Anthony Albanese - How long?

[Ghost Patrol]

Thread for discussing the referendum can be found here - Play Nice - Referendum - Indigenous Voice in Parliament

I have moved a heap of related posts into that thread.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Greens push for legal ‘climate trigger’ on new projects as industry calls for policy certainty

Peak industry and conservation groups urge parliament to pass the Albanese government’s 43% emissions reduction target

www.theguardian.com

Hope this gets up. It's ridiculous if an environmental impact assessment of a mine does not include a climate impact assessment.

 

[jatz14]

Albo had a 17 point rise in Newspoll in 2 months since being elected.

Massive, unsustainable and likely due to extremely low expectations based on the previous guy.

I think he will go down as a good PM, but coming after Scummo is making him look legendary.

On moto g(6) plus using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Carn The Berries]

Greens push for legal ‘climate trigger’ on new projects as industry calls for policy certainty

Peak industry and conservation groups urge parliament to pass the Albanese government’s 43% emissions reduction target

www.theguardian.com

Hope this gets up. It's ridiculous if an environmental impact assessment of a mine does not include a climate impact assessment.

What exactly would a "climate impact" assessment be based on? It's a given that any new mining would have a detrimental impact on the climate (in that, both the mining itself and the materials extracted would, in some way, shape or form, negatively impact the climate).

 

[Baltimore Jack]

What exactly would a "climate impact" assessment be based on? I

My guess would be the impact on our Climate, but that's just wild speculation on my part

 

[SaintsSeptember]

What exactly would a "climate impact" assessment be based on? It's a given that any new mining would have a detrimental impact on the climate (in that, both the mining itself and the materials extracted would, in some way, shape or form, negatively impact the climate).

It's kind of gnarly.

So i want to build a new gas power station. It will release 400grams of CO2 equivalent for every kwh.
Simplistic climate impact. It will release more CO2 , it will impact climate change. ( positive / negative are bad words to use when the key problem is "change").
But if you looked at the bigger picture you might think, this new power station will release 400 grams CO2 for every kwh, but it will allow us to close this dirty old coal power station that is releasing 1200 grams CO2 for every kwh.

I think there should be some sort of climate change assessment , but it should be based on what is proposed , what the best practise is , and what mitigating actions could be taken.

 

[Carn The Berries]

It's kind of gnarly.

So i want to build a new gas power station. It will release 400grams of CO2 equivalent for every kwh.
Simplistic climate impact. It will release more CO2 , it will impact climate change. ( positive / negative are bad words to use when the key problem is "change").
But if you looked at the bigger picture you might think, this new power station will release 400 grams CO2 for every kwh, but it will allow us to close this dirty old coal power station that is releasing 1200 grams CO2 for every kwh.

I think there should be some sort of climate change assessment , but it should be based on what is proposed , what the best practise is , and what mitigating actions could be taken.

I don't disagree with that, but have serious reservations as to whether that is the intent of those proposing it. It feels a lot like a way of shutting down any new mines (there will be impact on the climate as the coal that is extracted will be shipped overseas and burnt to generate power - therefore it is bad).

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I don't disagree with that, but have serious reservations as to whether that is the intent of those proposing it. It feels a lot like a way of shutting down any new mines (there will be impact on the climate as the coal that is extracted will be shipped overseas and burnt to generate power - therefore it is bad).

They need to stop being hypocrites then. Will their assessment be on the proposed mine, or the product.
If the product , then should not the existing mines also be evaluated?

If we want to place restrictions on coal sales, do that, don't pretend to do one thing to sneakily achieve your goals.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

What exactly would a "climate impact" assessment be based on? It's a given that any new mining would have a detrimental impact on the climate (in that, both the mining itself and the materials extracted would, in some way, shape or form, negatively impact the climate).

Emissions accounting.

I don't disagree with that, but have serious reservations as to whether that is the intent of those proposing it. It feels a lot like a way of shutting down any new mines (there will be impact on the climate as the coal that is extracted will be shipped overseas and burnt to generate power - therefore it is bad).

