Climate change

Discuss all the events of the day

Moderator: GH Moderators

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7939
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

greeneyed wrote: June 21, 2020, 2:26 pm The issue is, RedRaider, that these technologies are not economic without a carbon price. Your post made clear that take up is poor because they're expensive in relative terms. They'll remain so, without the carbon pollution being priced in. The other benefit is that the most efficient, and cheapest, alternative technologies naturally come to the fore. Some of the technologies could be the bees knees, but maybe not. Maybe there are cheaper alternatives. That's the key to making the adjustment at the lowest cost.
GE, technology such as the million mile battery is being developed because of market need. As far as I am aware it does not need to have other technologies priced out of the market to be successful. Imo it is only a matter of time before the fast charger infrastructure world wide, means people will be more secure in buying into this market and as demand rises the economies of scale will lead to price falls in EVs.

Australians are paying 42.3 cents per litre on unleaded petrol and diesel via fuel excise. Do you not consider this a carbon price? Other forms of fuel for internal combustion engines are taxed at a much lower rate.
RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7939
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

gangrenous wrote: June 21, 2020, 2:49 pm
RedRaider wrote:How sad you would seek to divide people by generation. One day you will judge people by their stated views on a subject and not the date on their birth certificate.
There are plenty of people from your generation I would never dream of saying that to. I have judged you by your views. It just so happens that you fit the boomer stereotype quite nicely, so if the shoe fits...

Capitalism on it’s own solves Climate Change as well as it solves Pandemics. People are very bad at pricing in impacts that aren’t immediately visible. Government should step in and put in a framework that accounts for that and gives us the best chance at limiting the impacts of Climate Change.

The younger generation has just taken a massive hit in unemployment and mental health, largely to reduce the impacts on the people of your generation and the vulnerable. To return the favour you say you support the status quo where we put minimal investment into making sure their future is liveable, re-elect and supporting a government that has done nothing that indicates they will meet the Paris target you say you support. In fact they have actively destabilised collaborative talks to address the problem. You belittle the experts in the area and you make glib posts about the climate always changing which echo climate deniers who claim there’s no problem at all.

If I translate your Climate Change behaviour to the pandemic you’d be refusing changing anything in your life while posting articles about a vaccine that’s coming. You’d be vocally supporting any party that would not invest in the support necessary for policy to minimise the impact by pushing for no economic restrictions and no jobkeeper/jobseeker funding. You’d throw out some posts that questioned the modelling of health experts. Then follow it up with one that made allusions to a conspiracy that suggested maybe there wasn’t a virus at all.

Ok boomer?
I think you've missed a module in your anti-discrimination training.
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 132578
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

RedRaider wrote: June 22, 2020, 1:37 am
greeneyed wrote: June 21, 2020, 2:26 pm The issue is, RedRaider, that these technologies are not economic without a carbon price. Your post made clear that take up is poor because they're expensive in relative terms. They'll remain so, without the carbon pollution being priced in. The other benefit is that the most efficient, and cheapest, alternative technologies naturally come to the fore. Some of the technologies could be the bees knees, but maybe not. Maybe there are cheaper alternatives. That's the key to making the adjustment at the lowest cost.
GE, technology such as the million mile battery is being developed because of market need. As far as I am aware it does not need to have other technologies priced out of the market to be successful. Imo it is only a matter of time before the fast charger infrastructure world wide, means people will be more secure in buying into this market and as demand rises the economies of scale will lead to price falls in EVs.

Australians are paying 42.3 cents per litre on unleaded petrol and diesel via fuel excise. Do you not consider this a carbon price? Other forms of fuel for internal combustion engines are taxed at a much lower rate.
It’s not a carbon price as it is imposed on just one set of products which produce carbon emissions. For a carbon price to work, it requires the tax to apply to all sources of carbon pollution and reflect the carbon pollution produced. It can’t produce a sensible price signal.
Image
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11347
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

RedRaider wrote: I think you've missed a module in your anti-discrimination training.
You pretend you’re so hurt by being referred to by your generation that you are unable to counter my argument.

Yep that’s archetypal boomer.
RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7939
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

greeneyed wrote: June 22, 2020, 6:43 am
RedRaider wrote: June 22, 2020, 1:37 am
greeneyed wrote: June 21, 2020, 2:26 pm The issue is, RedRaider, that these technologies are not economic without a carbon price. Your post made clear that take up is poor because they're expensive in relative terms. They'll remain so, without the carbon pollution being priced in. The other benefit is that the most efficient, and cheapest, alternative technologies naturally come to the fore. Some of the technologies could be the bees knees, but maybe not. Maybe there are cheaper alternatives. That's the key to making the adjustment at the lowest cost.
GE, technology such as the million mile battery is being developed because of market need. As far as I am aware it does not need to have other technologies priced out of the market to be successful. Imo it is only a matter of time before the fast charger infrastructure world wide, means people will be more secure in buying into this market and as demand rises the economies of scale will lead to price falls in EVs.

Australians are paying 42.3 cents per litre on unleaded petrol and diesel via fuel excise. Do you not consider this a carbon price? Other forms of fuel for internal combustion engines are taxed at a much lower rate.
It’s not a carbon price as it is imposed on just one set of products which produce carbon emissions. For a carbon price to work, it requires the tax to apply to all sources of carbon pollution and reflect the carbon pollution produced. It can’t produce a sensible price signal.
Unless it is a world wide price for a world wide issue then the additional costs imposed will make those nations who have such a 'tax' less competitive.
RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7939
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

gangrenous wrote: June 22, 2020, 7:14 am
RedRaider wrote: I think you've missed a module in your anti-discrimination training.
You pretend you’re so hurt by being referred to by your generation that you are unable to counter my argument.

