What happened to Australia's climate change election?

Discussion of current events
Post Reply
User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3294
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

What happened to Australia's climate change election?

Post by cassowary » Sun May 19, 2019 7:34 am

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/worl ... hange.html
SYDNEY, Australia — The polls said this would be Australia’s climate change election, when voters confronted harsh reality and elected leaders who would tackle the problem.

And in some districts, it was true: Tony Abbott, the former prime minister who stymied climate policy for years, lost to an independent who campaigned on the issue. A few other new candidates prioritizing climate change also won.

But over all, Australians shrugged off the warming seas killing the Great Barrier Reef and the extreme drought punishing farmers. On Saturday, in a result that stunned most analysts, they re-elected the conservative coalition that has long resisted plans to sharply cut down on carbon emissions and coal.
Like the French yellow jackets, Australians don't like to pay more for expensive energy. At the end of the day, people vote their wallet.

You can kiss the Democrats' Green New Deal goodbye.
The Imp :D

neverfail
Posts: 4104
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: What happened to Australia's climate change election?

Post by neverfail » Sun May 19, 2019 5:33 pm

Nice to see you take an interest in events down here Cass. I live in a country that is too accustomed to being ignored. Possibly because we are so damn peaceful and prosperous; so nonthreatening within the context of the World at large as to appear downright boring to the uninitiated. We just cannot compete with the likes of Syria or Afghanistan in "news-worthiness" (i.e. in spills and thrills shock-horror stuff). :D
cassowary wrote:
Sun May 19, 2019 7:34 am
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/worl ... hange.html
SYDNEY, Australia — The polls said this would be Australia’s climate change election, when voters confronted harsh reality and elected leaders who would tackle the problem.

And in some districts, it was true: Tony Abbott, the former prime minister who stymied climate policy for years, lost to an independent who campaigned on the issue. A few other new candidates prioritizing climate change also won.

But over all, Australians shrugged off the warming seas killing the Great Barrier Reef and the extreme drought punishing farmers. On Saturday, in a result that stunned most analysts, they re-elected the conservative coalition that has long resisted plans to sharply cut down on carbon emissions and coal.
Like the French yellow jackets, Australians don't like to pay more for expensive energy. At the end of the day, people vote their wallet.
CASSOWARY: we ARE paying more for expensive energy right at this very moment. Historically, the highest we have ever paid and I believe among the most expensive in the World - and the size of our power bills currently shows no sign of abating. The 6 year old Liberal-National (i.e. liberal-conservative: it this country they are traditional political allies - not opponents like in North America) coalition government is part of the problem: not part of the solution. It along with a succession of former governments of both political stripes, have made an utter mess of energy policy our here and the current, now reelected, government offered no credible solution to our energy crisis as part of its election manifesto.

There is no excuse for a country with our wealth of energy resources to be so afflicted.

The Opposition Labor Party failed to put forth a convincing case for election into government. In my opinion their election manifesto was far too ambitious and as we listened the public literally got lost in the details. That was certainly the effect it had on me - though a lot of those proposals when considered individually made sense. Then there are the personalities of the two leaders (as projected over the electronic media). Bill Shorten, the Labor leader. projects the sort of cold, passionless persona that turns people off and is widely considered to be untrustworthy. Scott Morrison, a former advertising executive, leaves much to be desired in that regard also yet as a campaigner turned out to be closer to the mark than his Labor rival.

The election was lost mainly in Queensland - where they were more interested in new jobs in coal mining than in mitigating the effects of climate change. That Adani coal mega-mine mentioned in the NY Times article has absolutely nothing to do with relieving our electrical energy costs: it is purely a coal export mine and in my opinion a lousy deal foe this country despite its promise to create a minimum of permanent jobs in a region of central Queensland currently with high unemployment.

Global warming via greenhouse gas emissions is a GLOBAL challenge. Regardless of who won our current election that challenge, along with our current bugbear of high energy bills, are not going to go away. Unless the big polluters like China and India come on board anything my country successfully does to counter our own greenhouse gas emissions is bound to be swallowed up by the ambitions of these two (along with others) to industrialize further.

Cheers!

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3294
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: What happened to Australia's climate change election?

Post by cassowary » Sun May 19, 2019 9:23 pm

neverfail wrote:
Sun May 19, 2019 5:33 pm
Nice to see you take an interest in events down here Cass. I live in a country that is too accustomed to being ignored. Possibly because we are so damn peaceful and prosperous; so nonthreatening within the context of the World at large as to appear downright boring to the uninitiated. We just cannot compete with the likes of Syria or Afghanistan in "news-worthiness" (i.e. in spills and thrills shock-horror stuff). :D
Neverfail,

You are indeed boring people compared to the likes of the Syrians and Afghans. :D :lol: But that is a blessing. Enjoy your peace and prosperity.

