Australia's policy on climate change is completely inconsequential

[TommyD13]

To do what?
Remember we've got none of the economic activity around mining, not only in the mining areas, in the cities, in transport. No taxes , no royalties to pay for the training ...

All for nothing in terms of emissions, you've delivered generational change because thats the timeline on a very optimistic basis.
Who gets anything out of your theory?

So you're agreeing with me lol

 

[Kwality]

So you're agreeing with me lol

Many arent on one side or the other, I was questioning your strategy ....

 

[Deliverance]

Thats the claim ... I'm happy to be convinced, will these subsidies claimed be on going or do they relate to the infrastructure?

Given India has its own coal, it imports our coal as it has a higher calorific value than its local coal - effectively burns less coal.

Both

 

[Bradesmaen]

In the grand context of Bigfooty, sorted's posting is inconsequential so we should ignore it.

 

[Frank Bunn]

You studied economics didn’t you? This is one of those classic prisoners dilemma situations where working together benefits you slightly collectively, but going alone against the wishes of the others can benefit you enormously. World leaders are powerless.

The Prisoner's dilemma relies on the two people not being able to communicate for mutual benefit. With the climate change agreements everything is out in the open. The only thing that is obscured is the participating governments concealing to their electorates how useless the agreement is in combating CO2 emissions.

The climate change benefits are intangible but the economics are well established. This is why every climate change summit has large contingents from the poorest countries, trying to extract a quid from the richest.

Then you build other real world complexities into the scenario. Eg. a Liberal or Labor Australian government might want to signal their climate change credentials by signing an international agreement, But also want to maintain a $70 billion mining industry - for tax revenue, jobs, political donations, union influence. We make the right noises about climate change so we are not seen as 'going it alone' but don't damage our economy. Each country has their own version of this. They are playing the climate change virtue signalling game, whilst trying to gain the best economic outcome for themselves.

 

[Fadge]

There's the parasites who contribute nothing:

In the grand context of Bigfooty, sorted's posting is inconsequential so we should ignore it.

Then there are the posters who contribute to the conversation:

The Prisoner's dilemma relies on the two people not being able to communicate for mutual benefit. With the climate change agreements everything is out in the open. The only thing that is obscured is the participating governments concealing to their electorates how useless the agreement is in combating CO2 emissions.

The climate change benefits are intangible but the economics are well established. This is why every climate change summit has large contingents from the poorest countries, trying to extract a quid from the richest.

Then you build other real world complexities into the scenario. Eg. a Liberal or Labor Australian government might want to signal their climate change credentials by signing an international agreement, But also want to maintain a $70 billion mining industry - for tax revenue, jobs, political donations, union influence. We make the right noises about climate change so we are not seen as 'going it alone' but don't damage our economy. Each country has their own version of this. They are playing the climate change virtue signalling game, whilst trying to gain the best economic outcome for themselves.

There appears to be a specific trend in these threads...

 

[Bradesmaen]

There's the parasites who contribute nothing:

Then there are the posters who contribute to the conversation:

There appears to be a specific trend in these threads...

Sorted has never contributed to the conversation, he's a staunch denialist who has no intent on listening to anyone and uses the same argument, but again refuses to see how silly it is when other examples are used.

 

[Fadge]

Sorted has never contributed to the conversation, he's a staunch denialist who has no intent on listening to anyone and uses the same argument, but again refuses to see how silly it is when other examples are used.

At least he uses an argument, unlike you.

And if the opposing view to that of sorted is so compelling, why has there been so little traction on the movement worldwide by those in positions to make those decisions?

 

[Bradesmaen]

At least he uses an argument, unlike you.

And if the opposing view to that of sorted is so compelling, why has there been so little traction on the movement worldwide by those in positions to make those decisions?

I used an argument. You haven't read the rest of this thread.

Why has there been so little traction? Because the people in charge think about their own jobs.

 

[Kwality]

Both

Had a look, well put but only one side of the equation & as such requires similar diligence on the pluses for Aus. The document clearly outline the subsidies claimed, the fuel rebate is not specific to Adani, to coal even to mining - a long bow, next step is adding back tax payable as a subsidy, PAYG tax.

