Midfielder Posted June 16, 2019 Author Share Posted June 16, 2019 sits behind a paywall so will copy... from Noel Pearson ... quite a detailed analysis of why environmental policy issues are failing... I could not agree more with one of his conclusion that linking with the left rather than the Conservative right has always been an issue... https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/the-environment-is-too-important-to-be-left-to-ecowarriors/news-story/f0e07fa43ae8965c0c96f3c8f2a27658 Can a cause for the right succeed in the long run if it is pursued through unrighteous means? Can causes for the good be selective in their adherence to science? Or do righteous ends justify unrighteous means? This is the crisis confronting environmentalism. It suffered a grievous loss at the federal election and the Adani red line is broken. This may be a crisis of legitimacy. The question is whether political environmentalism is turning off voters and hardening attitudes against the necessary effective policies to secure future sustainability. Are the means employed by political environmentalism destroying the possibility of Australia achieving the desired end of sustainability through consensus? Or is consensus unnecessary because the morally right end means the maxim “by any means necessary” applies? Political environmentalism is undermining the cause of sustainability because short-term expediency and tactical opportunism is trumping long-term strategic consensus-building. Environmentalism has degenerated into the binary of cultural war when it needs to transcend such wars. Its leaders have led the movement into a zero-sum game, where political victory in one battlefield is countered by loss in another. We should first explain what we mean by causes for the right. Political parties seeking power in government are not in the business of the right. Electoral politics are by definition ruthless, with few holds barred. Lies, half-truths, fake news, negative advertising and dirt files are part of the repertoire of power in politics. One party’s Mediscare is the other party’s retiree tax. Former Labor NSW state secretary and federal minister Graham Richardson captured the ethos of politics in his memoir Whatever It Takes. Noble and ignoble things are achieved by marshalling political power. While causes for power are amoral, there are causes for the right. Civil rights and the anti-apartheid movement are examples. Emancipation and antislavery are even older precedents. Such causes mobilise the political process and power for good ends. Conservation is such a cause. Few would dispute it is a moral duty of humankind regardless of political affiliation and preference. Causes for the truth must be ethical, otherwise they suffer damage. Moral integrity is the great currency of righteous movements, but the political environmentalists have jeopardised the cause of conservation by allowing it to descend into the hyper-partisan battlefield of culture and politics. It is exposed to the 51-49 per cent risk. When your party wins 51, then you may win tactical victories, but when it is 49 you have put your cause in peril. This is what has happened to Adani after the election. I want to allege five profound mistakes the political environmentalists are making in Australia: First, they are alienating the lower classes in their droves. This is the lesson of the 2019 election. The political environmentalists pushed climate policies that worked for the post-material middle class, but cared less about the economically precarious. More than the costs, it is the movement’s superior cultural attitude that pisses off the lower classes in such a visceral way. Second, they are alienating indigenous peoples by pushing the costs of conservation on to those who have not created the crisis. Indigenous leaders such as Marcia Langton and Warren Mundine have highlighted the green lockup of indigenous lands from development. These groups manipulate and exploit divisions within landowner communities. They divide and rule the same as mining companies do, setting up puppets that favour their agenda. We saw this in the campaign against the Kimberley Land Council. We see it in Cape York in relation to Wild Rivers and blanket World Heritage listing proposals. Traditional owners supported conservation goals and helped create by agreement new national parks and other conservation tenures. But the political environmentalists are never satisfied. They want everything locked up. They are making enemies of the country’s largest landowners because they use electoral leverage with governments to subjugate land rights. If they are alienating the land rights movement, which is more aligned to conservation than other sectors, what does that say about them? A third problem is they are at the forefront of deploying so-called “new power” in their public campaigns. Through the diffusion of social media and decentralised campaigning, green groups began to seriously challenge the “old power”. GetUp co-founder Jeremy Heimans and Henry Timms explain this development in their 2018 