Opinion Politics (warning, may contain political views you disagree with)
- Thread starter Cesoir
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Nah don't be ridiculous. All you do is suck up to your big political donors, ie resource companies.
You selectively quoted my post. Which is dishonest. I’ll wait for the apology.
The post said the greens want to shut down fossil fuel use and mining. Which if they do will mean those companies won’t exist.
Have you followed that logic?
If those companies don’t exist you can’t tax them.
I’ll wait for the apology.
Haha tone down the theatrics.
There was no dishonest intent on my part. I didn't quote the earlier part of your post because it misrepresented the Greens' policies.
They don't support shutting 'down all fossil fuels now' as you said. Their policy is a ban on the construction of new fossil fuel projects. Big difference.
If you're going to preach about honesty you could at least honestly represent the policies you attempt to criticise.
If resource companies aren't beginning to look at renewable sources of energy then you and I live in an alternate universe.
Many companies are well ahead of government. Shifting to renewables is not going to send those companies under, they're not going to disappear. That's naive.
The Greens plan would obviously fast track that change but it's a direction the companies are headed anyway.
The 'next patch' for resource companies is renewable projects or lithium or nickel mining projects to build batteries. They will continue to make profit and they will continue to create jobs.
Taylor
Community Leader
- Moderator
- #5,309
Tell that to all those non first world nations building bulk coal power plants and the Germans turning theirs back on.
It will take 340 years of the entire world's lithium mining output to make one bulk set of batteries to service the east coast of Australia.
They will move to other countries to drill and dig and take their jobs and tax revenue with them.
Such an own goal.
Why are poorer countries turning to coal even though renewable energy is cheaper to produce? Because the technology and infrastructure to use coal power is cheaper and more readily available than renewable technologies.
Watch the tax revenue and jobs go offshore? The first thing that will happen when rich countries shift away from fossil fuels is that commodity prices will dive massively. There won't be much revenue to go around when coal is worth next to nothing because developed countries won't buy it.
You're effectively arguing that we should stay in the dark ages because there's a few difficulties in developing new technologies. There is good money to be made in the development of new technologies. The transition to renewable energy is an opportunity to future proof Australia's economy.
And if you need to ask why Europe is turning their coal fire power stations back on, I worry for you.
Ah so no apology and then say I’m dishonest.
The greens have said they want to end fossil fuel use and mining. Whether that is now or in ten years and if they want to shut down any new mines means they are shutting it down.
Some mines have ten years left some 20 some 5. I helped with the shutdown of a line last year. How is that misrepresentation of their policy?
If they shut down all future sites they are shutting down mining.
From the greens website and official policy document. I will wait for your apology.
Critical to this task is not only the removal of fossil fuel production from our domestic economy, but also to phase out our exports of coal and gas. This will be a significant but manageable structural adjustment to our economy and some regional communities. That is why support for affected workers and their communities to shift to employment in other mining sectors or new
Again - I will wait for your apology or how I am misrepresenting them.
Do you realise there's a difference between mining fossil fuels and the mining industry at large?
The Greens policy deals with coal, oil and gas. The mining industry is concerned with a whole array of minerals from iron ore to lithium. The Greens policy is concerned with phasing out fossil fuels not phasing out mining.
You're trying to equate the phasing out of fossil fuels with 'shutting down fossil fuels now'.
The policy permits the operation of existing fossil fuel projects for a period of time - it does not shut them down now.
Still no apology even after I showed you their policy which states clearly they are shutting it down. Their goal is between 2030 and 2035 so anywhere from 7.5 years.
Again, I’ll wait for your apology. Then I’ll wait for you to explain how the companies will exist and how the increased spending will be covered.
Taylor
Community Leader
- Moderator
- #5,315
Then it isn't cheaper. If the car costs $1 a day but $1,000,000 to buy then it doesn't cost $1 a day. This is why environmentalism needs to enjoy the next short period because once the western world is no longer living in the time of plenty and luxury people are not going to care anymore - just like the humans who have enjoyed being lifted out of the dark ages with cheap reliable power.
Make the most of it. Just like during the pandemic, as soon as anything actually pressing shows up that voting block in the middle of people stop caring about luxury causes.
It's why it's called champagne socialism, promoted by people living in luxury relative to the world. Disappears as soon as the food in the fridge and freezer goes bad in your rotation of the power outages.
The developing countries are buying it as fast as they can right now and it's doing just fine. If the developed world moves to nuclear it would be no issue at all, but that's a sticking point for this issue. The nations that are leading the net zero emissions are backed by bulk nuclear or geothermal so it's not exactly a level playing field.
Thank you for your pretend worry. They are turning them on because they couldn't buy other fossil fuel power from other nations sending it to them to move the carbon off their ledger - but hey, the actual reason is because they moved away from secure power into ideological unknown. They ended up paying more to put out more carbon too. Well done. Spent $580 billion dollars to buy a lemon when they could have spend that on nuclear power plants and be over 100% emissions free (which means all their domestic, industrial and transport uses). Those choices to avoid nuclear lead to their dependence on external nations, including Russia, and to this outcome.
Notice how some nations there are pushing to have the move to electric vehicles pushed back?
And we are back to the reality that lithium mining would take the entire world's output for 340 years to put a battery in every home on the East coast of Australia capable of ensuring just 2 weeks of power in the event of poor weather. I'm not disputing that we could power literally the entire world's energy needs from a solar array in outback WA that nobody would ever drive by, that's never been the issue, China will make the panels with slave labor really cheap. It's always been about reliable delivery of that power on demand.
I'm arguing that if the choice is between the power being on all the time or not, which is the actual discussion between renewables and fossil fuels, then I choose for the luxury of power being on all the time and so should every progressive because as soon as the food is short or the fuel is short or the power is short - basically anything as simple as the internet being spotty where it wasn't usually, that will be a bigger issue to people and if the solution is to let them burn something and the problem goes away - they will choose that.
The internet is actually a good micro example of it. Watch the disruption to life that will happen with that becoming only sometimes working because it's not reliable anymore. Nightmare.
At least this post recognises that they don't plan to shut it down now, as you initially stated. Good job. By quoting the policy you've only shown that your initial position was wrong, as I had pointed out.
Although, I'm still concerned that you don't understand that the Greens policy is not concerned with shutting down mining.
Genuinely surprised that you're more upset about the way I quoted your comment than Taylor suggesting that the state should own resource companies.
In any event, I'm going to consider my little foray back into the politics thread over as I don't have the time to reply.
- Jan 14, 2008
- 14,827
- 31,828
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Nothing is more certain than dirty mines will go like the dodo bird.
Technology replacing certain industries has been happening since the industrial revolution and scare mongerers have frothed at the mouth about all of the advances.
Clean renewables will replace coal and the dirty industries associated with coal..
Technology and the human race go hand in hand . Before the light switch there was a booming candle industry. Bet there where tears of blood shed over the loss of candle maker jobs as well.
Technology replacing certain industries has been happening since the industrial revolution and scare mongerers have frothed at the mouth about all of the advances.
Clean renewables will replace coal and the dirty industries associated with coal..
Technology and the human race go hand in hand . Before the light switch there was a booming candle industry. Bet there where tears of blood shed over the loss of candle maker jobs as well.
Again, where did I say shut it down now?
I said they want to shut it down. Which I have shown you from their own policy docs they do.
You then misquoted me on purpose to mock and used me misrepresenting they as an excuse for your dishonesty.
So again, apologise and then I’ll start asking questions about how they will pay for all their initiatives including a guarantee that they will pay half the wages for every coal job lost for ten years.
The second one will be slightly more difficult and the fifth almost impossible.
But let’s start at the start. Apologise. Or show where I said they want to shut it down today.
I agree. And we should look forward to that day. Invest in it. And also recognise that we are far more than ten years away from being able to do that. Do you agree with that?
- Jan 14, 2008
- 14,827
- 31,828
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
We have had decades of frothing at the mouth by some of the political dinosaurs with vested interests in coal mining stopping the flow of renewables.
Its time to get real, climate change is upon us and another decade of slow action is not viable.
If it wasn't for Abbott and his band of vandals we would be up and running now.
Its always another ten years so no I don't agree .
The experts in renewables say it can be achieved in a shorter time frame so get stuck in, do it now and stop the bullshit commentary from the mining lobby.
BanjoRules
Team Captain
- Feb 24, 2020
- 584
- 554
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Spaghetti Munchers
After 20 years and billions of dollars in subsidies, wind, solar and batteries provide less than 3% of the worlds energy.
Wind and solar energy capture at the moment is very close to the maximum possible. There is no possibility of any major gains to be made there.
The solution to the unreliability of energy storage for wind and solar is batteries. The problem there is how is the world going to produce enough batteries to lift world energy production to even 5% in 10 to 20 years ?
The world's largest battery factory is the Tesla plant in Nevada. It would take that factory 500 years to make enough batteries to store just one day of the USA electricity needs.
Then we consider the fact that wind, solar and batteries components are all build from non renewable components. The quantities of iron ore, concrete, glass and plastics required is staggering.
With current moves planned for renewables the world will need to increase mining for these metals by up to 2000% for rare earths metals such as lithium and cobalt.
You think some of these undisturbed wilderness areas are not going to be touched by all this extra mining activity...think again ! Wonder how much of this mining is going to be undertaken by a unionised labour force in places like China ?
Think of the levels of conventional energy used to run these mines, refine the ore and build the wind turbines, batteries and solar panels etc.
Also, what about the waste from the relatively short life of wind turbines, batteries and solar panels particularly the cheap rubbish out of China. This waste will be an environmental nightmare.
So, to believe that all these problems can be resolved in a shorter time frame is delusional ideological bullshit.
Wind and solar energy capture at the moment is very close to the maximum possible. There is no possibility of any major gains to be made there.
The solution to the unreliability of energy storage for wind and solar is batteries. The problem there is how is the world going to produce enough batteries to lift world energy production to even 5% in 10 to 20 years ?
The world's largest battery factory is the Tesla plant in Nevada. It would take that factory 500 years to make enough batteries to store just one day of the USA electricity needs.
Then we consider the fact that wind, solar and batteries components are all build from non renewable components. The quantities of iron ore, concrete, glass and plastics required is staggering.
With current moves planned for renewables the world will need to increase mining for these metals by up to 2000% for rare earths metals such as lithium and cobalt.
You think some of these undisturbed wilderness areas are not going to be touched by all this extra mining activity...think again ! Wonder how much of this mining is going to be undertaken by a unionised labour force in places like China ?
Think of the levels of conventional energy used to run these mines, refine the ore and build the wind turbines, batteries and solar panels etc.
Also, what about the waste from the relatively short life of wind turbines, batteries and solar panels particularly the cheap rubbish out of China. This waste will be an environmental nightmare.
So, to believe that all these problems can be resolved in a shorter time frame is delusional ideological bullshit.
Fair enough, I wasn't clear - I should have said Greens want to shut it down by 2030.
You still purposely edited my message and then referred to my thinking as lunacy.
So back to my questions:
The Greens want to make everything (that is in their document) electric. At the same time they are going to guarantee a job for every employee in coal. How will they pay for that when they want the to make the power grid a government owned and run entity?
Don't ask questions they cannot answer. How will we take millions of vehicles off the road and replace them with electric vehicles?
How will the economy survive when they ban all export of fossil fuels? All questions that cant be answered in a serious manner.
My solution is pumped seawater into raised man made dams. Uses almost no resources and the technology exists. I'm sure there's be a suitable spot between Perth and Geraldton to build a dam(s) big enough to generate enough hydro energy to supply WA and then some.
