Climate change

Discuss all the events of the day

Moderator: GH Moderators

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 25058
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: Climate change

Post by Northern Raider »

greeneyed wrote:
December 30, 2019, 1:11 pm
Northern Raider wrote:
December 30, 2019, 12:58 pm
greeneyed wrote:
December 30, 2019, 12:50 pm
Northern Raider wrote:
December 30, 2019, 12:10 pm
gangrenous wrote:
December 30, 2019, 12:01 pm
All depends what the competition and price is. If it gets to the point where cleaner tech like hydrogen becomes cheaper then you’ll see people switching.
That's the key. You need viable alternatives.
That's what a carbon price produces. It encourages the emergence and use of alternative production methods, which involve no carbon pollution, or less. Doesn't mean diesel use is ruled out either.
You're looking to tax consumers now when alternatives are not yet viable or available. That's a flawed ideology.
But there are alternatives that exist now, but are often less economically viable than carbon intensive forms of production... because the economic cost of the carbon pollution is not factored into the price of the latter. When the cost of the carbon pollution is factored in through a carbon price, they can substitute for the carbon intensive activities. Not only that... it will encourage investment in new technology... which over time will become substitutes. The adjustment process will obviously take time... but it won't happen without it... or it will cost us a lot more... because taxpayers have to fund the so called "direct action". It is not ideology, it simple economics.
So if it's simple economics, back to the earlier question. How much will you tax retail diesel fuel to decrease usage?
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 131366
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

Northern Raider wrote:
December 30, 2019, 1:17 pm
greeneyed wrote:
December 30, 2019, 1:11 pm
Northern Raider wrote:
December 30, 2019, 12:58 pm
greeneyed wrote:
December 30, 2019, 12:50 pm
Northern Raider wrote:
December 30, 2019, 12:10 pm

That's the key. You need viable alternatives.
That's what a carbon price produces. It encourages the emergence and use of alternative production methods, which involve no carbon pollution, or less. Doesn't mean diesel use is ruled out either.
You're looking to tax consumers now when alternatives are not yet viable or available. That's a flawed ideology.
But there are alternatives that exist now, but are often less economically viable than carbon intensive forms of production... because the economic cost of the carbon pollution is not factored into the price of the latter. When the cost of the carbon pollution is factored in through a carbon price, they can substitute for the carbon intensive activities. Not only that... it will encourage investment in new technology... which over time will become substitutes. The adjustment process will obviously take time... but it won't happen without it... or it will cost us a lot more... because taxpayers have to fund the so called "direct action". It is not ideology, it simple economics.
So back to the earlier question. How much will you tax retail diesel fuel to decrease usage?
I couldn't answer that off the top of my head. You need to work out what reductions in carbon emissions are needed to meet your emission targets... and then set up a carbon market... with the market ideally setting the carbon price.
Image

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 25058
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: Climate change

Post by Northern Raider »

Ok so we'll just put you down for increasing the retail price of diesel to reduce consumption.

Anybody with other suggestions?
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 131366
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

Anything that reduces carbon pollution will cost consumers or taxpayers, ultimately. The benefit of a carbon price is that the market finds the least cost way of doing it. That might or might not involve reducing diesel consumption.
Image

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 25058
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: Climate change

Post by Northern Raider »

That's an extremely generalised and simplistic approach.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10880
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

Northern Raider wrote: You're looking to tax consumers now when alternatives are not yet viable or available. That's a flawed ideology.
Part of the problem is also that we’re not getting proper investment in new technologies because people are waiting to see what the rules of the game are going to be. But this government won’t go there, so there is no price and new technologies are competing against embedded solutions where the long term environmental damage costs aren’t included in the price.

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10880
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

Northern Raider wrote:That's an extremely generalised and simplistic approach.
Hit us with your solution NR.

