24 August 2017

Renewing the renewable energy debate

| Kim Fischer
Join the conversation
80
wind

Regardless of whether you think that using clean, renewable energy sources like wind and solar is the “right” thing to do for our environment, within a few years it’s going to be the smart thing to do financially.

Renewable energy has become a hot topic for both Federal and ACT politicians. The Federal Government has directed the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) to stop investing in rooftop solar and wind farms, with Joe Hockey chiming in to the debate with complaints about the aesthetics of the wind farm at Lake George.

Meanwhile, Bill Shorten has just announced that the Federal ALP will adopt a target of 50 per cent renewable energy for Australia by 2030.

Initiatives to increase renewable energy use often face scare campaigns about the high costs of adoption. However, these campaigns ignore the incredibly rapid improvements in renewable energy technology. Just in the last five years wind power generation costs have dropped by more than half, and solar generation costs have dropped by nearly 80 per cent.

Wind power generation costs are now almost identical to coal and in the best case scenarios, substantially cheaper. While rooftop solar installations still require a substantial feed-in tariff to be financially attractive, larger “utility-scale” solar installations are cost-competitive. With innovations like the 1.5MW solar power plant in a box, solar power today is a simple and scalable way for countries to increase their power generation capacity.

The second common objection to renewable power is that it cannot be a base load power source – that is, to provide continuous energy at low cost. However, wind farms spread over a large geographic area are actually a very consistent power supply because there is always wind somewhere. Solar power also works well because the sun shines brightest during peak periods of electricity usage. New technologies such as molten salt thermal storage are also proving to be an effective way to store excess solar power for delivery to properties at night.

The ACT Labor Government is leading the country with its goal of getting 90 per cent of Canberra’s power from renewable energy by 2020. The Government already purchases power from a number of solar and wind power sources, with the locally built utility-scale Royalla Solar Farm opening in September last year.

After a second Australia-wide auction to purchase additional wind energy, two-thirds of Canberra’s energy will come from wind and solar power sources. Even once 90 per cent of Canberra’s power comes from renewable sources, household power bills are only predicted to rise modestly, with household energy-efficiency initiatives helping to offset the impact of price rises.

When it comes to renewable energy, it is now clear that Tony Abbott and the Liberals are on the wrong side of history. Given that the cost of wind and solar power will continue to decrease, within 15-20 years the debate on whether renewable energy is a good idea or not will seem as old-fashioned as anyone who thought the introduction of universal health care was a bad idea.

Join the conversation

80
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Typically when the discussion is on global issues the Head in Sand lobbyists drag endless red herrings over single mostly irrelevant examples to distract the less experienced amongst us down another deadend rabbit hole.

Click on the NASA sea level link and there are two graphs one based on worldwide data going back to 1870, which has nothing to do with the painfully petty arguments sited by dungfungus, and worldwide satellite data over a shorter but still lengthy period of time that confirms the first.

No cherry picking time periods to suit the arguments of bloody minded individuals desperately clinging to petty, pointlessly wasteful and unsustainable lifestyles, just because any change, no matter how much for the better is unthinkable.

No isolated irrelevant anecdotal “feelings” or convenient lapses of memories or childish refusal to look at mountains of well researched and cross checked data.

I wonder what the communities who have lived for hundreds if not thousands of years on low lying land around the world would say to the petty trivial self indulgence of the privileged few who calculate they will not have to face the direct, immediate and inevitable consequences of their own actions.

dungfungus said :

In case you haven’t heard it is snowing in Hobart this morning (that’s sea level)

So why am I not feeling colder, and why am I seeing October snow in August?

All this science is so boring!

dungfungus said :

ChrisinTurner said :

All-of-life costs of wind have been lower than coal since 2013. See (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source). Old coal fired generators are being retired and will not be replaced by coal because it is not economic. No energy company in Australia is planning to build any coal-fired generators.

The demand from industry in Australia for reliable coal fired electricity is declining. Smelters have closed and manufacturing industries are closing down more because of the cost of labour and not that is may be cheaper to use wind generated electricity.
If you studied economics you may recall that production is the result of demand.

Certainly some of us have studied economics and the reason Australian industry has been closing down is due to the decisions of successive governments, mostly LNP to successively remove our tarrifs in return for poor “Free Trade Agreements”. That has left left Australian industry largely exposed whilst our competitors have blocked whatever we have advantage in, other than raw materials. This has produced wild currency swings that have further endangered our exports and our jobs.

The ideological claims of unilateral lowering of barriers being good for Australia have not been demonstrated and there has been no post agreement analysis that I can find. The two that I examined, the Thai and USA agreements turned out to be hugely advantageous to those two countries, who massively increased their exports to us whilst our exports to them either fell or stagnated.
There is also the effect of once off gains of selling off the farm, to pay of our never ending trade imbalance, that the LNP ignore in their obsessions with everything else.
The few areas we have a natural advantage in, mining and some agriculture are either largely foreign owned or in the process of being moved offshore, or are disadvantaged by the very FTAs that were supposed to open up markets to us. Agricultural trade in particular is nearly completely distorted or protected by foreign subsidies and import bans that by opening our own market we are dooming them to competing with dumped imports and no way to fight back.
China is on worldwide hunt to buy up prime agricultural land. Having shot our Agricultural industry in the head that should release plenty of unviable properties for the Chinese to buy up.
On the IPR front we allowed America to largely block ours whilst vastly extending the term of their IPR.
We have lastly freely permitted both foreign and large Australian corporations to shift their earnings overseas and remove the ATOs take on the huge earnings they make here.
By making life hard for Australian enterprise and easier for foreign corporations, the economists theory is it will toughen up the local enterprises. Or kill them and force them offshore to get the same deal as their competitors.
Which is it that you are observing?
With Dumb and Dumberer in charge we are going to see more of the same old same old.

Antagonist said :

dungfungus said :

Now, as for rising sea levels, the stuff about Port Arthur is anecdotal and isn’t backed up by official records.
Records tell the true picture and there is no better example than those kept at Fort Denison.
Professor Bob Carter says it how it is here:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/tide-turns-on-sea-level-alarmists/story-e6frg6zo-1227153125261

Sorry dungers, but the Port Arthur measurements are *not* anecdotal. They are based on real measurements taken by real people. Even if we conveniently ignore the Port Arthur data, there are enough measurements from around the world that clearly show rising sea levels. The world once relied heavily on the seas for travel and trade, and so reliable records go back a very, very long way.

I am reminded of a child who does not want to hear an answer, so they cover their ears, smile, and do that cute little dance while chanting “I can’t hear you … I can’t hear you”. I think the saddest thing is you will see climate change and many of its associated problems within your lifetime. And your children’s lifetimes too.

There is a very detailed explanation of the Port Arthur, Fort Denison and other locations in Australia at this link: http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/
This is part 1; a link to Part 2 is within the article.
The best evidence I have that there has been no (or imperceptible) sea level rises in the past 60 years is my revisiting the same sites on the NSW coast that I first visited 60 years ago.
I am not concerned in any way for my children’s future in respect of “climate change”.
We are going to have a bigger and real problem with overpoulation which potentially could cause a lot of pollution problems more serious than “carbon” ones.

rubaiyat said :

I know it isn’t real science like school Bunsen burners or talkback radio, but I am at the snow and looking at a lot of boulders, bare ground and only a dusting of snow on the hills. With rain in the depth of our Aussie winter. We wouldn’t be skiing if it wasn’t for the outrageous electricity bill the resort has has to pay to manufacture the man made snow.

Rain over the weekend followed by snowfalls was forecast for the alps on Friday. In case you haven’t heard it is snowing in Hobart this morning (that’s sea level) and that doesn’t happen very often.
As you acknowledge, man made snow is ensuring that you are able to ski (on the lower levels) between natural snowfalls so why don’t you celebrate man’s scientific achievements in snow-making instead of suggesting climate change is ruining your holiday?

I know it isn’t real science like school Bunsen burners or talkback radio, but I am at the snow and looking at a lot of boulders, bare ground and only a dusting of snow on the hills. With rain in the depth of our Aussie winter. We wouldn’t be skiing if it wasn’t for the outrageous electricity bill the resort has has to pay to manufacture the man made snow.

ChrisinTurner said :

All-of-life costs of wind have been lower than coal since 2013. See (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source). Old coal fired generators are being retired and will not be replaced by coal because it is not economic. No energy company in Australia is planning to build any coal-fired generators.

The demand from industry in Australia for reliable coal fired electricity is declining. Smelters have closed and manufacturing industries are closing down more because of the cost of labour and not that is may be cheaper to use wind generated electricity.
If you studied economics you may recall that production is the result of demand.

dungfungus said :

Now, as for rising sea levels, the stuff about Port Arthur is anecdotal and isn’t backed up by official records.
Records tell the true picture and there is no better example than those kept at Fort Denison.
Professor Bob Carter says it how it is here:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/tide-turns-on-sea-level-alarmists/story-e6frg6zo-1227153125261

Sorry dungers, but the Port Arthur measurements are *not* anecdotal. They are based on real measurements taken by real people. Even if we conveniently ignore the Port Arthur data, there are enough measurements from around the world that clearly show rising sea levels. The world once relied heavily on the seas for travel and trade, and so reliable records go back a very, very long way.

I am reminded of a child who does not want to hear an answer, so they cover their ears, smile, and do that cute little dance while chanting “I can’t hear you … I can’t hear you”. I think the saddest thing is you will see climate change and many of its associated problems within your lifetime. And your children’s lifetimes too.

ChrisinTurner2:33 pm 30 Jul 15

All-of-life costs of wind have been lower than coal since 2013. See (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source). Old coal fired generators are being retired and will not be replaced by coal because it is not economic. No energy company in Australia is planning to build any coal-fired generators.

