What happened to Australia's climate change election?

Discussion of current events
User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3303
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

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

Post by cassowary » Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:02 pm

Milo wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 10:37 am
cassowary wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:40 am
neverfail wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 1:05 am
cassowary wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 12:17 am
Like the big GREEN industry will use simplistic propaganda about global warming to influence the well heeled tree huggers from Moonbat county.
Green enterprise does not come close to wielding the sort of undue influence that the fossil fuels lobby exercises.
That's probably true.
This is Orwellian at its finest: 'Oh no, look at the big mean scientists beating up on the poor defenceless multi billion dollar energy corporations!'

It would be hilarious if it wasn't justifying what might be the greatest train wreck in human history.
Yet, despite their influence, the fossil fuel industry was incapable of preventing the Paris Accord from being signed.

It is true the fossil fuel industry has more money to lobby politicians than does the much smaller green energy industry. But the green industry has powerful allies - Hollywood stars who are rich enough to afford electric cars for instance. Then there are the Marxists who use environmentalism to pursue their hidden agenda of destroying capitalism. Have you not heard of the term “watermelons “? Green on the outside but red on the inside.
The Imp :D

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 2126
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

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

Post by Milo » Mon Jun 03, 2019 9:10 pm

cassowary wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:02 pm
Milo wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 10:37 am
cassowary wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:40 am
neverfail wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 1:05 am
cassowary wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 12:17 am
Like the big GREEN industry will use simplistic propaganda about global warming to influence the well heeled tree huggers from Moonbat county.
Green enterprise does not come close to wielding the sort of undue influence that the fossil fuels lobby exercises.
That's probably true.
This is Orwellian at its finest: 'Oh no, look at the big mean scientists beating up on the poor defenceless multi billion dollar energy corporations!'

It would be hilarious if it wasn't justifying what might be the greatest train wreck in human history.
Yet, despite their influence, the fossil fuel industry was incapable of preventing the Paris Accord from being signed.

It is true the fossil fuel industry has more money to lobby politicians than does the much smaller green energy industry. But the green industry has powerful allies - Hollywood stars who are rich enough to afford electric cars for instance. Then there are the Marxists who use environmentalism to pursue their hidden agenda of destroying capitalism. Have you not heard of the term “watermelons “? Green on the outside but red on the inside.
The fossil fuel industry has proved quite capable of preventing the Paris Accord being adhered to.

neverfail
Posts: 4128
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

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

Post by neverfail » Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:03 pm

cassowary wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:02 pm
Then there are the Marxists who use environmentalism to pursue their hidden agenda of destroying capitalism. Have you not heard of the term “watermelons “? Green on the outside but red on the inside.
:lol: Among those "watermelons"; would you include all of those hard headed investors currently pouring money into renewable in this country (mentioned in a couple of my earlier posts, this discussion) in anticipation of coming profits? :D

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3303
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

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

Post by cassowary » Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:07 pm

Milo wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 9:10 pm
cassowary wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:02 pm
Milo wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 10:37 am
cassowary wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:40 am
neverfail wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 1:05 am
cassowary wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 12:17 am
Like the big GREEN industry will use simplistic propaganda about global warming to influence the well heeled tree huggers from Moonbat county.
Green enterprise does not come close to wielding the sort of undue influence that the fossil fuels lobby exercises.
That's probably true.
This is Orwellian at its finest: 'Oh no, look at the big mean scientists beating up on the poor defenceless multi billion dollar energy corporations!'

It would be hilarious if it wasn't justifying what might be the greatest train wreck in human history.
Yet, despite their influence, the fossil fuel industry was incapable of preventing the Paris Accord from being signed.

It is true the fossil fuel industry has more money to lobby politicians than does the much smaller green energy industry. But the green industry has powerful allies - Hollywood stars who are rich enough to afford electric cars for instance. Then there are the Marxists who use environmentalism to pursue their hidden agenda of destroying capitalism. Have you not heard of the term “watermelons “? Green on the outside but red on the inside.
The fossil fuel industry has proved quite capable of preventing the Paris Accord being adhered to.
Don't blame the fossil fuel industry for the hypocrisy of politicians who dared not offend their voters by raising petrol and electricity prices which is necessary if Paris Accord is to be adhered to. You saw what happened when Macron tried.

To succeed in anything, you need to be able to take short term pain for long term gain. This goes for going green too. But the one man one vote system is very bad for taking short term pain even if there is long term gain. That is why you have huge debts financing unsustainable welfare states. That is why Macron is finding it so hard to cut down on carbon emissions with his fuel tax though in this case I am not so sure if there is any long term gain.
The Imp :D

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3303
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

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

Post by cassowary » Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:09 pm

neverfail wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:03 pm
cassowary wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:02 pm
Then there are the Marxists who use environmentalism to pursue their hidden agenda of destroying capitalism. Have you not heard of the term “watermelons “? Green on the outside but red on the inside.
:lol: Among those "watermelons"; would you include all of those hard headed investors currently pouring money into renewable in this country (mentioned in a couple of my earlier posts, this discussion) in anticipation of coming profits? :D
Like all businesses, there is risk. Let's see if the fossil industry can cut costs and bring down oil, gas or coal powered energy. That is the beauty of capitalism. Always competing, always uncertain. If they succeed, the green energy investors will lose their shirts.

