If I'm in the daintree rainforest I'm probably looking at trees rather than coral.
If you're referring to coal being deposits from coral, are you suggesting waiting millions of years to reap the benefits of killing the reef?
The war on coal
- Thread starter Frank Bunn
- Start date
- Tagged users None
If I'm in the daintree rainforest I'm probably looking at trees rather than coral.
If you're referring to coal being deposits from coral, are you suggesting waiting millions of years to reap the benefits of killing the reef?
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
it is magical, as it is the same asset producing the same offering
and no the maths is 6% per annum in this hypothetical example
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
if you go to the daintree you'll see coral on the side of hillsides. the land hasn't risen rather the sea levels have dropped. You'll see another layer close to what is now beach and then the more well know areas beneath the sea. what does this suggest?..........much of what you hear about the reef is propaganda to support a narrative
Last edited:
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
I hear you and I also believe we should move away from coal
however we need a technology to move to today which works. We are making in roads but there is no solution other than hydro or nuclear that works today. Some could argue gas but that buys the world 8 years before gas would release the same emissions as coal.
So the issue isn't technology or economics...........the issue is people being unrealistic
You can walk & chew gum. Try it.
The OP referred to the reef.
The Biden administration is ready to challenge countries whose inaction on the climate crisis is setting the world back, including those that fail to cut their reliance on coal, the top American diplomat has warned.
“When countries continue to rely on coal for a significant amount of their energy, or invest in new coal factories, or allow for massive deforestation, they will hear from the United States and our partners about how harmful these actions are.”
Blinken said the US would “seize every chance we get to raise these issues with our allies and partners and through multilateral institutions”.
The US government was mindful that, despite the opportunities of climate change, “not every American worker will win out in the near term”, and would ensure coal workers were not left behind during the transition, Blinken said.
www.theguardian.com
“When countries continue to rely on coal for a significant amount of their energy, or invest in new coal factories, or allow for massive deforestation, they will hear from the United States and our partners about how harmful these actions are.”
Blinken said the US would “seize every chance we get to raise these issues with our allies and partners and through multilateral institutions”.
The US government was mindful that, despite the opportunities of climate change, “not every American worker will win out in the near term”, and would ensure coal workers were not left behind during the transition, Blinken said.
Secretary of state says countries investing in new coal ‘will hear from US’
Antony Blinken says Biden administration will challenge those failing to cut reliance on coal as Scott Morrison emphasises costs of action
Depends if you own that house.
Ask the young renters, saving for a house, how wealthy they feel. Those with a permanent full time job at least.
Don't worry about the rest of them. The LNP sure don't.
The UK has committed to reducing emissions by 68 per cent by 2030 — a target that is seen as one of the most ambitious among developed nations.
But the prime minister will in the coming days pledge a steeper cut of 78 per cent by 2035 compared with 1990 levels, according to the Financial Times.
www.independent.co.uk
Its speeding up even under a conservative government
But the prime minister will in the coming days pledge a steeper cut of 78 per cent by 2035 compared with 1990 levels, according to the Financial Times.
UK ‘to raise emissions cut target to 78% by 2035’ ahead of Cop26
Reported move comes ahead of major US summit on climate change this week
www.independent.co.uk
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
regardless of the net effect of CPI inflation, we have a magic wealth creation of inflation in housing
I ask you this "if houses were to double in value overnight" is this a good thing? After all we are all now twice as rich?
Please refer the post trail to understand the context of Taylor's post and ILuvaris
I agree on "how wealthy do they feel" and whether this wealth creation is sustainable or equitable.
I'm not sure how you can point to LNP alone, as both sides of government have the same magic ingredient to the economy. That is first home owners grants pumping up house prices for the benefit of construction workers, land developers and the banks. There has also been an issue with foreign investment but the breaks have been pumped on that by the libs.
During ordinary times the issue isn't federal but state and local. As it relates to higher density land rezonings, this increases utility but with it an increase in price for smaller and smaller homes.
The solution is two fold:
1) introduce proper property taxes - note this is a state issue as the feds can not implement property taxes
2) stop pork barrelling and first home owners and instead we should have a policy of decentralisation and nation building (but that isn't popular with kids entering the property market)
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
the propoganda I was referring to is nonsense like this
1) coal mining is a low CO2 emitting industry, if global warming was what you were relating to
2) in the 90s the narrative and propaganda, was the bleaching and death of the reef was farming and fertilizer. Now it is CO2 and acidification of our oceans. The reality is coral is extremely hardy and has lived and died and flourished through a range of events, evidenced by the dead coral on the beach and on the hillsides in the daintree.
