you have to admire him for that (you can't even see the traces of this in Scomo).
So, that fallout had its economic consequences. And what does Tito do? He seeks assistance from the US. And at height of McCarthyism (Era defined by a purge of communism (alleged or real) in the US (link below), the US gives military and economic aid to communist Yugoslavia (link below). Hypocrisy 101.
This kept going on for years, Tito's balance of East and West provided Yugoslavia with cheap loans, grants, and favorable trade terms (created its own issues further down the track that are for different topics) that were unimaginable to many other communist countries.
One of the most figurative illustrations of this relationship was Tito's visit to the US in 1971. He was sitting with Nixon in the room full of reporters and cameras and then lighted a Cuban cigar. Smoking in the White House was strictly forbidden since 1946. Not to mention that US-Cuban tensions were at record heights so lighting a Cuban cigar would certainly be seen as a provocation. Nixon warned Tito “Mr President, we do not smoke here in the White House”. Tito laughed, replied "Lucky you" and kept smoking. No one said anything after that (photos and a story on this in a link below).
So, why did I write all of this? History is a great educator and what it tells us is; Scomo is a spineless, low-level operator with the inability to think about medium to long-term strategy. His capacity is limited to current pragmatism (only do what you can practically achieve with the resources at that point in time). He will never commit to goals and targets that need operational innovation and development to be successful. That scares him. His focus is today, tomorrow, next few weeks to next few months max. Reactive mode 101. He sees commitments like 'cutting methane emissions by 50% through livestock reduction by 2030' as giving others power to put a target on his head rather than a goal to be achieved. Hence, he is more than happy to keep the country in ambiguity and keep reacting last minute, once it starts boiling.
The lesson is if we care about climate change (many still don't unfortunately) we need to get rid of Scomo. He is a terrible operator for this problem. We need a Visionaire, not a pragmatist, someone who will commit to 10 things, get 1-2 quick wins, achieve another 2-3 in medium-term, hit 2 long-term goals, and be comfortable with losing 2-3 battles. And to do that, you need to think globally and act globally rather than constrain yourself to bicker with local politicians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tito%E2%80%93Stalin_split#U.S._aid_to_Yugo...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/united-states-gives-military...
https://english.republika.mk/lifestyle/life/we-do-not-smoke-here-in-the-...
Thanks flollo. Much to think about there. I am reading a biography of Kissinger at the moment that is a great insight into US cold war thinking and quite relevant to the situation today.
Viclocal - You made a HUGE call that Scomo's Climate policies will cause other countries to start a Trade War with Australia .
I replied we are already in a Trade War with our biggest trading partner China .
I asked which countries do we trade a lot with and who will want to start a Trade War with us . No reply yet .
Were you doing your normal bullshitting , just typing without thinking or do you REALLY believe what you say ?
Please give me one country that you believe will want to start a trade war with us . France are pissed off with us at the moment and Iran wants to start a trade war with everyone .
Otherwise why don't you stop wasting space on this thread ?
Carbon tariffs are inevitable Hutchy and countries that do reduce their greenhouse gas emissions will put them on countries like Australia who don't.
See evidence in the link
https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/eus-carbon-border-...
Here's a nice little quote from the article.
"The European Commission is due to propose its carbon border tariff policy on July 14, a move designed to put EU firms on an equal footing with competitors in countries with weaker carbon policies than those of the bloc.
Citing a draft of the proposal, Bloomberg reported that the border levy would be applied in full from 2026, after a phase-in from 2023."
I back up my arguments with facts. You just talk absolute bullshit Hutchy.
Viclocal - how can you say I talk bullshit after defending you with facts about your beach house . I should have said it is also very climate friendly .
"The European Commission is due to propose its carbon border tariff policy on July 14, a move designed to put EU firms on an equal footing with competitors in countries with weaker carbon policies than those of the bloc."
So the EC finally agree that being green is more costly . Thanks for the link as I missed this . I would hope that it is not WAY more costly otherwise an equal footing may make a slight difference . Ha ha .
You really need to get a brain and try to think before posting .
The EU have already stopped talking to us due to the sub deal .
If there IS tariffs placed on our coal ( won't happen imo as our coal is the best quality so less dirty ) and minerals like gold who the fuck cares . Gold is sold the world over at the same price . Same with other metals and coal . No tariffs !!!!
"Australia’s two-way goods trade with the European Union (EU) was valued at $69.3 billion in
2016 and accounted for almost 15 per cent of Australia’s total goods trade.
Australia recorded a net goods trade deficit of $28.7 billion in 2016.
In terms of sectors, Australia was a net importer of Agriculture, forestry and fisheries and
Manufactures products from the EU while it was a net exporter of Minerals and fuels and
Other goods (mainly gold).
Australia’s major goods exports to the EU were gold, coal and oil seeds, while the major
imports from the EU were passenger motor vehicles, medicaments and pharmaceutical
products."
We can put tariffs on their cars and medical products that we CAN buy elsewhere . Fuck French Oak . We grow Oak here . Fuck Truffles . They are a winter food and we grow them here . Same with fish . We grow wonderful salmon and kingfish . Clean Seas will be selling Australian grown kingfish through Woolies soon ( I declare an interest . Have bought CSS for clients a few months ago ) .
If the EU place tariffs on us and we retaliate THEY will be worse off . We buy more from them than they do from us . That is the definition of a deficit . Such a big fat stick ha ha .
That IS a FACT !
Bring on a trade war EU . Like bringing a knife to a gunfight .
The Europeans were always good at starting wars . We had to help them win and finish them .
https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/australias-goods-trade-with-...
Very funny Supa !
You could also have a photo of them with a horrified on their faces with the caption -
"Shit he brought a pamphlet . No one told us you needed one . or We need to make one as well ."
Classic supafreak.
Here’s a pamphlet. Maybe he read this before his road to Damascus about face
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/au/Documents/Economics/de...
https://amp.abc.net.au/article/100578646
Nice. Thanks Mathias. Great. Another tax.
From the WallSt Journal
Climate Summit to Nowhere
The Wall Street Journal has the right idea in its outlook The Climate Summit to Nowhere.
It’s incongruous bordering on the bizarre to organize a summit like this while Europe is battening down for a winter fuel crisis, President Biden is begging OPEC to produce more oil, China is firing up its coal-fueled power plants amid an electricity shortage, and climate-change plans wilt as soon as they’re exposed to the sunlight of democratic politics.
No matter. This summit is called COP26 because there have already been 25. No less than the United Nations admitted this week that nations have made little progress on their previous climate pledges. But rather than adjust to this political reality, the delegates will make even more unrealistic promises.
The commitments of developing countries are even flimsier and depend on bribes from the rich. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) this week called for more international aid to finance emissions reductions: A “floor” of $100 billion annually should do it, with $367 billion over the next five years going to Asean, thank you. Out of the 75% reduction in carbon emissions the Philippines plans to achieve by 2030, 72% is contingent on foreign aid, Nikkei reported this week.
Rich countries first made the $100 billion pledge in 2009, but the money still hasn’t appeared. Taxpayers in rich economies will be even less willing to sacrifice their own cash for the climate when they realize who isn’t coming to COP26: Vladimir Putin of Russia and China’s Xi Jinping.
Leaders of other big CO2 emitters, such as world number-three India, will be in Glasgow but might as well not be. Delhi’s environment minister suggested this week that his government won’t sign up for net zero. With several hundred million Indians still living in poverty, India needs more energy from fossil fuels, as does all of Africa.
Mr. Xi promised in 2020 to reduce climate emissions—but only after 2030. In the here and now, China is building more coal-powered plants because growing the economy is a far higher priority. The Kremlin’s budget floats on oil and gas production, and Mr. Putin won’t mind if Western Europe goes to net zero. He’ll then have more energy leverage.
Please consider the ASEAN Joint Statement on Climate Change COP 26.
"The Kingdom of Cambodia, the Republic of Indonesia, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Malaysia, the Republic of the Union of Myanmar, the Republic of the Philippines, the Republic of Singapore, the Kingdom of Thailand and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, reaffirmed our commitments ...."
Based On ...."a new collective quantified goal from a floor of USD 100 billion per year, which takes into account the needs and priorities of developing countries."
NIKKEI Asia reports ASEAN urges developed world to lift climate financing over $100bn.
Developed countries should "continue and further scale up the mobilization of climate finance ahead of initiating deliberations on the setting up of a new collective quantified goal from a floor of $100 billion per year," the bloc said in a joint statement issued Tuesday at its annual summit, ahead of the COP26 climate conference opening next week in Scotland.
Yet a study by the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, a Singaporean think tank, found that Southeast Asians have little awareness of their countries' climate policies. Nearly 60% of respondents were unsure whether their country had submitted its Nationally Determined Contribution to the Paris climate agreement.
ASEAN would need at least $367 billion through the next five years for its energy plans, bloc Secretary-General Lim Jock Hoi said this week.
Synopsis
China will continue to build coal-fired plants through 2030
China has a net neutral target of 2060 not 2050
Russia will not do a thing
India will not agree to goals
Developing countries will demand but not receive more money
Gretta, will give a rousing speech on the end of the world as we know it within 15 years.
"According to Krishna's survey of Americans, 7 in 10 people who are susceptible to believing climate disinformation self-identified as politically conservative. In contrast, 8 in 10 Americans who self-identified as liberal were found to be immune to disinformation about climate change."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/10/211030221805.htm
Actually seems more of a muslim thing :P
"Indonesia Is Home to the Most Climate Change Deniers in the World"
https://www.vice.com/en/article/a3x3m8/indonesia-is-home-to-the-most-cli...
Source of graphhttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/07/us-hotbed-climate-ch...
.