book New Power. Breaking the old power monopoly is welcome; however, the dilemmas of social media and its susceptibility to manipulation and its effects on civil society and democratic governance are troubling. Twitter and Facebook have just created online mob behaviour. Hardly platforms for moral causes. And the political environmentalists have used the new power to promote conservation and climate change action in as cynical a way as the forces against which they are pitted. Getup and Sleeping Giants use the same tools of manipulation as deliberately as Breitbart and Cambridge Analytica. A fourth problem is the political environmentalists are highly selective in their adherence to science, and in so doing bring science into disrepute in public policy debates. Who really believed the black-throated finch was the environmental issue of Adani? The poor critters were used as a proxy for opposition to coalmining. Why the charade? The Queensland Labor government should have been honest with the public and said: the policy question we face is whether the Galilee Basin should be opened up to coalmining in the context of its contribution to the crisis of global warming. But because they wanted to walk two sides of the street at once — intimating to greenies they did not support Adani while intimating to regional workers that they supported coalmining — they did not bring the crux policy question to a head and provide their answer to it. They lacked the courage of their convictions and simply did not have the leadership to untie the Gordian knot that expanded coalmining in the Galilee Basin represents. And now the May 18 loss sees them stampeding over the poor birds and anything else standing in the way of their electoral prospects next year. The stances environmental groups take in relation to any number of issues — nuclear energy and aquaculture, for example — evince a selective adherence to science. Does not environmental science tell us about the interconnectivity of the planet, and if nuclear power is used in Europe, Asia and the Americas, and contributes to lower carbon emissions, why is the debate on nuclear power not on the basis of science and the mitigation of risks associated with nuclear energy, instead of a green version of obscurantism? The proponents of safer nuclear waste disposal in Australia (which included the late Bob Hawke) have got a point that is worth subjecting to science rather than outright prohibition. While the case for domestic nuclear power may not be strong, it is a substantial source of energy throughout the world, and as a uranium producer we are obliged to consider our role in the management of its waste. There are strong geopolitical arguments in favour of Australia assuming this responsibility and mitigating the large risks involved, which we are better placed to carry than most other countries. After all, it is the greenies who tell us the planet is one and national boundaries are environmentally meaningless. The fifth and most fundamental problem is the political environmentalists have aligned environmentalism with socialism rather than conservatism. Another way of saying this is they have aligned environmentalism with progressivism rather than conservatism. There is a fundamental philosophical problem at the heart of contemporary environmentalism. I do not mean in respect of the appreciation of the natural environment. I mean in respect of where our motive must come from in order to conserve the good things we have been bequeathed from our ancestors for the benefit of our future unborn. This is the motive that is unanswered by the utilitarian calculations of liberals and socialists. Not everything is about price. Conservatives understand that some things are valuable because they are priceless. English conservative philosopher Roger Scruton’s 2012 book Green Philosophy is the starting point for a new conservative approach to conservation. The approach is old — about stewardship and our responsibility to bequeath to future generations the gifts we received from our ancestors — but its application to the environmental crises facing our homelands, including global warming, is new. The climate obscurantists who are in the same binary as the political environmentalists and who think themselves conservatives should read Scruton. They should be the first to understand the conservation in conservatism but, alas, cultural war has caused a degeneration on all sides. Progressive socialists don’t know what Scruton is referring to: oikophilia, the love of home that speaks to people’s connection with their environment, which animates their responsibilities. Instead, they propose large schemes, imposed from above by state diktat, while doing violence to the most important engine of conservation: the local connection of communities with their environment, and their concern to leave their descendants what their ancestors left for them. Progressives are more concerned with environmental posturing, cutting the correct moral gesture, being seen to be more enlightened and selfless, in contrast to the deplorables