Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here

[Tiger_Watto]

Believe it or not, the biggest contributor to global warming is population growth. We are simply living longer and as a result we are tearing/ripping the planet apart through de-forestation and mining. The burning of fossil fuel and its reduction is nothing more than propaganda from the governments because this is the most 'comfortable' solution.

Stopping the deforestation/land clearing and the banning of mining will have 10'000 times the effect in reducing the acceleration of global warming. However, none of that is suitable to our personal obsession/desire of continual living!

 

[Geo]

Believe it or not, the biggest contributor to global warming is population growth. We are simply living longer and as a result we are tearing/ripping the planet apart through de-forestation and mining. The burning of fossil fuel and its reduction is nothing more than propaganda from the governments because this is the most 'comfortable' solution.

Stopping the deforestation/land clearing and the banning of mining will have 10'000 times the effect in reducing the acceleration of global warming. However, none of that is suitable to our personal obsession/desire of continual living!

Pauline will 'Plant the Trees Again'…

 

[Tiger_Watto]

Believe it or not, the biggest contributor to global warming is population growth. We are simply living longer and as a result we are tearing/ripping the planet apart through de-forestation and mining. The burning of fossil fuel and its reduction is nothing more than propaganda from the governments because this is the most 'comfortable' solution.

Stopping the deforestation/land clearing and the banning of mining will have 10'000 times the effect in reducing the acceleration of global warming. However, none of that is suitable to our personal obsession/desire of continual living!

Pauline will 'Plant the Trees Again'…

If you and Happy were born during the Roman Empire, you would of died twice by now :smiley:

 

[magpiecol]

Fifty years ago my wife was out protesting in regard to global freezing. A short time ago it was global warming. Not much global warming so it switched to climate change. Still nothing.

The only change in climate I have known for over 70 years is Summer, Winter Autumn and Spring.

This is Australia. We have floods, drought, hot summers, cold winters. It has always been so.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Fifty years ago my wife was out protesting in regard to global freezing. A short time ago it was global warming. Not much global warming so it switched to climate change. Still nothing.

The only change in climate I have known for over 70 years is Summer, Winter Autumn and Spring.

This is Australia. We have floods, drought, hot summers, cold winters. It has always been so.

Care to comment on the information I provided earlier? Phasedown/out of synthetic refrigerants that it are causing significant contribution to climate change and a simple policy change can significantly contribute in reversing the trend?

Commenting that there are four seasons in a year doesn't suffice I am afraid Col, it just smacks of ignorance.

 

[Tiger_Watto]

Do they have the 'preferred' solution to HFC yet, or is that still open to discussion?
[meaning big business/corporations still positioning themselves to rack in the coin?]

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Do they have the 'preferred' solution to HFC yet, or is that still open to discussion?
[meaning big business/corporations still positioning themselves to rack in the coin?]

Yeah, there's alternatives with natural refrigerants, there's massive capital outlay though as you'll have to replace HFC equipment. There's also HFO drop ins for the HFC's (so that capital equipment can be retained.) Multiple refrigerant manufacturers have access to the refrigerants though and the initial price spike is always expected to recoup costs from R&D, but the costs will go down as demand increases (it's a seriously competitive market.)

Bear in mind this change has been driven by governmental change (EU F-Gas regulations were the first of it's kind, and other countries are now adopting them, or amended versions.) These manufacturers would prefer to punch out the existing gasses they're tooled up for and not have to expend serious amounts of money to provide alternatives.

 

[Tiger_Watto]

Do they have the 'preferred' solution to HFC yet, or is that still open to discussion?
[meaning big business/corporations still positioning themselves to rack in the coin?]

Yeah, there's alternatives with natural refrigerants, there's massive capital outlay though as you'll have to replace HFC equipment. There's also HFO drop ins for the HFC's (so that capital equipment can be retained.) Multiple refrigerant manufacturers have access to the refrigerants though and the initial price spike is always expected to recoup costs from R&D, but the costs will go down as demand increases (it's a seriously competitive market.)