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 25058
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: Climate change

Post by Northern Raider »

gangrenous wrote:
December 30, 2019, 2:56 pm
Northern Raider wrote:That's an extremely generalised and simplistic approach.
Hit us with your solution NR.
I don't have one. I'm pointing the light toward the problem and asking others. It's a very difficult one to address, which I believe is why that part is being ignored and all we hear in theainstream is the "coal is bad" mantra.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 131366
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

Northern Raider wrote:
December 30, 2019, 2:47 pm
That's an extremely generalised and simplistic approach.
It actually a little complicated to set it up properly, but it will guarantee the reductions in carbon emissions more effectively than any other policy. Moreover, the benefit of the policy is that it does not prescribe anything other than the reduction in carbon pollution. No one actually needs to sit around and say... we need to convert our car fleet to electric by 2030... or we need to reduce diesel consumption by 40 per cent. That is actually going to guarantee that we would achieve the objective inefficiently... and at higher cost. It is old fashioned economic planning of the worst sort that we saw in Russia and China.

The economy would however, transform in fundamental ways with a carbon price... and in ways we cannot fully predict. Nor do we have to... it encourages innovation and the market will find the best way to achieve the outcome.
Image

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 131366
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

NR... Have a look at this article and the abatement cost curve... the article is a little bit old (and I'm not necessarily saying it is the best), but it might help give you an idea of what I'm on about. The chart shows the cost of various investments to reduce carbon emissions, and the potential for emission reductions.

https://ourworldindata.org/how-much-wil ... ate-change

With a carbon price, the market will gravitate to fully exploit the opportunities that save money... and then the opportunities that cost least.

Google carbon abatement cost curve and you'll see a whole lot of articles with similar findings.
Image

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 25058
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: Climate change

Post by Northern Raider »

greeneyed wrote:
December 30, 2019, 3:10 pm
Northern Raider wrote:
December 30, 2019, 2:47 pm
That's an extremely generalised and simplistic approach.
It actually a little complicated to set it up properly, but it will guarantee the reductions in carbon emissions more effectively than any other policy. Moreover, the benefit of the policy is that it does not prescribe anything other than the reduction in carbon pollution. No one actually needs to sit around and say... we need to convert our car fleet to electric by 2030... or we need to reduce diesel consumption by 40 per cent. That is actually going to guarantee that we would achieve the objective inefficiently... and at higher cost. It is old fashioned economic planning of the worst sort that we saw in Russia and China.

The economy would however, transform in fundamental ways with a carbon price... and in ways we cannot fully predict. Nor do we have to... it encourages innovation and the market will find the best way to achieve the outcome.
Carbon tax is fine provided everybody pays for what they use. Last time it was selectively targeted. When some pay and others don't it will only serve to create greater divides.

The other issue is selling it to the voting public. Come are saying "we're taxing you now to encourage you to seek alternatives that aren't currently available". Plenty of people are already suspicious of the climate change agenda and this would only increase those suspicions as it comes across as another Government money grab.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 131366
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

Everyone paid, the plan was to assist low income people... but they still faced the new price signal and the incentive to change.
Image

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10880
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

Since RedRaider is scared of having his ideas challenged, and I have no volunteers, I guess I’ll talk to myself.

gangrenous: What is the fair way of splitting 200 jellybeans between 100 people?

Another poster: I guess you want me to say 2 jellybeans each.

gangrenous: Sure. Now what if I told you that we’re actually phasing our jellybeans. There were 220 last year, but just the 200 last year. Last year there were people who only had 1.8 jellybeans. They’ll get more this year even though we’re reducing. Does that change your answer?

Another poster: Well, not really no. Two jellybeans each is still the fair way to divide them. If anything the people who had less last time should be getting more this time.

gangrenous: That does seem fair. That’s why countries agreed that the Chinese could have slightly higher emissions in the Paris agreement. Final question - let’s clear up exactly who had what last year.

90 people had 1.8 jellybeans each, while the remaining 10 had 5.8 jellybeans each. Does it change your answer if I now point out that those 90 people are clearly the problem, given they had 74% of the jellybeans between them?!

Another poster: No, that doesn’t change the fair distribution of jellybeans. That statistic is just grouping a large population, of course they’re going to have a large portion of the jellybeans.

gangrenous: Exactly RedRaider. That’s why per capita is an important consideration in the fair distribution of finite resource! That 90 per cent are actually well under their expected portion!