and knuckle-draggers. The green leaders all want to be the next Bob Brown, renowned for their own Franklin Dam or Wet Tropics. They trample over politically weaker communities such as Queensland property owners uncompensated for tree-clearing restrictions that underwrote our Kyoto target in the 2000s. It was John Howard’s federal government and Peter Beattie’s state government that dispossessed these landowners without proper compensation. Indigenous landowners are another politically weaker community that are ridden roughshod over by political environmentalists. The folly of all of this is now surely clear. What can be done? Ever since Richardson alighted on the strategy of garnering the environmental vote, Labor began outsourcing its environmental policy integrity to the political environmentalists. This yielded electoral returns in 1987 and 1990 but ultimately led to Labor bleeding market share to the Greens and being held hostage to political environmentalism. Labor’s environmental credibility came from environmental group endorsements after adopting their policies and acquiescing to their demands. Rather than undertaking the principal responsibility of government, coming up with policies that balance development with environmental sustainability, it did preference deals with the political environmentalists. Environmental groups became experts at marginal seat politics, turning 2 to 3 per cent of the environment vote to win 51 per cent victories for their pet campaigns. The hook-up with GetUp is the apotheosis of Labor’s dalliance with political environmentalism. What electorate is not going to be suspicious of the next bunch of out-of-towners hectoring them about how to vote next time? GetUp was Bill Shorten’s long game at mobilising AstroTurf activism and it has all ended in tears. Labor must define its own environmental credentials in its own right, not as an alliance with the Greens or as the lapdog of a certain environmental milieu. Watching Jackie Trad squirm as Queensland Environment Minister Leeanne Enoch approved the Adani mine this week told the whole sorry story. Labor can no longer walk two sides of the street at once. It worked for Annastacia Palaszczuk in 2017 but not for Shorten in 2019. Voters might be fooled once, but not all the time. To develop environmental policies free from deal-making with the political environmentalists, Labor must balance human society and environmental sustainability. The last thing the environment portfolio needs is a progressive from an inner-city seat, surrounded by a milieu of political environmentalists. Labor needs to take environment policy back to first principles and get its philosophy right first. The environment is too important to be left to the political environmentalists. Edinburgh and Legionista 2 Link to comment
Midfielder Posted June 16, 2019 Author Share Posted June 16, 2019 https://www.australianethical.com.au/news/understanding-climate-change-denial/?utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=cpc Brilliant wendybr 1 Link to comment
Legionista Posted June 17, 2019 Share Posted June 17, 2019 On 16/06/2019 at 10:25 AM, Midfielder said: sits behind a paywall so will copy... from Noel Pearson ... quite a detailed analysis of why environmental policy issues are failing... I could not agree more with one of his conclusion that linking with the left rather than the Conservative right has always been an issue... https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/the-environment-is-too-important-to-be-left-to-ecowarriors/news-story/f0e07fa43ae8965c0c96f3c8f2a27658 Can a cause for the right succeed in the long run if it is pursued through unrighteous means? Can causes for the good be selective in their adherence to science? Or do righteous ends justify unrighteous means? This is the crisis confronting environmentalism. It suffered a grievous loss at the federal election and the Adani red line is broken. This may be a crisis of legitimacy. The question is whether political environmentalism is turning off voters and hardening attitudes against the necessary effective policies to secure future sustainability. Are the means employed by political environmentalism destroying the possibility of Australia achieving the desired end of sustainability through consensus? Or is consensus unnecessary because the morally right end means the maxim “by any means necessary” applies? Political environmentalism is undermining the cause of sustainability because short-term expediency and tactical opportunism is trumping long-term strategic consensus-building. Environmentalism has degenerated into the binary of cultural war when it needs to transcend such wars. Its leaders have led the movement into a zero-sum game, where political victory in one battlefield is countered by loss in another. We should first explain what we mean by causes for the right. Political parties seeking power in government are not in the business of the right. Electoral politics are by definition ruthless, with few holds barred. Lies, half-truths, fake news, negative advertising and