CASSOWARY: we ARE paying more for expensive energy right at this very moment. Historically, the highest we have ever paid and I believe among the most expensive in the World - and the size of our power bills currently shows no sign of abating.


Like everything else, cutting down on greenhouse gases costs money. $$$. Advocates for green energy sounds good to many people. Who does not want to stop stop human caused global warming. But once people become aware of the costs, they suddenly lose enthusiasm.

You got to weigh the costs with benefits. We don't know a lot of things. Nature and human activity cause climate change. Even without human activity, the climate had been warmer in earth's history. So how much of the current warming is due to human activity? We don't know.

This question is important. Because it will answer the next question. How much can we do to affect change? If most of the climate change is due to natural causes, switching to costly green energy will not change the world temperature much.

This leads us to the next question. How much will it cost to cut down on greenhouse emissions? What will we get in return? Is it worth it for the world to spend trillions of dollars to reduce world temperature by 0.05 degrees C?
The climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule: if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.
The total cost for developing countries to implement their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) is more than US$4.4 trillion.
So Is it worth it? The next question to ask is, "Should you not spend the money on alleviating poverty instead?"

Neverfail wrote:
Global warming via greenhouse gas emissions is a GLOBAL challenge. Regardless of who won our current election that challenge, along with our current bugbear of high energy bills, are not going to go away. Unless the big polluters like China and India come on board anything my country successfully does to counter our own greenhouse gas emissions is bound to be swallowed up by the ambitions of these two (along with others) to industrialize further.
Exactly. You brought up my last question:

"Who pays?"

If Australia put your people into poverty by forcing people to pay more for green energy just to do your bit to lower global temperature, but other people do not do their bit to put themselves into poverty so that our descendents in 2100 can feel cooler by 0.05 degrees, are you not being silly?
The Imp :D

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 2871
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: What happened to Australia's climate change election?

Post by Sertorio » Mon May 20, 2019 3:52 am

cassowary wrote:
Sun May 19, 2019 9:23 pm

If Australia put your people into poverty by forcing people to pay more for green energy just to do your bit to lower global temperature, but other people do not do their bit to put themselves into poverty so that our descendents in 2100 can feel cooler by 0.05 degrees, are you not being silly?
In Portugal we already have 55% green energy, and we aren't starving...

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3294
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: What happened to Australia's climate change election?

Post by cassowary » Mon May 20, 2019 5:00 am

Sertorio wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 3:52 am
cassowary wrote:
Sun May 19, 2019 9:23 pm

If Australia put your people into poverty by forcing people to pay more for green energy just to do your bit to lower global temperature, but other people do not do their bit to put themselves into poverty so that our descendents in 2100 can feel cooler by 0.05 degrees, are you not being silly?
In Portugal we already have 55% green energy, and we aren't starving...
Um, that's by energy produced in Portugal and not energy consumed in Portugal.
In 2016, 58%[3] of power produced in Portugal came from renewable sources, an increase against the previous year (50.4%), while renewable energy consumption represented 27.2% (early data) of total consumption.
The Imp :D

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 2871
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: What happened to Australia's climate change election?

Post by Sertorio » Mon May 20, 2019 5:35 am

cassowary wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 5:00 am
Sertorio wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 3:52 am
cassowary wrote:
Sun May 19, 2019 9:23 pm

If Australia put your people into poverty by forcing people to pay more for green energy just to do your bit to lower global temperature, but other people do not do their bit to put themselves into poverty so that our descendents in 2100 can feel cooler by 0.05 degrees, are you not being silly?
In Portugal we already have 55% green energy, and we aren't starving...
Um, that's by energy produced in Portugal and not energy consumed in Portugal.
In 2016, 58%[3] of power produced in Portugal came from renewable sources, an increase against the previous year (50.4%), while renewable energy consumption represented 27.2% (early data) of total consumption.
The difference we export, which means its price is competitive.

neverfail
Posts: 4104
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: What happened to Australia's climate change election?

Post by neverfail » Mon May 20, 2019 6:11 am

Sertorio wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 3:52 am
cassowary wrote:
Sun May 19, 2019 9:23 pm

If Australia put your people into poverty by forcing people to pay more for green energy just to do your bit to lower global temperature, but other people do not do their bit to put themselves into poverty so that our descendents in 2100 can feel cooler by 0.05 degrees, are you not being silly?
In Portugal we already have 55% green energy, and we aren't starving...
In Portugal you do not have our huge reserves of black and brown coal nor our natural gas and uranium. So due to your country's dearth of alternatives its lead in green energy is both understandable and even predictable.