I've always had a problem with the rail links to such projects, better user built & owned (imho) - the Pilbara provides workable templates (not without problems).

I'm not convinced, its got a ring of ambit claim about.

Will Australia benefit, I'd say so.

Adani is spending its own money at this point, they will chase more support, as will the financiers. That Adani are the end user of the coal strengthens the case.

 

[Snake_Baker]

NASA

 

[Pessimistic]

Will this pandemic or one coming very soon render everything climate related inconsequential?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

NASA

View attachment 807682

Isn't this thread meant to be based on the assumption that CO2 causes climate change, and as such, what is the significance of Australia.
Your post seems meaningless in that context.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Has anyone thought deeply about how cement, steel and aluminium is made? These three commodities are very carbon intensive, and crucial to our daily lives. Our living standards come with a cost.

There is no solution.

They can be improved, but the "group think" by country is wrong. It needs to be by process.
Excamples:
All the ships in the world produce massive amounts of CO2 , the country associated with the registration of most ships is Liberia, but they don't count the shipping against their national output, it seems that no-one does. Ships can be made to run much more efficiently but they are designed around low cost and short life.

Steel production.
Terrible for CO2, you blow coal ( coke ) into a furnace, it burns and some of it ( very small amount ) ends up in the molten steel.

Apply logic.
The Swedish have developed an electric powered steel smelting process that only uses the carbon that is in the steel.
No brainer, the world should be going towards this process.

Where do you do it?
Well if we do it in China we need to ship 1.6 tonne of ore and 500kg of coke to china in ships, to produce 1 tonne of steel.
Logic would suggest that one of the new steel plants should be placed near an iron mine, and i'm pretty sure that some of the iron mines are in a good place for solar energy. The power would need to be damn consistent, so unfortunately a full capacity of gas turbines would be needed for electricity backup.

Result.
Australia has higher CO2 per capita.
China has slightly lower CO2 per capita , but hardly noticeable.
Shipping still isn't counted, so no improvement noticed.

Real result.
Carbon output from steel production is drastically reduced.

Result for Australia.
Association with high technology and feasibility of other downstream processing of the finished product.

So i'm sorry i'm not in favour of blindly chasing stupid national targets.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Zali Steggall is leading the madness in Canberra. Pushing for Australia to be zero net carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. She's pretty slack on how we achieve that, and at what cost.

She's also extremely light on what difference our policy will make to the global climate seeing as the four biggest anthropogenic emitters of CO2 - USA, China, India, Russia, currently responsible for about 65% of emissions, have shown little interest in reducing their emissions.

She's also going down the anti-democracy Extinction Rebelion route of proposing that some non-elected committee is formed to set our climate change policies.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Yeah, what utter madness by Steggall and others to want transition away from fossil fuels in the next 30yrs.

How horrible that we should contemplate being in amongst the leading countries of this world who are looking towards the future.

for shame.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Yeah, what utter madness by Steggall and others to want transition away from fossil fuels in the next 30yrs.

How horrible that we should contemplate being in amongst the leading countries of this world who are looking towards the future.

for shame.

Explain how we achieve zero net carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, and at what cost.

Explain what difference our policy will make to the global climate seeing as the four biggest anthropogenic emitters of CO2 - USA, China, India, Russia, currently responsible for about 65% of emissions, will continue to grow their emissions.

 

[Bradesmaen]

I bet sorted was pro CFC's and was against eliminating them at "what cost". Probably the same with asbestos and lead in paint.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Explain how we achieve zero net carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, and at what cost.

Explain what difference our policy will make to the global climate seeing as the four biggest anthropogenic emitters of CO2 - USA, China, India, Russia, currently responsible for about 65% of emissions, will continue to grow their emissions.

That’s pointless as I have zero impact or input in policy, but I clearly have no issue with politicians who dare to suggest that we should lead other countries towards a better world.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Yeah, what utter madness by Steggall and others to want transition away from fossil fuels in the next 30yrs.

How horrible that we should contemplate being in amongst the leading countries of this world who are looking towards the future.

for shame.

A whole two posts above yours i explained how we could make a real difference , using current technology, despite appearing to get worse using the dumbed down KPI's.

The main advantage of being the leading country, is so you can fly to Europe , ( make sure you go via a short hop to New Zealand or Bali, so that the emissions for the leg to Europe are not counted against Australia ), and brag to the other backpackers, and bitch about how China, India and the USA aren't doing their share.

Its not "horrible" that we can contemplate it, but at the same time , such an achievement would probably have a negligible affect apart from crossing our fingers and hoping others emulate us, ( because we are such a huge global influence lol ).

Right now it seems that Australia is too scared to do anything, we closed our big polluting demon Hazelwood, but haven't replaced it, except for a few 2nd hand gas turbines from New Zealand ( Stationary DC9 engines ). Even Diesel generators have been installed.

If we want to go low carbon sooner , rather than later, we need to build some decent nukes, but the same people who are against CO2 emissions often don't like this solution, they prefer to dream about big batteries.... and the government....procrastinate.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I bet sorted was pro CFC's and was against eliminating them at "what cost". Probably the same with asbestos and lead in paint.

CFC's are a very specific product group.
Lead is a poison, and has not been eliminated from Paint, despite us setting a good example here in Australia.
Asbestos is once again a very limited product group. Luckily its been eliminated.... oh wait.

How Asbestos Is Used Worldwide | List of Countries Affected

Over 50 nations have limited or banned the use of asbestos, but many countries still use rare minerals. See if asbestos is found in your country.

www.asbestos.com

CO2 is not a poison.
C02 should not be eliminated.
CO2 has no negative local effects ( ie if we stop making ANY in Australia , it doesn't help us with any problems caused by it ).

Australia should not be opposed to reducing CO2 emissions, but neither should we treat it as if its an essential emergency act.
Rolling brownouts are not an acceptable solution.

 

[Gough]

It's a beyond tragic situation that our future is being jeopardised by a dozen or so politicians who are in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry. It would be an intersting experiment to see the intersection between those point blank refusing to admit the need for a federal ICAC and those pushing for new coal fired power stations.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

It's a beyond tragic situation that our future is being jeopardised by a dozen or so politicians who are in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry. It would be an intersting experiment to see the intersection between those point blank refusing to admit the need for a federal ICAC and those pushing for new coal fired power stations.

Why do you consider they are jeopardising the future? ( i wish i could insert dramatic music ).
That is the discussion at hand. You've just stated that it will without adding anything.
By the volumes involved, It's clear that Australia's policy's are irrelevant to climate change except for some sort of intangible international peer group pressure.
I agree that its feasible that Australia setting an example could add to such a peer group pressure, and help.
I don't think that means that Australia failing to set such an example will "jeopardise our future".

If Australia and 50 other countries agree on an action will that action be any different if it was just the 50 other countries, or if it was Australia and 49 other countries?

 

[Frank Bunn]

That’s pointless as I have zero impact or input in policy

But you vote. And you argue your position here.

Steggall, and others who propose these policies to achieve zero net carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, need to explain how they can be achieved. And at what cost. And what difference it would make to the global climate.

I clearly have no issue with politicians who dare to suggest that we should lead other countries towards a better world.

That's waffle. Do you think China, India, Russia and USA look to Australia for leadership on this issue?

There's a fashion parade of politicians vying for votes based on climate change. Our policies make absolutely no difference but by voting for the right idiot it absolves their sins for having two cars, taking international trips, demanding reliable electricity.

 

[Bradesmaen]

CFC's are a very specific product group.
Lead is a poison, and has not been eliminated from Paint, despite us setting a good example here in Australia.
Asbestos is once again a very limited product group. Luckily its been eliminated.... oh wait.

How Asbestos Is Used Worldwide | List of Countries Affected

Over 50 nations have limited or banned the use of asbestos, but many countries still use rare minerals. See if asbestos is found in your country.

www.asbestos.com

CO2 is not a poison.
C02 should not be eliminated.
CO2 has no negative local effects ( ie if we stop making ANY in Australia , it doesn't help us with any problems caused by it ).

Australia should not be opposed to reducing CO2 emissions, but neither should we treat it as if its an essential emergency act.
Rolling brownouts are not an acceptable solution.

You why go on tour with that comedy act.