Climate Change
AlfredWallace wrote:ENERGY NEWS
As of July, nationally, all power costs will increase by 30-33%.
Sadly there was probably people who voted for Albo just because he said if Labor got in their electricity bills were going to be reduced by $275 a year by 2025.
Instead based on the average electricity bill of $1,250 a year a 33% increase is $412.50.
So its very realistic to suggest that by 2025 instead of electricity bills reducing by $275 they might increase by double that $550, possibly more.
indo-dreaming wrote:AlfredWallace wrote:ENERGY NEWS
As of July, nationally, all power costs will increase by 30-33%.
Sadly there was probably people who voted for Albo just because he said if Labor got in their electricity bills were going to be reduced by $275 a year by 2025.
Instead based on the average electricity bill of $1,250 a year a 33% increase is $412.50.
So it’s very realistic to suggest that by 2025 instead of electricity bills reducing by $275 they might increase by double that $550, possibly more.
Indo-Dreaming > Hi. How are you?
Yes, fair point, you are probably right.
A better part of our nation is experiencing living difficulties, this energy increase will hit hard, so its even a bigger incentive to source energy from your own or others clean energy production supply, BTW its cost less to run as well. AW
Doing well but very busy.
Im currently doing a new build and designed my whole roof around solar panels, so can fit as many as possible and all face north, looking forward to the day i can reduce my energy bill as much as possible.
indo-dreaming wrote:Doing well but very busy.
Im currently doing a new build and designed my whole roof around solar panels, so can fit as many as possible and all face north, looking forward to the day i can reduce my energy bill as much as possible.
Indo. Good stuff. You have gas or electric water heating ? Nice waves on SC today. First in the water where i surfed, sublime. AW.
Oliver Stone:
April Fools joke Wazza ?
If this is true. Fantastic news. https://t.co/ViREXko6dy
— Nyunggai Warren Mundine AO (@nyunggai) April 2, 2023
following on from North America's huge snow season, Electroverse can't resist in taking a cold dig:
https://electroverse.info/canada-20c-freezing-scandinavia-norwegian-aval...
heaps more snow, colder, for longer.
Climate change blamed for increase in home runs over the last ten years.
"The authors found that for every 1 degree Celsius increase in average global temperature, there could be 95 more home runs across a baseball season. If temperatures were to rise to 4 degrees Celsius of warming by the end of the century, the research says climate change could account for as much as 10 percent of home runs (but in that scenario, we would also have much bigger environmental problems)."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/04/07/baseball-h...
Just in case we are forgetting.
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/environment/wildfires-rage-in-parts-of-northern...
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-14480-8#citeas
"This study observes and detects the emergence of nonlinear and rapidly changing relationships between the higher fire risk weather conditions associated with climate change and the impacts of fire on societies."
Unprecedented..
And, oh, by the way, just in case your day doesn't have enough doom in it already ...
— Prof. Eliot Jacobson (@EliotJacobson) June 8, 2023
... I had to increase the upper bound on the y-axis to accommodate the first recorded anomaly of North Atlantic Sea Surface Temperatures greater than 1.0°C, which happened on June 7, 2023: pic.twitter.com/GgL2Ak4vgo
This year looks to be the hottest on record sea surface temperature wise globally, boosted by the El Niño event.
Good to know Craig but I wouldn't use this information to add more doom to my day (as it says in the tweet). Life is good, there are many reasons to be optimistic. Yeah, shit is happening with the climate but it's ok, we need to keep pushing forward.
Actually the graph doesn't prove anything, let alone that this yr is "unprecedented" or an "anomaly", since it only goes back to 1982.
It's easy to take a selected shortened window of any time series dataset that potentially contains hundreds of millions of observations, and watch as it stumbles across an "unrecorded anomaly" just due to statistical variation.
To make any claims here the graph would need to go back hundreds of millions of years and it would need to be proven that there is a statistically significant variation taking place right now that is caused only by human actions and not statistical variation or natural climate drivers..
I don't think climate change advocates are doing themselves any favours by presenting stuff like this. And then they wonder why half the planet doesn't believe them and most governments just provide lip service to the issue backed up with little to no action.
There seems to be something going very wrong in society nowadays. Normal standards of scientific reasoning and rational debate have been abandoned. In its place is something that seems more accurately described as cult like pseudoscience.
OK GSCO, unprecedented in the current, industrialised, world.
Yes the climate was warmer/colder, glaciated/unglaciated in previous periods, but year on year, we are consistently seeing the general retreat of glaciers, sea ice, warming oceans and the atmosphere, and in turn, the changing of local climates all due to anthropogenic climate change.
Flollo, you sound like my dad and a bunch of other boomers I know. "Just chill and enjoy life, lots to be thankful for!" Meanwhile they'll all be dead in 10-20 years, just before the shit really starts hitting the fan.
As I've said before, most of our issues are related to 'governance'.
This sort of thing gets missed a lot in all the hubbub about EVs and batteries etc., but there's been a slow moving structural change happening for about 5 years now, and the announcement from Chalmers yesterday at the Aust. Banking Assoc. event yesterday really is a gamechanger from a governance perspective.
https://www.fssustainability.com.au/treasury-mandates-apra-must-consider...
You can change all the lightbulbs and ban plastic straws all you want, but that really does practically sweet fuck all. Paradigm structural shifts have always and only ever will come from regulatory shifts. And more specifically, what the big money does.
There are three massive structural trends afoot that getting almost no media attention, and they're accelerating:
- regulations against 'greenwashing'
- regulations to mandate climate risk management (and possibly broader ESG risk management in the years ahead)
- carbon pricing (checkout recent EU decision and current chat in the US).
Probably too little too late, but I'll take it nonetheless.
I currently consider the general environmental markets umbrella of offsets, insets, credits, pricing etc - to be greenwashing. severely lacking integrity and form at this stage.
bring back the tax. polluter pays. simple.
Yeah maybe. But I’m not a boomer and I probably still have 50-60 years in me + my 3 boys probably 90 with all the medical innovations.
I know you don't engage in pseudoscience Craig or your surf forecasts would be out.
And btw I believe that anthropogenic climate change is real (just don't like how it's often "sold").
But yes Bonza, I recently read this article:
Australia’s carbon credit scheme ‘largely a sham’, says whistleblower who tried to rein it in
and this Australia Institute article:
The Problem with Carbon Credits and Offsets Explained
It all seems like a gigantic mistake. A fully "commercialised" or "privatised" for-profit market-based system and attempted "solution" that can be easily rorted. Just a money making scam.
It's nearly a case of "how did things get to this?"
it got there through a revolving door of pollies and consultants from the big firms (eg: pWc) dazzling legislators and senior bureaucrats with claims of productivity, new markets, and industry investment.
A dominant strategy of modern politics and economics has emerged:
Fake it till you make it.
Set huge targets and bask in the glow of the announcement. Job done.
My target is bigger than your target then becomes the political debate.
Ignore the painful detail of how to get from A to Z.
Many in the Insta image driven world now just shorten the adage "Fake it till you make it", to a much easier philosophy of just "fake it" as the "make it" is too much like hard work.
Some hope in the energy transition science. A hundred dollar ball of thorium could power your entire life's energy use!
Obviously cost to produce involves production, transmission, profit etc so cost per kWh would be competitive not some miraculous level of cheapness.
New small scale reactors - size of shipping container. Fast installation. Economic. Waste is much more manageable than older nuclear energy.
Not dependent on weather.
Better than covering our coast in massive wind turbines that need replacing in 20 years.
This may or may not be the big solution but it gives one hope that science can solve the energy challenge.
I just don't see wind and solar being able to replace base load without creating their own environmental problems due to the massive scale required. Some other technology has to fill the space coal currently does in our energy mix.
Thorium reactors are another exciting technology feeding into the energy mix. Hopefully it will live up to the hype.
There's quite a bit of sea ice missing down in the Antarctic right now.
The sea ice area is at record lows, with the anomaly chart showing that it's 2.49 million square kilometres smaller in area than the 1981-2010 average for this time of year.
Here's the average..
Check the data out here: https://seaice.visuals.earth/
thoughts on any implications for our weather Craig?
Not sure sorry Greenjam,
So thats two coal mines been approved since Labor has been in???
(News from Yesterday)
"Yesterday Minister Plibersek waved through another coal mine in Queensland, Star Coal, deeming that it would not have significant impact on the environment.
Greens spokesperson for the Environment Senator Sarah Hanson-Young said:
“Another day, another new coal mine, approved without concern for the environment.
“Minister Plibersek has just waved through a new coal mine in QLD, claiming that it will have no significant impact on our environment."
https://www.nationaltribune.com.au/another-day-another-coal-mine-given-p...
(And from last month)
"New coal mine in Bowen Basin, Isaac River Mine, set for federal government approval
A new coal mine in central Queensland has been given provisional approval, becoming the first since the Labor government came to power. "
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-12/government-expected-to-approve-ne...
indo-dreaming wrote:So thats two coal mines been approved since Labor has been in???
(News from Yesterday)
"Yesterday Minister Plibersek waved through another coal mine in Queensland, Star Coal, deeming that it would not have significant impact on the environment.