dirt files are part of the repertoire of power in politics. One party’s Mediscare is the other party’s retiree tax. Former Labor NSW state secretary and federal minister Graham Richardson captured the ethos of politics in his memoir Whatever It Takes. Noble and ignoble things are achieved by marshalling political power. While causes for power are amoral, there are causes for the right. Civil rights and the anti-apartheid movement are examples. Emancipation and antislavery are even older precedents. Such causes mobilise the political process and power for good ends. Conservation is such a cause. Few would dispute it is a moral duty of humankind regardless of political affiliation and preference. Causes for the truth must be ethical, otherwise they suffer damage. Moral integrity is the great currency of righteous movements, but the political environmentalists have jeopardised the cause of conservation by allowing it to descend into the hyper-partisan battlefield of culture and politics. It is exposed to the 51-49 per cent risk. When your party wins 51, then you may win tactical victories, but when it is 49 you have put your cause in peril. This is what has happened to Adani after the election. I want to allege five profound mistakes the political environmentalists are making in Australia: First, they are alienating the lower classes in their droves. This is the lesson of the 2019 election. The political environmentalists pushed climate policies that worked for the post-material middle class, but cared less about the economically precarious. More than the costs, it is the movement’s superior cultural attitude that pisses off the lower classes in such a visceral way. Second, they are alienating indigenous peoples by pushing the costs of conservation on to those who have not created the crisis. Indigenous leaders such as Marcia Langton and Warren Mundine have highlighted the green lockup of indigenous lands from development. These groups manipulate and exploit divisions within landowner communities. They divide and rule the same as mining companies do, setting up puppets that favour their agenda. We saw this in the campaign against the Kimberley Land Council. We see it in Cape York in relation to Wild Rivers and blanket World Heritage listing proposals. Traditional owners supported conservation goals and helped create by agreement new national parks and other conservation tenures. But the political environmentalists are never satisfied. They want everything locked up. They are making enemies of the country’s largest landowners because they use electoral leverage with governments to subjugate land rights. If they are alienating the land rights movement, which is more aligned to conservation than other sectors, what does that say about them? A third problem is they are at the forefront of deploying so-called “new power” in their public campaigns. Through the diffusion of social media and decentralised campaigning, green groups began to seriously challenge the “old power”. GetUp co-founder Jeremy Heimans and Henry Timms explain this development in their 2018 book New Power. Breaking the old power monopoly is welcome; however, the dilemmas of social media and its susceptibility to manipulation and its effects on civil society and democratic governance are troubling. Twitter and Facebook have just created online mob behaviour. Hardly platforms for moral causes. And the political environmentalists have used the new power to promote conservation and climate change action in as cynical a way as the forces against which they are pitted. Getup and Sleeping Giants use the same tools of manipulation as deliberately as Breitbart and Cambridge Analytica. A fourth problem is the political environmentalists are highly selective in their adherence to science, and in so doing bring science into disrepute in public policy debates. Who really believed the black-throated finch was the environmental issue of Adani? The poor critters were used as a proxy for opposition to coalmining. Why the charade? The Queensland Labor government should have been honest with the public and said: the policy question we face is whether the Galilee Basin should be opened up to coalmining in the context of its contribution to the crisis of global warming. But because they wanted to walk two sides of the street at once — intimating to greenies they did not support Adani while intimating to regional workers that they supported coalmining — they did not bring the crux policy question to a head and provide their answer to it. They lacked the courage of their convictions and simply did not have the leadership to untie the Gordian knot that expanded coalmining in the Galilee Basin represents. And now the May 18 loss sees them stampeding over the poor birds and anything else standing in the way of their electoral prospects next year. The stances environmental groups take in relation to any number of issues — nuclear energy and aquaculture, for example — evince a selective adherence to science. Does not environmental science tell us about the interconnectivity of the