It is bad. The emissions of the carbon we export is 2.5x that of all domestic emissions. We're not going to keep the temperature to a reasonable level if we keep acting as the world's drug dealer indefinitely. At the bare minimum, new thermal coal projects should not go ahead, metallurgical coal should be phased out as soon as hydrogen-fired steel production becomes viable at a large scale, and any fossil fuel projects that do go ahead should not receive a red cent of government money.

(Just quietly, I had meant to post the article in the Greens thread rather than here).

 

[Johnny Bananas]

They need to stop being hypocrites then. Will their assessment be on the proposed mine, or the product.
If the product , then should not the existing mines also be evaluated?

The existing mines are already in production. It's a bit late to assess their environmental impact long after they've been commissioned and shipping product. Shutting down existing facilities is a very different ball game to not building new ones.

Mind you, the Greens do want thermal coal export to be phased out over 8 years and metallurgical coal export to be phased out over 18 years.

If we want to place restrictions on coal sales, do that, don't pretend to do one thing to sneakily achieve your goals.

Labor have already said they won't agree to that, so alternatives have to be proposed.

 

[Carn The Berries]

The existing mines are already in production. It's a bit late to assess their environmental impact long after they've been commissioned and shipping product. Shutting down existing facilities is a very different ball game to not building new ones.

Mind you, the Greens do want thermal coal export to be phased out over 8 years and metallurgical coal export to be phased out over 18 years.


Labor have already said they won't agree to that, so alternatives have to be proposed.

I dunno, There are people who are advocating for the quarantining of gas for domestic supply from existing projects. It's like sovereign risk is a foreign concept to some.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

The existing mines are already in production. It's a bit late to assess their environmental impact long after they've been commissioned and shipping product. Shutting down existing facilities is a very different ball game to not building new ones.

Mind you, the Greens do want thermal coal export to be phased out over 8 years and metallurgical coal export to be phased out over 18 years.


Labor have already said they won't agree to that, so alternatives have to be proposed.

Once again you are talking products, not the actual mine operation.
Coal is a relatively easy one, given that "most" of its uses involve burning.

However, there is currently a lot of research into making more environmentally friendly steel.
If you can put the carbon, from the coal into the steel without burning any , its actually a carbon storage system.
If we could make steel without releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, why would we want to phase out the metallurgical coal used to do it?

 

[Power Raid]

The existing mines are already in production. It's a bit late to assess their environmental impact long after they've been commissioned and shipping product. Shutting down existing facilities is a very different ball game to not building new ones.

Mind you, the Greens do want thermal coal export to be phased out over 8 years and metallurgical coal export to be phased out over 18 years.


Labor have already said they won't agree to that, so alternatives have to be proposed.

there are some issue here

burning coal generate 2.3 tonnes of CO2


but commodities required to produce renewables are:
copper 2.5 tonnes
aluminium 16-17 tonnes
silicon (solar panels) 12 tonnes



Mining is low CO2 relative to the entire supply chain



The challenge is where to draw the line and to avoid double counting

 

[Chief]

but commodities required to produce renewables are:
copper 2.5 tonnes
aluminium 16-17 tonnes
silicon (solar panels) 12 tonnes

Amortised over how long?

 

[Power Raid]

Amortised over how long?

Agree

It depends on use which is an unknown (with certainty)

The model proposed also results in double counting

A more sensible model is the EU which measures imports, where the use is known at the point of import

 

[Rob R]

Greens push for legal ‘climate trigger’ on new projects as industry calls for policy certainty

Peak industry and conservation groups urge parliament to pass the Albanese government’s 43% emissions reduction target

www.theguardian.com

Hope this gets up. It's ridiculous if an environmental impact assessment of a mine does not include a climate impact assessment.

Sounds like a good idea but I would go further, no new mines unless the construction and operation costs are carbon neutral using Australian offsets (not dodgy foreign ones that do nothing but make traders rich)

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Sounds like a good idea but I would go further, no new mines unless the construction and operation costs are carbon neutral using Australian offsets (not dodgy foreign ones that do nothing but make traders rich)

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Oh good they could that Green Electricity scam while building it.

 

[Crankyhawk]

I see potato Dutton is going hard on keeping the fuel excise cut.
No I don’t know about other but I’m seeing cost at $1.60-1.70/ litre (northern suburbs Melbourne) which would be $1.90 post excise return - high but not as high as pre cut (pre election)

 

[ExcitementMachine]

i mean you were right there taking screenshots, you could also provide the link so people could read the whole thing

unless the rest of it doesn't support your point....

