Play Nice Random Chat Thread: Episode III

[kangaspurs]

The Germans have come around to that conclusion. Most if, not all, renewables are far too reliant on high public subsidies. The Berlin government is planning on scaling back their wind turbines because of the huge public subsidies and that they are killing far too many birds. That is not to mention the stubborn large-scale public opposition to expensive, and seemingly limited, subsidies for inefficient renewable power generators that take up large tracts of land for seemingly limited energy output.

Nuclear presents the best option for rapidly cutting emissions at this moment, which is a tad ironic for the Australian Greens, who completely oppose all things nuclear, as does the majority of the Australian population.

I don't know the comparison, but is it not true that the coal industry, at least in this country, has been publicly subsidized for years, if not decades? It's another example of the Liberal Party hypocrisy in Australia that they waffle on about the market deciding, about renewables needing to find private investment, and coal still being the way of the future, yet prop up the coal industry for years, manufacture very favourable market conditions for that industry, and complain about the evils of the green left wanting to destroy energy production when it's actually the market that is deciding that it needs to transition away from coal. Take the Latrobe Valley closures for example. That was all the fault of the Andrews government accoring to the federal government ministers, and not their precious market deciding that it wasn't profitable anymore, of course.

If renewables even received a fraction of the public subsidies afforded the coal industry over the years, then progress to cleaner energy could probably be made very quickly indeed, but the politicians are in far too deep with Rinehart and co to make that happen.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

The USSR punched far above its weight in nuclear energy and was leading the world's push to replacing coal with nuclear.

You and I both know that at least since Dengism, China has been using state capitalist means to pursue growth.

Plus, non-capitalist regimes in isolation can do little to meaningfully address pollution. They're still forced to compete in a global market that values price cost above all else. The cheapest producer wins the contract.

I'm not even a pro-nuclear man, I agree with JeanLucGoddard on this. But for someone advocating nuclear energy I think it strange to be criticizing the USSR for their energy policy. They built the first grid connected reactor despite being 9 years out of a war which devastated their economy and country, and consistently advocated for nuclear energy on environmental grounds from the 1950s-1980s when the rest of the world was laughing at environmentalism. Yes, they polluted a lot in order to industrialise. You can't just arbitrarily say that the late industrialisers are more responsible for this than the early industrialisers.

The Soviet Union was consistently one of the world's biggest oil, coal and natural gas exporters and users, with nuclear power providing roughly 10-20% of total energy needs, dependent on the time period. The problem there with nuclear (which you probably already know) was inconsistent infrastructure funding, lack of adequate safety protocols, competing LNG interests and a host of other issues that can be better addressed in this day and age.

State capitalism within China is fairly strong, in the context of sheer state involvement and control, rather than a New Deal type of situation. Funnily enough, the Beijing government possesses a higher capacity to dictate drastic changes to their own industry and state consumption of fossil fuels, more so than any capitalist state. Policies of state autarky are not less likely to lower a nation's carbon footprint, although in some instances, like your NK example or Nazi Germany example, there can be some benefits in that regard.


Yes, they polluted a lot in order to industrialise. You can't just arbitrarily say that the late industrialisers are more responsible for this than the early industrialisers.

I never implied or stated that. I stated that they were just as bad as the earlier and then concurrent capitalist powers, because they were undergoing policies of industrialisation and higher urbanisation via programs like the Five Year Plans, as well as via nuclear testing. It is the process of industrialisation and higher urbanisation I was talking about.

You are re-writing history to suit your argument. The Soviet Union by the early 1980s were attempting to use their advantages in natural gas to gain sway over Western Europe, like how they made their satellite states dependent on Soviet oil and gas.

As for nuclear exportation and promotion, by the early 1970s, both the USA and Soviet Union had near identical policies of denying nonnuclear weapons states the capacity to develop reprocessing and enrichment capabilities. Both superpowers sought to preserve their nuclear hegemony and, by the 1970s onwards, instituted a policy of nuclear non-proliferation, which Australia supported.