Let them fight. Politicians must stay out.
The Imp :D

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 2126
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

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

Post by Milo » Tue Jun 04, 2019 3:49 am

cassowary wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:09 pm
neverfail wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:03 pm
cassowary wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:02 pm
Then there are the Marxists who use environmentalism to pursue their hidden agenda of destroying capitalism. Have you not heard of the term “watermelons “? Green on the outside but red on the inside.
:lol: Among those "watermelons"; would you include all of those hard headed investors currently pouring money into renewable in this country (mentioned in a couple of my earlier posts, this discussion) in anticipation of coming profits? :D
Like all businesses, there is risk. Let's see if the fossil industry can cut costs and bring down oil, gas or coal powered energy. That is the beauty of capitalism. Always competing, always uncertain. If they succeed, the green energy investors will lose their shirts.

Let them fight. Politicians must stay out.
If all industry bore costs equally that argument would work better.
The costs of the 2003-2010 Iraq War are often contested, as academics and critics have unearthed many hidden costs not represented in official estimates. The most recent major report on these costs come from Brown University in the form of the Costs of War, which totaled just over $1.1 trillion. The United States Department of Defense's direct spending on Iraq totaled at least $757.8 billion, but also highlighting the complementary costs at home, such as interest paid on the funds borrowed to finance the wars.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financi ... e_Iraq_War

How economical would alternate energy be if the cost of constantly interfering in the Middle East were borne by the energy consumer?

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3303
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

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

Post by cassowary » Tue Jun 04, 2019 6:36 am

Milo wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 3:49 am
cassowary wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:09 pm
neverfail wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:03 pm
cassowary wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:02 pm
Then there are the Marxists who use environmentalism to pursue their hidden agenda of destroying capitalism. Have you not heard of the term “watermelons “? Green on the outside but red on the inside.
:lol: Among those "watermelons"; would you include all of those hard headed investors currently pouring money into renewable in this country (mentioned in a couple of my earlier posts, this discussion) in anticipation of coming profits? :D
Like all businesses, there is risk. Let's see if the fossil industry can cut costs and bring down oil, gas or coal powered energy. That is the beauty of capitalism. Always competing, always uncertain. If they succeed, the green energy investors will lose their shirts.

Let them fight. Politicians must stay out.
If all industry bore costs equally that argument would work better.
The costs of the 2003-2010 Iraq War are often contested, as academics and critics have unearthed many hidden costs not represented in official estimates. The most recent major report on these costs come from Brown University in the form of the Costs of War, which totaled just over $1.1 trillion. The United States Department of Defense's direct spending on Iraq totaled at least $757.8 billion, but also highlighting the complementary costs at home, such as interest paid on the funds borrowed to finance the wars.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financi ... e_Iraq_War

How economical would alternate energy be if the cost of constantly interfering in the Middle East were borne by the energy consumer?
That’s the past. Thanks to Trump, the US will be self sufficient in energy. So the US won’t come to the rescue anymore. Too bad for energy importers.
The Imp :D

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 2126
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

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

Post by Milo » Tue Jun 04, 2019 9:08 am

cassowary wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 6:36 am
Milo wrote:
Tue Jun 04, 2019 3:49 am
cassowary wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:09 pm
neverfail wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:03 pm
cassowary wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:02 pm
Then there are the Marxists who use environmentalism to pursue their hidden agenda of destroying capitalism. Have you not heard of the term “watermelons “? Green on the outside but red on the inside.
:lol: Among those "watermelons"; would you include all of those hard headed investors currently pouring money into renewable in this country (mentioned in a couple of my earlier posts, this discussion) in anticipation of coming profits? :D
Like all businesses, there is risk. Let's see if the fossil industry can cut costs and bring down oil, gas or coal powered energy. That is the beauty of capitalism. Always competing, always uncertain. If they succeed, the green energy investors will lose their shirts.

Let them fight. Politicians must stay out.
If all industry bore costs equally that argument would work better.
The costs of the 2003-2010 Iraq War are often contested, as academics and critics have unearthed many hidden costs not represented in official estimates. The most recent major report on these costs come from Brown University in the form of the Costs of War, which totaled just over $1.1 trillion. The United States Department of Defense's direct spending on Iraq totaled at least $757.8 billion, but also highlighting the complementary costs at home, such as interest paid on the funds borrowed to finance the wars.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financi ... e_Iraq_War

How economical would alternate energy be if the cost of constantly interfering in the Middle East were borne by the energy consumer?
That’s the past. Thanks to Trump, the US will be self sufficient in energy. So the US won’t come to the rescue anymore. Too bad for energy importers.
Well firstly Trump keeps sending more troops to the ME, secondly America had energy independence till about 1969 and lost it and thirdly America is still paying for that war, so I don't know how your reasoning works.

