Australia's policy on climate change is completely inconsequential
- Thread starter Frank Bunn
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Let's just do it for our own selfish reasons. Improving our local environment.
Let's start to deploy technologies we know work and exist now, eg solar, wind, energy efficiency. With many industries dying off, could be quite a construction/economic boom as a bonus.
We can start r&d for implementing bigger projects in coming decades. Eg EVs, large scale base load renewables, biofuels, fuel cells, forestry improvements. Etc
Improvement of local environment , perhaps.
Our air quality is generally pretty good already.
Have you seen the increase in electricity costs? They are way above inflation. Yay for cheap coalAnd now we have a government set to extract expensive gas from Narrabri and sell it to us, while exporting cheaper gas overseas. Developing new renewables is cheaper than new coal power and we're not doing it at scale, because our pollies are in the pockets of big miners.
Seriously?
Supply demand. Close Hazelwood, create a shortage , put up prices.
We shouldn't "try" to develop anything. We are crap at development, we couldn't develop a simple train ticket.
We struggled to build a routine desalination plant without paying way more than anywhere else on earth would have.
I'm a bit opposed to big solar farms until all the roof space is used up.
Reason.
A big solar farm , will need a lot of land , so will probably need to be located a long way from the point of use... = high transmission costs and losses.
Panels on the roof are pretty much just as efficient , and are located at or near the point of use.
AND if its your own panel on your own roof , they can't charge you the ridiculous price mark ups.
Comparative to some places globally yes, but more deaths from air pollution than road accidents is concerning.
Yep seriously. Our current system is very expensive, unreliable and getting older. We need to be thinking about how to replace it/upgrade it in coming decades.
Taylor
Community Leader
- Moderator
- #232
I'd like to see the classifications on that study, what impact co-morbidities had etc. Asthma sufferers dying in a reaction to a pollen haze swept in by a thunderstorm shouldn't really count but that article mentions it.
There is sometimes a tendency to laying blame for an event at the climax, where someone passes away from a heart attack or stroke but it wasn't really the stroke or heart attack that caused their death - it was the 20 years of smoking, drinking and obesity that did that. They died of a heart attack or stroke but it was the lifestyle that killed them etc.
Comparing road traffic deaths to situations like the above would be unfair since most fatalities, not all, on the road are to otherwise healthy people who weren't going to pass away from a violent impact eventually.
Yeah true. I guess you have to classify them one way or another. It's like someone dying at the hands of a drunk driver. Death attributed to alcohol or car?
Yeah, can't see us going without FFs completely, without nuclear.
Its far more reliable than renewables. We simply don't have the capacity, so in a shortage a private operator will gouge whatever he can.
And here we have bullshit A, vs bullshit B.
www.smh.com.au
I think that since the 70's the EPA has been actively trying to get our air cleaner for health reasons, ( CO2 as a result of combustion is not considered a health risk ). Australia has also been actively adopting European standards for vehicle emissions, albeit lagging by a couple of years.
Breathe easy: Australian air is clean
Australians breathe some of the cleanest air in the world, according to an international survey of nearly 1100 cities by the World Health Organisation.
I think that since the 70's the EPA has been actively trying to get our air cleaner for health reasons, ( CO2 as a result of combustion is not considered a health risk ). Australia has also been actively adopting European standards for vehicle emissions, albeit lagging by a couple of years.
Yep, Engie screwed us over because we have no back up plan. If the LNP gets its way Liddell will see history repeat itself.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
you'll get silence or crossing fingers
unfortunately, the only solutions that work are not palatable..................but the government aren't doing enough and should do more of things that don't work
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
This is the technology and the company, I believe will be on the table in Australia within 5 years with bipartisan support
Nuclear: Trawsfynydd site could pioneer Rolls-Royce mini reactor
Trawsfynydd could become the first site of a new wave of small nuclear power stations.
www.bbc.com
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
Report
On Friday, 13 December 2019, the Committee presented its report on the - Inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia. © Commonwealth of Australia 2019 ISBN 978-1-76092-043-2 (Printed version) ISBN 978-1-76092-044-9 (HTML version)
many don't realise how many laws have been changed in recent times regarding nuclear, plus the plans for a new department and the assessments by the ADF. All of these have been bipartisan and signals to me, this is being investigated seriously.
To get the electorate onboard, we have to thank the bush fires and hopefully more solidifying events.
Do you have shares in the nuclear energy sector PR or are you merely a self appointed spokesperson?
www.climatecouncil.org.au
Nuclear power stations are not appropriate for Australia – and probably never will be | Climate Council
The prospect of nuclear power in Australia has been a topic of public debate since the 1950s. While we have never had a nuclear power station, we do have 33% of the world’s uranium deposits and we are the world’s third largest producer of it. Periodically, as with the changing of the seasons...
www.climatecouncil.org.au
Report
On Friday, 13 December 2019, the Committee presented its report on the - Inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia. © Commonwealth of Australia 2019 ISBN 978-1-76092-043-2 (Printed version) ISBN 978-1-76092-044-9 (HTML version)www.aph.gov.au
many don't realise how many laws have been changed in recent times regarding nuclear, plus the plans for a new department and the assessments by the ADF. All of these have been bipartisan and signals to me, this is being investigated seriously.
To get the electorate onboard, we have to thank the bush fires and hopefully more solidifying events.
We can't stop the bushfires even if we stop all of Australia's emissions or are you suggesting we pretend that we can, so that we can get the technology over the line that will allow us to be seen to be doing the right thing?
Yeah the Climate Council loses all credibility when it comes out in opposition to nuclear power. Exposes itself as an ideologically driven political entity.Do you have shares in the nuclear energy sector PR or are you merely a self appointed spokesperson?
Nuclear power stations are not appropriate for Australia – and probably never will be | Climate Council
The prospect of nuclear power in Australia has been a topic of public debate since the 1950s. While we have never had a nuclear power station, we do have 33% of the world’s uranium deposits and we are the world’s third largest producer of it. Periodically, as with the changing of the seasons...
RonSon
Brownlow Medallist
- Jun 4, 2009
- 10,725
- 10,329
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Chelsea, Bluejays, 36'ers, Pistons
Australia is responsible for about 1% of global emissions. Australia and countries like us that emit up to 2% of total emissions make up about 40% of total emissions. We are also a rich country that can afford to make the necessary changes.
Should countries responsible for about 40% of total emissions do nothing?
I'm sure in your myopia they never had any credibility anyway. Closed minds aren't the people they are speaking to.
It is attitudes like this that don't do any favours for the 'advocates'.
The climate change movement has been all talk and very little action for nigh on 30 years, and it is the skeptics who challenge the 'science' that need to be won over in order to make any meaningful progress.
It is all too easy to stick to your idealistic echo chambers and pat one another on the back, but what good has it done so far?
Gough
Moderator
- Sep 29, 2006
- 71,965
- 133,595
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Moderator
- #249
For most of the past thirty years in this country we've had a government that isn't even convinced climate change is thing and is happy to label those calling for more action like XR as bludgers while continuing to subsides fossil fuels like they're going out of fashion, which they are. If you're looking to apportion blame for this country's woeful inaction on climate change the blame is not with the activists. And the sceptics won't ever be won over because for them climate change is a culture war issue, not a scientific one.
