.0019% - Page 4

Stefan · 02-12-2015, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vztrt

Remove the subsidies (4.5b) from Coal and see how cheap coal is. Also the massive price rises in power all came from infrastructure costs....that were later found to be over zealous.

More BS by the lefties.

Tax Deductions for the cost of exploration are labeled "subsidies" by some left wing ABC journo.

Any business deducts set up cost from their ultimate income, that is not a subsidy.

Don't try and tell me renewable energy is not driving up power prices.

vztrt · 02-12-2015, 12:30 PM

Ok believe what horse muck you want.

SpoolMan · 02-12-2015, 12:50 PM

Renewable energy options you have to look to those who gone down the path, there may be something we can learn.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...312-story.html

Harrison · 02-12-2015, 01:15 PM

How can free energy from the sun possibly drive up power costs ?

I mean in all honestly, not from a greedy, multinational, consumers as eternal cash cows, make up anything that sounds good perspective.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/abbo...s-revamp-83883

"He noted that utilities, while claiming to like solar, “would still dearly like to strangle rooftop solar if they could.” Ferron said the CPUC – and by inference other regulators – would come under pressure to “protect the interest of the utilities over those of consumers and potential self-generators, all in the name of addressing exaggerated concerns about grid stability, cost and fairness.”

That is exactly what has been happening in Australia, where solar is couched in terms of the “death spiral” and its potential impact on non-solar users, rather than the benefits it can bring to consumers and the grid as a whole, as the heatwave underlined last week."

.

Stefan · 02-12-2015, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harrison

How can free energy from the sun possibly drive up power costs ?

.

My five year old saw me at the atm pull out 2 fifties. He asked if he could pull out 2 fries as well, they are, after all free.

Your comment reminds me of that.

Please show me free solar panels...i can use them on my roof. Maybe you can install them for free to.

**supershifty** · 02-12-2015, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefan

More BS by the lefties.

Tax Deductions for the cost of exploration are labeled "subsidies" by some left wing ABC journo.

Any business deducts set up cost from their ultimate income, that is not a subsidy.

Don't try and tell me renewable energy is not driving up power prices.

I somewhat agree with Stefan.

We were all encouraged to fit low wattage fluoro lights and buy energy efficient electric/gas/water appliances, and go solar - so to conserve energy. And so we did, made perfect sense.

Guess what happened as a result of many of us "consumers" not consuming as much of the energy product/s of the greedy electricity/gas/water peddling bastards - they started jacking the price of their product.

Touche!

**GasoLane** · 02-12-2015, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by supershifty

I somewhat agree with Stefan.

We were all encouraged to fit low wattage fluoro lights and buy energy efficient electric/gas/water appliances, and go solar - so to conserve energy. And so we did, made perfect sense.

Guess what happened as a result of many of us "consumers" not consuming as much of the energy product/s of the greedy electricity/gas/water peddling bastards - they started jacking the price of their product.

Touche!

There is a member on here (In Vic) who had solar panels fitted and notified his power company.

Seems he got 8c per kilawatjoulewhatever in rebate.
Then his Electricity bill went up by the same amount !!

OCTANEBOSS · 02-12-2015, 04:03 PM

Getting costly to be a bit green now days

Learnt yesterday that the WA govco ( synergy ) wants to double the daily supply charge (only) to people who have PV connected solar systems because they are not paying the true cost of supply apparently. That's another $ 175.00 per year extra on my bills, the 11k of solar system + 1k for new meter and feed in wiring probably wont be ahead after 10 years. The cheapest bill I have had is $80.40 for 2 months(last bill) and about $125.00 in the winter. Have imported 2443 KW since Feb and exported 3092 KW in which I believe is sold off to people who want to use green power at a much higher price. I have received $221.00 credit since inception @ 7.135 cents a KW. That dosent include the 2k off led down lights that went in as well.

The green feeling is starting to go brown for me. The science behind all this climate change **** is the science of taxation, its a new and developing industry that has the potential to employ millions but ultimately tax every aspect of any human being that walks the earth. (Socialism at its best imo).The suns affect on our earth rarely gets much of a mention from the scientists concerned about global warming as there is not anyway of controlling it so it doesn't make senses to pump money into a exercise of no return.

The biggest problem facing mankind is over population & is likely to contribute to more greenhouse gas long term than anything else but how will the emperors tackle that one, flood, famine, disease or the ever popular genocide.

Anyway slip slop slap, nothing much will change anytime soon except price increases I think

Cheers

SpoolMan · 02-12-2015, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GasOLane

There is a member on here (In Vic) who had solar panels fitted and notified his power company.

Seems he got 8c per kilawatjoulewhatever in rebate.
Then his Electricity bill went up by the same amount !!

The rebate system has gone down so much compared to what was on offer many years ago.
My mother spend $6500 on solar panels, she did this for the purpose of reducing daily living costs.
Its bad investment saves $320 a year, it will take 20 years to see a return at todays current prices, when your 70yo she would have been better off leaving the money in a savings account..

snowcone · 02-12-2015, 04:39 PM

I posted on this forum years ago that you would pay more for power.

I worked for the electricity Commission of NSW for 18 years and it generated cheap power using the latest technology for coal fired thermal pwer stations.
In fact NSW was a world leader in this technology and we exported our knowledge to other countries.

The problems started to occur when the State Governments at the time and subsequent ones saw the power industry as a cash cow and started milking off the profits without leaving any money in the kitty for the future expansion of transmission lines or power stations.
They bled the industry dry and then had a couple of scares when there were blackouts and they had no spare power in the grid to top it up. In the past NSW had sold power to Vic but now it was the reverse.

To try and avoid the enormous cost of a new power station, and also being scared of the greens if they even tried to build one, they started new campaigns to try and convince everyone to save electricity. They used "environmental reasons" by labeling coal fired power stations as "dirty" to scare the public into cutting back on their energy usage, not for these so called environmental reasons, but because they did not want to put up the funds for a new power station which was becoming increasingly necessary at the predicted growth of the state. But the public initially didn't want to cut back and they didn't want solar cells on their roofs so the government started putting the prices up to force usage down.

This started to work but then created another problem. The power was sold to consumers through county councils and all of a sudden their operating capital was reducing rapidly because people weren't using as much electricity. To overcome this they not only raised the cost per watt they also added or increased the "service charge". this meant that even if you turned your meter off and didn't use a single watt of power, you would still get a bill for power anyway. The point is, the more you don't use, the more you will pay. Theoreticaly, if an energy provider has a budget of $1B and this year everyone cuts their usage down by 50% and they only receive $500M, the first thing they will do is raise their charges to try and get that $500M back.

The truth is that in NSW good quality thermal coal is abundant and cheap and there is no reason for the costs we are paying. The infrastructure is there and the power stations still have plenty of life in them. Mt Piper near Lithgow was actually constructed to be twice as big as it is now. All the foundations were poured for it to be mirrored in the future but the state government won't commit any funds towards it as it is happy to reap in the profits by selling off the infrastructure and blowing the cash elsewhere.

End of rant

**supershifty** · 02-12-2015, 04:44 PM

^^^^ Well said snowcone, well said!

Cheers!

OCTANEBOSS · 02-12-2015, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpoolMan

The rebate system has gone down so much compared to what was on offer many years ago.
.

Not to much incentive in trying to reduce your apparent carbon footprint other than feeling good about it is starting to seem.
You waste or use excess scheme water you pay extra fair enough, produce your own power, give a little back and possibly reduce greenhouse gases by using PV solar you pay extra WTF. Seems ironic the clown running synergy came out with that statement while our new silver spooned PM and the other cronies where flying back to there countries in there private jets from the Paris climate talks, who says solar doesn't subsidize industries, I didnt go solar to save the planet, just to save a bit of cash long term as 1 kwh has nearly doubled since 2007 death & taxes

Stefan · 03-12-2015, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0son

And we're spending it badly...

This guy gets it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXXNGjeNQTo

Finished watching this last night.

The last scene had me laughing out loud...

