Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

ACT to target 100% renewable power by 2020

By Charlotte Harper 29 April 2016 124

Simon Corbell

The ACT will target 100% renewable energy use by 2020, five years earlier than previously announced, cementing its position as a world leader in the commitment to renewables.

To meet the 100% target the government will expand its current large-scale renewable energy auction process from 109MW to 200MW, with additional capacity to be awarded subject to the value for money of the proposals brought forward, according to ACT Environment Minister Simon Corbell.

“Adding an extra 91MW of renewables to our current auction process will allow us to take advantage of the record low prices and significant local investment we have achieved in our recent auctions,” Mr Corbell said.

Legislation will be introduced to change the ACT’s feed-in-tariff legislation to accommodate the extra capacity required to meet the new target.

Canberrans will see a significant increase in the power bills in the first year as a result of the move to renewables, peaking at around $5.50 per household per week, but Mr Corbell says that will drop off over time and will be largely offset by energy savings from mandated energy efficiency measures.

The Minister said that with the current auction process underway, the ACT would have secured enough renewable energy to meet its previous 90% renewable energy target by 2020 while demonstrating that the switch to renewables was both achievable and affordable.

“As leaders in the renewable energy field the ACT is reaping the environmental and economic benefits of decarbonisation,” he said.

“Not only are we providing clean power for the people of Canberra, we are also delivering jobs and economic benefits by securing $400 million in local investment through our reverse auction process.

“Taking the extra step to 100% at this time lets us take advantage of favourable market conditions to lock in great long-term prices for Canberrans. It also ensures we can meet our emission reduction targets if the Commonwealth’s policy framework for its Renewable Energy Target continues to falter.”

The Government’s reverse auction process has driven down the price of wind and solar energy to record lows. These reductions mean that the latest estimated price for 100% renewables in line with the estimates set out in Climate Change Action Plan 2 for achieving 90% renewables.

“I am confident we can reach this highly ambitious target in the next four years, which will certainly place the territory at the forefront of the renewable energy target rankings,” Mr Corbell said.

File photo of Simon Corbell by Charlotte Harper


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
124 Responses to
ACT to target 100% renewable power by 2020
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
7
dungfungus 12:21 pm 05 Jun 16

For the past 2 days Canberra has experienced “CCC” weather conditions.
That is: Calm, Cloud and Cold.
That means no solar, no wind power and excess energy consumption.
So Mr. Corbell, what are your contingency plans to ensure we maintain 100% renewable supply under these conditions?

dungfungus 10:09 am 28 May 16

rosscoact said :

rommeldog56 said :

Lurker2913 said :

agent_clone said :

I have refereed to “local” warming, not global warming unless you mean “warming repeatedly” and “cooling repeatedly” which I agree it does over many thousands of years.
Are you now going to ignore the ice ages?
You really are getting desperate now.

Leaving aside the question of what this post actually means, I wonder if you could ask yourself –
– Do global climate changes happen because someone somewhere decides to press the “ice age” button?
– Do you think it’s possible that ice ages occur as a result of a combination of insolation and atmospheric composition?

Because science tells us the latter is true.
And research into the history of climate changes allows those scientists to calculate the effects of CO2.
And those calculations tell us that we are halfway to the CO2 level that will give us anywhere between 1 and 6 degrees of global warming.
Last time (during the Pliocene) CO2 levels were the same as they are now, global temperature reached 3-4 degrees more than today and sea levels were 25 metres higher than now. And we don’t look like we’re stopping CO2 emissions any time soon. So we are locking in sea level rise which could make 25 metres look benign.

Dungers thinks this is something to joke about, I really don’t know why. Maybe he’s afraid?

You better notify Tim Flannery as he lives on the water’s edge in the Hawkesbury estuary.
It’s best to joke about it because few people take seriously given that nothing is happening with sea level rises to date. I used to be afraid of the Boogey Man when I was a child but these days the Boogey Man has been replaced by climate alarmists sprouting all their wild predictions.
In fact, Broulee Island not far from Canberra, is no longer an island which indicates sea levels could be falling.