Dreadnaught1905 said :

I do enjoy dunger’s dry humour, and often consider his comments to be quite witty – in their own little way.

However, I do have to disagree with him on some points he has raised in this discussion.

The Fuel Tax Credits scheme may not be a subsidy, according to Treasury (and the Productivity Commission Agrees (http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2012/May/Fuel_tax_credits_are_they_a_subsidy_to_fuel_use)

However, they do present a benefit to their recipients. The Mining Council of Australia stated that the mining sector “received” 2.3 Billion dollars from the Fuel Tax Credits Scheme. (Parliamentary Business Committee, Abbot Government Commission of Audit Final Report, par. 2.40).

If the mining sector received 2.3 billion (42% of the total) of the Fuel Tax Credits, then that is money which can be counted as a direct cost to Australia, and ergo, the Australian Taxpayer.

It may not be a subsidy, per se, but the effect is essentially the same.

As regards sea levels, the CSIRO are quite sure that there is statistically significant rise in both base sea levels and tide levels. They “have used a combination of historical tide-gauge data and satellite-altimeter data to estimate global averaged sea level change from 1880 to 2014. During this period, global-averaged sea level rose about 23 cm, with an average rate of rise of about 1.6 mm/yr over the 20th Century. The sea level record indicates a statistically significant increase in the rate of rise from 1880 to 2014.

(http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html)

Thanks for the compliment but when it comes to scams like the man made climate change one we are discussing on this thread, I am deadly serious.
Re the matter of subsidies -vs- rebates/tax credits, if you are going to use the argument you have chosen then we will have to call personal tax deductions and subsequent tax refunds as subsidies also.
That means that a TV presenter like Tony Jones claims his Zegna suit as a tax deduction and we others (dressed by Lowes) subsidise his refund. Is that OK with you then?
Now, as for rising sea levels, the stuff about Port Arthur is anecdotal and isn’t backed up by official records.
Records tell the true picture and there is no better example than those kept at Fort Denison.
Professor Bob Carter says it how it is here:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/tide-turns-on-sea-level-alarmists/story-e6frg6zo-1227153125261

Dreadnaught190512:20 pm 29 Jul 15

I do enjoy dunger’s dry humour, and often consider his comments to be quite witty – in their own little way.

However, I do have to disagree with him on some points he has raised in this discussion.

The Fuel Tax Credits scheme may not be a subsidy, according to Treasury (and the Productivity Commission Agrees (http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2012/May/Fuel_tax_credits_are_they_a_subsidy_to_fuel_use)

However, they do present a benefit to their recipients. The Mining Council of Australia stated that the mining sector “received” 2.3 Billion dollars from the Fuel Tax Credits Scheme. (Parliamentary Business Committee, Abbot Government Commission of Audit Final Report, par. 2.40).

If the mining sector received 2.3 billion (42% of the total) of the Fuel Tax Credits, then that is money which can be counted as a direct cost to Australia, and ergo, the Australian Taxpayer.

It may not be a subsidy, per se, but the effect is essentially the same.

As regards sea levels, the CSIRO are quite sure that there is statistically significant rise in both base sea levels and tide levels. They “have used a combination of historical tide-gauge data and satellite-altimeter data to estimate global averaged sea level change from 1880 to 2014. During this period, global-averaged sea level rose about 23 cm, with an average rate of rise of about 1.6 mm/yr over the 20th Century. The sea level record indicates a statistically significant increase in the rate of rise from 1880 to 2014.

(http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html)

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

The world has been burning massive amounts of fossil fuels for centuries and there has been no change to the climate so what is the problem you see?

Here is a graph from a recent World Meteorological Association report:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/09/you-cant-deny-global-warming-after-seeing-this-graph/

read the details here:

http://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wmo_1119_en.pdf

…and from NASA:

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

and again:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

and again:

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

and again:

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

and again:

http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/115/

and again:

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/

Why is it then that I don’t feel hotter and the air I breathe seems the same?
And of course, if the ice was melting the seas would be rising wouldn’t they?
All this scientific stuff is very boring.

What exactly is the difference between those who deny everything, despite mountains of data and countless real world examples, and those who say OK it exists but we should do nothing, or more subtly, something but not anything that would actually alter the outcome.

The effect by either is the same, total inaction in the face of a serious threat.

Both have the same desired effect of letting polluters and their mates, carry on business as usual, causing maximum harm for minimum benefit.

The failures to act fuel the geopolitical conflict, middle eastern violence and bigotry, and Russian Neo-Imperialism, all financed by petro-dollars, and causing the push on refugees fleeing the conflicts.

This is before the second stage conflicts and food refugees that will result when the enormous amount of prime agricultural land in the world’s fertile river deltas and coastal areas is progressively submerged and/or salt damaged.

For people in the first world who think they are immune from the consequences of their own actions and inactions, there will be direct damage to many of the world’s major cities which in nearly all cases are close to sea level.

The cost will be astronomic as one crisis leads to another.

Meanwhile here in Australia we are held hostage, in the backseat of the gas guzzling convertible, by the Thelma and Louise of Climate Policy, Abbott and Hockey hurtling towards towards the cliff as part of their ideological suicide.

Yet all the “experts” and their cheer squads on this thread cannot show me one place on earth where the oceans have risen dramatically (commensurate with the alarm displayed and the predications made).
And Co2 levels are higher than whenever they were when sea levels were metres higher than the same time, well, so what, because nothing is changing.
I am proud to be a sceptic after reading all the feeble arguments you people come up with.

Here is a fascinating piece on why evidence has very little effect on peoples’ beliefs on this subject:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-determine-the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/

All we can do is every time they claim the moon is made of cream cheese we consistently point out that it is not, has been demonstrated that it is not, by people who have actually gone to the moon and dug in with a spoon to check, and that believing such nonsense is the height of stupidity.

dungfungus said :

The world has been burning massive amounts of fossil fuels for centuries and there has been no change to the climate so what is the problem you see?

Here is a graph from a recent World Meteorological Association report:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/09/you-cant-deny-global-warming-after-seeing-this-graph/

read the details here:

http://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wmo_1119_en.pdf

…and from NASA:

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

and again:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

and again:

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

and again:

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

and again:

http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/115/

and again:

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/

dungfungus said :

Examples of tax credits given exclusively to the fossil fuel industry please.

A text-book case of Denial from Dunfungus there.

Never mind the International Energy Agency – what would they know?
“The IEA’s latest estimates indicate that fossil-fuel consumption subsidies worldwide amounted to $548 billion in 2013”
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energysubsidies/
Never mind the International Monetary Fund – what would they know?
“Eliminating post-tax subsidies in 2015 could raise government revenue by
$2.9 trillion (3.6 percent of global GDP), cut global CO2 emissions by more than
20 percent, and cut pre-mature air pollution deaths by more than half. After allowing for
the higher energy costs faced by consumers, this action would raise global economic
welfare by $1.8 trillion (2.2 percent of global GDP). ”
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=42940.0

Yes, never mind the experts, let’s listen to the cranks peddling their fact-free views instead.

dungfungus said :

Show me the receipts for the MILLIONS OF TONS of pollution they pump out please.

I can’t see any pollution; where is it?

Can you see the radiation that escaped from Fukushima? Where is it?
I guess that doesn’t exist either then.

dungfungus said :

The world has been burning massive amounts of fossil fuels for centuries and there has been no change to the climate so what is the problem you see?

Yeah, apart from CO2 levels now being much higher than at any time in the history of our species.
Apart from palaeo-history showing that current temperature and CO2 levels are historically associated with sea levels of between 8 and 60 metres higher than we have now.
Apart from the last 10 years global temperatures all being hugely above-average for all of recorded history.

Apart from that, yeah, nothing at all is changing…

dungfungus said :

justsomeaussie said :

chewy14 said :

And secondly, my point was that we shouldn’t compare climate science to car mechanics, accountancy or any other field that we have much more certain knowledge in. An expert car mechanic is not comparable to an expert climate scientist in terms of the certainty of their knowledge.
We aren’t talking about certainties, we are talking about risks and probabilities from a base of knowledge that is incomplete although constantly improving with each year.

If you aren’t a climate scientist how can you comment about probability and risk of climate chance? Since the people who are trained in this area, the people with the data all are seemingly singing off the same sheet.

Do you know who has bet on climate change? The Pentagon so despite their perceived right wing biases they recognise that the instability created by large scale environmental events will impact the region.

The second is reinsurers, that is the gigantic insurance companies that insure your every day insurance companies.

So the question isn’t about what are the costs if we do enact some type of environmental taxes, yes we’ll stifle growth but if we don’t and the worst happens then we are literally left with no economy to argue about. This video sums it up well https://youtu.be/zORv8wwiadQ

They both have accepted the climate data presented and have adapted their business to meet the changes to the environment.

Dungafungus seems to have a primary school level knowledge of this topic so I’ll ask again “what evidence do you require to be wrong”?

When I was at primary school, climate “change” certainly wasn’t in the curriculum.
Climate is slowly changing as it always has. The only other change is that thousands of “climate scientists” have appeared from nowhere with theories about our climate changing but no evidence of it so whether the assumptions are right or wrong is totally academic.

And was not on the curriculum when I went to school the first time either. So you could try doing what I did. Go to the BoM website yourself. Download the raw data from any BoM site in Australia with continuous temperature data for the last 50 years or more. Plot mean monthly temperatures against time (if you are clever the BoM website can do it for you). Describe the trend you see. It is that easy. And you can do similar things using proxy data such as the Vostok ice cores which go back about 420k years.