planet, and if nuclear power is used in Europe, Asia and the Americas, and contributes to lower carbon emissions, why is the debate on nuclear power not on the basis of science and the mitigation of risks associated with nuclear energy, instead of a green version of obscurantism? The proponents of safer nuclear waste disposal in Australia (which included the late Bob Hawke) have got a point that is worth subjecting to science rather than outright prohibition. While the case for domestic nuclear power may not be strong, it is a substantial source of energy throughout the world, and as a uranium producer we are obliged to consider our role in the management of its waste. There are strong geopolitical arguments in favour of Australia assuming this responsibility and mitigating the large risks involved, which we are better placed to carry than most other countries. After all, it is the greenies who tell us the planet is one and national boundaries are environmentally meaningless. The fifth and most fundamental problem is the political environmentalists have aligned environmentalism with socialism rather than conservatism. Another way of saying this is they have aligned environmentalism with progressivism rather than conservatism. There is a fundamental philosophical problem at the heart of contemporary environmentalism. I do not mean in respect of the appreciation of the natural environment. I mean in respect of where our motive must come from in order to conserve the good things we have been bequeathed from our ancestors for the benefit of our future unborn. This is the motive that is unanswered by the utilitarian calculations of liberals and socialists. Not everything is about price. Conservatives understand that some things are valuable because they are priceless. English conservative philosopher Roger Scruton’s 2012 book Green Philosophy is the starting point for a new conservative approach to conservation. The approach is old — about stewardship and our responsibility to bequeath to future generations the gifts we received from our ancestors — but its application to the environmental crises facing our homelands, including global warming, is new. The climate obscurantists who are in the same binary as the political environmentalists and who think themselves conservatives should read Scruton. They should be the first to understand the conservation in conservatism but, alas, cultural war has caused a degeneration on all sides. Progressive socialists don’t know what Scruton is referring to: oikophilia, the love of home that speaks to people’s connection with their environment, which animates their responsibilities. Instead, they propose large schemes, imposed from above by state diktat, while doing violence to the most important engine of conservation: the local connection of communities with their environment, and their concern to leave their descendants what their ancestors left for them. Progressives are more concerned with environmental posturing, cutting the correct moral gesture, being seen to be more enlightened and selfless, in contrast to the deplorables and knuckle-draggers. The green leaders all want to be the next Bob Brown, renowned for their own Franklin Dam or Wet Tropics. They trample over politically weaker communities such as Queensland property owners uncompensated for tree-clearing restrictions that underwrote our Kyoto target in the 2000s. It was John Howard’s federal government and Peter Beattie’s state government that dispossessed these landowners without proper compensation. Indigenous landowners are another politically weaker community that are ridden roughshod over by political environmentalists. The folly of all of this is now surely clear. What can be done? Ever since Richardson alighted on the strategy of garnering the environmental vote, Labor began outsourcing its environmental policy integrity to the political environmentalists. This yielded electoral returns in 1987 and 1990 but ultimately led to Labor bleeding market share to the Greens and being held hostage to political environmentalism. Labor’s environmental credibility came from environmental group endorsements after adopting their policies and acquiescing to their demands. Rather than undertaking the principal responsibility of government, coming up with policies that balance development with environmental sustainability, it did preference deals with the political environmentalists. Environmental groups became experts at marginal seat politics, turning 2 to 3 per cent of the environment vote to win 51 per cent victories for their pet campaigns. The hook-up with GetUp is the apotheosis of Labor’s dalliance with political environmentalism. What electorate is not going to be suspicious of the next bunch of out-of-towners hectoring them about how to vote next time? GetUp was Bill Shorten’s long game at mobilising AstroTurf activism and it has all ended in tears. Labor must define its own environmental credentials in its own right, not as an alliance with the Greens or as the lapdog of a certain environmental milieu. Watching Jackie Trad squirm