Professor Flannery lives well above the waterline. No need to keep repeating the misleading characterisations of The Australian.
https://theconversation.com/bad-tidings-reporting-on-sea-level-rise-in-australia-is-all-washed-up-2639

Who funds The Conversation?
What about Broulee Island?

gazket 7:10 pm 13 May 16

There’s more chance of Bill Shorten loosing his man BooBs than the ACT being 100% renewal energy by 2020.

What are these “mandated energy efficiency measures”… are you going to ban the 4 bar heater and the 6 slice toaster.

pajs 4:40 pm 13 May 16

rommeldog56 said :

Lurker2913 said :

agent_clone said :

I have refereed to “local” warming, not global warming unless you mean “warming repeatedly” and “cooling repeatedly” which I agree it does over many thousands of years.
Are you now going to ignore the ice ages?
You really are getting desperate now.

Leaving aside the question of what this post actually means, I wonder if you could ask yourself –
– Do global climate changes happen because someone somewhere decides to press the “ice age” button?
– Do you think it’s possible that ice ages occur as a result of a combination of insolation and atmospheric composition?

Because science tells us the latter is true.
And research into the history of climate changes allows those scientists to calculate the effects of CO2.
And those calculations tell us that we are halfway to the CO2 level that will give us anywhere between 1 and 6 degrees of global warming.
Last time (during the Pliocene) CO2 levels were the same as they are now, global temperature reached 3-4 degrees more than today and sea levels were 25 metres higher than now. And we don’t look like we’re stopping CO2 emissions any time soon. So we are locking in sea level rise which could make 25 metres look benign.

Dungers thinks this is something to joke about, I really don’t know why. Maybe he’s afraid?

You better notify Tim Flannery as he lives on the water’s edge in the Hawkesbury estuary.
It’s best to joke about it because few people take seriously given that nothing is happening with sea level rises to date. I used to be afraid of the Boogey Man when I was a child but these days the Boogey Man has been replaced by climate alarmists sprouting all their wild predictions.
In fact, Broulee Island not far from Canberra, is no longer an island which indicates sea levels could be falling.

Professor Flannery lives well above the waterline. No need to keep repeating the misleading characterisations of The Australian.
https://theconversation.com/bad-tidings-reporting-on-sea-level-rise-in-australia-is-all-washed-up-2639

No_Nose 4:18 pm 13 May 16

rommeldog56 said :

It’s best to joke about it because few people take seriously given that nothing is happening with sea level rises to date. .

Looks like someone forgot to tell the Murdoch Press. I spotted this article earlier this week.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/climate-change-rising-sea-levels-mean-five-solomon-islands-now-underwater/news-story/f005f80f696f2abe13c15dd9334bbd2e

dungfungus 12:53 pm 13 May 16

Lurker2913 said :

agent_clone said :

I have refereed to “local” warming, not global warming unless you mean “warming repeatedly” and “cooling repeatedly” which I agree it does over many thousands of years.
Are you now going to ignore the ice ages?
You really are getting desperate now.

Leaving aside the question of what this post actually means, I wonder if you could ask yourself –
– Do global climate changes happen because someone somewhere decides to press the “ice age” button?
– Do you think it’s possible that ice ages occur as a result of a combination of insolation and atmospheric composition?

Because science tells us the latter is true.
And research into the history of climate changes allows those scientists to calculate the effects of CO2.
And those calculations tell us that we are halfway to the CO2 level that will give us anywhere between 1 and 6 degrees of global warming.
Last time (during the Pliocene) CO2 levels were the same as they are now, global temperature reached 3-4 degrees more than today and sea levels were 25 metres higher than now. And we don’t look like we’re stopping CO2 emissions any time soon. So we are locking in sea level rise which could make 25 metres look benign.

Dungers thinks this is something to joke about, I really don’t know why. Maybe he’s afraid?