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 25058
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: Climate change

Post by Northern Raider »

Back onto jellybeans again?
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 25058
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: Climate change

Post by Northern Raider »

greeneyed wrote:
December 30, 2019, 3:35 pm
Everyone paid, the plan was to assist low income people... but they still faced the new price signal and the incentive to change.
Yet we still saw an increase in retail diesel sales during that period.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 131366
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

Northern Raider wrote:
December 30, 2019, 3:48 pm
greeneyed wrote:
December 30, 2019, 3:35 pm
Everyone paid, the plan was to assist low income people... but they still faced the new price signal and the incentive to change.
Yet we still saw an increase in retail diesel sales during that period.
The carbon price lasted in Australia for only two years. The scheme was only in transition.

In any case, so what if diesel usage increases... provided you are delivering the carbon emission reductions in other ways. That is the benefit of the system.
Image

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 25058
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: Climate change

Post by Northern Raider »

greeneyed wrote:
December 30, 2019, 4:06 pm
Northern Raider wrote:
December 30, 2019, 3:48 pm
greeneyed wrote:
December 30, 2019, 3:35 pm
Everyone paid, the plan was to assist low income people... but they still faced the new price signal and the incentive to change.
Yet we still saw an increase in retail diesel sales during that period.
The carbon price lasted in Australia for only two years. The scheme was only in transition.

In any case, so what if diesel usage increases... provided you are delivering the carbon emission reductions in other ways. That is the benefit of the system.
You missed my earlier post then. Gains being made in other areas are being eroded by increased use of diesel fuels, mostly in the retail sector. Plugging one hole while another one let's in more water.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10880
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

Northern Raider wrote:
greeneyed wrote:
December 30, 2019, 4:06 pm
Northern Raider wrote:
December 30, 2019, 3:48 pm
greeneyed wrote:
December 30, 2019, 3:35 pm
Everyone paid, the plan was to assist low income people... but they still faced the new price signal and the incentive to change.
Yet we still saw an increase in retail diesel sales during that period.
The carbon price lasted in Australia for only two years. The scheme was only in transition.

In any case, so what if diesel usage increases... provided you are delivering the carbon emission reductions in other ways. That is the benefit of the system.
You missed my earlier post then. Gains being made in other areas are being eroded by increased use of diesel fuels, mostly in the retail sector. Plugging one hole while another one let's in more water.
But emissions dropped during the carbon tax. Those increases were more than compensated.

A quick look on the internet suggests diesel CO2 emissions are less than petrol. So that may also have represented choosing diesel over petrol resulting in a net reduction in CO2.

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 131366
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

Northern Raider wrote:
December 30, 2019, 4:09 pm
greeneyed wrote:
December 30, 2019, 4:06 pm
Northern Raider wrote:
December 30, 2019, 3:48 pm
greeneyed wrote:
December 30, 2019, 3:35 pm
Everyone paid, the plan was to assist low income people... but they still faced the new price signal and the incentive to change.
Yet we still saw an increase in retail diesel sales during that period.
The carbon price lasted in Australia for only two years. The scheme was only in transition.

In any case, so what if diesel usage increases... provided you are delivering the carbon emission reductions in other ways. That is the benefit of the system.
You missed my earlier post then. Gains being made in other areas are being eroded by increased use of diesel fuels, mostly in the retail sector. Plugging one hole while another one let's in more water.
Maybe, if you don't have an effective policy to reduce carbon emissions, which is the current state of policy.

But if you have a carbon price... you achieve the reductions with certainty. So it actually doesn't matter if diesel emissions were to go up in that world... the market is choosing that outcome and it is the most efficient outcome.
Image

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 25058
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: Climate change

Post by Northern Raider »

gangrenous wrote:
December 30, 2019, 4:23 pm
Northern Raider wrote:
greeneyed wrote:
December 30, 2019, 4:06 pm
Northern Raider wrote:
December 30, 2019, 3:48 pm
greeneyed wrote:
December 30, 2019, 3:35 pm
Everyone paid, the plan was to assist low income people... but they still faced the new price signal and the incentive to change.
Yet we still saw an increase in retail diesel sales during that period.
The carbon price lasted in Australia for only two years. The scheme was only in transition.