Yep that’s archetypal boomer.
Your posts on this subject on 21 June were yet another example of your label mentality. They were immature drivel in which you produced an ideological label and then proceeded to conflate the issues of addressing Coronavirus and Climate Change by imagining what another persons views would be. All of which were incorrect. This is standard behavior for you - not by any stretch could it be considered reasoned 'argument' which should be responded to.

I do not seek to point fingers at an entire generation because of the views of one individual. I hope that soon you will also benefit from the pioneering work being done on technologies such as the million mile battery and National Hydrogen Strategy etc.
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 132578
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

RedRaider wrote:
greeneyed wrote: June 22, 2020, 6:43 am
RedRaider wrote: June 22, 2020, 1:37 am
greeneyed wrote: June 21, 2020, 2:26 pm The issue is, RedRaider, that these technologies are not economic without a carbon price. Your post made clear that take up is poor because they're expensive in relative terms. They'll remain so, without the carbon pollution being priced in. The other benefit is that the most efficient, and cheapest, alternative technologies naturally come to the fore. Some of the technologies could be the bees knees, but maybe not. Maybe there are cheaper alternatives. That's the key to making the adjustment at the lowest cost.
GE, technology such as the million mile battery is being developed because of market need. As far as I am aware it does not need to have other technologies priced out of the market to be successful. Imo it is only a matter of time before the fast charger infrastructure world wide, means people will be more secure in buying into this market and as demand rises the economies of scale will lead to price falls in EVs.

Australians are paying 42.3 cents per litre on unleaded petrol and diesel via fuel excise. Do you not consider this a carbon price? Other forms of fuel for internal combustion engines are taxed at a much lower rate.
It’s not a carbon price as it is imposed on just one set of products which produce carbon emissions. For a carbon price to work, it requires the tax to apply to all sources of carbon pollution and reflect the carbon pollution produced. It can’t produce a sensible price signal.
Unless it is a world wide price for a world wide issue then the additional costs imposed will make those nations who have such a 'tax' less competitive.
The consensus of modelling results show that countries which act earlier will benefit, they lower their adjustment costs and develop competitive advantages.

Of course, it is better for the environment if there’s world wide, concerted action.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Image
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11347
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

RedRaider wrote:
gangrenous wrote: June 22, 2020, 7:14 am
RedRaider wrote: Your posts on this subject on 21 June were yet another example of your label mentality. They were immature drivel in which you produced an ideological label and then proceeded to conflate the issues of addressing Coronavirus and Climate Change by imagining what another persons views would be. All of which were incorrect. This is standard behavior for you - not by any stretch could it be considered reasoned 'argument' which should be responded to.
I’m not conflating the two issues. I’m translating your climate change behaviour into the context of COVID as I see it as an area where you’re willing to take decisive data driven action. Hoping that by analogy you can see the flaws in your approach to climate change.

If it’s all incorrect then tell me how. Don’t just complain about being labelled. You’re the one who has no argument.
RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7939
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

Dear oh me Gangers. Let's just go with the first fallacious issue you have made up, where you claim I have said: 'Capitalism on it’s own solves Climate Change' Can you give me a quote on where I have said that? Then when you can't find any reference, can you try and square it with my actual stated comment of 'There is an infrastructure role for Government which is for the common good'.(said 21 June 2020)

Your ideological labels lead you to pretend you know what another person is thinking. You refer to people as 'archetypal boomer' when even the shallowest of thinkers knows that every generation produces a variety of views. The people who are developing the high capacity batteries and Hydrogen Strategy etc are people who dream of a better world and are trying to create it. Maybe one day you will put down the pitch forks and join in with the benefits of their endeavour.

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11347
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

RedRaider wrote:Dear oh me Gangers. Let's just go with the first fallacious issue you have made up, where you claim I have said: 'Capitalism on it’s own solves Climate Change' Can you give me a quote on where I have said that? Then when you can't find any reference, can you try and square it with my actual stated comment of 'There is an infrastructure role for Government which is for the common good'.(said 21 June 2020)
I didn’t say you said that. The next paragraph has about four views that I explicitly attribute to you and you chose this? Here’s the hint, I use the words “you say” or similar! Radical I know.

Ultimately your view may be government having a role, but in my view it is not the size or in the area required and from your consistent articles you certainly convey the idea that capitalism alone will solve the issue of replacement technology.
RedRaider wrote: Your ideological labels lead you to pretend you know what another person is thinking.
Also Bull. I don’t pretend to know what you’re thinking, I’m responding to the **** you’ve said in this thread. Again you can tell that from the bits of my post that say “you say”.
RedRaider wrote: You refer to people as 'archetypal boomer' when even the shallowest of thinkers knows that every generation produces a variety of views.
Of course it does. But this particular **** world view is quite prevalent in yours and you share it... so what’s your point?
RedRaider wrote: The people who are developing the high capacity batteries and Hydrogen Strategy etc are people who dream of a better world and are trying to create it. Maybe one day you will put down the pitch forks and join in with the benefits of their endeavour.
You accuse me of assuming I know what you’re thinking when I’m responding to what you’ve written in this thread. You on the other hand just go and assume things about my life that you know jack **** about. Once again, you are a hypocrite.
RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7939
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

Tut Tut Gangers, you've lost the plot.

I do have faith in practical science. That's why I have put up articles about advances by scientists, engineers, new materials specialists and the projects they are working on which relate to this thread. I wish them success because of the benefits they could bring to everyone everywhere. Hopefully that puts to rest your stated view: "you certainly convey the idea that capitalism alone will solve the issue" which is a figment of your imagination.