You can try to sit there and hide behind the ‘… only accurate to within a few percent and therefore not rock solid’ fantasy, but all science works this way. What you are arguing against is not science, but is in fact statistics. Statistics get used in all kinds of places outside of science – like the insurance industry or ABS for example.

9.5 out of 10 scientists agree that climate change is real. Including me.

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

justsomeaussie said :

p.s the fossil fuel industry like many industries is subsidied through tax credits, that is they are given lower tax rates.

So yes you are correct that it doesn’t appear as a payment or income from the government, it’s just a lack of accrual of tax.

So if you want to penalise renewables for subsides, at least don’t be a hypocrite and create a level playing field for everyone.

Examples of tax credits given exclusively to the fossil fuel industry please.

Diesel fuel rebate for starters. Royalty exemptions for a certain period after commencing. Other tax breaks on investment and expenditure. Remote locality concessions. etc.

The “rebate” is not a “subsidy” but a return when the fuel is not used on the nations roads. Examples are for farm tractors, harvesters, mine equipment or generators etc.
If you have been reading the papers in the last few days you may have noticed that there is an unfounded liability on defined benfit pensions due to Federal public servants totalling $100 billion AFTER the Future Fund has been deducted.
That is a taxpayer funded subsidy.

So, the excise is returned if the fuel is not used on road. That equals $$$ being returned. C’mon, that is a subsidy.

A subsidy is paid up front which is not the case with this.

rubaiyat said :

chewy14 said :

justsomeaussie said :

The Australian government through your and my taxes gives $41 billion dollars in subsidies to the coal and gas markets. $41 billion dollars and you lot come on here and quibble about subsides for renewables.

http://smh.com.au/environment/renewable-energy-expense-attacked-as-australia-gifts-41-billion-to-fossil-fuels-20150725-gijsvh

I hope the detractors realise that coal and gas can only get more expensive to mine as the low hanging fruit is already gone whereas the point with renewable is that it’s we’ll renewable.

So if you are talking about the economy, how about we remove the $41 billion in subsidies for fossil fuels and let them stand on their own legs and invest the money elsewhere.

It’s actually interesting reading the report and the data that this is based on rather than just a headline figure.
In this research a large amount of this subsidy in Australia is due to the effects that climate change is predicted (using some broad assumptions) to have on the planet and our country. By far the major world wide subsidy is on local environmental and air pollution effects causing health problems in the community.

For Australia, this is why we need a global agreement on reducing carbon emissions because anything that Australia does unilaterally will have almost zero effect on the overall cost of climate change to our country. ie. Australia can’t actually reduce these subsidies by any meaningful amount because we don’t control other country’s emissions.

The other main subsidies are almost solely related to car use through petroleum subsidies related around air pollution, congestion and roads. Better public transport and car technologies are the only things that will fix these, it doesn’t have much relation to overall energy production.

The actual direct subsidy cost to the government budget is very small due to the fact that most of these costs are externalities that we aren’t currently paying for (or expecting later generations to pay for).

There is the big lie. That somehow we are doing too much. We are in fact amongst the worst polluters per head of population. BY FAR:

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC

It would be even worse except for the very effective reductions put in place by Labor and the Greens.

This tired old argument is just a really cynical excuse, and delaying tactic, to do nothing.

The conservatives seem to have no problem with dropping trade barriers unilaterally left right and centre which has so blatently and obviously destroyed so much of our industry.

Guess it comes down to “what’s in it for me”, when that “me” is the tiny number of people benefitting from coal mining and polluting policies.

How can you fall for the same old lies of employment and (one off) economic benefits. Mining is mostly overwhelmingly owned by overseas interests, nearly all the money goes overseas, employs bugger all people (even the trains don’t have drivers) and is footing us with the bill for consequences of their mistakes, if you can call deliberate, willful policy mistakes.

Please point out where I said we are doing “too much”?

It’s also convenient when people use their favourite denominator for these type of things depending on their argument. If you want a small denominator for Australia, then go for per capita, if you want a big one then go for GDP. The facts are Australian emissions are only a fraction of global emissions.

And plese point out the factual errors in my comment rather than going off on a tangent about an argument I never made nor suggested. If Australia reduces our Carbon emissions to zero overnight, what effect will that have on the subsidy figures for global warming effects in the linked report?

Your kind of strawman argument is exactly what I’m arguing against. I’m specifically saying we should act but that are actions need to be commensurate with the risks, the costs and the benefits. We need to enact a global agreement to solve the problem and we need to invest in technology development to allow us to transition to a low carbon future.

If you’re arguing that we should do more than that then you are specifically suggesting that we throw away money for your ideological beliefs rather than any factual scientific or economic reasons.

justsomeaussie3:16 pm 28 Jul 15

Oh dear someone can’t be wrong.

Here is a starting point. Using the internetz it took me 5 seconds to write “tax credits for fossil fuel industry” into the Google to reveal a wealth of information from a wide range of sources (including federal and state governments).

YOU TOO CAN INFORM YOURSELF!

Please note that for reference one thousand million is a billion. So below is a lazy $11 billion is the estimated amount of subsidies that the fossil fuel gets.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/southern-crossroads/2014/feb/02/fossil-fuel-subsidies-tony-abbott-spc-ardmona-corporate-welfare

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Former_Committees/fuelenergy/submissions/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/fuelenergy_ctte/submissions/sub0021_pdf.ashx

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-11/coal-oil-and-gas-companies-receive-4-billion-dollar-in-subsidie/5881814

http://environmentvictoria.org.au/newsite/sites/default/files/useruploads/MF%20and%20EV%202013%20polluter%20handouts%20assessment%20FINAL-4.pdf

http://www.acfonline.org.au/sites/default/files/resources/G20_fossil_fuel_subsidies_25-6-10.pdf
Assessment of Federal taxation-based fossil fuel subsidies

Fuel tax credits scheme (total) $5,919 million
Statutory effective life caps (accelerated depreciation) $1,390 million
Energy Security Fund – payments and free permits to the most carbon intensive power stations $1,026
Concessional rate of excise levied on aviation gasoline and aviation turbine fuel $1,000 million
Fringe Benefits Tax – Application of statutory formula to value car benefits $870 million
Exploration and prospecting deduction $400 million
Carbon Price Mechanism thresholds for obligations* $55 million
FBT – Exemption for employee taxi travel to or from their place of work* $55 million
GST – Tourism; domestic air or sea travel* $55 million
PRRT – expenditure uplift rate* $55 million
PRRT – gas transfer price regulations* $55 million
PRRT – starting base and uplift rate for capital assets* $55 million
Shipping – investment incentives* $55 million
Carbon Price Mechanism uncovered sectors – Decommissioned mines $55 million
FBT – Discounted valuation for car parking fringe benefits $30 million
FBT – Discounted valuation of travel for airline employees and travel agents $21 million
Alternatives to the logbook method of substantiating car expenses* $10 million
FBT – Exemption for minor private use of company motor vehicle* $5 million
FBT – Exemption for transport for oil rig and remote area employees in certain circumstances* $5 million
Capital expenditure deduction for mining, quarrying and petroleum operations $5million
Total Expenditure $11,068 million

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

justsomeaussie said :

p.s the fossil fuel industry like many industries is subsidied through tax credits, that is they are given lower tax rates.

So yes you are correct that it doesn’t appear as a payment or income from the government, it’s just a lack of accrual of tax.

So if you want to penalise renewables for subsides, at least don’t be a hypocrite and create a level playing field for everyone.

Examples of tax credits given exclusively to the fossil fuel industry please.

Diesel fuel rebate for starters. Royalty exemptions for a certain period after commencing. Other tax breaks on investment and expenditure. Remote locality concessions. etc.

The “rebate” is not a “subsidy” but a return when the fuel is not used on the nations roads. Examples are for farm tractors, harvesters, mine equipment or generators etc.
If you have been reading the papers in the last few days you may have noticed that there is an unfounded liability on defined benfit pensions due to Federal public servants totalling $100 billion AFTER the Future Fund has been deducted.
That is a taxpayer funded subsidy.

So, the excise is returned if the fuel is not used on road. That equals $$$ being returned. C’mon, that is a subsidy.

You can just make out the Shentou Coal Fired Power Plant though the haze of the smog and the surrounding fly ash smothered landscape.

http://www.greenpeace.org/eastasia/PageFiles/301087/coal-ash-08-shentou-plant.jpg

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

justsomeaussie said :

p.s the fossil fuel industry like many industries is subsidied through tax credits, that is they are given lower tax rates.

So yes you are correct that it doesn’t appear as a payment or income from the government, it’s just a lack of accrual of tax.

So if you want to penalise renewables for subsides, at least don’t be a hypocrite and create a level playing field for everyone.

Examples of tax credits given exclusively to the fossil fuel industry please.

Show me the receipts for the MILLIONS OF TONS of pollution they pump out please.

What does a trailer load at the tip cost us poor non-corporate schmucks?

A trailer load of what?

Your “facts”!

dungfungus said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

justsomeaussie said :

p.s the fossil fuel industry like many industries is subsidied through tax credits, that is they are given lower tax rates.

So yes you are correct that it doesn’t appear as a payment or income from the government, it’s just a lack of accrual of tax.

So if you want to penalise renewables for subsides, at least don’t be a hypocrite and create a level playing field for everyone.

Examples of tax credits given exclusively to the fossil fuel industry please.

Diesel fuel rebate for starters. Royalty exemptions for a certain period after commencing. Other tax breaks on investment and expenditure. Remote locality concessions. etc.

The “rebate” is not a “subsidy” but a return when the fuel is not used on the nations roads. Examples are for farm tractors, harvesters, mine equipment or generators etc.
If you have been reading the papers in the last few days you may have noticed that there is an unfounded liability on defined benfit pensions due to Federal public servants totalling $100 billion AFTER the Future Fund has been deducted.
That is a taxpayer funded subsidy.

It’s a subsidy. Exclusively for mates of the Liberal/National Parties.

Just as the tree planting “bonus” was pork barrelling by Johnny Howard. The only people who had enough land and could apply were farmers. The ones who were really laughing were the Pitt Street farmers I knew who were bragging about they stuck them in the ground, they all died and they got a big fat check. Olive “farms” popped up everywhere suddenly, as did almonds, anything that was a tree.

On the other hand it was all systems go, chopping down the more environmentally valuable old growth forests.

How have they established where and how the fuel is used? They fitted an “Off Road” meter?

Does the ACT householder get a “rebate” on their “Off-Road” heating oil?

All you do is make up a plausible excuse or set of arbitrary “rules” that fit what your mates want and hey its “Policy”. Share a Grange with the minister and you are no longer a leaner, you are lifter!

rubaiyat said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

justsomeaussie said :

p.s the fossil fuel industry like many industries is subsidied through tax credits, that is they are given lower tax rates.

So yes you are correct that it doesn’t appear as a payment or income from the government, it’s just a lack of accrual of tax.

So if you want to penalise renewables for subsides, at least don’t be a hypocrite and create a level playing field for everyone.

Examples of tax credits given exclusively to the fossil fuel industry please.

Show me the receipts for the MILLIONS OF TONS of pollution they pump out please.

What does a trailer load at the tip cost us poor non-corporate schmucks?

A trailer load of what?

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

justsomeaussie said :

p.s the fossil fuel industry like many industries is subsidied through tax credits, that is they are given lower tax rates.

So yes you are correct that it doesn’t appear as a payment or income from the government, it’s just a lack of accrual of tax.

So if you want to penalise renewables for subsides, at least don’t be a hypocrite and create a level playing field for everyone.

Examples of tax credits given exclusively to the fossil fuel industry please.

Show me the receipts for the MILLIONS OF TONS of pollution they pump out please.

I can’t see any pollution; where is it?

Postalgeek said :

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

justsomeaussie said :

p.s the fossil fuel industry like many industries is subsidied through tax credits, that is they are given lower tax rates.

So yes you are correct that it doesn’t appear as a payment or income from the government, it’s just a lack of accrual of tax.

So if you want to penalise renewables for subsides, at least don’t be a hypocrite and create a level playing field for everyone.

Examples of tax credits given exclusively to the fossil fuel industry please.

Diesel fuel rebate for starters. Royalty exemptions for a certain period after commencing. Other tax breaks on investment and expenditure. Remote locality concessions. etc.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-11/coal-oil-and-gas-companies-receive-4-billion-dollar-in-subsidie/5881814

Apparently that’s per year.

This generalises a claimed situation, apparently.
How about you supply actual details of what the subsides, grants are, which companies got them etc.

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

justsomeaussie said :

p.s the fossil fuel industry like many industries is subsidied through tax credits, that is they are given lower tax rates.

So yes you are correct that it doesn’t appear as a payment or income from the government, it’s just a lack of accrual of tax.

So if you want to penalise renewables for subsides, at least don’t be a hypocrite and create a level playing field for everyone.

Examples of tax credits given exclusively to the fossil fuel industry please.

Diesel fuel rebate for starters. Royalty exemptions for a certain period after commencing. Other tax breaks on investment and expenditure. Remote locality concessions. etc.

The “rebate” is not a “subsidy” but a return when the fuel is not used on the nations roads. Examples are for farm tractors, harvesters, mine equipment or generators etc.
If you have been reading the papers in the last few days you may have noticed that there is an unfounded liability on defined benfit pensions due to Federal public servants totalling $100 billion AFTER the Future Fund has been deducted.
That is a taxpayer funded subsidy.

bryansworld said :

dungfungus said :

justsomeaussie said :

p.s the fossil fuel industry like many industries is subsidied through tax credits, that is they are given lower tax rates.

So yes you are correct that it doesn’t appear as a payment or income from the government, it’s just a lack of accrual of tax.

So if you want to penalise renewables for subsides, at least don’t be a hypocrite and create a level playing field for everyone.

Examples of tax credits given exclusively to the fossil fuel industry please.

Diesel fuel rebate for starters. Royalty exemptions for a certain period after commencing. Other tax breaks on investment and expenditure. Remote locality concessions. etc.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-11/coal-oil-and-gas-companies-receive-4-billion-dollar-in-subsidie/5881814

Apparently that’s per year.

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

justsomeaussie said :

p.s the fossil fuel industry like many industries is subsidied through tax credits, that is they are given lower tax rates.

So yes you are correct that it doesn’t appear as a payment or income from the government, it’s just a lack of accrual of tax.

So if you want to penalise renewables for subsides, at least don’t be a hypocrite and create a level playing field for everyone.

Examples of tax credits given exclusively to the fossil fuel industry please.

Show me the receipts for the MILLIONS OF TONS of pollution they pump out please.

What does a trailer load at the tip cost us poor non-corporate schmucks?

dungfungus said :

justsomeaussie said :

p.s the fossil fuel industry like many industries is subsidied through tax credits, that is they are given lower tax rates.

So yes you are correct that it doesn’t appear as a payment or income from the government, it’s just a lack of accrual of tax.

So if you want to penalise renewables for subsides, at least don’t be a hypocrite and create a level playing field for everyone.

Examples of tax credits given exclusively to the fossil fuel industry please.

Show me the receipts for the MILLIONS OF TONS of pollution they pump out please.

dungfungus said :

justsomeaussie said :

p.s the fossil fuel industry like many industries is subsidied through tax credits, that is they are given lower tax rates.

So yes you are correct that it doesn’t appear as a payment or income from the government, it’s just a lack of accrual of tax.

So if you want to penalise renewables for subsides, at least don’t be a hypocrite and create a level playing field for everyone.

Examples of tax credits given exclusively to the fossil fuel industry please.

Diesel fuel rebate for starters. Royalty exemptions for a certain period after commencing. Other tax breaks on investment and expenditure. Remote locality concessions. etc.

justsomeaussie1:01 pm 28 Jul 15

dungfungus said :

justsomeaussie said :

p.s the fossil fuel industry like many industries is subsidied through tax credits, that is they are given lower tax rates.

So yes you are correct that it doesn’t appear as a payment or income from the government, it’s just a lack of accrual of tax.

So if you want to penalise renewables for subsides, at least don’t be a hypocrite and create a level playing field for everyone.

Examples of tax credits given exclusively to the fossil fuel industry please.

dungfungus said :

justsomeaussie said :

p.s the fossil fuel industry like many industries is subsidied through tax credits, that is they are given lower tax rates.

So yes you are correct that it doesn’t appear as a payment or income from the government, it’s just a lack of accrual of tax.

So if you want to penalise renewables for subsides, at least don’t be a hypocrite and create a level playing field for everyone.

Examples of tax credits given exclusively to the fossil fuel industry please.

Quid pro quo my friend. First provide examples on the evidence you need to admit you are wrong on man made climate change.

justsomeaussie said :

p.s the fossil fuel industry like many industries is subsidied through tax credits, that is they are given lower tax rates.

So yes you are correct that it doesn’t appear as a payment or income from the government, it’s just a lack of accrual of tax.

So if you want to penalise renewables for subsides, at least don’t be a hypocrite and create a level playing field for everyone.

Examples of tax credits given exclusively to the fossil fuel industry please.

chewy14 said :

justsomeaussie said :

The Australian government through your and my taxes gives $41 billion dollars in subsidies to the coal and gas markets. $41 billion dollars and you lot come on here and quibble about subsides for renewables.

http://smh.com.au/environment/renewable-energy-expense-attacked-as-australia-gifts-41-billion-to-fossil-fuels-20150725-gijsvh

I hope the detractors realise that coal and gas can only get more expensive to mine as the low hanging fruit is already gone whereas the point with renewable is that it’s we’ll renewable.

So if you are talking about the economy, how about we remove the $41 billion in subsidies for fossil fuels and let them stand on their own legs and invest the money elsewhere.

It’s actually interesting reading the report and the data that this is based on rather than just a headline figure.
In this research a large amount of this subsidy in Australia is due to the effects that climate change is predicted (using some broad assumptions) to have on the planet and our country. By far the major world wide subsidy is on local environmental and air pollution effects causing health problems in the community.

For Australia, this is why we need a global agreement on reducing carbon emissions because anything that Australia does unilaterally will have almost zero effect on the overall cost of climate change to our country. ie. Australia can’t actually reduce these subsidies by any meaningful amount because we don’t control other country’s emissions.

The other main subsidies are almost solely related to car use through petroleum subsidies related around air pollution, congestion and roads. Better public transport and car technologies are the only things that will fix these, it doesn’t have much relation to overall energy production.

The actual direct subsidy cost to the government budget is very small due to the fact that most of these costs are externalities that we aren’t currently paying for (or expecting later generations to pay for).

There is the big lie. That somehow we are doing too much. We are in fact amongst the worst polluters per head of population. BY FAR:

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC

It would be even worse except for the very effective reductions put in place by Labor and the Greens.

This tired old argument is just a really cynical excuse, and delaying tactic, to do nothing.

The conservatives seem to have no problem with dropping trade barriers unilaterally left right and centre which has so blatently and obviously destroyed so much of our industry.

Guess it comes down to “what’s in it for me”, when that “me” is the tiny number of people benefitting from coal mining and polluting policies.