In any case, so what if diesel usage increases... provided you are delivering the carbon emission reductions in other ways. That is the benefit of the system.
You missed my earlier post then. Gains being made in other areas are being eroded by increased use of diesel fuels, mostly in the retail sector. Plugging one hole while another one let's in more water.
But emissions dropped during the carbon tax. Those increases were more than compensated.

A quick look on the internet suggests diesel CO2 emissions are less than petrol. So that may also have represented choosing diesel over petrol resulting in a net reduction in CO2.
I'm referring to research from The Australia Institute via their National Energy Emissions Audit. If this research is misrepresentative then I cannot comment.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10880
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

Got a link?

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 25058
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: Climate change

Post by Northern Raider »

* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10880
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

Cheers for the link. The problem is you’re arguing across two different timelines. You’re applying conclusions from that report which cover FY11-FY18 to the period where there was a Carbon tax which is only the start of that period.

Look at Australia’s total emissions over time (Figure 1 in the link below).

https://www.environment.gov.au/system/f ... r-2019.pdf

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7814
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

gangrenous wrote:
December 30, 2019, 3:44 pm
Since RedRaider is scared of having his ideas challenged, and I have no volunteers, I guess I’ll talk to myself.

gangrenous: What is the fair way of splitting 200 jellybeans between 100 people?

Another poster: I guess you want me to say 2 jellybeans each.

gangrenous: Sure. Now what if I told you that we’re actually phasing our jellybeans. There were 220 last year, but just the 200 last year. Last year there were people who only had 1.8 jellybeans. They’ll get more this year even though we’re reducing. Does that change your answer?

Another poster: Well, not really no. Two jellybeans each is still the fair way to divide them. If anything the people who had less last time should be getting more this time.

gangrenous: That does seem fair. That’s why countries agreed that the Chinese could have slightly higher emissions in the Paris agreement. Final question - let’s clear up exactly who had what last year.

90 people had 1.8 jellybeans each, while the remaining 10 had 5.8 jellybeans each. Does it change your answer if I now point out that those 90 people are clearly the problem, given they had 74% of the jellybeans between them?!

Another poster: No, that doesn’t change the fair distribution of jellybeans. That statistic is just grouping a large population, of course they’re going to have a large portion of the jellybeans.

gangrenous: Exactly RedRaider. That’s why per capita is an important consideration in the fair distribution of finite resource! That 90 per cent are actually well under their expected portion!
EDIT

Gangers, you should fact check even basic information before you try to use 'gotcha' examples. Your example about China will shoot your argument in the foot. According to the World Fact Book source between 2014 and 2017, the World had an Average Kwh/person/year of 2674. China was 4475 during this time. Your appeasing argument is that China is a developing country. But the UK average was 4799. Italy was 4692. These are hardly developing nations but are very close to the per captia electricity useage of China. What about Australia I hear you shout, well Australia was 9747 close to the Sweden figure of 9880. Highest was Norway on 24,006. Keep gobbling jelly beans.

Fact is China is easily the worlds largest emitter with about 30% of global emissions into a finite atmosphere volume and is allowed to increase emissions up to 2030. To repeat, this does not mean Australia should 'do nothing' and of course we should meet our Paris Agreement emission reductions. Both the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister have recently made comments of more to be done to meet Paris and I await some action plans. China's increases in emissions will gobble like a jelly bean all reductions made by Australia but we can and must, meet or beat our Paris commitment.