Now, onto your conflation of the issues of Coronavirus and Climate Change. I'll explain the difference to you from my point of view.

With Coronavirus Australian Politicians of all persuasions took heed of the medical specialists. They took measures to isolate Australia from the rest of the world by stopping non Australian residents and citizens from travelling to Australia. This was a key measure. There was a great amount of testing and the Australian people responded to the social distancing, restricted travel and washing hands etc. We didn't care what the rest of the world was doing. We took steps to isolate ourselves and flatten the pandemic curve locally. It worked because we could isolate ourselves.

With Climate Change Australians cannot isolate themselves. This is a world wide issue which requires a world wide response. That World wide response is simply not happening. The major emitters (producing more than 50% of total emissions) do not appear persuaded by the Science. The Chinese Communist Party in particular are not persuaded as the worlds biggest emitter by far, continues to expand emissions. I have said many times that Australia needs to do its bit in reducing carbon emissions by 2030 as per our Paris Agreement commitment. But Australia on it's own cannot change the World's climate nor on a smaller scale our own. Eg. We are subject to the Southern Oscillation Index and Indian Ocean Dipole for our rainfall and drought events. As I have also said many times - this does not mean we should do nothing. I expect us to meet our Paris Agreement challenge. Some of the new technologies and their application will assist with this.

So to me the differences are clear. In one circumstance we could isolate ourselves, and, by our actions alone, protect ourselves. That is simply not the case with Climate Change. We cannot isolate ourselves and until the major emitters come on board, the level of greenhouse gases will continue to increase regardless of what we do.
User avatar
gergreg
Bradley Clyde
Posts: 8576
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gergreg »

Any time Australia tries to push the big emitters to change their ways they turn to Australia and just say 'you guys aren't taking it seriously, why should we listen to you?'. Australia needs to work to a position where we have the moral high ground to not only talk the talk, but walk the walk.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 132578
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

gergreg wrote: June 26, 2020, 7:33 am Any time Australia tries to push the big emitters to change their ways they turn to Australia and just say 'you guys aren't taking it seriously, why should we listen to you?'. Australia needs to work to a position where we have the moral high ground to not only talk the talk, but walk the walk.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Yep. We won’t achieve our targets without a carbon price. All we’re doing is spending taxpayer dollars on things that will be ineffective in achieving the targets. We’re the great pretenders right now, and we use the inaction of less developed countries as an excuse.

What the two cases of carbon pollution and a pandemic highlight is that there are different public policy choices available for governments in responding.

In the case of a pandemic, there is no market based solution that could be used to contain coronavirus. There have to be regulations to stop the activity that spreads the virus. Those regulations are very damaging to the economy, as we’ve seen. You can spend money on new technologies to try and stop the virus in future... find a vaccine. But the technology isn’t available now. You have to act immediately as its causing death right now, it’s potentially going to swamp your public health system right now. Local action can be effective in containing the pandemic locally. But if other governments don’t take effective steps, we still have a world wide pandemic. We need united action across the world to deal with it.

Climate change is a problem where public policy makers have more options... and ones that are much less costly to economic activity and growth. We can just ban activities that produce carbon emissions... eg we could ban certain sorts of light bulbs or we could ban concrete. But we know that’s the bluntest instrument and most costly for economic efficiency and growth. We can spend taxpayer dollars on building solar or wind farms and/or mandate these more expensive forms of power be used. We can spend taxpayer dollars on developing new technologies... and wait and hope. All of that involves governments picking winners. And they're not good at picking winners. The impacts on emissions are likely to be very uncertain. Or we could use a market based solution which finds the least cost solutions automatically... and gives certainty on the achievement of carbon emissions.

Carbon pollution isn’t killing anyone right now... insidiously perhaps. But we can find all sorts of excuses to not act now... even though the science tells us need to act now, because the consequences for our weather in the future are coming. Again, we need united action across the world to deal with it. But what Australia is doing at the moment is just finding excuses. We’re not even doing “our bit” locally.
Image
RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7939
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

gergreg wrote: June 26, 2020, 7:33 am Any time Australia tries to push the big emitters to change their ways they turn to Australia and just say 'you guys aren't taking it seriously, why should we listen to you?'. Australia needs to work to a position where we have the moral high ground to not only talk the talk, but walk the walk.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
I think nations generally act in their own self-interest. Until there is acceptance of change in their own self-interest nothing much will happen. I don't think Australia telling other nations what to do will get us anywhere. We also do not respond well to megaphone diplomacy from others. But that doesn't mean we should not voice an opinion and drive innovative change.
"Progress is like a wheelbarrow, if you don't keep pushing it, it stops: - W.G.P. (Australian William George Plunkett)
User avatar
gergreg
Bradley Clyde
Posts: 8576
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gergreg »

RedRaider wrote:
gergreg wrote: June 26, 2020, 7:33 am Any time Australia tries to push the big emitters to change their ways they turn to Australia and just say 'you guys aren't taking it seriously, why should we listen to you?'. Australia needs to work to a position where we have the moral high ground to not only talk the talk, but walk the walk.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
I think nations generally act in their own self-interest. Until there is acceptance of change in their own self-interest nothing much will happen. I don't think Australia telling other nations what to do will get us anywhere. We also do not respond well to megaphone diplomacy from others. But that doesn't mean we should not voice an opinion and drive innovative change.
"Progress is like a wheelbarrow, if you don't keep pushing it, it stops: - W.G.P. (Australian William George Plunkett)
My comment was in response to you (and many others) who question why we should be doing anything about climate change when there are worse countries out there.