How can you fall for the same old lies of employment and (one off) economic benefits. Mining is mostly overwhelmingly owned by overseas interests, nearly all the money goes overseas, employs bugger all people (even the trains don’t have drivers) and is footing us with the bill for consequences of their mistakes, if you can call deliberate, willful policy mistakes.

justsomeaussie said :

The Australian government through your and my taxes gives $41 billion dollars in subsidies to the coal and gas markets. $41 billion dollars and you lot come on here and quibble about subsides for renewables.

http://smh.com.au/environment/renewable-energy-expense-attacked-as-australia-gifts-41-billion-to-fossil-fuels-20150725-gijsvh

I hope the detractors realise that coal and gas can only get more expensive to mine as the low hanging fruit is already gone whereas the point with renewable is that it’s we’ll renewable.

So if you are talking about the economy, how about we remove the $41 billion in subsidies for fossil fuels and let them stand on their own legs and invest the money elsewhere.

It’s actually interesting reading the report and the data that this is based on rather than just a headline figure.
In this research a large amount of this subsidy in Australia is due to the effects that climate change is predicted (using some broad assumptions) to have on the planet and our country. By far the major world wide subsidy is on local environmental and air pollution effects causing health problems in the community.

For Australia, this is why we need a global agreement on reducing carbon emissions because anything that Australia does unilaterally will have almost zero effect on the overall cost of climate change to our country. ie. Australia can’t actually reduce these subsidies by any meaningful amount because we don’t control other country’s emissions.

The other main subsidies are almost solely related to car use through petroleum subsidies related around air pollution, congestion and roads. Better public transport and car technologies are the only things that will fix these, it doesn’t have much relation to overall energy production.

The actual direct subsidy cost to the government budget is very small due to the fact that most of these costs are externalities that we aren’t currently paying for (or expecting later generations to pay for).

Of course when the Fossil Fuel corporations do have to face the inevitable as James Hardy had to over asbestos, they will quickly pull up roots and move to the Netherlands, or whatever refuge for the guilty is available, to escape the consequences of their own actions and massive lies.

…and EVERYONE ELSE will have to pay to fix the damage they did.

dungfungus said :

justsomeaussie said :

The Australian government through your and my taxes gives $41 billion dollars in subsidies to the coal and gas markets. $41 billion dollars and you lot come on here and quibble about subsides for renewables.

http://smh.com.au/environment/renewable-energy-expense-attacked-as-australia-gifts-41-billion-to-fossil-fuels-20150725-gijsvh

I hope the detractors realise that coal and gas can only get more expensive to mine as the low hanging fruit is already gone whereas the point with renewable is that it’s we’ll renewable.

So if you are talking about the economy, how about we remove the $41 billion in subsidies for fossil fuels and let them stand on their own legs and invest the money elsewhere.

I have always wondered how the alleged subsidies to the fossil fuel electricity producers are paid.
The amounts never actually appear in government expenditure reports so the conclusion is there are no sunsidies paid at all as there are in the renewables industies.
The only link to subsidies paid to the fossil fuel energy producers in the link you provided is a vague estimate of “cost” by the IMF (the taxpayer funded organisation that has sent Greece into financial oblivion) and a statement by the author of the article which says “A massive proportion of the energy subsidy identified by the IMF comes about from wider society having to bare the burden of the environment damage that burning fossil fuels causes – namely global warming and local air pollution”
This is a totally false way of claiming there are massive subsidies paid to the fossil fuel energy producers as all the claims are speculative and unproven.

Of course there are massive subsidies paid to the worlds largest polluters.

They would shut down tomorrow if they had to compensate everyone for the damage they are causing now and the looming even greater damage coming.

Unfortunately some people have their heads so firmly jammed up their rear view mirrors that they think that not only is it right to keep polluting and make everyone else pick up the tab, but we should actually do more of it.

There is the false association of pollution with economic growth. So many think you have to pollute or you do not get growth or improved prosperity.

Economics is a strange beast that chooses to measure and ignore whatever its masters choose, and oddly what they choose suits them and nobody else.

Destructive and wasteful forces are “Good”. Conserving, common sense protection and prevention are “Bad” because they don’t churn CASH which is ALL the Environment that exists for most economists.

A growing tree in its natural setting has no economic value according to the cigar chompers.

Chop it down, burn it, be forced to repair the immediate damage and on flow damage, relocate affected population by force of arms, to new resettlement camps which will need to be gerry built and guarded in perpetuity and you have opened up numerous cash flow opportunities, mostly with hidden wealth redistribution from the common taxpayer to the corporate entities that create the problems, but avoid paying tax themselves.

Having destroyed what people had you have further captured a whole new dependent class of consumers reliant on whatever you now control.

Of course there is a narrow area which is very effective at protecting its own environment. That of the neighbourhood of those in charge. Remarkably industry and most of the ill effects of corporate decisions are not allowed even close.

With one exception, rich people tend to grab water front property even going so far as to steal the public spaces immediately between what they own and the sea. When this gets eroded by storms and sea level rises, they rediscover socialism, as they always do when things don’t work out for them, and demand the government and all the other taxpayers fix the problems that the wealthy created.

justsomeaussie11:09 am 28 Jul 15

p.s the fossil fuel industry like many industries is subsidied through tax credits, that is they are given lower tax rates.

So yes you are correct that it doesn’t appear as a payment or income from the government, it’s just a lack of accrual of tax.

So if you want to penalise renewables for subsides, at least don’t be a hypocrite and create a level playing field for everyone.

justsomeaussie11:06 am 28 Jul 15

dungfungus said :

When I was at primary school, climate “change” certainly wasn’t in the curriculum.
Climate is slowly changing as it always has. The only other change is that thousands of “climate scientists” have appeared from nowhere with theories about our climate changing but no evidence of it so whether the assumptions are right or wrong is totally academic.

When I was at primary school, quantum theory, astrophysics, stem cell research, chemotherapy and modern medicine certainly wasn’t in the curriculum.

Science is slowly changing as it always has. The only other change is that thousands of “scientists” have appeared from nowhere with theories about our science changing but no evidence of it so whether the assumptions are right or wrong is totally academic.

It must be very cold on your cave.

I’ll ask a third time, “what evidence do you require for you to admit you are wrong on man made climate change?”

If you are considering whether to invest in Coal or Renewables:

http://www.marketforces.org.au/the-incredible-shrinking-coal-industry/

Of course if you are in a position of power and can do King Coal the odd big favour and ultimately move from politics to “consultancy”…

vintage123 said :

Just confirmed that there is zero energy provided to the ACT from the capital wind farm at Lake George.

There is only one sole contract and it is between Infigen and the NSW government.

I guess people just assumed because they were close to the boarder they were supplying the ACT.

Not the case.

As was pointed out to you by Grail at #11 earlier, that is not how electricity works.

We are NEVER going to convince those with their fingers in their ears and eyes screwed shut, but for everyone else who might be swayed by the noise coming from the Fossil Fuel industry, who are doing a Tobacco Indistry type rearguard action and duping a lot of the science by guesswork crowd, here is a simple summary:

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

http://i1.wp.com/understandsolar.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/bnef-graph.jpg

http://i2.wp.com/understandsolar.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/solar-pv-cost-trend.png

(From that left wing tree-hugging rag, Bloomberg Business).

justsomeaussie said :

The Australian government through your and my taxes gives $41 billion dollars in subsidies to the coal and gas markets. $41 billion dollars and you lot come on here and quibble about subsides for renewables.

http://smh.com.au/environment/renewable-energy-expense-attacked-as-australia-gifts-41-billion-to-fossil-fuels-20150725-gijsvh

I hope the detractors realise that coal and gas can only get more expensive to mine as the low hanging fruit is already gone whereas the point with renewable is that it’s we’ll renewable.

So if you are talking about the economy, how about we remove the $41 billion in subsidies for fossil fuels and let them stand on their own legs and invest the money elsewhere.

I have always wondered how the alleged subsidies to the fossil fuel electricity producers are paid.
The amounts never actually appear in government expenditure reports so the conclusion is there are no sunsidies paid at all as there are in the renewables industies.
The only link to subsidies paid to the fossil fuel energy producers in the link you provided is a vague estimate of “cost” by the IMF (the taxpayer funded organisation that has sent Greece into financial oblivion) and a statement by the author of the article which says “A massive proportion of the energy subsidy identified by the IMF comes about from wider society having to bare the burden of the environment damage that burning fossil fuels causes – namely global warming and local air pollution”
This is a totally false way of claiming there are massive subsidies paid to the fossil fuel energy producers as all the claims are speculative and unproven.

No_Nose said :

justsomeaussie said :

And yet in the climate change debate we don’t see it.

Right here is the greatest myth that the climate change skeptics have managed to put out there. It is also the most dangerous.

The myth that this is some sort of a debate…as long as they continue to get media to term it a ‘debate’ they get people to think that there are two roughly equal arguments for and against man-made climate change. And that is just wrong.

There is are not two roughly equal arguments. Not even close to being equal. What we have is 99% of the worlds leading scientists in the field on one side with quantifiable, verifiable data and there are a couple of noisy dissenters with anecdotes and stories on the other side.

No ‘debate’ whatsoever.

There are two sides to this issue. They are SCIENCE and WRONG…and they are not even close to equal.

+1 . Madness. These people trust scientists on cancer, air travel and everything else, but somehow they are experts on climate change. How does that work?

Arthur Davies said :

There are another reasons to get off fossil fuels:-

They are finite, inevitably will become more expensive in the long run as the cheapest sources are depleted. The most critical is oil in this regard.

Strategically we can be held to ransom by outsiders whenever they like unless we are self sufficient. There was almost no petrol in Australia during WW2, submarines sunk it, oil was again in very short supply again in the 1970s.It has happened before, it will happen again.