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 131366
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

A reminder everyone... Please send a moderator a PM if you have a complaint/issue, do not post about moderation, thanks.
Image

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10880
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

My goodness RedRaider, aren’t you a precious little snowflake?
RedRaider wrote: Gangers, you should fact check even basic information before you try to use 'gotcha' examples. Your example about China will shoot your argument in the foot. According to the World Fact Book source between 2014 and 2017, the World had an Average Kwh/person/year of 2674. China was 4475 during this time. Your appeasing argument is that China is a developing country. But the UK average was 4799. Italy was 4692. These are hardly developing nations but are very close to the per captia electricity useage of China. What about Australia I hear you shout, well Australia was 9747 close to the Sweden figure of 9880. Highest was Norway on 24,006. Keep gobbling jelly beans.
What’s laughable is that you “fact check” my argument with total incompetence and ignorance.

No one gives a hoot that Norway averages 24,006 KWh/person/year. Do you know why? Because 98% of their electricity supply is hydroelectricity.

Electricity usage does not cause climate change. The emissions associated with many common non-renewable energy sources for electricity does. That is why memes about how kids these days can’t live without electronic devices and air conditioning are stupid. What matters is the amount of greenhouse gases you are producing. Not that you are using electricity!
RedRaider wrote: To repeat, this does not mean Australia should 'do nothing' and of course we should meet our Paris Agreement emission reductions. Both the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister have recently made comments of more to be done to meet Paris and I await some action plans.
Can you quote the PM? I’m pretty sure he was on record as stubbornly saying our Climate Policy remains unchanged. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for serious action.

Anyway, I’m going to do my best to ignore you as much as possible from here. Your comments on this topic have shown you don’t understand this area well, and many of your remarks are misleading, if not outright wrong. You claim you’re open minded and change with evidence, but you’ve never once conceded a correction and sulked when I questioned you. I respectfully answered your recent question and you ignore it. You valued your own opinion far greater than that of experts. You’ve really surprised me in this thread RedRaider.





RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7814
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

gangrenous wrote:
December 29, 2019, 8:04 pm
RedRaider wrote: My question concerned the calculation of CO2 volume from burning fossil fuel. When the carbon molecules of coal are burned I presume the molecules are not 100% consumed in the combustion process. Oxidised carbon molecules attract 2 molecules of oxygen to form CO2. How is calculation varied for the difference between lignite and anthracite? There seems to be a rule of thumb calculation of burning 1 tonne of coal will produce 2.9 tonnes of CO2. Is there a standard used for carbon which remains from the combustion process? How is this measured/calculated?
Sounds like a question better suited to Nickman.

I’d assume it’ll be something like you’ll multiply 1 tonne by the fraction of carbon in the coal, by the conversion efficiency of your burning process and by the ratio of molecular weight of CO2 to C.

So if lignite has the lower carbon content then you’re emitting less CO2 per tonne of coal, but you need to burn more coal to generate the same amount of energy.

But no, not my area of expertise.

P.S. you are using molecule where you generally mean atom
Thank you Gangers. I appreciate your explanation in an area outside your expertise.

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7814
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

gangrenous wrote:
December 31, 2019, 1:44 pm
My goodness RedRaider, aren’t you a precious little snowflake?

I had a question about forum rules which has now been cleared up for me thanks to GE. I have never had a question on forum rules before and used an incorrect process. That was on me.
RedRaider wrote: Gangers, you should fact check even basic information before you try to use 'gotcha' examples. Your example about China will shoot your argument in the foot. According to the World Fact Book source between 2014 and 2017, the World had an Average Kwh/person/year of 2674. China was 4475 during this time. Your appeasing argument is that China is a developing country. But the UK average was 4799. Italy was 4692. These are hardly developing nations but are very close to the per captia electricity useage of China. What about Australia I hear you shout, well Australia was 9747 close to the Sweden figure of 9880. Highest was Norway on 24,006. Keep gobbling jelly beans.
What’s laughable is that you “fact check” my argument with total incompetence and ignorance.

No one gives a hoot that Norway averages 24,006 KWh/person/year. Do you know why? Because 98% of their electricity supply is hydroelectricity. Correct. They are in an area of the world which is favourable for Hydro power and they use it. The figures were not about emissions though. They were to demonstrate that China is not a developing country any longer. So use of that argument is no longer valid.

Electricity usage does not cause climate change. The emissions associated with many common non-renewable energy sources for electricity does. That is why memes about how kids these days can’t live without electronic devices and air conditioning are stupid. What matters is the amount of greenhouse gases you are producing. Not that you are using electricity!
RedRaider wrote: To repeat, this does not mean Australia should 'do nothing' and of course we should meet our Paris Agreement emission reductions. Both the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister have recently made comments of more to be done to meet Paris and I await some action plans.
Can you quote the PM? I’m pretty sure he was on record as stubbornly saying our Climate Policy remains unchanged. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for serious action.

I found the below as quoted by the Sydney Morning Herald of 3 days ago:
But Mr Morrison said there was no divergence in views between the pair on this issue, claiming Mr McCormack was "making exactly the same point I am making", and asserted he was confident Australia would beat its Paris commitments.

"There is a long time between now and 2030 and we will continue to refine our policies because we are serious about taking action. But what we won't do is act in a knee jerk, or crisis or panicked mode," Mr Morrison said during a press conference at the NSW Rural Fire Service headquarters in Sydney.

Anyway, I’m going to do my best to ignore you as much as possible from here. Your comments on this topic have shown you don’t understand this area well, and many of your remarks are misleading, if not outright wrong. You claim you’re open minded and change with evidence, but you’ve never once conceded a correction and sulked when I questioned you. I respectfully answered your recent question and you ignore it. You valued your own opinion far greater than that of experts. You’ve really surprised me in this thread RedRaider.
I wish you well in your World Gangers.

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10880
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

Fair call on the electricity usage. I misinterpreted your point on that completely. My apologies for that.

It’s not a perfect measure of development though is it? You wouldn’t say Norway are far more developed than the UK.

User avatar
Dr Zaius
Mal Meninga
Posts: 20078
Joined: April 15, 2007, 11:03 am
Location: Queensland somewhere

Re: Climate change

Post by Dr Zaius »

Well I thought that this was a a pretty good read
https://quillette.com/2020/01/08/lesson ... -rhetoric/

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 131366
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

Dr Zaius wrote:
January 9, 2020, 7:58 pm
Well I thought that this was a a pretty good read
https://quillette.com/2020/01/08/lesson ... -rhetoric/
I was pretty good, reasonable for the most part, but clearly the author doesn’t understand relative prices. There is no hope of just making energy with no or low carbon emissions “cheap”... it requires a change in the relative prices. The fundamental problem is the cost of carbon pollution isn’t reflected in the price of carbon intensive activities. Until that is done, there’s no market incentive to invest in low or no carbon emitting energy sources or activities.
Image

gergreg
Bradley Clyde
Posts: 8147
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gergreg »

It's really surprising to see that these current bushfires have brought out a whole bunch of climate change deniers. I honestly didn't realise that there was still people out their that felt that way?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10880
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

gergreg wrote:It's really surprising to see that these current bushfires have brought out a whole bunch of climate change deniers. I honestly didn't realise that there was still people out their that felt that way?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
You mean like half the government?

gergreg
Bradley Clyde
Posts: 8147
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gergreg »

gangrenous wrote:
gergreg wrote:It's really surprising to see that these current bushfires have brought out a whole bunch of climate change deniers. I honestly didn't realise that there was still people out their that felt that way?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
You mean like half the government?
True, but generally speaking they try to keep it to themselves.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10880
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

quillette article wrote: Greens, on the other hand, err in the other direction, inventing direct causal relationships between individual politicians and unusual weather events, implying that short-term weather trends can be manipulated by national governments. Both approaches are wrong.
This was not well backed. Linked to a tweet that said politicians would be judged for climate inaction over the last 20 years. Unless there’s something buried in the comments they’re referring to?

I also often see “balanced” articles keep coming back to what the Greens did wrong in 2009. Important to consider in the historical timeline. Important to remember as a lesson in how to bring about change. But it is often presented as equivalent or greater issue than the continuous lack of policy and climate opposition from the LNP over the past decade. The Greens error has no significance without the continuous state of the LNP!

Annoys me and I’ve never voted Greens in my life.

But the main thesis of the article that there should be more action based on the science. Can’t get more right than that.

Post Reply