What we currently do is like an alcoholic father supplying his (minor) children with alcohol and then complaining about them drinking it and justifying his own alcoholism because there are worse alcoholics in the family.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017
User avatar
gergreg
Bradley Clyde
Posts: 8576
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gergreg »

greeneyed wrote:
gergreg wrote: June 26, 2020, 7:33 am Any time Australia tries to push the big emitters to change their ways they turn to Australia and just say 'you guys aren't taking it seriously, why should we listen to you?'. Australia needs to work to a position where we have the moral high ground to not only talk the talk, but walk the walk.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Yep. We won’t achieve our targets without a carbon price. All we’re doing is spending taxpayer dollars on things that will be ineffective in achieving the targets. We’re the great pretenders right now, and we use the inaction of less developed countries as an excuse.

What the two cases of carbon pollution and a pandemic highlight is that there are different public policy choices available for governments in responding.

In the case of a pandemic, there is no market based solution that could be used to contain coronavirus. There have to be regulations to stop the activity that spreads the virus. Those regulations are very damaging to the economy, as we’ve seen. You can spend money on new technologies to try and stop the virus in future... find a vaccine. But the technology isn’t available now. You have to act immediately as its causing death right now, it’s potentially going to swamp your public health system right now. Local action can be effective in containing the pandemic locally. But if other governments don’t take effective steps, we still have a world wide pandemic. We need united action across the world to deal with it.

Climate change is a problem where public policy makers have more options... and ones that are much less costly to economic activity and growth. We can just ban activities that produce carbon emissions... eg we could ban certain sorts of light bulbs or we could ban concrete. But we know that’s the bluntest instrument and most costly for economic efficiency and growth. We can spend taxpayer dollars on building solar or wind farms and/or mandate these more expensive forms of power be used. We can spend taxpayer dollars on developing new technologies... and wait and hope. All of that involves governments picking winners. And they're not good at picking winners. The impacts on emissions are likely to be very uncertain. Or we could use a market based solution which finds the least cost solutions automatically... and gives certainty on the achievement of carbon emissions.

Carbon pollution isn’t killing anyone right now... insidiously perhaps. But we can find all sorts of excuses to not act now... even though the science tells us need to act now, because the consequences for our weather in the future are coming. Again, we need united action across the world to deal with it. But what Australia is doing at the moment is just finding excuses. We’re not even doing “our bit” locally.
Agreed. If there was no immediate impact from the pandemic (ie deaths) nothing would have been done.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Shoving it in your face since 2017
RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7939
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

gergreg wrote: June 26, 2020, 5:50 pm
RedRaider wrote:
gergreg wrote: June 26, 2020, 7:33 am Any time Australia tries to push the big emitters to change their ways they turn to Australia and just say 'you guys aren't taking it seriously, why should we listen to you?'. Australia needs to work to a position where we have the moral high ground to not only talk the talk, but walk the walk.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
I think nations generally act in their own self-interest. Until there is acceptance of change in their own self-interest nothing much will happen. I don't think Australia telling other nations what to do will get us anywhere. We also do not respond well to megaphone diplomacy from others. But that doesn't mean we should not voice an opinion and drive innovative change.
"Progress is like a wheelbarrow, if you don't keep pushing it, it stops: - W.G.P. (Australian William George Plunkett)
My comment was in response to you (and many others) who question why we should be doing anything about climate change when there are worse countries out there.

What we currently do is like an alcoholic father supplying his (minor) children with alcohol and then complaining about them drinking it and justifying his own alcoholism because there are worse alcoholics in the family.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
I don't know why you would think I have said we should do nothing. I had said many times in this thread that we need to meet our emission reduction targets. I have also posted a number of articles on technologies which could help us get there.
User avatar
gergreg
Bradley Clyde
Posts: 8576
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gergreg »

https://www.newscientist.com/article/22 ... .%E2%80%9D

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.abc.net. ... e/10920500

Of course, not sure of the veracity of either publication.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 132578
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

RedRaider, the issue is that the technologies you're posting about are uneconomic, at present anyway, so they can't deliver the emission reduction targets. You are advocating, as I understand it a "direct action" approach, and reject a more market based approach. The trouble with so called direct action, is that it is costs the economy and taxpayers more... is less efficient and more damaging to the economy... and delivers uncertain emission reductions. Given the expense to taxpayers, it is unlikely that we will meet the targets, in my view anyway.
Image
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11347
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

RedRaider wrote:Tut Tut Gangers, you've lost the plot.
Isn’t it strange how I’ve lost the plot... and yet the challenging questions from others are coming for you. How very odd?

Your point of difference for my COVID analogy is irrelevant. Whether Australia can solve a problem alone or not has no impact on your disrespect of expert modelling. Nor does it change the fact that you alluded to views of deniers that there is even a problem. Et cetera
Last edited by gangrenous on June 26, 2020, 9:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11347
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

RedRaider wrote: I don't know why you would think I have said we should do nothing. I had said many times in this thread that we need to meet our emission reduction targets. I have also posted a number of articles on technologies which could help us get there.
I dunno could be because the government inaction you support amounts to nothing.

How are those targets being practically met RR?
RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7939
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

gergreg wrote: June 26, 2020, 7:05 pm https://www.newscientist.com/article/22 ... .%E2%80%9D

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.abc.net. ... e/10920500

Of course, not sure of the veracity of either publication.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Thanks gergreg, the second one in particular I have seen before but it is enlightening on the challenges ahead. The transport sector is a major area of interest for me and the growth in emissions will only be arrested by moving away from petrol and diesel internal combustion engines. There are other less emissions intensive fuels which could be used such as compressed natural gas or liquid natural gas and in particular if blended with hydrogen will greatly reduce the levels of emissions. Plug in Hybrid Electric vehicles which use a small internal combustion engine to generate electric power to for an electric motor are also a useful technology in reducing emissions on the way to full electric vehicles. The posts I have made about 'million mile' batteries are a technology which may well have not only long life uses in passenger vehicles and homes but also for powering heavy transport.