Transport is our Achilles heel, convert that to electric via long distance electric trains & via electric vehicles all powered by renewable energy & we are again immune from such problems. Note also battery powered electric vehicles can be charged at any time, so don’t charge them when renewable electricity is in high demand. Experts are currently looking at electric car batteries as a means to overcome power demand peaks, take power out during peaks, recharge the car when demand is low (as long as the car is not on the road at the time). We import 100% of our petroleum now & our domestic refineries are being shut down at present.

There are still vast amounts of coal in Australia – it will never run out for centuries by which time we will have gone back to burning animal dung or using a new technology that is yet to be invented.
About 40 years ago I had a farm in Northern NSW and in an effort to have it drought proofed I engaged a contractor to sink a large dam. He phoned me from the nearest phone box about half-way through the day he started and said “I have gone down 2 metres expecting to meet a clay strata but instead I have struck a coal seam”. This was part of the vast coal seam that extends from Newcastle to Ipswich. It comes very close to the surface in a lot of places and around Narrabri large extractions are now underway.
The price for coal 40 years ago was about $20 per tonne.
There is also plenty of unexploited oil reserves in the world – the “low fruit” is always first to be harvested.

justsomeaussie4:30 am 28 Jul 15

The Australian government through your and my taxes gives $41 billion dollars in subsidies to the coal and gas markets. $41 billion dollars and you lot come on here and quibble about subsides for renewables.

http://smh.com.au/environment/renewable-energy-expense-attacked-as-australia-gifts-41-billion-to-fossil-fuels-20150725-gijsvh

I hope the detractors realise that coal and gas can only get more expensive to mine as the low hanging fruit is already gone whereas the point with renewable is that it’s we’ll renewable.

So if you are talking about the economy, how about we remove the $41 billion in subsidies for fossil fuels and let them stand on their own legs and invest the money elsewhere.

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

Interesting link.

I fail to see where it mentions Spain, and seeing the Mafia has its fingers in everything in Italy, right down to garbage collection, the problem is the usual Italian problem nothing to do with renewable energy as to suggest.

Particularly where the last reference to gas drilling (fracking?) has absolutely nothing to do with renewables.

dungfungus do you have any particular objection to the corruption surrounding coal extraction in this country which is far more relevant?

You could have checked it out yourself.
http://www.energytribune.com/5597/mafia-hits-eu-wind-subsidies#sthash.4Ztu6AGV.dpbs
Now, please tell me all about corruption involving coal extraction in Australia.
BTW, you can’t class the Maitland/Obeid/NSW Labor Government cases as corruption because the mines involved never went into production so no extraction occurred.

The whole subsidies to the coal industry, shipping, massive compulsory resumption of lands, environment assessments bent to force through harbours that dump sediment over our greatest national treasure the Great Barrier Reef, the politicans currently in power who were revealed to have massive conflicts of interests going back to the Howard government and probably before, plus the very low instance of anyone ever getting prosecuted like Gordon Nutall, who is still receiving his superannuation despite being sentenced for taking money from Queensland mining magnate Ken Talbot.

The fossil fuel lobbyists, like “EnergyTribune” must be laughing their heads off at how easy it is to get befuddled old farts to do all the hard yakker for them.

justsomeaussie said :

chewy14 said :

And secondly, my point was that we shouldn’t compare climate science to car mechanics, accountancy or any other field that we have much more certain knowledge in. An expert car mechanic is not comparable to an expert climate scientist in terms of the certainty of their knowledge.
We aren’t talking about certainties, we are talking about risks and probabilities from a base of knowledge that is incomplete although constantly improving with each year.

If you aren’t a climate scientist how can you comment about probability and risk of climate chance? Since the people who are trained in this area, the people with the data all are seemingly singing off the same sheet.

Do you know who has bet on climate change? The Pentagon so despite their perceived right wing biases they recognise that the instability created by large scale environmental events will impact the region.

The second is reinsurers, that is the gigantic insurance companies that insure your every day insurance companies.

So the question isn’t about what are the costs if we do enact some type of environmental taxes, yes we’ll stifle growth but if we don’t and the worst happens then we are literally left with no economy to argue about. This video sums it up well https://youtu.be/zORv8wwiadQ

They both have accepted the climate data presented and have adapted their business to meet the changes to the environment.

Dungafungus seems to have a primary school level knowledge of this topic so I’ll ask again “what evidence do you require to be wrong”?

When I was at primary school, climate “change” certainly wasn’t in the curriculum.
Climate is slowly changing as it always has. The only other change is that thousands of “climate scientists” have appeared from nowhere with theories about our climate changing but no evidence of it so whether the assumptions are right or wrong is totally academic.

HiddenDragon6:55 pm 27 Jul 15

The conclusion of the 2007 paper on the “Base-Load Fallacy” is most interesting:

“Actually, there is one constraint on a renewable electricity future. Growth in demand has to be levelled off, or there will not be enough land for wind and bioenergy. In the long run, this would entail a change in the national economic structure and the stabilisation of Australia’s population.”

Whatever the next steps are, I hope, as a nation, we can avoid further overly-costly enthusiasms such as this:

“In the first phase of large-scale growth in solar, lavish feed-in tariff schemes introduced between 2008 and 2011 encouraged 1.4 million households to install panels on their roofs – the highest proportion of households of any country.

State governments began winding back the schemes in 2012, but by the time the last runs out in 2028 they will have cost the economy $9 billion. Worse, people who chose not to install solar, or could not afford it, have paid for the schemes through a subsidy to solar PV owners worth $14 billion.

The schemes have reduced emissions, but at a very high price. There are much cheaper ways to tackle climate change.”

From: http://grattan.edu.au/report/sundown-sunrise-how-australia-can-finally-get-solar-power-right/

justsomeaussie said :

And yet in the climate change debate we don’t see it.

Right here is the greatest myth that the climate change skeptics have managed to put out there. It is also the most dangerous.

The myth that this is some sort of a debate…as long as they continue to get media to term it a ‘debate’ they get people to think that there are two roughly equal arguments for and against man-made climate change. And that is just wrong.

There is are not two roughly equal arguments. Not even close to being equal. What we have is 99% of the worlds leading scientists in the field on one side with quantifiable, verifiable data and there are a couple of noisy dissenters with anecdotes and stories on the other side.

No ‘debate’ whatsoever.

There are two sides to this issue. They are SCIENCE and WRONG…and they are not even close to equal.

justsomeaussie said :

chewy14 said :

And secondly, my point was that we shouldn’t compare climate science to car mechanics, accountancy or any other field that we have much more certain knowledge in. An expert car mechanic is not comparable to an expert climate scientist in terms of the certainty of their knowledge.
We aren’t talking about certainties, we are talking about risks and probabilities from a base of knowledge that is incomplete although constantly improving with each year.

If you aren’t a climate scientist how can you comment about probability and risk of climate chance? Since the people who are trained in this area, the people with the data all are seemingly singing off the same sheet.

Do you know who has bet on climate change? The Pentagon so despite their perceived right wing biases they recognise that the instability created by large scale environmental events will impact the region.

The second is reinsurers, that is the gigantic insurance companies that insure your every day insurance companies.

So the question isn’t about what are the costs if we do enact some type of environmental taxes, yes we’ll stifle growth but if we don’t and the worst happens then we are literally left with no economy to argue about. This video sums it up well https://youtu.be/zORv8wwiadQ

They both have accepted the climate data presented and have adapted their business to meet the changes to the environment.

Dungafungus seems to have a primary school level knowledge of this topic so I’ll ask again “what evidence do you require to be wrong”?

I’m not a climate scientist but I have science qualifications and can read what the actual climate scientists are saying.

And no, they aren’t singing off the same sheet like experts in those other fields you mention might be with certainty on a particular issue. They almost all believe that climate change is real and man made but they also give a range of possible effects over a range of time frames. The actual experts specifically don’t say that “the effects of X will be Y” because of the inherent uncertainty and complexity of their work.

As you say in your comment, the absolute worst that could happen is that we don’t have an economy but what is the actual risk of that worst happening? Our actions should specifically be designed around that risk and probability, like in any risk management excercise.

Action for action’s sake is no more logical than those that disbelieve the science and say we should do nothing.

Arthur Davies4:50 pm 27 Jul 15

There are another reasons to get off fossil fuels:-

They are finite, inevitably will become more expensive in the long run as the cheapest sources are depleted. The most critical is oil in this regard.

Strategically we can be held to ransom by outsiders whenever they like unless we are self sufficient. There was almost no petrol in Australia during WW2, submarines sunk it, oil was again in very short supply again in the 1970s.It has happened before, it will happen again.

Transport is our Achilles heel, convert that to electric via long distance electric trains & via electric vehicles all powered by renewable energy & we are again immune from such problems. Note also battery powered electric vehicles can be charged at any time, so don’t charge them when renewable electricity is in high demand. Experts are currently looking at electric car batteries as a means to overcome power demand peaks, take power out during peaks, recharge the car when demand is low (as long as the car is not on the road at the time). We import 100% of our petroleum now & our domestic refineries are being shut down at present.

Just confirmed that there is zero energy provided to the ACT from the capital wind farm at Lake George.

There is only one sole contract and it is between Infigen and the NSW government.

I guess people just assumed because they were close to the boarder they were supplying the ACT.

Not the case.

justsomeaussie4:00 pm 27 Jul 15

chewy14 said :

And secondly, my point was that we shouldn’t compare climate science to car mechanics, accountancy or any other field that we have much more certain knowledge in. An expert car mechanic is not comparable to an expert climate scientist in terms of the certainty of their knowledge.
We aren’t talking about certainties, we are talking about risks and probabilities from a base of knowledge that is incomplete although constantly improving with each year.