Interests develop around the use of particular forms of energy. In our coal mining regions there are numerous small towns, even some sizable provincial cities, that depend on coal mining both for domestic use and for export abroad. If government policy in favour of a precipitous changeover to solar and wind energy cause these coal mines to close what do we do with the thousands of permanent redundant workers, their dependents and the tens of thousands of others whose own livelihoods are partly or wholly dependent on the prosperity of coal?

neverfail
Posts: 4104
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: What happened to Australia's climate change election?

Post by neverfail » Mon May 20, 2019 6:21 am

cassowary wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 5:00 am
Sertorio wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 3:52 am
cassowary wrote:
Sun May 19, 2019 9:23 pm

If Australia put your people into poverty by forcing people to pay more for green energy just to do your bit to lower global temperature, but other people do not do their bit to put themselves into poverty so that our descendents in 2100 can feel cooler by 0.05 degrees, are you not being silly?
In Portugal we already have 55% green energy, and we aren't starving...
Um, that's by energy produced in Portugal and not energy consumed in Portugal.
In 2016, 58%[3] of power produced in Portugal came from renewable sources, an increase against the previous year (50.4%), while renewable energy consumption represented 27.2% (early data) of total consumption.
That's a good point cassowary. Based on the figures there is obviously a significantly wide gap between the energy produced in Portugal and energy consumed there. That discrepancy can only be explained by net energy imports. I recall you mentioning Sertorio, in one of our past exchanges in another discussion I recall you mentioning that Portugal imports natural gas from Algeria.

So a significant part of Portugal's energy budget is comprised of an imported, non-renewable hydrocarbon that, while it is an improvement on coal or oil as a lesser producer of greenhouse gases nevertheless still produces them.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3294
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: What happened to Australia's climate change election?

Post by cassowary » Mon May 20, 2019 6:42 am

Sertorio wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 5:35 am
cassowary wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 5:00 am
Sertorio wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 3:52 am
cassowary wrote:
Sun May 19, 2019 9:23 pm

If Australia put your people into poverty by forcing people to pay more for green energy just to do your bit to lower global temperature, but other people do not do their bit to put themselves into poverty so that our descendents in 2100 can feel cooler by 0.05 degrees, are you not being silly?
In Portugal we already have 55% green energy, and we aren't starving...
Um, that's by energy produced in Portugal and not energy consumed in Portugal.
In 2016, 58%[3] of power produced in Portugal came from renewable sources, an increase against the previous year (50.4%), while renewable energy consumption represented 27.2% (early data) of total consumption.
The difference we export, which means its price is competitive.
I think you don't understand, Sertorio. Portugal is an energy importer and not exporter.
Portugal nearly 75% dependent on energy imports
Let's say Portugal produces 5 trillion joules of energy in one year. Out of that, 55% is from green energy. But Portugal uses 12 trillion joules of energy per year. So it needs to import 7 trillion joules per year.

This is just a made up example for illustration purpose. I don't know how much energy Portugal produces or consumes in a yaar.
The Imp :D

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3294
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: What happened to Australia's climate change election?

Post by cassowary » Mon May 20, 2019 6:55 am

neverfail wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 6:21 am
cassowary wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 5:00 am
Sertorio wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 3:52 am
cassowary wrote:
Sun May 19, 2019 9:23 pm

If Australia put your people into poverty by forcing people to pay more for green energy just to do your bit to lower global temperature, but other people do not do their bit to put themselves into poverty so that our descendents in 2100 can feel cooler by 0.05 degrees, are you not being silly?
In Portugal we already have 55% green energy, and we aren't starving...
Um, that's by energy produced in Portugal and not energy consumed in Portugal.
In 2016, 58%[3] of power produced in Portugal came from renewable sources, an increase against the previous year (50.4%), while renewable energy consumption represented 27.2% (early data) of total consumption.
That's a good point cassowary. Based on the figures there is obviously a significantly wide gap between the energy produced in Portugal and energy consumed there. That discrepancy can only be explained by net energy imports. I recall you mentioning Sertorio, in one of our past exchanges in another discussion I recall you mentioning that Portugal imports natural gas from Algeria.

So a significant part of Portugal's energy budget is comprised of an imported, non-renewable hydrocarbon that, while it is an improvement on coal or oil as a lesser producer of greenhouse gases nevertheless still produces them.
Just for fun, here is a table of electricity prices around the world.

Portuguese and Australian electricity cost about the same - an average of USD0.25 per KWH.
The Imp :D

Post Reply