as Queensland Environment Minister Leeanne Enoch approved the Adani mine this week told the whole sorry story. Labor can no longer walk two sides of the street at once. It worked for Annastacia Palaszczuk in 2017 but not for Shorten in 2019. Voters might be fooled once, but not all the time. To develop environmental policies free from deal-making with the political environmentalists, Labor must balance human society and environmental sustainability. The last thing the environment portfolio needs is a progressive from an inner-city seat, surrounded by a milieu of political environmentalists. Labor needs to take environment policy back to first principles and get its philosophy right first. The environment is too important to be left to the political environmentalists. This. Link to comment
LeeMarvin Posted June 17, 2019 Share Posted June 17, 2019 Angry refutal from Cynth incoming in... Link to comment
Taurus Posted June 17, 2019 Share Posted June 17, 2019 Geez you peeps are easily distracted. It's obvious that we're heading into another Ice Age. At least we'll have an abundant supply of black coal to dig up & burn to stay warm Link to comment
Paul01 Posted June 17, 2019 Share Posted June 17, 2019 Giving Morrison and Angus (the liar imo) Taylor stick Australia quizzed by EU and China on whether it can meet 2030 Paris climate target https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/18/australia-quizzed-by-eu-and-china-on-whether-it-can-meet-2030-paris-climate-target?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard EmMac, wendybr, Midfielder and 1 other 4 Link to comment
Paul01 Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 Angus Taylor with his about in the trough Josh Frydenberg's office asked if environmental rule changes could be kept secret https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/20/josh-frydenbergs-office-asked-if-environmental-rule-changes-could-be-kept-secret?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard DinoPresinger, Midfielder and wendybr 3 Link to comment
Midfielder Posted June 21, 2019 Author Share Posted June 21, 2019 On 18/06/2019 at 6:30 AM, Paul01 said: Giving Morrison and Angus (the liar imo) Taylor stick Australia quizzed by EU and China on whether it can meet 2030 Paris climate target https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/18/australia-quizzed-by-eu-and-china-on-whether-it-can-meet-2030-paris-climate-target?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard On 20/06/2019 at 7:34 AM, Paul01 said: Angus Taylor with his about in the trough Josh Frydenberg's office asked if environmental rule changes could be kept secret https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/20/josh-frydenbergs-office-asked-if-environmental-rule-changes-could-be-kept-secret?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard Makes people like me feel sick stories and become angry at how poor Labour was at the last election... we have this mob for another 3 years and they simply don't have an opposition ... wendybr 1 Link to comment
Midfielder Posted June 23, 2019 Author Share Posted June 23, 2019 Carbon Capture plant. HHHHMMmmmmmm lots of oil company money behind this which means I am not sure but the idea of this plant is IMO brilliant its need some considerable through ... but as I said the idea and the teck is amazing... well worth a look... Link to comment
mack Posted June 23, 2019 Share Posted June 23, 2019 Anything Bill Gates & the Oil companies are funding isn't going to do **** to fix things and they are lying in the video because they don't covert CO2 to Oxygen like a plant does, they just capture the CO2. Link to comment
Paul01 Posted June 23, 2019 Share Posted June 23, 2019 16 hours ago, mack said: Anything Bill Gates & the Oil companies are funding isn't going to do **** to fix things and they are lying in the video because they don't covert CO2 to Oxygen like a plant does, they just capture the CO2. Actually you can convert CO2 to methane over a catalyst and a by-product of the process is Oxygen. The trick is to do it on a large scale as well as economically. Bill Gates is not in with the oil companies is far more altruistic. He is funding the development of a cheap malaria treatment for the developing and rapidly developing countries who can't afford the medicines from the multi-national pharma companies. wendybr 1 Link to comment
theguyyouwishyouwere Posted June 23, 2019 Share Posted June 23, 2019 2 hours ago, Paul01 said: Actually you can convert CO2 to methane over a catalyst and a by-product of the process is Oxygen. The trick is to do it on a large scale as well as economically. Bill Gates is not in with the oil companies is far more altruistic. He is funding the development of a cheap malaria treatment for the developing and rapidly developing countries who can't afford the medicines from the multi-national pharma companies. but isn't methane even more devastating to the atmosphere than CO and CO2? Link to comment