The first of the links had a huge headline but the last paragraph was a massive disclaimer.
RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7939
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

greeneyed wrote: June 26, 2020, 7:07 pm RedRaider, the issue is that the technologies you're posting about are uneconomic, at present anyway, so they can't deliver the emission reduction targets. You are advocating, as I understand it a "direct action" approach, and reject a more market based approach. The trouble with so called direct action, is that it is costs the economy and taxpayers more... is less efficient and more damaging to the economy... and delivers uncertain emission reductions. Given the expense to taxpayers, it is unlikely that we will meet the targets, in my view anyway.
GE, I am posting about technologies which are being developed at present and will hopefully be proved successful and economic and in use in coming years. They should be able to stand alone and not require subsidies to be effective. These are being developed privately to meet a big gap in the power storage market. I do have faith that some of the technologies will meet this gap. In Australia we have seen some breakthrough technology in lithium sulphur batteries which have, it is claimed, to have four times the capacity of lithium ion batteries. I hope they can be developed into a commercially successful industry here in Australia. I don't recall ever mentioning a 'direct action' approach in any of my posts, let alone advocating for it. Perhaps you could point me towards a post where you have gained this impression??

Once a technology proves effective and economic then the uptake will pay for the development costs. If I use the example of mobile telephones, we didn't need to tax landline telephones to pay for the new technology. The early mobile devices were clunky of single use to send and receive calls. Now we can use them for emails, paying bills, finding out how to get to locations and multiple other uses. Government had an enabling role in providing transmission infrastructure but not in the initial development of the device or applications. I think we are at a similar early stage with the new technologies for storing power. But it will happen imo.
RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7939
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

gangrenous wrote: June 26, 2020, 9:21 pm
RedRaider wrote:Tut Tut Gangers, you've lost the plot.
Isn’t it strange how I’ve lost the plot... and yet the challenging questions from others are coming for you. How very odd?

Your point of difference for my COVID analogy is irrelevant. Whether Australia can solve a problem alone or not has no impact on your disrespect of expert modelling. Nor does it change the fact that you alluded to views of deniers that there is even a problem. Et cetera
And I've just answered those questions as I see it. No problem.

You regard questioning as disrespect. You always have and always will. I regard the disparaging of an entire generation of fellow Australians with an arrogant broadbrush sweep of your imperious hand as one of the most appalling pieces of discrimination I have ever read on the Greenhouse. What gives you the right to lay into hundreds of thousands of people on the basis of their age. There are laws against that in the wider community. Go to sleep and wake up enough times and you will get there too. I hope you are fortunate enough to keep a job at a more advanced age because should you lose a job, as a number of people I know have, then you will find it almost impossible to regain employment or even to have others take a chance and re-train or upskill you. But you keep your generational 'age-hate' agenda going as I'm sure it feeds your self worth sense of superiority. People of any age group have different views on almost any subject. One thing most agree on though is that discrimination should be called out, so I'm calling you out.
RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7939
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

gangrenous wrote: June 26, 2020, 9:22 pm
RedRaider wrote: I don't know why you would think I have said we should do nothing. I had said many times in this thread that we need to meet our emission reduction targets. I have also posted a number of articles on technologies which could help us get there.
I dunno could be because the government inaction you support amounts to nothing.

How are those targets being practically met RR?
I don't know what is being planned for the future but below is some publicly available information.

Renewable energy targets, funding and investments
The Australian Government supports the following measures:

The Renewable Energy Target (RET) is a scheme designed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in the electricity sector and encourage the additional generation of electricity from sustainable and renewable sources. It is helping to transform Australia’s electricity generation mix to cleaner and more diverse sources, and supporting growth and employment in the renewable energy sector by providing a financial incentive for investment in new renewable energy projects.

With the help of the RET, as at 30 April 2020 Australian households have installed more than 2.4 million solar PV systems and 1.23 million solar water heater and air source heat pump systems.
The $5 million Solar Communities program provided funding for 385 community groups and selected regions across Australia to install rooftop solar PV panels, solar hot water and solar‑connected battery systems. It supported local responses to climate change, delivering lower electricity costs for community organisations.

The CEFC has $10 billion in capital to provide debt and equity financing to promote investment in clean energy technologies. A portion of this finance has been used to establish the following funds:

The $1 billion Sustainable Cities Investment Program supports clean energy and energy efficient technology solutions in cities and the built environment.
The $1 billion Reef Funding Program for clean energy projects and businesses that support delivery of the government's Reef 2050 plan.
The $200 million Clean Energy Innovation Fund to support early stage and emerging clean energy technologies. The Clean Energy Innovation Fund is co‑managed by ARENA and the CEFC. The Fund draws on ARENA’s experience in the renewable energy sector, and its technical expertise in assessing these projects. This complements the CEFC and its financial investment expertise.
The government is strengthening the investment mandate of the CEFC by directing it to increase its focus on the technologies and financial products that support reliability and security of electricity supply, as well as the development of a market for firming intermittent sources of renewable energy generation.
ARENA’s purpose is to improve the competitiveness of renewable energy technologies and increase the supply of renewable energy in Australia. As at 30 June 2019, ARENA had committed approximately $1.44 billion.

Up to $110 million will be made available to accelerate and secure the delivery of a new solar thermal power generation facility in Port Augusta, South Australia, if required. This investment could add to other financing options that may be available through ARENA and the CEFC through a competitive process.