I am allowed to criticise past Soviet attempts at nuclear energy, if it means we learn from their past mistakes, like Chernobyl, to develop a healthier nuclear option. In saying all this, I would rather we went the hydropower route (similar high initial investment costs) or just plain commit to something sooner rather than later that lessens our carbon footprint, even if it means high public subsidies for a sustained period.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

I don't know the comparison, but is it not true that the coal industry, at least in this country, has been publicly subsidized for years, if not decades? It's another example of the Liberal Party hypocrisy in Australia that they waffle on about the market deciding, about renewables needing to find private investment, and coal still being the way of the future, yet prop up the coal industry for years, manufacture very favourable market conditions for that industry, and complain about the evils of the green left wanting to destroy energy production when it's actually the market that is deciding that it needs to transition away from coal. Take the Latrobe Valley closures for example. That was all the fault of the Andrews government accoring to the federal government ministers, and not their precious market deciding that it wasn't profitable anymore, of course.

If renewables even received a fraction of the public subsidies afforded the coal industry over the years, then progress to cleaner energy could probably be made very quickly indeed, but the politicians are in far too deep with Rinehart and co to make that happen.

If it is energy related, it will be subsidised. I live in the Newcastle region, so we have been pumping in billions into our ports and coal industry.

 

[kangaspurs]

If it is energy related, it will be subsidised. I live in the Newcastle region, so we have been pumping in billions into our ports and coal industry.

I don't have time to do it now, but do you know any of the figures re comparison between coal industry subsidies and renewables subsidies?

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

I don't have time to do it now, but do you know any of the figures re comparison between coal industry subsidies and renewables subsidies?

There's a lot of data and analysis to waft through. RAND and a few other think tanks are usually a good start. The Germans invested quite a bit themselves, but they are a bit of an outlier.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

I found this article from earlier in the year really interesting in considering how economic and political imperatives influence energy policy. Solar going from banned to subsidised in NK due to international sanctions and wanting to insulate themselves against the volatility of the world market:

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

Reminds me of when the Germans began fiddling with synthetic oil and rubber before the Second World War. State autarky's are always interesting case studies.

 

[Themanbun]

The Soviet Union was consistently one of the world's biggest oil, coal and natural gas exporters and users, with nuclear power providing roughly 10-20% of total energy needs, dependent on the time period. The problem there with nuclear (which you probably already know) was inconsistent infrastructure funding, lack of adequate safety protocols, competing LNG interests and a host of other issues that can be better addressed in this day and age.

State capitalism within China is fairly strong, in the context of sheer state involvement and control, rather than a New Deal type of situation. Funnily enough, the Beijing government possesses a higher capacity to dictate drastic changes to their own industry and state consumption of fossil fuels, more so than any capitalist state. Policies of state autarky are not less likely to lower a nation's carbon footprint, although in some instances, like your NK example or Nazi Germany example, there can be some benefits in that regard.


Yes, they polluted a lot in order to industrialise. You can't just arbitrarily say that the late industrialisers are more responsible for this than the early industrialisers.

I never implied or stated that. I stated that they were just as bad as the earlier and then concurrent capitalist powers, because they were undergoing policies of industrialisation and higher urbanisation via programs like the Five Year Plans, as well as via nuclear testing. It is the process of industrialisation and higher urbanisation I was talking about.

You are re-writing history to suit your argument. The Soviet Union by the early 1980s were attempting to use their advantages in natural gas to gain sway over Western Europe, like how they made their satellite states dependent on Soviet oil and gas.

As for nuclear exportation and promotion, by the early 1970s, both the USA and Soviet Union had near identical policies of denying nonnuclear weapons states the capacity to develop reprocessing and enrichment capabilities. Both superpowers sought to preserve their nuclear hegemony and, by the 1970s onwards, instituted a policy of nuclear non-proliferation, which Australia supported.


I am allowed to criticise past Soviet attempts at nuclear energy, if it means we learn from their past mistakes, like Chernobyl, to develop a healthier nuclear option. In saying all this, I would rather we went the hydropower route (similar high initial investment costs) or just plain commit to something sooner rather than later that lessens our carbon footprint, even if it means high public subsidies for a sustained period.

I'm reticent to take Duffy's work completely on board given her obvious political affiliation. Douglas Weiner's (despite his loud proclamation that he 'brought down' the Soviet Union) work is probably the most thorough accounting I've read.

And I disagree that they were just as bad as the earlier and/or concurrent capitalist powers. The moves towards environmentalism in the Soviet Union (inc. satellites like Czechoslovakia) were far more overt than the liberal Western nations at comparable stages of industrial development.