If you aren’t a climate scientist how can you comment about probability and risk of climate chance? Since the people who are trained in this area, the people with the data all are seemingly singing off the same sheet.

Do you know who has bet on climate change? The Pentagon so despite their perceived right wing biases they recognise that the instability created by large scale environmental events will impact the region.

The second is reinsurers, that is the gigantic insurance companies that insure your every day insurance companies.

So the question isn’t about what are the costs if we do enact some type of environmental taxes, yes we’ll stifle growth but if we don’t and the worst happens then we are literally left with no economy to argue about. This video sums it up well https://youtu.be/zORv8wwiadQ

They both have accepted the climate data presented and have adapted their business to meet the changes to the environment.

Dungafungus seems to have a primary school level knowledge of this topic so I’ll ask again “what evidence do you require to be wrong”?

justsomeaussie said :

So you’ve failed to address anything and simply adopt the position of “this is very hard let’s not do anything”.

What I was addressing which I outlined in the first paragraph is the cognitive biases that come with discussing things like climate change because many many people bring baggage (both for and against) to the discussion.

So I made an attempt to draw an analogy that we don’t see the levels of distrust in scientists who study cancer as we do in climate change. For obvious reasons those with financial interests have done a very good job in promoting distrust in professionals who’ve spent their life studying one branch of society. As I pointed out we saw this in the past when cancer concerns were hidden from public view due to the financial interests pushing their own pseudoscience.

And yet for some reason there are all many of people who come out of the woodwork who are willing to provide their “informed” opinion on the science of anthropogenic climate change and yet if we asked them about gene therapy for example they’d likely bow out and refer to an expert. It’s nothing more than a dunning kruger effect where the uninformed consider themselves very knowledgeable without actually being in the field of study being discussed.

Simply put when you want to get your car fixed do you take it to your accountant or your mechanic? Your accountant may wax lyrical about how awesome his volvo is but you’d likely be better off taking advice of someone trained in the field and when 97% of mechanics recommend something it’s reasonable to assume there is some merit to it.

So again I ask the detractors “what evidence do you need to be wrong about man made climate change”. If you can’t answer this easily you are as dogmatic as someone who blows themselves up for religion.

I’ll answer on my side is that I’d need a majority of climate scientists to come out and admit that they got it all wrong and that man made climate change isn’t real. Since I’m not arrogant enough to say that I could understand PhD level climate science I’m happy to defer to those that do have expertise.

I”m assuming you were respoding to me Justsomeaussie?

I agree with you that many people suffer from their own biases when talking about the issue, myself included.

But, I’m not suggesting we “do nothing” about climate change. I’m specifically saying that we should balance the risks vs the benefits of action and that any action we do take should have actual tangible benefits on a global scale.
ie. We shouldn’t unilaterally enact schemes that hamstring our own industries without realisable benefits.

And secondly, my point was that we shouldn’t compare climate science to car mechanics, accountancy or any other field that we have much more certain knowledge in. An expert car mechanic is not comparable to an expert climate scientist in terms of the certainty of their knowledge.
We aren’t talking about certainties, we are talking about risks and probabilities from a base of knowledge that is incomplete although constantly improving with each year.

I’m not arguing from a position of not believing in climate change, I’m arguing from a position that our actions need to be commensurate with the risks, the costs and the benefits.

The opening statement on the website of warmest organisation “Conservation International” reads:

“Our food system, our economies, our cities and our communities — they’re all adapted to the climate we currently live in.
But what if the climate changes too fast for us to keep up?
The fate of the one and only planet we’ve ever called home is uncertain. It is in everyone’s interest to come together to address the challenges we face.”
The statement is heavily qualified with words “what if”, “uncertain” and “challenges”.
Also, the statement acknowledges through the word “adaption” that climate does change naturally.
I thought “the science was settled” and there weren’t any “ifs & buts” about it.
It seems that even the scientists are sceptical about what they are saying.

Southmouth said :

AEMO has recently released an interesting paper on emerging technologies. Available on their website. Once domestic battery technology is cheap enough to make financial sense to punters, then and only then will there be an alternative to coal. Solar is almost useless for supplying winter peak loads and cold cloudy or foggy days often have no wind or sun.

Land based wind is currently around the same ballpark cost as burning coal. Of course the issue with wind is, if it ain’t windy there is no energy. Same for sun without sunlight and these arguments are used all the time in various moronic arguments. But even if we reduced our coal burning in half, it would be a significant step in the right direction.

dungfungus said :

The world has been burning massive amounts of fossil fuels for centuries and there has been no change to the climate so what is the problem you see?

What about the fact that burning fossil fuels is polluting the area. Digging up coal is an eyesore as well. IMO even if climate change isn’t man made, avoiding both of those is a really good idea. Also coal is a limited resource. We’ll run out of it one day. Now in your own words you are already a fossil, so its perfectly ok to keep digging up the coal and burning it until you pass on and let the next generation deal with the issues. Coal generated electricity can only go up in price in the long term. Just like other fossil fuels have gone up in price over the years, so will coal.

justsomeaussie1:56 pm 27 Jul 15

So you’ve failed to address anything and simply adopt the position of “this is very hard let’s not do anything”.

What I was addressing which I outlined in the first paragraph is the cognitive biases that come with discussing things like climate change because many many people bring baggage (both for and against) to the discussion.

So I made an attempt to draw an analogy that we don’t see the levels of distrust in scientists who study cancer as we do in climate change. For obvious reasons those with financial interests have done a very good job in promoting distrust in professionals who’ve spent their life studying one branch of society. As I pointed out we saw this in the past when cancer concerns were hidden from public view due to the financial interests pushing their own pseudoscience.

And yet for some reason there are all many of people who come out of the woodwork who are willing to provide their “informed” opinion on the science of anthropogenic climate change and yet if we asked them about gene therapy for example they’d likely bow out and refer to an expert. It’s nothing more than a dunning kruger effect where the uninformed consider themselves very knowledgeable without actually being in the field of study being discussed.

Simply put when you want to get your car fixed do you take it to your accountant or your mechanic? Your accountant may wax lyrical about how awesome his volvo is but you’d likely be better off taking advice of someone trained in the field and when 97% of mechanics recommend something it’s reasonable to assume there is some merit to it.

So again I ask the detractors “what evidence do you need to be wrong about man made climate change”. If you can’t answer this easily you are as dogmatic as someone who blows themselves up for religion.

I’ll answer on my side is that I’d need a majority of climate scientists to come out and admit that they got it all wrong and that man made climate change isn’t real. Since I’m not arrogant enough to say that I could understand PhD level climate science I’m happy to defer to those that do have expertise.

AEMO has recently released an interesting paper on emerging technologies. Available on their website. Once domestic battery technology is cheap enough to make financial sense to punters, then and only then will there be an alternative to coal. Solar is almost useless for supplying winter peak loads and cold cloudy or foggy days often have no wind or sun.

chewy14 said :

Grail said :

That is not how electricity works :\

C’mon, yes it is. It’s not like we have a national energy grid or anything.

I think vintage may be confused that the wind farm was built as an renewable energy offset to the electricity that would have been used by the desal plant if it was operating.

I fairly certain there are no contracts between capital wind farm and the ACT. The contract mechanism is the only way the power is accessed. I could be wrong, but the contract still remains with the desal plant and even though the power is not used we are still paying for it. Any excess power on the national grid needs a contract to access. ACT have set up contracts with two victorian and one SA wind farm, however during that process capital wind farm was non competative and no agreement was sought.

I still believe that zero power from the capital wind farm goes to the ACT.

justsomeaussie said :

Why not approach the climate argument a different way and remove the ideological baggage.

Since the overwhelming majority of climate scientists (scientists who study the climate) believe in man made global warming to deny their findings is to believe in a global conspiracy amongst scientists.

So if we looked at this from another angle what if the overwhelming majority of cancer scientists (scientists who study cancer) advised that compound X was cancer causing. If that happened we’d quickly see governments and communities move to remove it and we have many examples of exactly this.

Now in medicine we can all agree that there are huge financial incentives and motivations for people to push non scientific data for other motivations; think tobacco companies hiding cancer causing substances and many of the large pharmaceutical companies thinking of their own best interests.

So despite this situation Governments and people can see past it all and trust that our leading scientists are reporting information as close to factual as they know it.

And yet in the climate change debate we don’t see it. The detractors don’t trust the experts and refer consistently to non scientists and/or scientists who don’t study the climate or fringe outliers.

If we (the public) were to apply their level of scepticism to any other industry we’d still be in the dark ages.

Basically I have yet to find a climate change denier who also didn’t believe that any form of environmentalism is a form of socialism and who believes in global conspiracies.

Or more simply ask them “what evidence do they require to be wrong”.

There’s a few problems with this.

Firstly, you’re talking about extremely complex non linear systems when talking about climate and even the experts are never 100% on their predictions. They give ranges and probabilities for the effects of climate change which vary depending on the models being used.

With your example of cancer scientists, it would be like finding a product that everybody uses daily probably causes cancer. There’s no way that the product would be banned or removed from use as quickly as you suggest. There would be a very detailed comparison of the risks of the product versus the benefits flowing from it’s use before any decision was made on appropriate action.

Secondly, climate change is a global problem that will require a global solution. Anything we do here won’t make an overall difference if we can’t agree globally to solve the problem. Once again with your cancer example, it would be the equivalent of not using the cancer causing product in your own house even if it wouldn’t have an effect on the chance of getting cancer rate unless your neighbours ban it too. You’d be making your own life more difficult for very little benefit.

Note that when coming up with solutions we also have to deal with the potential problems and risks that are inherent in the solutions. For example, you need to weigh up the costs of the solutions and whether or not you might actually cause poverty and death by transitioning to a low carbon economy. How do we make a global solution fair for developing economies?

There are solutions out there but I don’t believe pretending it’s a simple problem with a simple solution is the way to go.

justsomeaussie said :

Why not approach the climate argument a different way and remove the ideological baggage.

Since the overwhelming majority of climate scientists (scientists who study the climate) believe in man made global warming to deny their findings is to believe in a global conspiracy amongst scientists.

So if we looked at this from another angle what if the overwhelming majority of cancer scientists (scientists who study cancer) advised that compound X was cancer causing. If that happened we’d quickly see governments and communities move to remove it and we have many examples of exactly this.

Now in medicine we can all agree that there are huge financial incentives and motivations for people to push non scientific data for other motivations; think tobacco companies hiding cancer causing substances and many of the large pharmaceutical companies thinking of their own best interests.

So despite this situation Governments and people can see past it all and trust that our leading scientists are reporting information as close to factual as they know it.

And yet in the climate change debate we don’t see it. The detractors don’t trust the experts and refer consistently to non scientists and/or scientists who don’t study the climate or fringe outliers.

If we (the public) were to apply their level of scepticism to any other industry we’d still be in the dark ages.

Basically I have yet to find a climate change denier who also didn’t believe that any form of environmentalism is a form of socialism and who believes in global conspiracies.

Or more simply ask them “what evidence do they require to be wrong”.

Well put.

Grail said :

That is not how electricity works :\

C’mon, yes it is. It’s not like we have a national energy grid or anything.

I think vintage may be confused that the wind farm was built as an renewable energy offset to the electricity that would have been used by the desal plant if it was operating.

justsomeaussie11:52 am 27 Jul 15

Why not approach the climate argument a different way and remove the ideological baggage.

Since the overwhelming majority of climate scientists (scientists who study the climate) believe in man made global warming to deny their findings is to believe in a global conspiracy amongst scientists.

So if we looked at this from another angle what if the overwhelming majority of cancer scientists (scientists who study cancer) advised that compound X was cancer causing. If that happened we’d quickly see governments and communities move to remove it and we have many examples of exactly this.

Now in medicine we can all agree that there are huge financial incentives and motivations for people to push non scientific data for other motivations; think tobacco companies hiding cancer causing substances and many of the large pharmaceutical companies thinking of their own best interests.

So despite this situation Governments and people can see past it all and trust that our leading scientists are reporting information as close to factual as they know it.

And yet in the climate change debate we don’t see it. The detractors don’t trust the experts and refer consistently to non scientists and/or scientists who don’t study the climate or fringe outliers.

If we (the public) were to apply their level of scepticism to any other industry we’d still be in the dark ages.

Basically I have yet to find a climate change denier who also didn’t believe that any form of environmentalism is a form of socialism and who believes in global conspiracies.

Or more simply ask them “what evidence do they require to be wrong”.

That is not how electricity works :\

dungfungus said :

vintage123 said :

Interestingly the capital wind farm located on the doorstep of the ACT feeds absolutely zero into the ACT grid. It is fed directly into Sydney’s desalination plant.

The other point is that these huge projects are owned by overseas companies and investors. They are significantly subsidised by taxpayers, yet all of the profits go offshore.

Your articles mentions nothing about tidal and geo thermal technologies.

I am not against renewable energy, but let’s get some business 101 happening, by empowering australian innovation and business, especially if it includes generous subsidies which the tax payer has to pay for twice.

Do you mean this desalination plant?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-27/nsw-desalination-plant-deal-costing-customers-10-billion/4985168
This is what happens when Labor governments believe the warmist lobby.

Yep, that’s the one. Capitals tax payer funded power feeds directly to it, whilst it sits there and does sweet nothings whilst chewing up more tax payers money, waiting on additional tax payers money etc etc.

If I was a renewable power molecule I would be exhausted by the time I turned up for work, weighed down by monumental travel and triple tax subsidies……………..surely there’s a better way.

vintage123 said :

Interestingly the capital wind farm located on the doorstep of the ACT feeds absolutely zero into the ACT grid. It is fed directly into Sydney’s desalination plant.

The other point is that these huge projects are owned by overseas companies and investors. They are significantly subsidised by taxpayers, yet all of the profits go offshore.

Your articles mentions nothing about tidal and geo thermal technologies.

I am not against renewable energy, but let’s get some business 101 happening, by empowering australian innovation and business, especially if it includes generous subsidies which the tax payer has to pay for twice.

Do you mean this desalination plant?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-27/nsw-desalination-plant-deal-costing-customers-10-billion/4985168
This is what happens when Labor governments believe the warmist lobby.

rubaiyat said :

Interesting link.

I fail to see where it mentions Spain, and seeing the Mafia has its fingers in everything in Italy, right down to garbage collection, the problem is the usual Italian problem nothing to do with renewable energy as to suggest.

Particularly where the last reference to gas drilling (fracking?) has absolutely nothing to do with renewables.

dungfungus do you have any particular objection to the corruption surrounding coal extraction in this country which is far more relevant?

You could have checked it out yourself.
http://www.energytribune.com/5597/mafia-hits-eu-wind-subsidies#sthash.4Ztu6AGV.dpbs
Now, please tell me all about corruption involving coal extraction in Australia.
BTW, you can’t class the Maitland/Obeid/NSW Labor Government cases as corruption because the mines involved never went into production so no extraction occurred.

Interestingly the capital wind farm located on the doorstep of the ACT feeds absolutely zero into the ACT grid. It is fed directly into Sydney’s desalination plant.

The other point is that these huge projects are owned by overseas companies and investors. They are significantly subsidised by taxpayers, yet all of the profits go offshore.

Your articles mentions nothing about tidal and geo thermal technologies.

I am not against renewable energy, but let’s get some business 101 happening, by empowering australian innovation and business, especially if it includes generous subsidies which the tax payer has to pay for twice.

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

Given that you are aspiring to become a Labor MLA Kim, and your post supporting renewable energy comes so soon after the Federal Labor conference confirmed its policy of embracing renewables, how does the Labor Party plan to deal with the problems that were created when Spain and Italy made huge commitments to that industry?
https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/mafia-multinationals-milk-italys-green-072916631.html

More to the point, as you seem to be running for a position with the Conservative Parties or the Fossil Fuel Lobby, how do you propose to deal with the immense problems that will flow on from burning massive amounts of fossil fuels with their huge increase in C02 emissions?

If you are going to give us references to irrelevant or pseudo science references, that sweep the problem under the carpet, could you do us the favour of actually explaining what they have to do with the real issues.

Thanks for answering the question I specifically directed to the OP.
No, I am not nominating for the Conservative Parties or Fossil Fuel Lobby (I am a fossil already).
The world has been burning massive amounts of fossil fuels for centuries and there has been no change to the climate so what is the problem you see?

Interesting link.

I fail to see where it mentions Spain, and seeing the Mafia has its fingers in everything in Italy, right down to garbage collection, the problem is the usual Italian problem nothing to do with renewable energy as to suggest.

Particularly where the last reference to gas drilling (fracking?) has absolutely nothing to do with renewables.

dungfungus do you have any particular objection to the corruption surrounding coal extraction in this country which is far more relevant?

dungfungus said :

Given that you are aspiring to become a Labor MLA Kim, and your post supporting renewable energy comes so soon after the Federal Labor conference confirmed its policy of embracing renewables, how does the Labor Party plan to deal with the problems that were created when Spain and Italy made huge commitments to that industry?
https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/mafia-multinationals-milk-italys-green-072916631.html

More to the point, as you seem to be running for a position with the Conservative Parties or the Fossil Fuel Lobby, how do you propose to deal with the immense problems that will flow on from burning massive amounts of fossil fuels with their huge increase in C02 emissions?

If you are going to give us references to irrelevant or pseudo science references, that sweep the problem under the carpet, could you do us the favour of actually explaining what they have to do with the real issues.

Given that you are aspiring to become a Labor MLA Kim, and your post supporting renewable energy comes so soon after the Federal Labor conference confirmed its policy of embracing renewables, how does the Labor Party plan to deal with the problems that were created when Spain and Italy made huge commitments to that industry?
https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/mafia-multinationals-milk-italys-green-072916631.html

As you are aware, I am one of those old conservative men with limited scientific education (but probably more than most who don’t have a formal degree in one of the science areas).
I do not have any financial interests that are affected by whatever you are alluding to and I can assure you I am not well funded like the political parties that support the climate change industry.
Whatever way you present your case, there is no “reasoned argument or proof” that our climate is changing because of any reason other than climate, by nature, changes constantly.
Computer modelling is not proof of anything and this alone is what the climate change industry relies on.
I don’t warm to your disrespect of old people either – you should remember that people like me have observed the climate longer than people like you and we don’t see the changes that have been predicted by “experts” that have vested interests in the climate change industry.
Regarding “ignorant faux references”, here’s one you will love. The first electricity generating wind turbine was invented by an old mining engineer (Charles F. Brush).

All common sense and readily researchable.

There are however powerful forces behind the disinformation campaigns, which are especially effective with old conservative men with limited scientific education, whose financial interests are affected, which includes our present government and major media owners who love controlling those governments.

The problem is not with the science, which is well established by now, it is psychological, with no way you are ever going to change the mind of people who are never going to listen to any reasoned argument or proof.

We have to get get rid of the politicians who are so cynically causing the problems and keep hitting all the lies and massively funded disinformation on the head every time it pops up as it always does. Never with any hard facts just with endless references to ever more obscure faux references that make a load, ignorant and well funded minority sound more important than they really are.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.