More information
Renewable Energy Measures Australian Government

Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) Australian Government

Clean Energy Finance Corp (CEFC) Australian Government

Renewable Energy Target Australian Government

Low Emissions Technology Roadmap CSIRO

Australia’s National Hydrogen Strategy Australian Government

Blueprint for the Future – Final Report
User avatar
Seiffert82
Mal Meninga
Posts: 23515
Joined: March 17, 2007, 12:24 pm
Favourite Player: Bay56

Re: Climate change

Post by Seiffert82 »

greeneyed wrote: June 26, 2020, 9:39 am
gergreg wrote: June 26, 2020, 7:33 am Any time Australia tries to push the big emitters to change their ways they turn to Australia and just say 'you guys aren't taking it seriously, why should we listen to you?'. Australia needs to work to a position where we have the moral high ground to not only talk the talk, but walk the walk.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Yep. We won’t achieve our targets without a carbon price. All we’re doing is spending taxpayer dollars on things that will be ineffective in achieving the targets. We’re the great pretenders right now, and we use the inaction of less developed countries as an excuse.

What the two cases of carbon pollution and a pandemic highlight is that there are different public policy choices available for governments in responding.

In the case of a pandemic, there is no market based solution that could be used to contain coronavirus. There have to be regulations to stop the activity that spreads the virus. Those regulations are very damaging to the economy, as we’ve seen. You can spend money on new technologies to try and stop the virus in future... find a vaccine. But the technology isn’t available now. You have to act immediately as its causing death right now, it’s potentially going to swamp your public health system right now. Local action can be effective in containing the pandemic locally. But if other governments don’t take effective steps, we still have a world wide pandemic. We need united action across the world to deal with it.

Climate change is a problem where public policy makers have more options... and ones that are much less costly to economic activity and growth. We can just ban activities that produce carbon emissions... eg we could ban certain sorts of light bulbs or we could ban concrete. But we know that’s the bluntest instrument and most costly for economic efficiency and growth. We can spend taxpayer dollars on building solar or wind farms and/or mandate these more expensive forms of power be used. We can spend taxpayer dollars on developing new technologies... and wait and hope. All of that involves governments picking winners. And they're not good at picking winners. The impacts on emissions are likely to be very uncertain. Or we could use a market based solution which finds the least cost solutions automatically... and gives certainty on the achievement of carbon emissions.

Carbon pollution isn’t killing anyone right now... insidiously perhaps. But we can find all sorts of excuses to not act now... even though the science tells us need to act now, because the consequences for our weather in the future are coming. Again, we need united action across the world to deal with it. But what Australia is doing at the moment is just finding excuses. We’re not even doing “our bit” locally.
Well put.

In pacing ourselves with the other laggard countries, we are also missing out on leading the world in developing alternate technologies.

The government's allergic reaction to carbon pricing is as short-sighted as it's previous response to the mining and resources rent tax. They are obsessed with reducing tax and not putting upwards pressure on electricity and fuel bills of struggling "mum and dads". It's bordering on insane as the country gets further and further behind the world leaders in this space.

So many lost opportunities to secure the future economic prosperity of our country for the purpose of winning votes. It's the price we all pay for living in a democracy I guess. :lol: The vast majority of people live for the here and now.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11347
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

RedRaider wrote: Once a technology proves effective and economic then the uptake will pay for the development costs. If I use the example of mobile telephones, we didn't need to tax landline telephones to pay for the new technology. The early mobile devices were clunky of single use to send and receive calls. Now we can use them for emails, paying bills, finding out how to get to locations and multiple other uses. Government had an enabling role in providing transmission infrastructure but not in the initial development of the device or applications. I think we are at a similar early stage with the new technologies for storing power. But it will happen imo.
The technology will get there one day. But why on earth wouldn’t you put in place systems to get you there faster when you have a time critical catastrophe on your hands?

The problem with your analogy is that the mobile phone brought new utility. Energy solutions are replacing a utility people already have, and will initially have huge cost outlays due to being new technology and requiring huge infrastructure replacement costs. There is reduced motivation for people to move to clean energy solutions for function they already have unless it is cheaper. Why not help tip that price point to speed uptake and development?
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11347
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

RedRaider wrote: June 27, 2020, 2:01 am And I've just answered those questions as I see it. No problem.
You've responded to questions. I haven't seen you answer one yet.
RedRaider wrote: June 27, 2020, 2:01 am You regard questioning as disrespect. You always have and always will.
Pure nonsense.
RedRaider wrote: June 27, 2020, 2:01 am I regard the disparaging of an entire generation of fellow Australians with an arrogant broadbrush sweep of your imperious hand as one of the most appalling pieces of discrimination I have ever read on the Greenhouse.
Ha! Good one. Have you noticed I haven't spoken to other Boomers like this? Hint - it's because of what you say.

Do you disagree that more Boomers don't believe in climate change or that further action should be taken?
RedRaider wrote: June 27, 2020, 2:01 am What gives you the right to lay into hundreds of thousands of people on the basis of their age. There are laws against that in the wider community. Go to sleep and wake up enough times and you will get there too. I hope you are fortunate enough to keep a job at a more advanced age because should you lose a job, as a number of people I know have, then you will find it almost impossible to regain employment or even to have others take a chance and re-train or upskill you. But you keep your generational 'age-hate' agenda going as I'm sure it feeds your self worth sense of superiority. People of any age group have different views on almost any subject. One thing most agree on though is that discrimination should be called out, so I'm calling you out.
I'm not laying into all Boomers, just as someone who says Australia has a domestic violence problem is not laying into me.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11347
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

RedRaider wrote: June 27, 2020, 2:21 am
I don't know what is being planned for the future but below is some publicly available information.