Greens spokesperson for the Environment Senator Sarah Hanson-Young said:
“Another day, another new coal mine, approved without concern for the environment.
“Minister Plibersek has just waved through a new coal mine in QLD, claiming that it will have no significant impact on our environment."
https://www.nationaltribune.com.au/another-day-another-coal-mine-given-p...(And from last month)
"New coal mine in Bowen Basin, Isaac River Mine, set for federal government approval
A new coal mine in central Queensland has been given provisional approval, becoming the first since the Labor government came to power. "
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-12/government-expected-to-approve-ne...
@indo looking at this mine the footprint seems to be way less than the wind farm destruction that’s occurring in QLD. I saw some protests and presentations from the environmental activist groups up there and it looked scary. I didn’t look into this issue in full detail so I don’t want judge it yet but even Guardian published an article about it recently (which is pretty unbelievable).
https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/apr/22/conservationists-...
On a different topic, I use Uber and taxis a lot and nearly all vehicles are at least hybrid. I even see people driving brand new Teslas as Uber. That tells a story. I also rented Toyota Camry hybrid the other day and did 1100km on a regular size tank (I think it was 50l). So, even a normal hybrid (non plug in) is at least 30% more efficient then the traditional ice vehicle. And it drives like a dream. I believe we are in a position to mandate (at least) hybrid engines for all new car sales in the near future. I see this as a good thing.
Europe heatwave:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1791684/cerberus-heatwave-europe-ho...
"With blistering temperatures on the rise, the mercury is poised to inch towards a staggering 50C in the coming days, further fuelling the deadly heatwave that has engulfed the continent.
As the scorching conditions persist, Spain and Croatia are being ravaged by raging wildfires, forcing mass evacuations and sending alarm bells ringing across the region.
Adding to the concerns, forecasters are now issuing warnings that Italy could face an astounding 49C next week, amplifying the urgency for precautionary measures, reports the Mirror."
As for naming the heatwaves, ah, meh - but betcha next one is named 'Daedalus' to go along with the building of wings and flying close to really hot things
It was actually a pretty cold start of summer in Europe. It just warmed up these last few 2-3 weeks. Last year was brutal, it was non stop above 35 for months and dry, sunny weather carried on well into November.
flollo wrote:It was actually a pretty cold start of summer in Europe. It just warmed up these last few 2-3 weeks. Last year was brutal, it was non stop above 35 for months and dry, sunny weather carried on well into November.
Interestingly in Oslo we were quite warm May-June. At times the warmest capital in Europe. As you say its warmed up in Europe past 2-3 weeks, but, thats not the case in northern Europe. Been pretty rainy and Cooler during that time period.
It'd be jet stream dependent, no? UK in storms and rain now I think.
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-six-times-mo...
"China permitted more coal power plants last year than any time in the last seven years, according to a new report released this week. It's the equivalent of about two new coal power plants per week"
'"Everybody else is moving away from coal and China seems to be stepping on the gas," she says. "We saw that China has six times as much plants starting construction as the rest of the world combined."'
In a way it makes sense for them - this will guarantee the lights (and factories) stay on if they can no longer source power such as natgas from Australia or other overseas destinations. Part of the economic decoupling going on. What it means for the environment is another thing altogether.
They've also, in one year alone (2021), built more wind farms than the rest of the world combined for the previous five years.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrvetter/2022/01/26/china-built-more-of...
They also lead the world in building new Nuclear power plants
"With 24 units under construction, China leads the world in building nuclear power plants"
https://interestingengineering.com/culture/china-leads-building-nuclear-...
They just have a huge population with huge and growing energy needs.
That's an increase of 17 Gigawatts of wind, 26 Gigawatts of nuclear, and 106 Gigawatts of coal. Perspective.
velocityjohnno wrote:That's an increase of 17 Gigawatts of wind, 26 Gigawatts of nuclear, and 106 Gigawatts of coal. Perspective.
Wow that's pretty crazy I wonder how solar and gas rank
To be fair, their shift is going in the renewable way eventually. But at the moment that's a lot of coal, and every ton matters if we are to consider events like the most recent NHemi heatwaves and 52 being recorded in parts of China.
I'm working through a link including that number and will include it with summary later in the week - I will argue it is part of a stockpiling of sorts - with implications for all our futures.
Other renewable bonus points in favour of the Chinese are their near domination currently of electric cars. It's them, then daylight. They have the materials, the refining capacity, and the production capacity. Watch as they take over global auto markets - if things stay as they are.
To be even fairer, Australia doesn't have a leg to stand on when criticising other countries about climate change, particularly coal. We have:
The highest coal production per capita in the world:
The 2nd highest coal consumption per capita in the world:
And the highest coal-fired power emissions per capita in the world:
It is a scam for Australia to sit here all cosy in our coal production, consumption and emissions in absolute terms and criticise other countries for the same simply due to their massive population sizes.
And to be even "more fairer" how about his one:
- Why the Pentagon Is the World’s Biggest Single Greenhouse Gas Emitter
- US Military Pollution: The World’s Biggest Climate Change Enabler
- US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries – shrinking this war machine is a must
AUKUS anyone?
Remark: Australia also doesn't have a leg to stand on in terms of human rights.
It is a scam for Westerners to sit all cosy in their perception of Western justice, egalitarianism and freedom and criticise other countries, when many of these 'Western' ideas and philosophies were taken from the countries the West violently colonised, creating 'the enlightenment' and pulling the West out of medieval thinking.
;)
https://m.
&pp=ygUZamltbXkgZG9yZSBjbGltYXRlIGNoYW5nZQ%3D%3D Unfortunately nature doesn't give a shit about politics.....
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/25/northern-hemispher...
VJ, I look forward to your thoughts re china stockpiling. Certainly driving their current infrastructure building is to combat shortages of everything in the future, lithium, fossils, etc... so their renewable and battery tech is right up there, and they see international perception of meeting targets is a good symptom. Do you see them buying stuff offshore while they can, building renewable infrastructure now, and saving their own minerals and fossils for use down the track?
Hi basesix, my stockpiling info should be a bit more controversial than that.
And we have had this debate before on the cc thread, last time with blindboy: nature doesn't care about per capita, it cares about raw tonnes. This makes intuitive sense as the more tonnes, the more temp rise as per the science, and the more risk of feedback loops.
The highest coal production in the world, goes offshore for the most, to be burnt elsewhere. It's also about the highest dividend yield at present on the markets, so there's a test for the moral compass...
Edit: check this out!
VJ yes, thanks for your per capita comment. I fully agree.
I stumbled upon this article about China. It's not about climate change but it touches on many things that would explain a large need for energy (well, you can't do things in the article without a strong energy supply). A lot of it is positive, to be honest.
Cool. Sensationalist article aside, anyone know the likely impacts on pacific trades/swell/EAC if the Gulf Stream collapses?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/25/gulf-stream-could-co...
Per capita is important because every country has to play its part equally and fairly.
Developed, small population countries just don't have the ethical or moral right to sit there and reap the benefits of cheap coal and other fossil fuel fired energy, while putting the burden on developing, large population countries to play the biggest part simply due to their population size.
Fairness and living standards matter.
We are all one peoples on this planet.
The lack of sea ice across the Antarctic continues to remain unprecedented..
And meanwhile in the North Atlantic..
Some anomalies are pushing near 10° above normal off Canada! https://t.co/uDVXMU2754
— Craig Brokensha (@CraigBrokensha) July 25, 2023
Agree with you there gsco. We also don't have the moral right to say developing countries can't de-forest given the amount of infrastructure and wealth the developed world built through forestry.. If we want them to be the world's lungs or preserve old-growth habitat, we gotta give 'em coin and say thanks for doing it.
gsco wrote:Per capita is important because every country has to play its part equally.
Developed, small population countries just don't have the ethical or moral right to sit there and reap the benefits of cheap coal and other fossil fuel fired energy, while putting the burden on developing, large population countries to play the biggest part simply due to their population size.
Fairness and living standards matter.
We are all one peoples on this planet.
You could argue that per capita is important from that perspective but in all honesty, you shouldn't even need that calculation to prove this point. Developed, industrialised countries have no moral or ethical right to tell those less developed what to do, per capita or no per capita. So I fully agree with you.
I posted somewhere the other day how I counted around 50 different lights (downlights, ambient lights, outside lights...) in my house. There are people on this planet who have none. And there are many (probably most) who have one light globe per room. Now, if all these people want to live by my standard who am I to stop them? And if I was to put limitations on their growth then I better finance a really good alternative from my own pocket.
I haven't followed it for a very long time, however around the time of Kyoto (1997), the developing world was allowed a grace period to use fossil fuels to advance their economies. This seemed fair, as it gave those countries the capacity and means to develop the same way already-developed countries had.
In practice, however, it's a very messy situation as economies that come to rely on cheap energy can't easily extricate themselves from them, while the developing world hasn't stalled its use of energy. As mentioned in Flollo's post, we keep on finding new ways to consume energy before the transition away from coal and gas has occurred.
.