Paul01 Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 1 hour ago, theguyyouwishyouwere said: but isn't methane even more devastating to the atmosphere than CO and CO2? Not if it's captured and used for other purposes. From the Brittanica Methane is the chief constituent of natural gas, which contains from 50 to 90 percent methane (depending on the source) wendybr and theguyyouwishyouwere 2 Link to comment
Cynth Posted June 28, 2019 Share Posted June 28, 2019 Someone better tell Trump that someone else is winning now... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/26/energy-renewable-electricity-coal-power Midfielder 1 Link to comment
Zelinsky Posted June 30, 2019 Share Posted June 30, 2019 (edited) I spoke to a guy who is heavily involved in this project: https://www.healesvillecore.org.au/ In essence, the community he is living in aims to be carbon neutral within 10 years after kicking off the project. He tells me that energy providers have stopped paying attention to what the federal government is doing or not doing, and is coordinating Australia's electricity future with community initiatives like this. In other words, they are wrestling the issue out out of the the federal government, and team up with local and state government instead. Community democracy at its best. They are only one of many. Contact the "Coalition for Community Energy" if you want to connect to people in your area https://c4ce.net.au/. Beats sitting on the couch at home and moan. Edited June 30, 2019 by FCB Midfielder, wendybr, EmMac and 1 other 4 Link to comment
Smoggy Posted July 1, 2019 Share Posted July 1, 2019 (edited) 1.5m of hail ice carpets Guadalajara in Mexico https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-48821306 Makes you wonder what the storm that did this looked like. In the 1836 snow was recorded as falling in Sydney, I think it was more likely an event like this. Makes that hail game at Parra look lame by comparison... Edited July 1, 2019 by Erimus wendybr and Midfielder 2 Link to comment
Paul01 Posted July 5, 2019 Share Posted July 5, 2019 'Biggest compliment yet': Greta Thunberg welcomes oil chief's 'greatest threat' label https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/05/biggest-compliment-yet-greta-thunberg-welcomes-oil-chiefs-greatest-threat-label?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard Midfielder, wendybr and Wobblies 3 Link to comment
Wobblies Posted July 5, 2019 Share Posted July 5, 2019 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/05/trump-revolutionary-war-airport-claim-memes History not his strongest subject....or his speech writer's. Midfielder 1 Link to comment
wendybr Posted July 5, 2019 Share Posted July 5, 2019 1 hour ago, Paul01 said: 'Biggest compliment yet': Greta Thunberg welcomes oil chief's 'greatest threat' label https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/05/biggest-compliment-yet-greta-thunberg-welcomes-oil-chiefs-greatest-threat-label?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard Brilliant. That last sentence says it all tho. Link to comment
Midfielder Posted July 7, 2019 Author Share Posted July 7, 2019 Brilliant read https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/could-hydrogen-energy-be-australia-s-future-this-village-might-show-us-how-20190705-p524h8.html Could hydrogen energy be Australia's future? This village might show us how wendybr 1 Link to comment
Midfielder Posted July 8, 2019 Author Share Posted July 8, 2019 The MSM in the US is so against renewable's ... that massive success stories are so miss represented and so framed that arguably the most successful car company in recent history ... This is story about Tesla.... very funny I put up before how they never put a story to air ... that was very Tesla positive... Very worth while watching... Link to comment
Cynth Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 Midfielder, Wobblies, EmMac and 1 other 4 Link to comment
Cynth Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 23 minutes ago, wendybr said: ^^^ It’s horrifying. They say Greenland will lose around 50 billion tons of ice just this week! They are having a heatwave. Link to comment
wendybr Posted August 2, 2019 Share Posted August 2, 2019 27 minutes ago, Cynth said: It’s horrifying. Yes. Link to comment
pseudonym Posted August 10, 2019 Share Posted August 10, 2019 https://www.theclimatemobilization.org/victory-plan Legionista 1 Link to comment