You better notify Tim Flannery as he lives on the water’s edge in the Hawkesbury estuary.
It’s best to joke about it because few people take seriously given that nothing is happening with sea level rises to date. I used to be afraid of the Boogey Man when I was a child but these days the Boogey Man has been replaced by climate alarmists sprouting all their wild predictions.
In fact, Broulee Island not far from Canberra, is no longer an island which indicates sea levels could be falling.

HenryBG 12:54 pm 12 May 16

agent_clone said :

I have refereed to “local” warming, not global warming unless you mean “warming repeatedly” and “cooling repeatedly” which I agree it does over many thousands of years.
Are you now going to ignore the ice ages?
You really are getting desperate now.

Leaving aside the question of what this post actually means, I wonder if you could ask yourself –
– Do global climate changes happen because someone somewhere decides to press the “ice age” button?
– Do you think it’s possible that ice ages occur as a result of a combination of insolation and atmospheric composition?

Because science tells us the latter is true.
And research into the history of climate changes allows those scientists to calculate the effects of CO2.
And those calculations tell us that we are halfway to the CO2 level that will give us anywhere between 1 and 6 degrees of global warming.
Last time (during the Pliocene) CO2 levels were the same as they are now, global temperature reached 3-4 degrees more than today and sea levels were 25 metres higher than now. And we don’t look like we’re stopping CO2 emissions any time soon. So we are locking in sea level rise which could make 25 metres look benign.

Dungers thinks this is something to joke about, I really don’t know why. Maybe he’s afraid?

HenryBG 12:40 pm 12 May 16

tooltime said :

But all of this is not going to get us anywhere as you are not listening. Anything from real research and crosschecked scientists is “tripe”, because it just is, You then want that real research stopped, silenced along with any reports of the results. The way to make the Sun circle the Earth the way God obviously intended it, is to put Galileo under house arrest for life.

You “know” that everything the scientists say “tripe”, because it unsettles your belief” that the world and your view of it stopped changing in the ’60s. Your “commonsense” then fails you as you unquestioningly accept anything said by any huckster in any dubious media article, all it has to do is confirm your prejudices. We see that in every reference you give us.

We would like to see evidence that your beliefs are founded on anything other than prejudices, but I think we can agree on one thing, that is not going to happen.

btw You have denied that the world is warming repeatedly, but you deny having said that is really just denial of the denial so unsurprising.

I suspect Rubaiyat will enjoy “epistemic closure”, if he hasn’t already come across it.
This is a long read, but an intriguingly good one:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revenge-of-the-reality-based-community/

“…living in their own bubble where nonsensical ideas circulate with no contradiction.”.

This is why BoM funding into atmospheric research has to be shut down and why CSIRO sea level research and climate modelling has to be thrown away.

Dungers links unashamedly to Jennifer Marohasy’s blog-site, thus revealing the bubble he is trying to live in.

dungfungus 9:05 am 12 May 16

tooltime said :

devils_advocate said :

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

A_Cog said :

It doesn’t matter how warm or hot things may be getting, the fact is the fires, which happen naturally, will burn hotter if there is more fuel which is the case in Alberta.
It was the same in the Victorian fires a few years ago where the policy of burn-offs etc. had been stopped by the Greens.

Great point.
If only we had scientists who could research these issues and apprise of the facts so we didn’t have to rely on gut-feelings or ideology any more.

Whatever you do, don’t mention the application of common sense to reach a conclusion.

The problem is, many people confuse “common-sense” with their own peculiar biases and dogmatic ideologies.
Hence we have science, performed by scientists who gather data and present checkable analyses of said data.
Hence we have dogmatists who want science shut down by withdrawing funding from CSIRO and the BoM because they don’t like it when their ideologies are contradicted by facts.
That’s not how science works – many scientists disagree with each other – the credible ones don’t scream “fraud” when they disagree, they sit down and do the work to prove their own opinion is the correct one.
The single over-riding characteristic of climate change deniers is that not one of them can sustain their opinions TOGETHER with any kind of rigorous scientific work, but instead stoop to baseless accusations of fraud.