Franco Cozzo · 03-12-2015, 11:22 AM

I like how there are cries about 'socialism' in this thread, but then people cry about baby formula and not being able to get any is unfair because other people are buying it in bulk and how its not fair, essentially having a teary about capitalism.

What do you want? You can't have it both ways.

We seem to be stuck going around in circles with our solution to reducing our carbon foot print, we have these issues:

Coal:

Pros:

Cheap
Already exists
Lots of coal in Australia

Cons:

Unfortunately is bad for ye olde environment, kills whales and clubs baby seals, we still use crappy brown coal in Victoria

Nuclear:

Pros:

Cleaner than oil/gas/coal power generation for c02 emissions
Lots of uranium in Australia to take advantage of

Cons:

Political issue as no one wants nuclear power due to problems from 30+ years ago

Nuclear waste

Wind Turbines:

Pros:

Clean energy production

Looks cool

Cons:

People get their knickers in a knot, a bunch of people get the small violins playing because they don't like the look of them, or it will 'devalue' property for them being near by.

Its not windy all day every day.

Apparently kills birds.

Political issue - The Victorian Blue team banned them from being used in the Macedon Ranges due to tears from a lobby group, even though its one of the best regions to use them in.

Solar:

Pros:

Generate power from the sun, we got plenty of sun!

Cons:

You get an overcast day and you cripple your power generation

Expensive to buy a decent size system

Scare campaign from power companies about everyone else subsidising people with solar panels

So, I put forward the following idea:

We keep driving Volkswagen diesels, we keep burning brown coal cause its cheap, we can't seem to come up with a solution because it ends up in some political deadlock, blaming greenies, blaming 'socialism', blaming the 'system', not wanting to spend money for a solution, so we just keep pointing fingers and its a global problem, why should we make the first move, why should we have to change when you caused the problem blah blah blah.

If thats all too hard then we're just going to have to remove 85% of the population from the planet, seems like thats an easier and more accepted solution than spending tax payer money

Who volunteers to be the one to go?

*Disclaimer: may be sarcasm

OCTANEBOSS · 03-12-2015, 12:36 PM

Lets go the lot Big Damo we going to need all the power we can get

Check this out http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

superyob · 03-12-2015, 12:58 PM

Big Damo, your pool of ideas was impressive in quantity. I think a transition to nuclear would probably be the most viable alternative. We can then fire off the nuclear waste into space, the biggest junkyard of all.

El Presidente Big D, if I can dream it, you can make it happen! Maybe. If you can tear yourself away from watching movies featuring women who can't afford any clothes...

We're not going to get anything done, are we...

Trump · 03-12-2015, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Damo

If thats all too hard then we're just going to have to remove 85% of the population from the planet, seems like thats an easier and more accepted solution than spending tax payer money

Who volunteers to be the one to go?

*Disclaimer: may be sarcasm

May be sarcasm Damo, but there are extremely well funded groups that are pushing for just that.

Franco Cozzo · 03-12-2015, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superyob

Big Damo, your pool of ideas was impressive in quantity. I think a transition to nuclear would probably be the most viable alternative. We can then fire off the nuclear waste into space, the biggest junkyard of all.

El Presidente Big D, if I can dream it, you can make it happen! Maybe. If you can tear yourself away from watching movies featuring women who can't afford any clothes...

We're not going to get anything done, are we...

I don't get much time for watching the women who can't afford any clothes anymore because I'm at work 6 days a week, and when I'm not at work im at home doing more work I didn't have time to do at work

2011G6E · 03-12-2015, 10:40 PM

There's worse to come...

One of the things they want us to agree to is a $100 BILLION fund paid into by all western developed nations, which is indexed to rise each year to do...something...not sure what yet. Global warming, blah blah, pay up.

Then there's the virtual "insurance scheme" whereby any natural disaster in the world which can be blamed on global warming (and let's face it, when someone stubs their toe these days it's blamed on global warming), means that developed countries all have to shell out some unknown billions of dollars to "fix it". It's our fault you know...yours in particular because you left a light on in a room when no one was in there.

Surely...surely...people have to start seeing it's just one massive money making scam for someone somewhere. Surely.

Then there are the important key note speakers at the Paris conferance...such as the esteemed Robert Mugabe, who is lecturing us evil westerners about how nasty we are.
Pot...kettle...and he's getting applause for it!! That's the standard of person the global warmists like to have speaking for them???

Then there was the promise a a warming globe and flooded Pacific islands such as Tuvalu, which we were told would be gone by just after the year 2000, with massive climate migration from those countries. Also the flooding of low lying coastal estates along the Queensland coast. Last time I looked, they were fine.

Earths climate changes...it has always changed. The fact is that the planet is normally much hotter or much colder than we see today, and our entire 10,000 years of civilization has arisen during one brief unseasonably temperate period in Earths history. Lucky us. Doesn't mean we'll stay lucky though.

I'm sure more taxes will fix everything...

If we haven't got a pair to go nuclear, then coal is the only answer for a modern industrialised society which needs on-demand, base load, 24/7/365 power generation on a large scale.
Wind and solar are pipe dreams on anything but a small scale. Not to mention they're hardly "green and clean"...go look up the horrifying effects of mining all the materials needed to make these "green" energy sources. But they're mostly in remote parts of the world surrounded by brown or yellow people...who cares, right?
Some people actually say we could "go fully solar" because the sun shines here. Really? Using the absolute best of solar technology, at 100% efficiency, it was stated a while ago that to power Sydney would require something like 3500 square kilometers to be covered by solar cells (and then only in daylight hours). And it couldn't be "out in the desert"...transmission losses means it would have to be close to the city. Who volunteers to cover thousand of square kilometers of countryside in the things?

Wind has it's own terrible problems...wind farms overseas are actually getting subsidies to fit massive diesel generators to supply power to the grid when there's no wind and they can't make thier quotas...I'll just let that sink in for a moment...
Not to mention yes, they do kill birds on a massive scale, and health effects of living near them are starting to look a bit suspicious.

There's no easy answers.
Oh wait, yes there is...we sit on staggeringly massive amounts of coal. "Virtually inexhaustible" was one descriptive. That, or uranium. Your pick.

Trump · 03-12-2015, 10:51 PM

All part of getting rid of the middle class 2011G6E...

superyob · 03-12-2015, 11:30 PM

2011G6E, I tip my top hat to you sir, albeit an imaginary one...

Franco Cozzo · 03-12-2015, 11:46 PM

I'd be down for a Nuclear power plant but the government who tries would need to have a significant majority to force it through parliament and then not have issues with people within their own party.

This is the problem with democracy, in China with their one government party they can actually get **** done while we all stand around debating about how we can't build our power plant because its going to displace the one lesbian white bellied yellow crested black faced lizzard cockroach bee caterpillar living in that dead tree.

Well grab your damn fancy lizzard cockroach bee caterpillar and chuck it in the Zoo then we might actually be able to see it to know what it is.

zilo · 03-12-2015, 11:46 PM

@2011G6E....Not surprising that I disagree with every single point you make...

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

There's worse to come...

One of the things they want us to agree to is a $100 BILLION fund paid into by all western developed nations, which is indexed to rise each year to do...something...not sure what yet. Global warming, blah blah, pay up.

First I've heard of it...please explain what source you draw on to make that statement?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Then there's the virtual "insurance scheme" whereby any natural disaster in the world which can be blamed on global warming (and let's face it, when someone stubs their toe these days it's blamed on global warming), means that developed countries all have to shell out some unknown billions of dollars to "fix it". It's our fault you know...yours in particular because you left a light on in a room when no one was in there.

Please explain what virtual insurance scheme you refer to?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Surely...surely...people have to start seeing it's just one massive money making scam for someone somewhere. Surely.

So...you are claiming climate change is just another global conspiracy ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Then there are the important key note speakers at the Paris conference...such as the esteemed Robert Mugabe, who is lecturing us evil westerners about how nasty we are.
Pot...kettle...and he's getting applause for it!! That's the standard of person the global warmists like to have speaking for them???

Yeah...we just invade countries for their natural resources..especially middle east oil...we send in drones that kill thousands of people...but that's okay cause we did it by remote control.