Part of the problem with transitioning to a clean future is misleading and deceptive behaviour such as this narrative. As the easily mislead become unrealistic in their beliefs and unfortunately spread these mis-truths to other easily mislead people. The outcome is a large proportion of the electorate then call for the allocation of resources to solutions that don't work.
If we didn't have the easily mislead, Australia would have achieved 14-70g CO2 per kwh in the 1980s, as had NZ, tassie, France, Norway, Sweden, Ontario etc. Instead we are more likely to follow dirty dirty Germany at 400+g CO2.
I think the current issue, as many don't mention, is the rapidity of such change.
Apparently a major Problem is that many ecosystems won't be able to adapt to the projected time scale of changes to temperature & sea levels. Also we don't really know what the extreme of the climate outcome might be.
Once again the currently comfortable Conservatives just don't want to know about any changes or outcomes. It might effect their bottom lines.
Also, like with most things, the mug worker paying tax, & the next generation will pay for the damage & changes needed.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
This ignores so much logic and known facts, such as extensions to the north and south. The biggest issue though, is detracts from the actual issue at hand. By raising misleading, deceptive and irrelevant emotional scenarios; the actual issue at hand becomes a blur. So to reality.
This is not a debate about progressives vs conservatives. It is a debate about solutions and a struggle to educate the population to elevate themselves above propaganda.
I will hand it to those that engage in misleading and deceptive camps, it's a clever technique to avoid scrutiny.
Further, if we are going to reference time, perhaps we should look at nations that achieved low CO2 outcomes, cheaply, reliably and safely in the 1980s. Then compare that with solutions proposed by the same groups of people who push misleading and deceptive narratives.
You still haven't said anything about evidence, just that you're against "propaganda" which you haven't defined.
What emotional misleading, deceptive and irrelevant emotional scenarios are you referring to?
At the moment what you're doing is not debating, it's just ranting. Which nations achieved low CO2 outcomes? Please, reference something, anything which supports your argument.
I'm not ignoring anything.
The known facts are the scientific & historic data. Its the science & scientists that are under attack from the RWNJ, especially the Murdoch media.
They've chosen to make this a political debate. No one else. Confusing weather & climate is just the lowest edge of the RWNJ media's approach to 'confuse' the public.
Even here in Australia we have a Government which says a lot, yet has no policy. They are tearing themselves apart over this. Rowing over Anthropogenic climate change.
Its a scientific debate. Base on data & its understanding. Recognising that, is the the first step to fixing it.
Urgent economic, lifestyle & technological change is required.
Yet the angry right just want to live in the 1950's. Head in Sand.
"Truth decay"
is the reason we are here debating this s**t
is the reason we are here debating this s**t
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
all irrelevant and dancing around the real issue.
if we want to lower CO2, which jurisdictions on the planet with a renewables strategy achieved 14-70g CO2 per kwh without hydro or nuclear?
so if we want governments to deliver a policy, in a democratic nation, the electorate must become realistic and demand for solutions that work. Otherwise we get what we demand..........failure.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
Live 24/7 CO₂ emissions of electricity consumption
Electricity Maps is a live 24/7 visualization of where your electricity comes from and how much CO2 was emitted to produce it.
www.electricitymap.org
Scientific theory ? Interpreting data.
Wasnt there a suggestion that at the last election people were concerned about climate change just not enough to influence their vote. Calling people names (climate deniers) might salve the conscience but is proving a hindrance to changing votes, whilst Bob Browns caravan and Extinction Rebellion will only ever appeal to the entrenched voter & potentially drive away those in doubt.
Funny how the same media which attacks the climate science & scientists also attacks the approach to handling Covid 19, even 'denying' the value of face masks, Vaccines, social distancing, closing borders etc.
Their comes a point when you just have to call it out & question where & why people get their opinions of denial.
Clearly the are not all dumb. Many have a decent education. But why do they just deny or ignore.
That doesn't mean they have to run around in circles & scream in fear. But it doesn't make sense to attack the people who know more than them, the Scientists. The very people who study medicines & most aspects of the modern world.
What does Murdoch get out of it? He has taken a Covid 19 vaccine injection!. so he knows its real. I can see why Climate doesn't worry him, he's 90. Clearly he doesn't care about anyone else's health or future.
Similar threads