My beliefs (not ideologies) are based on scientific research that was done a long time ago which clearly shows the same things that are are happening now also happened thousands of years ago.
I have never denied that there is a changing climate either so don’t refer to me as a denier.

You’ve done an excellent job of hiding the details of your “scientific research”. All we know is that it is in an over 100 year old geological text that predates the discovery of tectonic plates and the role they play in the carbon cycle. You have never elaborated on what it actually says because that might let us unravel any arguments it makes that are relevant, but probably aren’t because the author was unaware of the massive changes made to the carbon cycle post industrialisation and the massive environmental changes made by human activity.

But all of this is not going to get us anywhere as you are not listening. Anything from real research and crosschecked scientists is “tripe”, because it just is, You then want that real research stopped, silenced along with any reports of the results. The way to make the Sun circle the Earth the way God obviously intended it, is to put Galileo under house arrest for life.

You “know” that everything the scientists say “tripe”, because it unsettles your belief” that the world and your view of it stopped changing in the ’60s. Your “commonsense” then fails you as you unquestioningly accept anything said by any huckster in any dubious media article, all it has to do is confirm your prejudices. We see that in every reference you give us.

We would like to see evidence that your beliefs are founded on anything other than prejudices, but I think we can agree on one thing, that is not going to happen.

btw You have denied that the world is warming repeatedly, but you deny having said that is really just denial of the denial so unsurprising.

I have refereed to “local” warming, not global warming unless you mean “warming repeatedly” and “cooling repeatedly” which I agree it does over many thousands of years.
Are you now going to ignore the ice ages?
You really are getting desperate now.

rubaiyat 7:50 am 12 May 16

devils_advocate said :

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

A_Cog said :

It doesn’t matter how warm or hot things may be getting, the fact is the fires, which happen naturally, will burn hotter if there is more fuel which is the case in Alberta.
It was the same in the Victorian fires a few years ago where the policy of burn-offs etc. had been stopped by the Greens.

Great point.
If only we had scientists who could research these issues and apprise of the facts so we didn’t have to rely on gut-feelings or ideology any more.

Whatever you do, don’t mention the application of common sense to reach a conclusion.

The problem is, many people confuse “common-sense” with their own peculiar biases and dogmatic ideologies.
Hence we have science, performed by scientists who gather data and present checkable analyses of said data.
Hence we have dogmatists who want science shut down by withdrawing funding from CSIRO and the BoM because they don’t like it when their ideologies are contradicted by facts.
That’s not how science works – many scientists disagree with each other – the credible ones don’t scream “fraud” when they disagree, they sit down and do the work to prove their own opinion is the correct one.
The single over-riding characteristic of climate change deniers is that not one of them can sustain their opinions TOGETHER with any kind of rigorous scientific work, but instead stoop to baseless accusations of fraud.

My beliefs (not ideologies) are based on scientific research that was done a long time ago which clearly shows the same things that are are happening now also happened thousands of years ago.
I have never denied that there is a changing climate either so don’t refer to me as a denier.

You’ve done an excellent job of hiding the details of your “scientific research”. All we know is that it is in an over 100 year old geological text that predates the discovery of tectonic plates and the role they play in the carbon cycle. You have never elaborated on what it actually says because that might let us unravel any arguments it makes that are relevant, but probably aren’t because the author was unaware of the massive changes made to the carbon cycle post industrialisation and the massive environmental changes made by human activity.

But all of this is not going to get us anywhere as you are not listening. Anything from real research and crosschecked scientists is “tripe”, because it just is, You then want that real research stopped, silenced along with any reports of the results. The way to make the Sun circle the Earth the way God obviously intended it, is to put Galileo under house arrest for life.

You “know” that everything the scientists say “tripe”, because it unsettles your belief” that the world and your view of it stopped changing in the ’60s. Your “commonsense” then fails you as you unquestioningly accept anything said by any huckster in any dubious media article, all it has to do is confirm your prejudices. We see that in every reference you give us.