God is on our side..ask george dubba you junior.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Then there was the promise a a warming globe and flooded Pacific islands such as Tuvalu, which we were told would be gone by just after the year 2000, with massive climate migration from those countries. Also the flooding of low lying coastal estates along the Queensland coast. Last time I looked, they were fine.

Please post the information specifying the exact date/time of those predictions?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Earths climate changes...it has always changed. The fact is that the planet is normally much hotter or much colder than we see today, and our entire 10,000 years of civilization has arisen during one brief unseasonably temperate period in Earths history. Lucky us. Doesn't mean we'll stay lucky though.

So you are now a more credible climate change expert ...guess we will have to accept those facts and keep going on our merry way....

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

If we haven't got a pair to go nuclear, then coal is the only answer for a modern industrialised society which needs on-demand, base load, 24/7/365 power generation on a large scale.

Sorry mate...you are ill informed.

I live completely off the grid, clothes dryers, toasters, microwaves you name it it runs 24/7 at my place.

Batteries and solar have come a long way since the 70's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Wind and solar are pipe dreams on anything but a small scale. Not to mention they're hardly "green and clean"...go look up the horrifying effects of mining all the materials needed to make these "green" energy sources. But they're mostly in remote parts of the world surrounded by brown or yellow people...who cares, right?

There are a million homes with rooftop solar...most have almost everything needed to go off grid but the government is worried that too many will go off grid with off peak battery backup...this will make large utility scale power generation unviable....and since the state still controls the coal mines that supply power stations this is a potential disruption to the cash cow.

The Tesla power wall is a game changer...watch out for it...its a tsunami on the profits of power companies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Some people actually say we could "go fully solar" because the sun shines here. Really? Using the absolute best of solar technology, at 100% efficiency, it was stated a while ago that to power Sydney would require something like 3500 square kilometers to be covered by solar cells (and then only in daylight hours). And it couldn't be "out in the desert"...transmission losses means it would have to be close to the city. Who volunteers to cover thousand of square kilometers of countryside in the things?

Distributed solar is the answer, your outlook is simplistic at best...and pessimistically ill informed at worst.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Wind has it's own terrible problems...wind farms overseas are actually getting subsidies to fit massive diesel generators to supply power to the grid when there's no wind and they can't make thier quotas...I'll just let that sink in for a moment...

You have selectively plucked a situation without disclosing all the facts.
Those wind turbines are driven by diesel to stop them from iceing up in calm conditions...making them difficult to restart.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Not to mention yes, they do kill birds on a massive scale, and health effects of living near them are starting to look a bit suspicious.

Those health effects have been proven to be unsubstantiated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

There's no easy answers.
Oh wait, yes there is...we sit on staggeringly massive amounts of coal. "Virtually inexhaustible" was one descriptive. That, or uranium. Your pick.

I pick solar.

superyob · 03-12-2015, 11:57 PM

I am fairly confident that Australian ingenuity is capable of surpassing the Chernobyl era of nuclear operation but I am a bit concerned about storage of the waste...

2011G6E · 04-12-2015, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superyob

I am fairly confident that Australian ingenuity is capable of surpassing the Chernobyl era of nuclear operation but I am a bit concerned about storage of the waste...

Easy. It's a "problem" that was solved decades ago. Glassification of the waste...sealing it mixed in with a ceramic...means it doesn't leach out into water tables or surrounding soils.
Not to mention the amount of waste. Green groups would seem to imply a nuclear power station produces millions of tonnes, truckload after truckload of waste every year that piles up in mountains of highly radioactive death!!!!!

The truth is that a modern large nuclear power station produces about a bucketfull of high level waste every year. Australia is also in a perfect position to dispose of the small amount produced each year...we have endless wastelands of desert in geologically stable ancient land where it can be safely, securely, and easily stored. It's not a massive undertaking.

Chernobyl? Fifty year old badly maintained technology run by drunks. Not to mention this horrifying accident, the worst nuclear accident in history, killed a grand total of...about 59 people. "Wait, wasn't it hundreds of thousands???"...no, it wasn't. Yes, many people had to have iodine treatment to ensure they didn't end up with thyroid conditions, but it was greatly exaggerated by anti-nuke activists.
Fukushima? That's what happens when smart people have a brain freeze for a while and decide to build...against safety recommendations...a plant right by the sea in an area prone to earthquakes and above predicted tsunami surges.
Three Mile Island? Not worth worrying about. The amount of radioactive gas released meant that people very close to the plant got about as much radiation as a chest x-ray.
Keep in mind also that living near a coal fired power station releases more radioactive dust in the form of fly ash every year than living near a nuclear plant if they don't maintain the filters...not a problem in Australia, but in poorer areas with old dirty plants it can be.

We need nuclear power for a secure energy future. Australia has the largest reserves of uranium in the world, and while we steadfastly refuse to use it for power, we have no problem shipping it off overseas to other countries.
Germany is in the grip of green parliamentary power, and had sworn to close down those nasty nuclear plants. Yay!! Now they're quietly planning on massively increasing their coal use to make up the shortfall when they discovered that a few wind turbines won't replace capacity needed by the economic and industrial powerhouse that is 21st century Germany.
France gets 80% of it's power from nuclear energy...what will the do if they shut that down? Coal, anyone?

China and India...where do I start? China has been held up as a shining example of green power policy, seen as a "leader" at the Paris conference. Yet they openly admitted days before the Paris shindig that they have been under-reporting...well let's call it what it is, "lying"...about their coal use for energy...by 600 million tonnes per year.
India has hundreds of millions of people who want to be lifted up out of poverty, and the government knows that means energy, and lots of it. Coal fired energy to be precise. China and India are going to be increasing their emissions massively for at least the next twenty years or so before even considering maybe kind of doing something about emissions levels. Yet again we are told how great they are and that we should restrict ourselves.

Then again, this is the mentality we're dealing with...keep in mind the massive number of deaths and health issues in the third world from cooking fires and inside cookers around the world, which could easily be fixed with easy access to coal fired power which any country can build...except green groups in comfy first world countries have convinced investor groups to refuse to give funds to developing nations to build such things now, dooming people to poverty and crap like this "green solution!!!"...
https://www.facebook.com/bbcworldser...2146571137801/
That's an interesting idea...but "green"? And a "solution to global warming"? Watch what they're doing to produce the power...and I'll let you work out the fatal flaw in the logic...

That's the green position...to hell with the poor, force them to try and build useless, expensive, intermittent solar and wind power which will do nothing to modernise their countries, and ignore the real big polluters while outright lying about the "dangers" of nuclear power and refusing people access to cheap energy.

OCTANEBOSS · 04-12-2015, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Glassification of the waste...sealing it mixed in with a ceramic...means it doesn't leach out into water tables or surrounding soils.

We use this process at the mine I work at, specialists come in and process arsenic that is a by product of gold processing. We take it underground after its been treated and tested for safety and then it stored in a adequate old drive away from the mining and encapsulated in paste fill (tailings and cement from plant above ) gravity feed though piping & drill holes to create a solid block around it. Works well never had any issues of contamination either contrary to what same of the locals believe. As for arsenic, its found in a lot of sulphides around the goldfields and other places. All that for rare metal but it pays the bills

snowcone · 04-12-2015, 03:29 PM

There is no doubt that nuclear is the way to go in the future.
Solar and wind farms would be lucky to be able to power the poker machines at Rooty Hill RSL.
Problem is we have 2 major parties that are both **** scared of upsetting the hairy unwashed.
Apart from a coup and a dismissal of the Westminster system of parliament, which I would gladly get involved with, we are destined to become an overpriced and under served country with enormous resources that the rest of the world will be using to grow ahead of us.

Trump · 04-12-2015, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snowcone

Apart from a coup and a dismissal of the Westminster system of parliament, which I would gladly get involved with, we are destined to become an overpriced and under served country with enormous resources that the rest of the world will be using to grow ahead of us.

Snowcone, common sense would say you're right. However the system and its bureaucrats would construe simply saying that a treasonous act.

2011G6E · 04-12-2015, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snowcone

we are destined to become an overpriced and under served country with enormous resources that the rest of the world will be using to grow ahead of us.

We have just seen that in Paris...The developed world (ie: us) is agreeing to some ludicrous restrictions on our industry and emissions, some of it totally unachievable if we want to keep improving ourselves and employing people. That bell-end Bill Shorten was tweeting about how he had a plan for ZERO pollution by 2050.
So...that would mean no industry, no electricity (look up how polluting solar cells and wind turbines are to produce), no houses, no jobs, no cars, no planes, no fires...basically back to the caves as hunter-gatherers.
You first, Bill...

But back to Paris, the west is being hammered to restrict ourselves and cut back, China and India get away with being allowed to lie about coal use figures and increase their emissions until at least 2030 before they say they will do anything.

Why? It's either "the greatest danger to the world ever", or it isn't. If it IS, then everyone, developed or not, has to cut back immediately.

And stop saying Australia is "the worst". No, we bloody well aren't. They always use wiggle words like "per capita", which means because of our tiny population and modern western way of life and amount of industry we can be made to look "bad". To keep it in perspective, China increases it's emissions each year by a larger amount than our entire output.

Have a look at the real list of the actual worst polluters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...xide_emissions
Australia is nowhere near the top. In fact we're about 16th on the list. "International shipping" and "international air travel" come way above Australias total output.
Anyone going to call that we shut down international shipping and air travel? After all they produce far more than our entire country, and hey, we're "saving the planet" aren't we...?

Not to mention that everyone mixes up "pollution" with "carbon dioxide"...they're not the same thing. CO2 is a trace gas at 0.038% of the Earths atmosphere, absolutely vital for life and for plant growth. In fact as CO2 rises plant growth explodes exponentially because of the extra CO2.

The horror pictures we see from China of brown air is not CO2...it's pollution from industry and car exhausts. Clean up the pollution, and that's it...world saved. Ignore the CO2.

Stefan · 04-12-2015, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

We have just seen that in Paris...The developed world (ie: us) is agreeing to some ludicrous restrictions on our industry and emissions, some of it totally unachievable if we want to keep improving ourselves and employing people. That bell-end Bill Shorten was tweeting about how he had a plan for ZERO pollution by 2050.
So...that would mean no industry, no electricity (look up how polluting solar cells and wind turbines are to produce), no houses, no jobs, no cars, no planes, no fires...basically back to the caves as hunter-gatherers.
You first, Bill...

But back to Paris, the west is being hammered to restrict ourselves and cut back, China and India get away with being allowed to lie about coal use figures and increase their emissions until at least 2030 before they say they will do anything.

Why? It's either "the greatest danger to the world ever", or it isn't. If it IS, then everyone, developed or not, has to cut back immediately.

And stop saying Australia is "the worst". No, we bloody well aren't. They always use wiggle words like "per capita", which means because of our tiny population and modern western way of life and amount of industry we can be made to look "bad". To keep it in perspective, China increases it's emissions each year by a larger amount than our entire output.

Have a look at the real list of the actual worst polluters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...xide_emissions
Australia is nowhere near the top. In fact we're about 16th on the list. "International shipping" and "international air travel" come way above Australias total output.
Anyone going to call that we shut down international shipping and air travel? After all they produce far more than our entire country, and hey, we're "saving the planet" aren't we...?

Not to mention that everyone mixes up "pollution" with "carbon dioxide"...they're not the same thing. CO2 is a trace gas at 0.038% of the Earths atmosphere, absolutely vital for life and for plant growth. In fact as CO2 rises plant growth explodes exponentially because of the extra CO2.

The horror pictures we see from China of brown air is not CO2...it's pollution from industry and car exhausts. Clean up the pollution, and that's it...world saved. Ignore the CO2.

True, the problem is the developed world had their industrial revolution polluted, plundered our selves to "prosperity", but now we seek to point the finger at less developed countries ie China and India doing the same

"Do as we say, not as we DID" kind of scenario

Problem is their Size has such a huge impact....and we love sending our polluting coal over there too.