Bear in mind this change has been driven by governmental change (EU F-Gas regulations were the first of it's kind, and other countries are now adopting them, or amended versions.) These manufacturers would prefer to punch out the existing gasses they're tooled up for and not have to expend serious amounts of money to provide alternatives.

just went and read more about this… Pretty sad China wont start their reduction until 2030

 

[happy_tiger]

Believe it or not, the biggest contributor to global warming is population growth. We are simply living longer and as a result we are tearing/ripping the planet apart through de-forestation and mining. The burning of fossil fuel and its reduction is nothing more than propaganda from the governments because this is the most 'comfortable' solution.

Stopping the deforestation/land clearing and the banning of mining will have 10'000 times the effect in reducing the acceleration of global warming. However, none of that is suitable to our personal obsession/desire of continual living!

Pauline will 'Plant the Trees Again'…

Watto your sounding like a Sunshine Coast hippie more and more every time

You'll be chaining yourself to a tree shortly singing "When a tree falls in the forest "

Guessing next time I'm at Eumundi Markets a just need to look for the dreadies and the WT's /Easts jersey :laughing:

 

[Tiger_Watto]

Believe it or not, the biggest contributor to global warming is population growth. We are simply living longer and as a result we are tearing/ripping the planet apart through de-forestation and mining. The burning of fossil fuel and its reduction is nothing more than propaganda from the governments because this is the most 'comfortable' solution.

Stopping the deforestation/land clearing and the banning of mining will have 10'000 times the effect in reducing the acceleration of global warming. However, none of that is suitable to our personal obsession/desire of continual living!

Pauline will 'Plant the Trees Again'…

Watto your sounding like a Sunshine Coast hippie more and more every time

You'll be chaining yourself to a tree shortly singing "When a tree falls in the forest "

Guessing next time I'm at Eumundi Markets a just need to look for the dreadies and the WT's /Easts jersey :laughing:

I'm running for PM at the next elections… You will recognise me at Eumundi with the Mighty Easts Tigers Bucket Hat!

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Yeah, there's been a few lagging behind. There's been some changes to participation since the last conference I attended (September last year.)

 

[happy_tiger]

Believe it or not, the biggest contributor to global warming is population growth. We are simply living longer and as a result we are tearing/ripping the planet apart through de-forestation and mining. The burning of fossil fuel and its reduction is nothing more than propaganda from the governments because this is the most 'comfortable' solution.

Stopping the deforestation/land clearing and the banning of mining will have 10'000 times the effect in reducing the acceleration of global warming. However, none of that is suitable to our personal obsession/desire of continual living!

Pauline will 'Plant the Trees Again'…

Watto your sounding like a Sunshine Coast hippie more and more every time

You'll be chaining yourself to a tree shortly singing "When a tree falls in the forest "

Guessing next time I'm at Eumundi Markets a just need to look for the dreadies and the WT's /Easts jersey :laughing:

I'm running for PM at the next elections… You will recognise me at Eumundi with the Mighty Easts Tigers Bucket Hat!

I'll be keeping an eye out for you in my scopes :smiling_imp:

 

[Abraham]

**Bill Shorten stumbles on the cost of push for renewable energy - The Australian.**

Bill Shorten has stumbled on energy security by failing to explain how Labor will achieve its goal to produce half the nation’s electricity from renewable power, as his senior colleagues also spread confusion about the plan.

The Opposition Leader dodged questions over the cost of his 50 per cent goal for renewable energy by 2030, putting him on the defensive at a time of heightened concern over the reliability of the national electricity grid.

Labor Treasury spokesman Chris Bowen deepened the problem in an interview late yesterday when he insisted the renewable energy target and the 50 per cent goal were separate policies, without putting a cost on the overall plan.

As Labor agriculture spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon called the renewables policy an “aspiration” rather than a hard target, the opposition came under fire for avoiding valid questions about the cost to households of achieving the goal.

Mr Shorten set the “ambition” in a July 2015 speech to Labor’s national conference but the policy has become more concrete since then, with Labor climate change spokesman Mark Butler repeating the objective of a “single national target of 50 per cent clean renewable energy” by 2030\. Asked four times on ABC radio yesterday how much this plan would cost, Mr Shorten said there was a “range of levers” but would not offer detail on the road map to the target.