We would like to see evidence that your beliefs are founded on anything other than prejudices, but I think we can agree on one thing, that is not going to happen.

btw You have denied that the world is warming repeatedly, but you deny having said that is really just denial of the denial so unsurprising.

dungfungus 7:40 am 12 May 16

Mysteryman said :

water_lily said :

Bennop said :

A_Cog said :

searcher3489 said :

Odd how you cherry pick!

It doesn’t matter how warm or hot things may be getting, the fact is the fires, which happen naturally, will burn hotter if there is more fuel which is the case in Alberta.
It was the same in the Victorian fires a few years ago where the policy of burn-offs etc. had been stopped by the Greens.

How about some evidence of your accusations?

When was the Green government in power in Victoria, because I missed it.

The more you remove trees, the hotter and drier it gets with more dead vegetation. Hot and dry leads to more violent weather with more lightning strikes, starting more fires that can’t be contained in the hot, dry conditions.

Those hot, dry conditions then reduce the number of days in which you can safely burn, so it becomes a Catch 22.

Not rocket science, not even if your rocket science extends to struggling with the instructions to light the blue paper and step back.

After you read this let me know if you still want more convincing:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/03/victorian-bushfires-the-result-of-human-folly/

What another looney right wing rant?

If Greenies are in charge how come there are cows in Victoria’s national parks and foresters seem to be dictating the whole forest management strategies of Governments.

Is this the Reichstag all over again?

The Reichstag was destroyed by fire.

wildturkeycanoe 6:42 am 12 May 16

Bennop said :

The more you remove trees, the hotter and drier it gets with more dead vegetation. Hot and dry leads to more violent weather with more lightning strikes, starting more fires that can’t be contained in the hot, dry conditions.
Not rocket science,

How can you get more fuel by removing trees? Denser, thicker forests will create more fuel. It isn’t the dry stuff on the ground that makes the firestorm but the oil in the eucalyptus leaves on the tree that help to spread the inferno. Why do you think fire breaks are void of living and dead trees? If there are fewer trees, the flames cannot jump from one to another and there will be less litter to throw into the air as embers. Remove more trees and the fire front will travel even more slowly.
In addition, without the canopy of a dense forest for protection, young saplings won’t survive as easily against the wind, the heat and will have less leaf litter for nutrients. Just look how well grass grows under any established gum tree, it doesn’t.
Opposing opinions can be formulated using facts, observation and what one has learned from many different sources. Relying on what “scientists” say as being true, without questioning their propaganda using your own intellect is as rigid in thinking as unquestionably believing in deities.

dungfungus 9:13 pm 11 May 16

HenryBG said :

water_lily said :

After you read this let me know if you still want more convincing:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/03/victorian-bushfires-the-result-of-human-folly/

I really have to caution you against confusing entertaining (to you) opinions with valuable sources of facts.

Marohasy worked for many years for the IPA writing right-wing opinion, often denying the facts of climate change. Needless to say, her opinions are nonsense.
She has done work for the Heartland Institute, which is a fossil-fuel-funded lobby group.
Needless to say, it isn’t on record as any kind of reliable source for facts about science.
She also has a history of involvement in misleadingly-named groupuscules such as the “Australian Environment Foundation” and the “Australian Climate Science Coalition”.
Needless to say, neither of these organisations are funded by lefties, and nor are the known for purveying anything particularly factual about either the environment or climate change.
Even in her own chosen area of maximum “expertise”, the Murray-Darling river system, her opinions are largely derided by her peers, and she has a history of making assertions that can’t be borne out by the facts.

In other words, Dungers, pick a better source.

HenryBG said :

water_lily said :

After you read this let me know if you still want more convincing:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/03/victorian-bushfires-the-result-of-human-folly/

I really have to caution you against confusing entertaining (to you) opinions with valuable sources of facts.