Renewable energy targets, funding and investments
The Australian Government supports the following measures:

The Renewable Energy Target (RET) is a scheme designed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in the electricity sector and encourage the additional generation of electricity from sustainable and renewable sources. It is helping to transform Australia’s electricity generation mix to cleaner and more diverse sources, and supporting growth and employment in the renewable energy sector by providing a financial incentive for investment in new renewable energy projects.

With the help of the RET, as at 30 April 2020 Australian households have installed more than 2.4 million solar PV systems and 1.23 million solar water heater and air source heat pump systems.
The $5 million Solar Communities program provided funding for 385 community groups and selected regions across Australia to install rooftop solar PV panels, solar hot water and solar‑connected battery systems. It supported local responses to climate change, delivering lower electricity costs for community organisations.

The CEFC has $10 billion in capital to provide debt and equity financing to promote investment in clean energy technologies. A portion of this finance has been used to establish the following funds:

The $1 billion Sustainable Cities Investment Program supports clean energy and energy efficient technology solutions in cities and the built environment.
The $1 billion Reef Funding Program for clean energy projects and businesses that support delivery of the government's Reef 2050 plan.
The $200 million Clean Energy Innovation Fund to support early stage and emerging clean energy technologies. The Clean Energy Innovation Fund is co‑managed by ARENA and the CEFC. The Fund draws on ARENA’s experience in the renewable energy sector, and its technical expertise in assessing these projects. This complements the CEFC and its financial investment expertise.
The government is strengthening the investment mandate of the CEFC by directing it to increase its focus on the technologies and financial products that support reliability and security of electricity supply, as well as the development of a market for firming intermittent sources of renewable energy generation.
ARENA’s purpose is to improve the competitiveness of renewable energy technologies and increase the supply of renewable energy in Australia. As at 30 June 2019, ARENA had committed approximately $1.44 billion.

Up to $110 million will be made available to accelerate and secure the delivery of a new solar thermal power generation facility in Port Augusta, South Australia, if required. This investment could add to other financing options that may be available through ARENA and the CEFC through a competitive process.

More information
Renewable Energy Measures Australian Government

Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) Australian Government

Clean Energy Finance Corp (CEFC) Australian Government

Renewable Energy Target Australian Government

Low Emissions Technology Roadmap CSIRO

Australia’s National Hydrogen Strategy Australian Government

Blueprint for the Future – Final Report
Big long post. Which way are emissions going again? Oh they're going up? You're right, this IS working :roll:
RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7939
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

gangrenous wrote: June 27, 2020, 8:28 am
RedRaider wrote: Once a technology proves effective and economic then the uptake will pay for the development costs. If I use the example of mobile telephones, we didn't need to tax landline telephones to pay for the new technology. The early mobile devices were clunky of single use to send and receive calls. Now we can use them for emails, paying bills, finding out how to get to locations and multiple other uses. Government had an enabling role in providing transmission infrastructure but not in the initial development of the device or applications. I think we are at a similar early stage with the new technologies for storing power. But it will happen imo.
The technology will get there one day. But why on earth wouldn’t you put in place systems to get you there faster when you have a time critical catastrophe on your hands?

The problem with your analogy is that the mobile phone brought new utility. Energy solutions are replacing a utility people already have, and will initially have huge cost outlays due to being new technology and requiring huge infrastructure replacement costs. There is reduced motivation for people to move to clean energy solutions for function they already have unless it is cheaper. Why not help tip that price point to speed uptake and development?
No one knows where the new technologies will lead us. Who would have thought the space program would have led to widespread use of items such as velcro or non stick fry pans. In a country as vast as Australia there are challenges in providing electric power that is reliable and does not rely on fossil fuel generators. It could well be a boon to some of these communities and provide services they dream of having. I heard on ABC radio this week about a family who had their home destroyed by bushfires. The power company is not replacing the power poles and wires to their home. Instead they are providing solar panels a Tesla wall battery and a generator. The people said they are happy with the solution. I thought about how many other people in remote and regional Australia could also benefit from such a solution and in particular if much longer life batteries were available to power their homes and businesses and transport and medical centers and schools .... Why stop in Australia? The technologies could be used around the world.

Although having just watched Planet of the Humans on you tube, we need to look for new materials for Solar cells etc. Maybe these new materials will come from these technologies just as, for example, velcro once did.
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 132578
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

RedRaider wrote: June 27, 2020, 1:38 am
greeneyed wrote: June 26, 2020, 7:07 pm RedRaider, the issue is that the technologies you're posting about are uneconomic, at present anyway, so they can't deliver the emission reduction targets. You are advocating, as I understand it a "direct action" approach, and reject a more market based approach. The trouble with so called direct action, is that it is costs the economy and taxpayers more... is less efficient and more damaging to the economy... and delivers uncertain emission reductions. Given the expense to taxpayers, it is unlikely that we will meet the targets, in my view anyway.
GE, I am posting about technologies which are being developed at present and will hopefully be proved successful and economic and in use in coming years. They should be able to stand alone and not require subsidies to be effective. These are being developed privately to meet a big gap in the power storage market. I do have faith that some of the technologies will meet this gap. In Australia we have seen some breakthrough technology in lithium sulphur batteries which have, it is claimed, to have four times the capacity of lithium ion batteries. I hope they can be developed into a commercially successful industry here in Australia. I don't recall ever mentioning a 'direct action' approach in any of my posts, let alone advocating for it. Perhaps you could point me towards a post where you have gained this impression??

Once a technology proves effective and economic then the uptake will pay for the development costs. If I use the example of mobile telephones, we didn't need to tax landline telephones to pay for the new technology. The early mobile devices were clunky of single use to send and receive calls. Now we can use them for emails, paying bills, finding out how to get to locations and multiple other uses. Government had an enabling role in providing transmission infrastructure but not in the initial development of the device or applications. I think we are at a similar early stage with the new technologies for storing power. But it will happen imo.
So, just to be clear, you don’t support governments taking any action to reduce carbon emissions at all? The strategy is purely for private sector technological development?
Image
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11347
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

@RedRaider And all that is of relevance to what I said how?

It’s a completely separate topic. I am all for blue sky research and the benefits associated. But that’s not how you go about solving a specific problem you have!
User avatar
gergreg
Bradley Clyde
Posts: 8576
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gergreg »

RedRaider wrote:
gergreg wrote: June 26, 2020, 7:05 pm https://www.newscientist.com/article/22 ... .%E2%80%9D

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.abc.net. ... e/10920500

Of course, not sure of the veracity of either publication.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Thanks gergreg, the second one in particular I have seen before but it is enlightening on the challenges ahead. The transport sector is a major area of interest for me and the growth in emissions will only be arrested by moving away from petrol and diesel internal combustion engines. There are other less emissions intensive fuels which could be used such as compressed natural gas or liquid natural gas and in particular if blended with hydrogen will greatly reduce the levels of emissions. Plug in Hybrid Electric vehicles which use a small internal combustion engine to generate electric power to for an electric motor are also a useful technology in reducing emissions on the way to full electric vehicles. The posts I have made about 'million mile' batteries are a technology which may well have not only long life uses in passenger vehicles and homes but also for powering heavy transport.

The first of the links had a huge headline but the last paragraph was a massive disclaimer.
I really don't know how to respond. As far as I can tell a large part of your argument is based on Australia doing the absolute minimum possible on climate change because other countries are worse, and by minimum it simply means we meet our Paris Agreement targets - which we are tracking not to achieve and the countries which you claim are worse are actually tracking to meet their Paris Agreement targets quicker than required and better than Australia. Does that not change your thinking on this subject?

Like I said, I honestly don't know how to respond.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017
RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7939
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

gangrenous wrote: June 27, 2020, 9:14 am
RedRaider wrote: June 27, 2020, 2:01 am And I've just answered those questions as I see it. No problem.
You've responded to questions. I haven't seen you answer one yet.
That may well be due to your poor comprehension skills
RedRaider wrote: June 27, 2020, 2:01 am You regard questioning as disrespect. You always have and always will.
Pure nonsense.
You regard any questioning as disparaging. Particularly of any modelling found to be inaccurate. This is not to say all scientists have made an error only the ones responsible for the inaccurate conclusions. Notice no broadsweep of an entire profession from me.
RedRaider wrote: June 27, 2020, 2:01 am I regard the disparaging of an entire generation of fellow Australians with an arrogant broadbrush sweep of your imperious hand as one of the most appalling pieces of discrimination I have ever read on the Greenhouse.
Ha! Good one. Have you noticed I haven't spoken to other Boomers like this? Hint - it's because of what you say.

Bull. What does 'archetypal boomer' mean other than a broad put down of an entire generation which is your stated view

Do you disagree that more Boomers don't believe in climate change or that further action should be taken?
Yes I do disagree. This gets to your comprehension skills or lack there of. I have consistently said we should meet our Paris Agreement targets. Everyone wants an Environment as clean as possible. More obviously needs to be done, but let me give you an anecdote from my child hood. Initially there were bathes along the Georges River in Sydney close to where I lived at the time. They were solid iron structures to keep the sharks out. Into the 1960s people were first discouraged from swimming in the river and then the bathes were removed due to pollution health concerns. Over time action was taken to stop industry and some Councils from dumping waste into the river. That was action from the generation you disparage. The sharks returned but there was no longer the appetite to rebuild bathes for people to immerse themselves in salt water. People will draw different lines as to the pace of change but I think the majority of people are in support of a cleaner environment regardless of generation.
RedRaider wrote: June 27, 2020, 2:01 am What gives you the right to lay into hundreds of thousands of people on the basis of their age. There are laws against that in the wider community. Go to sleep and wake up enough times and you will get there too. I hope you are fortunate enough to keep a job at a more advanced age because should you lose a job, as a number of people I know have, then you will find it almost impossible to regain employment or even to have others take a chance and re-train or upskill you. But you keep your generational 'age-hate' agenda going as I'm sure it feeds your self worth sense of superiority. People of any age group have different views on almost any subject. One thing most agree on though is that discrimination should be called out, so I'm calling you out.
I'm not laying into all Boomers, just as someone who says Australia has a domestic violence problem is not laying into me.
Liar Liar pants on fire, what exactly was meant then by your 'archetypal boomer' comment? You were bagging an entire generation. Don't you even have the guts to acknowledge what you have said let alone apologize for it. Earlier this year I completed a Mental Health First Aid course. I live in regional NSW. There have been so many farmers in despair who have taken their lives due to the drought making their farms uneconomic in the short term. For generations their families had farmed the land and they see themselves as failures. Many had not heard of the Indian Ocean Dipole. The impact on their families and communities is heart breaking. One of the take outs of the Mental Health First Aid course was that there is never a bad time to say RUOK and bloody well listen to the answer. It can be a life saver. These are part of the generation you airily dismiss as ' archetypal boomer'
Last edited by RedRaider on June 27, 2020, 11:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11347
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

Tut tut Gergreg, you’ve clearly lost the plot!

Occam’s razor. The simplest answer is everyone else is wrong and Red Raider is a beacon of knowledge on a topic far from his expertise.
Post Reply