Midfielder Posted August 12, 2019 Author Share Posted August 12, 2019 RE published in the OZ from a Wall Street Journal Article.... Please please please read, share, and sent to people.... https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/world-switches-on-to-batteries/news-story/c8001f93f60619e724a88c4afd868a83 A global wave of investment in high-capacity batteries is poised to transform the market for renewable energy in coming years, making it more practical and affordable to store wind and solar power and deploy it when needed. Government-owned utilities and companies are buying batteries that can be larger than shipping containers. Some like Tesla’s new utility-scale battery can hold enough energy to power every home in San Francisco for six hours. Battery makers also are working on more advanced models that will hold more power and last longer. In the US, the Silicon Valley-based firm introduced its new battery technology called Megapack last month that Pacific Gas & Electric plans to use in California. Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems is developing high-capacity batteries for a 1000-megawatt venture in Utah that it touts as the world’s largest renewable-energy storage project. In the UK, ScottishPower is spending $US7.2 billion on renewable energy, grid upgrades and battery storage between 2018 and 2022. The utility owns Scotland’s largest electricity network and operates in Europe’s windiest region, and generates all its power from renewable sources after selling its last fossil fuel assets in January. China’s goal is to increase the use of renewable energy and batteries by 2030 as part of a massive national energy overhaul aimed at helping to reduce the use of polluting coal-fired power plants. And the World Bank Group has set aside $US1 billion to invest in battery projects, including one of the world’s largest mixed solar, wind and storage power plants in India and a battery project in South Africa anticipated to be the largest of its kind in sub-Saharan Africa. “We certainly feel a momentum in the market for batteries,” said Riccardo Puliti, global director for energy at the World Bank. High-capacity batteries have previously been too expensive for most energy providers to invest in, which has slowed the growth of renewable power, according to analysts. “The lack of cheap and readily available energy storage has been one of the impediments for wider adoption of renewables,” said Ravi Manghani, director for energy storage at consulting firm Wood Mackenzie. But storage-battery prices have dropped nearly 40 per cent since 2015, according to Wood Mackenzie data. The prices of lithium and vanadium -- two of several key raw materials that are used in such batteries -- also have declined over the past year or so. The batteries have the potential to solve problems that have hampered the adoption of wind and solar power. The reliability of those sources can vary when the wind is calm or the sky is cloudy, and some of the power can go to waste if there is no effective means to store it. Such problems have left renewable energy vulnerable to criticism. “When the wind stops blowing, that’s the end of your electric,” President Donald Trump said in March at the Conservative Political Action Conference. With high-capacity batteries, utilities can store energy generated by wind turbines and solar panels and then provide it to customers when weather conditions are less than ideal or during periods of high demand. Some batteries are the size of a refrigerator, while others are far larger, and utilities generally deploy several at a time. There are several competing battery technologies. Lithium batteries are less expensive and the most widely produced, but vanadium-based batteries have a longer lifespan and can hold more power. Utilities around the globe deployed a record 6.1 gigawatt hours of energy-storage capacity in 2018, enough to power about 50,000 households for a day, according to Wood Mackenzie. That is relatively small, but spending on high-capacity batteries is set to grow sixfold to $US71 billion by 2024, according to Wood Mackenzie. In California, Tesla and other firms are delivering batteries that will replace three ageing gas plants. The storage solutions will provide power to the grid during periods of high demand. China is already a major user of high-capacity batteries. China and South Korea deployed more than 40 per cent of the new gigawatt hours put into service worldwide for stationary energy storage solutions last year, according to the market intelligence firm IDTechEx. Meanwhile, the World Bank’s battery program is aimed at providing power to the more than 800 million people worldwide particularly in parts of Asia and Africa that don’t have access to electricity. The bank expects to raise an additional $US4 billion in private funding to drive ventures such as the partnership with South Africa’s state-owned utility Eskom to develop a 1.44 gigawatt-hour battery. ScottishPower’s investment in batteries is intended to help prevent some of the wind power it generates from going to waste and to help balance the electricity supply on the grid. Scotland produces more wind energy than it can use, and it currently sends excess production to other parts of the UK, but some of that energy is lost because of the lack of storage capacity, according to the utility ScottishPower. “Our vision for the future of energy has storage at its core,” ScottishPower Chief Executive Keith Anderson said. Wall Street Journal wendybr 1 Link to comment
Cynth Posted September 2, 2019 Share Posted September 2, 2019 Australia need to diversify. Coal is not our future. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-08-29/energy-giants-describe-coal-s-last-stand wendybr 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts