Corbell signs us up to Paris emissions plan

This server does not accept elementary Open Type and mathematical symbols.

The ? should be the mathematical symbol for “does not equal”.

HenryBG said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

… how would that make a difference in the ocean of CO2 when Beijing will not play fair at the talks? As the biggest contributor to the problem, contributing over a quarter of the worlds CO2 emissions, China cries poor and won’t do anything drastic to stop the problem. …

Why do people who choose to cling to the fantastical belief that climate change is not real *always* buttress their fantasy with fiction?

From Wikipedia:
“China produces 63% of the world’s solar photovoltaics (PV).[15] It has emerged as the world’s largest manufacturer as of June 2015.[16][17]”

“At the end of June 2015, there were 105 GW of electricity generating capacity installed in China”

China is poor, compared with us, and yet they are putting us to shame: a bunch of communists have no problem understanding what the science is telling us, and accepting that renewables are absolutely vital, unlike the last lunatic we had in power here who deliberately tried to scrap renewables in this country.

There must be two Chinas then.
The poor one you know and the rich one whose people are buying all our real estate with cash (which is exempt from reporting when paid to a real estate agent).

HenryBG said :

“China produces 63% of the world’s solar photovoltaics (PV).[15] It has emerged as the world’s largest manufacturer as of June 2015.[16][17]”

China is poor, compared with us, and yet they are putting us to shame: a bunch of communists have no problem understanding what the science is telling us, and accepting that renewables are absolutely vital, unlike the last lunatic we had in power here who deliberately tried to scrap renewables in this country.

So by exporting all these cheap solar cells around the globe that last 6 months and get thrown in the bin [like in the case of my father’s caravan “flexible” solar panel], China is supposedly doing its part to stop global warming? So how do you explain this – ” So far this year, China had approved 155 coal plants with a capacity of 120 gigawatts – equivalent to about 120 large-sized plants in Australia.”
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/un-climate-conference/paris-un-climate-conference-2015-solar-chief-hits-out-at-china-over-coal-20151206-glgv3d.html#ixzz3tqwy3PxK
Even though it is both financially and environmentally not viable, they are still going ahead because of the money already invested. If they were really committed, these power plants would be scrapped before the first sod of soil was turned. One power plant a week, that is how fast they are building them! You think we look shameful with our modest 1.5% contribution, whilst Canberra only makes up 0.7% of that.
As for being economically poor? Who is buying up Australian property at record levels? Until their stock exchange took a dive recently, they were considered one of the world’s foremost rising economical powers, looking to become the biggest player in the region. China crying poor, that’s a new one. I suppose they’ll be requesting financial assistance in order to curb their reliance on coal too.
I still stand firm that the A.C.T’s one thousandth of one percent carbon footprint isn’t going to do squat whilst China isn’t required to reduce the amount of carbon coming from their coal powered generators for the next 15 years. A real commitment would see them sign up to at least some real reduction instead of just some more warm and fuzzy words alluding to an attempt at doing “something” in an unspecified time frame.

Despite everything he has experienced in the assembly over almost two decades, Simon is the last of the Labor true believers in government.

No wonder the party has thrown him out. His mistake was not being a loud shill for the developers.

Simon is the perfect example of why power > principle.

I did not think Australia was involved in the Paris talks? What is Corbell doing there? Sheesh, is this his farewell junket?

wildturkeycanoe said :

… how would that make a difference in the ocean of CO2 when Beijing will not play fair at the talks? As the biggest contributor to the problem, contributing over a quarter of the worlds CO2 emissions, China cries poor and won’t do anything drastic to stop the problem. …

Why do people who choose to cling to the fantastical belief that climate change is not real *always* buttress their fantasy with fiction?

From Wikipedia:
“China produces 63% of the world’s solar photovoltaics (PV).[15] It has emerged as the world’s largest manufacturer as of June 2015.[16][17]”

“At the end of June 2015, there were 105 GW of electricity generating capacity installed in China”

China is poor, compared with us, and yet they are putting us to shame: a bunch of communists have no problem understanding what the science is telling us, and accepting that renewables are absolutely vital, unlike the last lunatic we had in power here who deliberately tried to scrap renewables in this country.

rubaiyat said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

So if the A.C.T completely eliminated its carbon footprint from the globe, a total of roughly 6.3 million tonnes per year [at an approximate 350,000 people], the same as what an inactive volcano spews out, how would that make a difference in the ocean of CO2 when Beijing will not play fair at the talks? As the biggest contributor to the problem, contributing over a quarter of the worlds CO2 emissions, China cries poor and won’t do anything drastic to stop the problem. Just look how bad Beijing has gotten, the air is classified as toxic. How on earth is our piddly little effort going to make an iota of difference then? The tram will be as effective on global warming as shooting an elephant with a Nerf gun.
Every can of baby formula flying over to China only adds to the problem, but these issues aren’t being addressed. By declaring FTAs with overseas partners we only open the door to more travel and more international transport thanks to our new buying and selling power. Wouldn’t becoming more self sufficient be the right way to go about things instead of creating more reasons to move products and services across the globe? Talk about hypocrisy.

Self sufficient in oil/energy?

Your mantra has just been drive more cars, longer distances on ever bigger freeways and pretend it all has no consequences.

btw China is a huge country both physically and geographically and is doing far more than anyone else on sustainable energy AS WELL as increasing its economy (from a very low base) at a pace never seen before.

The favourite weekend pastime of young Chinese families is going for long drives in their (fossil fuel powered) family car.

I meant to include this link:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-10/an-suvs-gain-popularity-in-china/5193776

rubaiyat said :

Self sufficient in oil/energy?

Your mantra has just been drive more cars, longer distances on ever bigger freeways and pretend it all has no consequences.

Did I say anything about oil/energy? I’m talking about self sufficiency in terms of not needing power from the grid by using solar panels, not needing water by storing rain in tanks, not requiring cable for internet using mobile and satellite technology. Why would the government want people to do this when it depletes their revenue from rates, taxes and supply charges?
It is far more profitable for the government to pile everybody into a confined space to make more dollars per square meter of real estate. The less independent and more reliant on the government people are, the more they can squeeze out of their purses. Why do you think you cannot export to the grid at a 1:1 ratio for solar, but instead sell it to the retailers at a fraction of what they charge you? Why would they insist every new house has double glazing and the most efficient insulation going when the more energy you use to heat and cool the place, the more the consumer’s money flows into their pocket?
As for China, they are doing a bang-up job aren’t they? So much has been invested in new coal powered plants that it is hitting their economy hard due to oversupply. They might be decommissioning old plants to limit the impact but overall the emissions won’t reduce for 15 years or so. How is that supposed to help the environment? Are they just going to plant more trees and buy carbon credits?

National leader? I have a very strong suspicion that SA generates a much larger percentage of it’s power from renewables than the ACT could ever hope to. (And buying it in is cheating)

wildturkeycanoe said :

So if the A.C.T completely eliminated its carbon footprint from the globe, a total of roughly 6.3 million tonnes per year [at an approximate 350,000 people], the same as what an inactive volcano spews out, how would that make a difference in the ocean of CO2 when Beijing will not play fair at the talks? As the biggest contributor to the problem, contributing over a quarter of the worlds CO2 emissions, China cries poor and won’t do anything drastic to stop the problem. Just look how bad Beijing has gotten, the air is classified as toxic. How on earth is our piddly little effort going to make an iota of difference then? The tram will be as effective on global warming as shooting an elephant with a Nerf gun.
Every can of baby formula flying over to China only adds to the problem, but these issues aren’t being addressed. By declaring FTAs with overseas partners we only open the door to more travel and more international transport thanks to our new buying and selling power. Wouldn’t becoming more self sufficient be the right way to go about things instead of creating more reasons to move products and services across the globe? Talk about hypocrisy.

Self sufficient in oil/energy?

Your mantra has just been drive more cars, longer distances on ever bigger freeways and pretend it all has no consequences.

btw China is a huge country both physically and geographically and is doing far more than anyone else on sustainable energy AS WELL as increasing its economy (from a very low base) at a pace never seen before.