Of course, realpolitik and competition with cost effective developed powers spurred on some crappy policies, similar to my China explanation, but to write off the Soviet Union as equally bad as industrial Britain or USA (at comparable stages of development) in terms of environmental policy is a revision of history that I'm not comfortable with. Their industrialisation compared with nations currently industrialising now in the present capitalist framework was also far more environmentally conscious. Not perfect, and not good enough, which is why I stated that world capitalism is that which needs to change, not just the economic system of one country.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

I'm reticent to take Duffy's work completely on board given her obvious political affiliation. Douglas Weiner's (despite his loud proclamation that he 'brought down' the Soviet Union) work is probably the most thorough accounting I've read.

And I disagree that they were just as bad as the earlier and/or concurrent capitalist powers. The moves towards environmentalism in the Soviet Union (inc. satellites like Czechoslovakia) were far more overt than the liberal Western nations at comparable stages of industrial development.

Of course, realpolitik and competition with cost effective developed powers spurred on some crappy policies, similar to my China explanation, but to write off the Soviet Union as equally bad as industrial Britain or USA (at comparable stages of development) in terms of environmental policy is a revision of history that I'm not comfortable with. Their industrialisation compared with nations currently industrialising now was also far more environmentally conscious. Not perfect, and not good enough, which is why I stated that world capitalism is that which needs to change, not just the economic system of one country.

I'm straying into areas outside my own, so I am reluctant to go further on wider Soviet environmental policy outside energy output and exportation.

Not revising history, but I feel that we are both kind of interchanging differing historical periods a little. For example, rating the rapid industrialisation of the Soviet Union from 1919-1941 was on par with Germany's rapid industrialisation in the last 2-3 decades of the 19th century. Both with high coal and oil dependencies, rapid urbanisation and industrialisation, etc. Post-war, it is a little more interesting as there Soviet environmental policies that were more advanced than countries like the USA and GB, but policy and policy implementation are two separate things.

There were majorly comparable environmental issues related to nuclear testing (which every major power was involved in, including Britain), deforestation, coal mining/stripping and similar levels of water/air pollution.

Developing countries are running into the very same problems that all industrialising countries in the past have run into, thus becoming major polluters.

Back to your main point, capitalism needs to be managed and decisions need to be made now, as energy investment is a long-drawn-out process that has major implications.

 

[ferball]

I'm reticent to take Duffy's work completely on board given her obvious political affiliation.

Reverse vampires strike again.

 

[Groin guru]

☠☠☠☠☠

 

[The Warlord]

Hasn't been president in nearly twenty years ffs.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Hasn't been president in nearly twenty years ffs.

Still got plenty to lose, though.

 

[Val Keating]

Hasn't been president in nearly twenty years ffs.

There’s heaps of those doing the rounds on Twitter. It’s been turned into a left v right thing somehow. Trump people going for the Clintons, Democrats going for the trump stuff. People are bonkers.

Picture of Epsteins last visitor...





People need to realise they’re all the same

 

[The Warlord]

There’s heaps of those doing the rounds on Twitter. It’s been turned into a left v right thing somehow. Trump people going for the Clintons, Democrats going for the trump stuff. People are bonkers.

The culture is so divided that this happens on EVERYTHING.

Trump's exit from the presidency will provide the blowout required to reset.

 

[Val Keating]

The culture is so divided that this happens on EVERYTHING.

Trump's exit from the presidency will provide the blowout required to reset.

I’m not so optimistic.

 

[ferball]

The culture is so divided that this happens on EVERYTHING.

Trump's exit from the presidency will provide the blowout required to reset.

Maybe.

Also thats if he exists the presidency.

Also its ridiculous that a) the Democrats are called a left wing party; b) there is so much division over two political parties who basically do exactly the same thing. It reminds me of this kids tv show from the 70s called The Tomorrow people. Specifically the episode called The Blue and The Green.

 

[ferball]

View attachment 725118

☠☠☠☠☠

Alot of that so called "Clinton body count" is bullshit and includes people who were killed in skiing accidents and people like Danny Casolaro who didn't uncover any Clinton links to anything but was investigating the links between the Reagan/Bush admins and any number of 80s conspiracies like the October Surprise and Iran Contra (Ollie North recently resigned as head of the NRA btw), BCCI and associated money laundering and terrorist funding and a company called Inslaw that wrote some software called PROMIS.

Casolaro may have actually committed suicide as well, not been murdered because of anything he uncovered.

If you spend some time investigating these claims of the Clinton body count carefully it seems that the people who most profit from them are in fact associated with the Bush Crime Family. Not the Clinton one.

These days I find it heaps more useful to think of the people involved in politics as members or associates of crime families with political parties and their ideologies as a kind of smokescreen or cover for their activities.

 

[The Warlord]

The Clinton presidency was bookended by two men call George Bush who both launched wars against Iraq that resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths.

But yeah, he's the one with a #bodycount

FFS.

Useful idiots of corporate criminals on this thread again.

 

[The Warlord]

Saudis to try and take ARAMCO to market again - trying to get some value for their crushed up ancient plant juice before Ghawar becomes the world's biggest stranded asset.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Alot of that so called "Clinton body count" is bulls**t and includes people who were killed in skiing accidents and people like Danny Casolaro who didn't uncover any Clinton links to anything but was investigating the links between the Reagan/Bush admins and any number of 80s conspiracies like the October Surprise and Iran Contra (Ollie North recently resigned as head of the NRA btw), BCCI and associated money laundering and terrorist funding and a company called Inslaw that wrote some software called PROMIS.

Casolaro may have actually committed suicide as well, not been murdered because of anything he uncovered.

If you spend some time investigating these claims of the Clinton body count carefully it seems that the people who most profit from them are in fact associated with the Bush Crime Family. Not the Clinton one.

These days I find it heaps more useful to think of the people involved in politics as members or associates of crime families with political parties and their ideologies as a kind of smokescreen or cover for their activities.

Come to think of it, I never quite trusted that Kennedy crime family...

 

[Groin guru]

The culture is so divided that this happens on EVERYTHING.

Trump's exit from the presidency will provide the blowout required to reset.

lol. That won't reset a thing. The culture is divided on so many things. You only need to watch clips like those from The 2019 Democratic Socialist Convention to see how far we have strayed.

It will take a long long time to get to a point of sanity again. And it definitely won't be in 2024 when Trump finishes up.

 

[Sopwiths North]

We need to find a way to recalibrate the economic system so as to incentivise clean development.

Yep, this any day of the week.

And with respect to nuclear energy, I've just got one word: earthquake.

This is an old clip, and it may not even play for you guys down there, but it's Rex Weyler's (co-founder of Greenpeace) take on nuclear energy in the wake of Fukushima. Essentially too expensive, too dangerous, and not really any cleaner.

We HAVE to recalibrate our economy to clean energy, as you say TMB. There is no other way we're going to survive. And it needs to be done, like, yesterday.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Orange man is a symptom and product of a much wider problem, not a cause.

He’ll be out of office anyway because he has failed on the policy front in many respects, in particular China.

The political apathy of who potentially replaces him is almost depressing.

 

[The Warlord]

lol. That won't reset a thing. The culture is divided on so many things. You only need to watch clips like those from The 2019 Democratic Socialist Convention to see how far we have strayed.

It will take a long long time to get to a point of sanity again. And it definitely won't be in 2024 when Trump finishes up.

My own view is that Trump loses next year and calls the election "rigged" - his people come out, there's shooting and rioting, dozens, maybe a few hundred nationwide die.

This economy is already off the peak, the cycle is downward now. Basically what will happen is the long delayed 2008 collapse economic reckoning.

Obama could have dealt with this all by releasing the pressure with a few well publicised trials and jail terms of Bear Sterns/Lehman types, but being a Wall Street Democrat, he squibbed it.

 

[Themanbun]

Yep, this any day of the week.

And with respect to nuclear energy, I've just got one word: earthquake.

This is an old clip, and it may not even play for you guys down there, but it's Rex Weyler's (co-founder of Greenpeace) take on nuclear energy in the wake of Fukushima. Essentially too expensive, too dangerous, and not really any cleaner.

We HAVE to recalibrate our economy to clean energy, as you say TMB. There is no other way we're going to survive. And it needs to be done, like, yesterday.

Agreed, and there is no way 'the invisible hand' can do this. Nor will it be sufficient if it's not a united, global effort. Unfortunately IMO, the contradictions of capitalism still have a long way to go to play out organically, meaning that our timeline is probably not going to align in a way that gets us out of this.