No - any expediture on renewable energy must be scrutinised to the nth degree
Spending on fossil fuels is different because reasons
The war against renewable energy
- Thread starter Upton Sinclair
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Spending on fossil fuels is different because reasons
Have seen your $11bil.claIm often Al, got more detail ?
- Oct 20, 2014
- 18,404
- 19,536
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
Baahaha you silly little alarmist!
I posted a link further up.
Theres another link on the same post claims its even more.
At the end of the day the post i was replying to said its time to cut rebates / tax breaks for renewables and let them stand on their own two feet.
Well i say same same...
What price those whose income is courtesy coal?
No chance Bill will identify these fsmilies beforr the next election?
Bill: No denying coal exports are growing, thanks all for the PAYE tax you guys paid, you are the muscle behind
Australias #1 export industry, thanks again, we'll do you slowly ...
Theres lots of subsidies for Fossil fuels some is called aid funding
Britain spent 'twice as much on overseas fossil fuels as renewables'
Nearly half of £6.1bn energy spending in developing countries from 2010-14 went on oil, coal and gas-fired schemes, data shows
Of the money earmarked for fossil fuels, oil and gas received a total of 87% of UK funds, with 9% going to coal.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...s-much-on-overseas-fossil-fuels-as-renewables
Britain spent 'twice as much on overseas fossil fuels as renewables'
Nearly half of £6.1bn energy spending in developing countries from 2010-14 went on oil, coal and gas-fired schemes, data shows
Of the money earmarked for fossil fuels, oil and gas received a total of 87% of UK funds, with 9% going to coal.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...s-much-on-overseas-fossil-fuels-as-renewables
- Oct 20, 2014
- 18,404
- 19,536
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
Scientists are continually saying we have little influence over the earths temperature, alarmists are still winning on the media front, political front and public front.
Sea levels will only increase by about 4cm by 2100.
The sun is the primary driver when it comes to changes in climate.
CO2 levels are only 40% higher than the level required for plants to survive on earth.
Less than 1 degrees Celsius rise in temperature by 2100 due to using fossil fuels.
At least watch the last five to ten minutes
The Coal fired power stations in Oz were all paid for by the taxpayer in the 50' & 60's. Currently no new coal fired stations are being built.
You guessed it, because the taxpayer hasn't forked out for it.
Maggie5
Moderator
- Moderator
- #2,510
Australia has reaffirmed its commitment to coal – and its unwavering support for the United States – by appearing at a US government-run event promoting the use of fossil fuels at the [URL='https://www.theguardian.com/world/unitednations']United Nations climate talks in Poland.[/URL]
Australia was the only country apart from the host represented at the event, entitled “US innovative technologies spur economic dynamism”, designed to “showcase ways to use fossil fuels as cleanly and efficiently as possible, as well as the use of emission-free nuclear energy”.
Patrick Suckling, Australia’s ambassador for the environment, and the head of the country’s negotiating delegation at the climate talks, spoke on the panel. His nameplate bore a US flag.
Elroo
Premiership Player
- Jul 2, 2014
- 3,994
- 6,809
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
We just received our electricity bill for 3-months 01 Sep 18 - 30 Nov 18. We had solar installed MAR/APR 2018, our power usage in Nov 18 was 20% lower than our usage in Nov 17. Our total bill for the 3-months was $63, with the fixed daily charge being $96 for 3-months, with a feed-in-tarrif of 0.15c giving us credits of $115 for the 3 months, and our overall kWhs 40% lower than a year before. Our bill for the same 3-month period in 2017 was $340, so we have reduced our bill by $275 by installing solar panels.
Last edited:
Maggie5
Moderator
- Moderator
- #2,512
Are two of the experts in that video :
Dr Hal Doiron - works/worked for Koch Bros
and,
Leighton Steward - who is the spokesman for front group Plants Need CO2 (the 501(c)(3) backed by coal baron Corbin Robertson) and the registrant of its PlantsNeedCO2.org website. According to its corporate Certificate of Formation[1], Steward is also a director at oil and gas company EOG Resources, formerly known as Enron Oil and Gas Company, where he earned $617,151 in 2008. Steward also serves as an honorary director of the American Petroleum Institute. [2]
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Corbin_Robertson
Not sure of their objectivity in this debate.
- Oct 20, 2014
- 18,404
- 19,536
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
I don’t need their objectivity in this debate. I only need facts and the facts on the ground keep proving the climate change predictions to be wrong. Limited warming (well below IPCC fantasy levels) insignificant rises in ocean levels, a slight drop in weather events, etc. We’re winning the scientific debate but you’re winning the media and political debate. Hopefully, Trump will put a stop to this. I don’t bank on it though.
Well the facts are that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists disagree with the men in your video whos massive incomes derive from what is causing the damage.
Thats the facts jack.
I dont gaf if a scientist whos specialty is shale oil extraction says its not causing any effect on the climate. He doesnt study climate science full time - a climate scientist does.
Same as i dont give a single solitary f#%^ if my plumber tells me my electrical setup is fine.
wat?
Australia has reaffirmed its commitment to coal – and its unwavering support for the United States – by appearing at a US government-run event promoting the use of fossil fuels at the United Nations climate talks in Poland.
Australia was the only country apart from the host represented at the event...
Australia has been a sycophantic little amoeba - politically speaking - for the entirety of its existence. I fail to see this changing in my lifetime.
- Oct 20, 2014
- 18,404
- 19,536
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
No they don’t. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists said that human influence on climate change was small but insignificant. That’s where the 97% came from. Stop being a brainwashed parrot and take your tinfoil hat conspiracies to the appropriate board.
- Oct 20, 2014
- 18,404
- 19,536
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
A tin foiled hat wearing extremist. Take it to the appropriate board please!
I think you read too much of Bolt's dribble. Right wing political clap trap. Following the words & money of big Petroleum. Accusing scientists of being 'paid off'. But never says by whom or why. Always picking out selective bits of data. The more simple, like Trump, conflating Climate Change with one cold Thanks Giving day. Real Dumb.
Maybe you should start your own 'flat earth & other oddities' board. Good for a laugh at least.
- Oct 20, 2014
- 18,404
- 19,536
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
Tell me why the IPCC won’t release their climate change modelling to climate change skeptics for analysis? Because it’s bogus or modelling is deliberately skewed to give the result they want.
Crankyhawk
Brownlow Medallist
Nothing wrong with wanting to influence any change to minimise impact on humans (whether man made or not)
Crankyhawk
Brownlow Medallist
Batteries work for all power forms don’t they? So helps smooth out demand
Crankyhawk
Brownlow Medallist
I suspect the plan is to * around, do nothing then when the crunch comes turn to nuclear as the solution- which also helps big business and a new industry to replace coal.