User avatar
lzzrdgrrl
Posts: 524
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 8:18 pm
Location: Okie Doke

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

Post by lzzrdgrrl » Tue Jun 04, 2019 3:07 pm

What happened to Australia's climate change election?.....

It cooled off......;>.......
I have a certain notoriety among the lesser gods........

neverfail
Posts: 4128
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

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

Post by neverfail » Tue Jun 04, 2019 4:36 pm

cassowary wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:09 pm
neverfail wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:03 pm
cassowary wrote:
Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:02 pm
Then there are the Marxists who use environmentalism to pursue their hidden agenda of destroying capitalism. Have you not heard of the term “watermelons “? Green on the outside but red on the inside.
:lol: Among those "watermelons"; would you include all of those hard headed investors currently pouring money into renewable in this country (mentioned in a couple of my earlier posts, this discussion) in anticipation of coming profits? :D
Like all businesses, there is risk. Let's see if the fossil industry can cut costs and bring down oil, gas or coal powered energy. That is the beauty of capitalism. Always competing, always uncertain. If they succeed, the green energy investors will lose their shirts.

Let them fight. Politicians must stay out.
Cass, in this country it is predominantly exports overseas, not domestic usage, is the mainstay of our coal and natural gas industries. As for oil we are a net importer of that so among fossil fuels this one is the one least likely to be used cost-effectively to generate electric power.

Did you actually read that link to (economics editor, the Sydney Morning Herald) Ross Gittin's take on the issue. Your chirpy spiel on the virtues of capitalism leads me to think not. Well, here it is again for your edification:

http://www.rossgittins.com/2019/06/how- ... orlds.html
How to dud manufacturing: be the world’s biggest gas exporter

Is this the best way to regulate a market? No, but once you’ve stuffed it up you have little choice. The stuff-up evolved over some years, under federal governments of both colours and, predictably, with a lack of federal-state co-ordination.

It began in the resources boom, when Labor’s Martin Ferguson approved the construction of no less than three gas liquefaction plants near Gladstone in Queensland. That was one plant too many.

The companies secured the cost of building their plants by writing future contracts to export LNG to foreign customers. The first two companies secured the supply of sufficient gas from local sources, but the third had to scramble for what it needed to meet its sales contracts.

They expected far more gas to be available than transpired because they failed to anticipate the NSW and Victorian governments’ moratoriums on fracking for unconventional gas from coal seams.

Until the construction of the liquefaction plants – which enabled gas to be shipped overseas – the east coast gas market was cut off from the world market. This meant its prices were much lower than world prices.

The federal government knew that allowing the plants to be built meant opening the east coast market to the (much bigger) world market, forcing local prices up to the “export-parity price” or LNG “netback” price.

But, as Sims noted in a speech last week, the east coast was "just about the only region in the world that allowed unrestricted exports”. By contrast, when our west coast gas market was opened up, the West Australian government insisted on reserving sufficient gas to meet the needs of local users at local prices.

So, the east coast market opening was textbook pure (and much to the liking of the gas companies). Trouble was, the market worked nothing like the textbook promised. Lack of competition meant prices shot up to way above the export price.

The gas producers were able to overcharge the big industrial users, the three big gas retailers – AGL, EnergyAustralia and Origin – charged the smaller industrial users even more, and the pipeline owners whacked up their prices, too. Retailers’ prices peaked at $22 a gigajoule.
The gas companies have absolutely no incentive to compete in cost cutting since they have it good as it is. The high price of natural gas here along Australia's (populous) eastern seaboard also makes it too costly as a substitute for coal to power electric turbines - bearing in mind that burning natural gas is less polluting to the atmosphere than burning coal.

So by that process of elimination; it leaves only renewables, solar, wind and pumped hydro, to satisfy Australia's future needs for electrical energy.

Politicans stay out? :lol: They can't! :D
..........................................................................................................................

(An aside) Ross Gittins mentions a former minister in a past Federal Labor government named Martin Ferguson. It so happens that I knew the guy when he was still in his late teens and before he began his political career in earnest. His decision to allow the construction of no less than three gas liquefaction plants at the deepwater port of Gladstone, Queensland was arguably the biggest single mistake that brought about the current energy impasse along the eastern side of Australia. Was he working in the best interests of the energy companies and against that of the Australian public? No, I do not believe so! More likely he was a bit out of his depth with his Ministerial portfolio.
Then the state governments (under widespread public pressure) let him down by subsequently placing bans fracking of coal seam gas - creating the shortfall of methane gas that has forced the natural gas exporters to turn to supplies of (conventional) natural gas to honour their export contracts -thereby draining our east coast reserves of natural gas and creating the impending shortage and resultant high prices.

Post Reply