He said the levers included an emissions intensity scheme in the electricity sector, an emissions trading scheme to put a price on carbon, looking at the rate of land clearing and investing in solar power.

“For me, the answer to the question about cost is that there is a cost in not acting,” he said.

When ABC interviewer Sabra Lane asked again how much households would pay, Mr Shorten said the answer was “very, very straightforward” because the cost of not acting on climate change was higher.

He then warned against using coal-fired power.

“We don’t think we could ­sustain the cost, as the Liberals are saying, of building new coal-fired power generation on the scale which (Malcolm) Turnbull is saying,” Mr Shorten said.

The government accused him of failing to own up to the true cost of his policy.

The Prime Minister attacked Mr Shorten in parliament: “He was asked four times today, on the ABC, what it would cost. He couldn’t and wouldn’t answer the question. Again and again, he ran away from the facts.”

Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg cited a transcript from July 2015 when Mr Shorten was asked four similar questions about his goal without explaining the cost.

The exchanges go to the heart of the political dispute over energy security at a time of power short­ages, with Mr Turnbull raising the prospect of more coal-fired power while Mr Shorten insists on the need for more renewables but cannot explain the cost.

Mr Bowen told Sky News there was a “range of policy initiatives”, emphasising an emissions intensity scheme in the electricity sector but skirting questions about the detail of the overall target.

“If you’re talking about the cost to households, we’re talking about electricity and there is no impact on electricity prices,” Mr Bowen said.

“What you do is, where you have an electricity generator who is not meeting their targets, they have a price to pay; where they are exceeding their targets they get a benefit.”

Sky News presenter David Speers then asked if there would be “no net impact on household power prices and no net impact on the budget” and Mr Bowen agreed, but his remarks were about the policy taken to the last election — an emissions intensity scheme. The cost of the wider 50 per cent target remains a matter of conjecture, with Mr Bowen saying this was separate to the EIS.

Labor denied Mr Frydenberg’s claims it had put a $48 billion cost on its policy, saying Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates showed an “investment” of that amount instead. It said this would create nearly 30,000 new jobs.

Mr Shorten issued a statement last night that avoided the cost question again. “Renewable energy isn’t a cost, it’s an investment in the economy and jobs,” he said.

David Crowe

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/bill-shorten-stumbles-on-the-cost-of-push-for-renewable-energy/news-story/0d3aa82f6de526f89311b0ab25a23087

 

[Abraham]

This troupe of clowns cant even tell us what these ridiculous policies will cost us… Yet they still want us to vote for them.

Would anybody buy a house or car, or anything for that matter, without knowing what the cost was, or what benefits it would provide them?

This is imbecility of the highest order.

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

This troupe of clowns cant even tell us what these ridiculous policies will cost us… Yet they still want us to vote for them.

Would anybody buy a house or car, or anything for that matter, without knowing what the cost was, or what benefits it would provide them?

This is imbecility of the highest order.

Well I can vouch for Solahart, had for a few years. Has cut the fuel bill remarkably and will pay off capital by time the guarantee is up I expect. Then will be saving heaps as well as help save the environment. So will the country be saving as not need to invest in new power plants and less heat waves etc. that are also a drain on the economy.

As well as bikeways instead of motorways will saves us tonnes on health bill, fuel and construction of motorways.

As simple as the nose on our faces

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

This troupe of clowns cant even tell us what these ridiculous policies will cost us… Yet they still want us to vote for them.

Would anybody buy a house or car, or anything for that matter, without knowing what the cost was, or what benefits it would provide them?

This is imbecility of the highest order.

Ha, if you don't have a house already, you'll never get one unless you fit in the criteria of Hockeynomics.

Power bills are hardly a problem when you can't afford a home.

On the article itself, depsite being pro-renewables I do agree Abe. I can't see why it is so hard for someone to calculate how much infrastructure is required to meet their targets and then seek cost estimates based on that information, and then calculate payback and reduction in carbon footprint.

As I've already said, a good interim high yield alternative is nuclear, for some reason we're staunchly anti-nuclear because the Soviets were incompetent 30 years ago and the Japanese built a power plant on a patch of dirt prone to earthquakes and tsunami.

 

[happy_tiger]

This troupe of clowns cant even tell us what these ridiculous policies will cost us… Yet they still want us to vote for them.

Would anybody buy a house or car, or anything for that matter, without knowing what the cost was, or what benefits it would provide them?

This is imbecility of the highest order.

Ha, if you don't have a house already, you'll never get one unless you fit in the criteria of Hockeynomics.

Power bills are hardly a problem when you can't afford a home.

On the article itself, depsite being pro-renewables I do agree Abe. I can't see why it is so hard for someone to calculate how much infrastructure is required to meet their targets and then seek cost estimates based on that information, and then calculate payback and reduction in carbon footprint.

As I've already said, a good interim high yield alternative is nuclear, for some reason we're staunchly anti-nuclear because the Soviets were incompetent 30 years ago and the Japanese built a power plant on a patch of dirt prone to earthquakes and tsunami.

Blame BBF and his hippie mates :laughing: , out on their kayaks that they stole from the Indians and blocking US Warships on the Harbour

 

[Abraham]

On the article itself, depsite being pro-renewables I do agree Abe. I can't see why it is so hard for someone to calculate how much infrastructure is required to meet their targets and then seek cost estimates based on that information, and then calculate payback and reduction in carbon footprint.

They refuse to release the costings because of the political massacre that would take place on election day if they did.

As much as everyone wants to look after the environment, no one will do so at the expense of the economy, their jobs, or the significant hit their wallets will likely take as a result of these policies.

And the next inevitable question would be: How much will we reduce the temperature by, if we implement these expensive and unreliable energy policies?

They can't answer that question either.
\

As I've already said, a good interim high yield alternative is nuclear, for some reason we're staunchly anti-nuclear because the Soviets were incompetent 30 years ago and the Japanese built a power plant on a patch of dirt prone to earthquakes and tsunami.

Happy to build nuclear plants if they can produce a reliable source of power.

In the interim however, we have such abundant gas and coal reserves in this country, that we should have the cheapest power bills in the world. Quite literally.

The fact we don't take advantage of it the same way that other countries do, is a scandal in itself.

 

[Abraham]

Well I can vouch for Solahart, had for a few years. Has cut the fuel bill remarkably and will pay off capital by time the guarantee is up I expect. Then will be saving heaps as well as help save the environment. So will the country be saving as not need to invest in new power plants and less heat waves etc. that are also a drain on the economy.

As well as bikeways instead of motorways will saves us tonnes on health bill, fuel and construction of motorways.

As simple as the nose on our faces

Not trying to be insulting in any way, but is this a serious response, or are you sitting at the computer laughing while you're typing?

I'm not sure how to respond.

 

[Tim Sheens]

On the article itself, depsite being pro-renewables I do agree Abe. I can't see why it is so hard for someone to calculate how much infrastructure is required to meet their targets and then seek cost estimates based on that information, and then calculate payback and reduction in carbon footprint.

They refuse to release the costings because of the political massacre that would take place on election day if they did.

As much as everyone wants to look after the environment, no one will do so at the expense of the economy, their jobs, or the significant hit their wallets will likely take as a result of these policies.

And the next inevitable question would be: How much will we reduce the temperature by, if we implement these expensive and unreliable energy policies?

They can't answer that question either.
\

As I've already said, a good interim high yield alternative is nuclear, for some reason we're staunchly anti-nuclear because the Soviets were incompetent 30 years ago and the Japanese built a power plant on a patch of dirt prone to earthquakes and tsunami.

Happy to build nuclear plants if they can produce a reliable source of power.

In the interim however, we have such abundant gas and coal reserves in this country, that we should have the cheapest power bills in the world. Quite literally.

The fact we don't take advantage of it the same way that other countries do, is a scandal in itself.

I am quite happy (and was when paying a carbon tax) to have a lighter wallet if it gives even a little hope to the young and future generations to live in a healthy world.

I see it similarly to insurance, in that it may not be necessary, but with the potential of great cost and hardship it is just not worth the risk. It is time for our one species to stop taking advantage of the world we share at the expense of all the others.