Marohasy worked for many years for the IPA writing right-wing opinion, often denying the facts of climate change. Needless to say, her opinions are nonsense.
She has done work for the Heartland Institute, which is a fossil-fuel-funded lobby group.
Needless to say, it isn’t on record as any kind of reliable source for facts about science.
She also has a history of involvement in misleadingly-named groupuscules such as the “Australian Environment Foundation” and the “Australian Climate Science Coalition”.
Needless to say, neither of these organisations are funded by lefties, and nor are the known for purveying anything particularly factual about either the environment or climate change.
Even in her own chosen area of maximum “expertise”, the Murray-Darling river system, her opinions are largely derided by her peers, and she has a history of making assertions that can’t be borne out by the facts.

In other words, Dungers, pick a better source.

The article was by Roger Underwood, a bushfire expert.

Mordd 8:35 pm 11 May 16

Maya123 said :

Simon Corbell’s office has promised to answer my question on behalf of the Government as soon they can, as has Nicole Lawders office for the Opposition.

I asked if the Libs would be tearing up the 2020 target policy if elected. And asked all of them (Labor/Libs/Green) if they would be increasing the low income or pensioner electricity supplements with the policy in place.

Nicole Lawders office replied to me, same response as when I asked them about Public Housing policy – we have not released our policies yet. No response from the Government so far.

Dear *****,

Thank you for your email about renewable energy targets and electricity prices, including concessions for pensioners and people on a low income. It is great to see members of our community taking an active interest in these important issues.

We are currently working on our Environment policies and will release these in due course leading up to the election.
Kind regards,

Nicole

dungfungus 5:32 pm 11 May 16

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

A_Cog said :

It doesn’t matter how warm or hot things may be getting, the fact is the fires, which happen naturally, will burn hotter if there is more fuel which is the case in Alberta.
It was the same in the Victorian fires a few years ago where the policy of burn-offs etc. had been stopped by the Greens.

Great point.
If only we had scientists who could research these issues and apprise of the facts so we didn’t have to rely on gut-feelings or ideology any more.

Whatever you do, don’t mention the application of common sense to reach a conclusion.

The problem is, many people confuse “common-sense” with their own peculiar biases and dogmatic ideologies.
Hence we have science, performed by scientists who gather data and present checkable analyses of said data.
Hence we have dogmatists who want science shut down by withdrawing funding from CSIRO and the BoM because they don’t like it when their ideologies are contradicted by facts.
That’s not how science works – many scientists disagree with each other – the credible ones don’t scream “fraud” when they disagree, they sit down and do the work to prove their own opinion is the correct one.
The single over-riding characteristic of climate change deniers is that not one of them can sustain their opinions TOGETHER with any kind of rigorous scientific work, but instead stoop to baseless accusations of fraud.

My beliefs (not ideologies) are based on scientific research that was done a long time ago which clearly shows the same things that are are happening now also happened thousands of years ago.
I have never denied that there is a changing climate either so don’t refer to me as a denier.

HenryBG 4:33 pm 11 May 16

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

A_Cog said :

It doesn’t matter how warm or hot things may be getting, the fact is the fires, which happen naturally, will burn hotter if there is more fuel which is the case in Alberta.
It was the same in the Victorian fires a few years ago where the policy of burn-offs etc. had been stopped by the Greens.

Great point.
If only we had scientists who could research these issues and apprise of the facts so we didn’t have to rely on gut-feelings or ideology any more.

Whatever you do, don’t mention the application of common sense to reach a conclusion.

The problem is, many people confuse “common-sense” with their own peculiar biases and dogmatic ideologies.
Hence we have science, performed by scientists who gather data and present checkable analyses of said data.
Hence we have dogmatists who want science shut down by withdrawing funding from CSIRO and the BoM because they don’t like it when their ideologies are contradicted by facts.
That’s not how science works – many scientists disagree with each other – the credible ones don’t scream “fraud” when they disagree, they sit down and do the work to prove their own opinion is the correct one.
The single over-riding characteristic of climate change deniers is that not one of them can sustain their opinions TOGETHER with any kind of rigorous scientific work, but instead stoop to baseless accusations of fraud.

HenryBG 4:28 pm 11 May 16

water_lily said :

After you read this let me know if you still want more convincing:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/03/victorian-bushfires-the-result-of-human-folly/

I really have to caution you against confusing entertaining (to you) opinions with valuable sources of facts.

Marohasy worked for many years for the IPA writing right-wing opinion, often denying the facts of climate change. Needless to say, her opinions are nonsense.
She has done work for the Heartland Institute, which is a fossil-fuel-funded lobby group.
Needless to say, it isn’t on record as any kind of reliable source for facts about science.
She also has a history of involvement in misleadingly-named groupuscules such as the “Australian Environment Foundation” and the “Australian Climate Science Coalition”.
Needless to say, neither of these organisations are funded by lefties, and nor are the known for purveying anything particularly factual about either the environment or climate change.
Even in her own chosen area of maximum “expertise”, the Murray-Darling river system, her opinions are largely derided by her peers, and she has a history of making assertions that can’t be borne out by the facts.

In other words, Dungers, pick a better source.

rubaiyat 4:26 pm 11 May 16

water_lily said :

Bennop said :

A_Cog said :

searcher3489 said :

Odd how you cherry pick!

It doesn’t matter how warm or hot things may be getting, the fact is the fires, which happen naturally, will burn hotter if there is more fuel which is the case in Alberta.
It was the same in the Victorian fires a few years ago where the policy of burn-offs etc. had been stopped by the Greens.

How about some evidence of your accusations?

When was the Green government in power in Victoria, because I missed it.

The more you remove trees, the hotter and drier it gets with more dead vegetation. Hot and dry leads to more violent weather with more lightning strikes, starting more fires that can’t be contained in the hot, dry conditions.

Those hot, dry conditions then reduce the number of days in which you can safely burn, so it becomes a Catch 22.

Not rocket science, not even if your rocket science extends to struggling with the instructions to light the blue paper and step back.

After you read this let me know if you still want more convincing:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/03/victorian-bushfires-the-result-of-human-folly/

What another looney right wing rant?

If Greenies are in charge how come there are cows in Victoria’s national parks and foresters seem to be dictating the whole forest management strategies of Governments.

Is this the Reichstag all over again?

dungfungus 8:27 am 11 May 16

water_lily said :

Bennop said :

A_Cog said :

searcher3489 said :

Odd how you cherry pick!

It doesn’t matter how warm or hot things may be getting, the fact is the fires, which happen naturally, will burn hotter if there is more fuel which is the case in Alberta.
It was the same in the Victorian fires a few years ago where the policy of burn-offs etc. had been stopped by the Greens.

How about some evidence of your accusations?

When was the Green government in power in Victoria, because I missed it.

The more you remove trees, the hotter and drier it gets with more dead vegetation. Hot and dry leads to more violent weather with more lightning strikes, starting more fires that can’t be contained in the hot, dry conditions.

Those hot, dry conditions then reduce the number of days in which you can safely burn, so it becomes a Catch 22.

Not rocket science, not even if your rocket science extends to struggling with the instructions to light the blue paper and step back.

After you read this let me know if you still want more convincing:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/03/victorian-bushfires-the-result-of-human-folly/

“The more you remove trees, the hotter and drier it gets with more dead vegetation. Hot and dry leads to more violent weather with more lightning strikes, starting more fires that can’t be contained in the hot, dry conditions”
So, it isn’t minute increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide that is causing “global warming” after all!?

BTW, I agree that the higher local temperatures that are being recorded are a result of disappearing vegetation especially when the hot north-westerly winds from Central Australia reach Eastern Australia without all the trees that used to be in their path to temper those winds.

dungfungus 10:23 pm 10 May 16

dungfungus said :

A_Cog said :

It doesn’t matter how warm or hot things may be getting, the fact is the fires, which happen naturally, will burn hotter if there is more fuel which is the case in Alberta.
It was the same in the Victorian fires a few years ago where the policy of burn-offs etc. had been stopped by the Greens.

Great point.
If only we had scientists who could research these issues and apprise of the facts so we didn’t have to rely on gut-feelings or ideology any more.

Whatever you do, don’t mention the application of common sense to reach a conclusion.

7

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site