Good to hear aa governments approval raring is going well so far...
They are seen as sensible implementing policy without blowing their trumpets like the greens or the lnp.

 

[swingdog]

Sounds like a good idea but I would go further, no new mines unless the construction and operation costs are carbon neutral using Australian offsets (not dodgy foreign ones that do nothing but make traders rich)

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Nice you think it's the Australian credits that aren't dodgy:

Australia to review carbon offsets following 'fraud' allegations

Australia's new Labor government has appointed a top scientist to lead a six-month review of the country's carbon credits following allegations that some projects earning credits are not really adding to carbon emissions reductions.

www.reuters.com

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I don't disagree with that, but have serious reservations as to whether that is the intent of those proposing it. It feels a lot like a way of shutting down any new mines (there will be impact on the climate as the coal that is extracted will be shipped overseas and burnt to generate power - therefore it is bad).

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

[Rob R]

Nice you think it's the Australian credits that aren't dodgy:

Australia to review carbon offsets following 'fraud' allegations

Australia's new Labor government has appointed a top scientist to lead a six-month review of the country's carbon credits following allegations that some projects earning credits are not really adding to carbon emissions reductions.

www.reuters.com

At least we can check them and the jobs creating them stay here.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Navyblues09]

I see potato Dutton is going hard on keeping the fuel excise cut.
No I don’t know about other but I’m seeing cost at $1.60-1.70/ litre (northern suburbs Melbourne) which would be $1.90 post excise return - high but not as high as pre cut (pre election)

Well it was about 2.40 a couple of weeks ago and given its due to end around school holidays starting, you will probably see prices return to 2.40-2.50.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

From Mike Seccombe in The Saturday Paper last weekend.

Although I voted Green, I have massive goodwill towards Albanese and hope his term is a real turning point in the way politics is done in a country which has for so long suffered nothing but shabby contempt from the Coalition.

So it's very dismaying to learn that he is already bullschitting the voters so early in his tenure.

Not nearly good enough Albo.



A skilled politician need not lie in order to mislead. Anthony Albanese showed that this week when he artfully implied during a major TV interview that the Greens wanted to immediately close down Australia’s fossil fuel exports.


Not true, Adam Bandt tells The Saturday Paper. He sounds more exasperated than angry at the misrepresentation of the Greens’ position in negotiations over Labor’s plan to enshrine in law a 43 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. The policy Bandt’s party took to the election was for a staged phase-out of thermal coal – used to generate electricity – by 2030 and metallurgical coal – used for making steel – by 2040.


“But we are putting a far more modest proposition on the table in these discussions, which is to say that we can have the debate over the next three years about how quickly to get out of the existing coal and gas,” Bandt says. “What we are putting on the table now is, just don’t open up new coal and gas projects.”


On Tuesday, the night before the new government introduced its climate bill to the parliament, Albanese seriously misrepresented this position.


He said the government would not support a moratorium on new gas fields and coalmines, because that would have a “devastating impact” on the economy.


“If Australia, today, said we are not going to export any more coal, what you’d see is a lot of jobs lost,” he said. “You would see a significant loss to our economy, significantly less taxation, revenue for education, health and other services.”


But that clearly is not what the Greens are advocating. In fact, no one else has suggested such a thing, says Amanda McKenzie, chief executive of the Climate Council, except members of the former Coalition government.


That the leader of the new government should rerun the same misleading argument, is, she says, “unfortunate”. The Greens policy is informed by the International Energy Agency, whose report from May last year is touted as the most comprehensive road map to avoiding a global temperature rise of more than 1.5 degrees.


Albanese’s repeated provocations sit oddly with his promise, made ad nauseam during the election campaign and subsequently, that he would “end the climate wars” and negotiate in good faith.

 

[Saint]

Well it was about 2.40 a couple of weeks ago and given its due to end around school holidays starting, you will probably see prices return to 2.40-2.50.

Tapis Crude is pretty steady, can't see it going up for any reason any time soon. Russia can't double-invade.

International Market Watch | Australian Institute of Petroleum

www.aip.com.au