Midfielder Posted January 31, 2019 Author Share Posted January 31, 2019 This is a walk down memory isle... but its worth watching because it shows how much we respected science Link to comment
Midfielder Posted February 4, 2019 Author Share Posted February 4, 2019 Some wind stuff Link to comment
wendybr Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 Thanks for posting all the above Middy! I have a lot of catching up to do...and will get to them soon...but it's good to have some positives here, when surrounded by so much to get despondent about. Link to comment
Midfielder Posted February 5, 2019 Author Share Posted February 5, 2019 move on wind.. Link to comment
Midfielder Posted February 5, 2019 Author Share Posted February 5, 2019 (edited) Its beyond obvious whats happening solar and wind technologies are improving by the minute ... in a few years the advancement in power output coupled with falling cost and new and emerging battery technology means the oil / coal nations will be left behind ... amazed how India, China and some African nations are world leaders in these areas... Edited February 5, 2019 by Midfielder Link to comment
Midfielder Posted February 8, 2019 Author Share Posted February 8, 2019 Massive WIN MASSIVE and the World is Watching 'We won': Landmark climate ruling as NSW court rejects coal mine PETER HANNAM FEBRUARY 08, 2019 Environmental groups are cheering a decision in NSW's Land and Environment Court that found the emissions of greenhouse gases and resulting climate change from a proposed coal mine was among the reasons to reject the project. Brian Preston SC, chief judge of the court, handed down his judgement in a case between Gloucester Resources Ltd and the NSW Planning Minister in Sydney on Friday. He dismissed an appeal by developers of the controversial Rocky Hill open-cut coal mine near the Mid North Coast town of Gloucester against any earlier planning rejection. A protest sign in Forbesdale, near Gloucester, opposing the proposed Rocky Hill coal mine.Credit:Liam Driver Last April, the Environmental Defenders Office of NSW secured approval from the court to join the case, arguing on behalf of its client Groundswell Gloucester that the mine's detrimental impact on climate change and on the social fabric of the town must be considered. The EDO dubbed it a "once in a generation case" as it was the first time an Australian court had heard expert evidence about the urgent need to stay within a global carbon budget in the context of a proposed new coal mine. Justice Preston noted the "significant adverse social impacts on the community" from the proposed mine but - in a court-first in Australia - highlighted the climate impacts of coal mining. "The construction and operation of the mine, and the transportation and combustion of the coal from the mine, will result in the emission of greenhouse gases, which will contribute to climate change," Justice Preston said in his judgement. Di Montague, a member of Groundswell Gloucester, told fellow anti-mine campaigners, "we've won, we've won". The result should "reverberate across every community fighting coal and coal seam gas in Australia", Ms Montague told the Sydney Morning Herald ahead of the result. "It's a very strong judgement," David Morris, EDO NSW's chief executive, said after the judgement was released to a packed court room. Comment has been sought from the Berejiklian government and from Gloucester Resources. The result was being watched with interest internationally. Climate litigation, particularly in the US and European nations such as the Netherlands, is growing as climate campaigners frustrated by insufficient political action seek alternative routes to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Hunter Valley coal mines: will it be harder to expand or dig new ones after NSW court ruling? Will Steffen, an adjunct professor at the Australian National University who gave evidence in court about the climate impacts of coal, welcomed the result. "It is absolutely clear that the Paris climate targets cannot be met if we continue to open up new fossil fuel reserves," Professor Steffen said. "This landmark decision sends a clear message to the fossil fuel industry that it cannot continue to expand if we are serious about tackling climate change." "Shutting the door on new fossil fuel developments will be a major turning point in the battle to stabilise the climate system - and will add further momentum to the shift to clean, reliable renewable energy systems," he said. 'All emissions contribute' Justice Preston elaborated on his judgement, noting that "all of the direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissons of the Rocky Hill Coal Project will impact on the environment". "All anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change," he said. In aggregate, the mine would have contributed 37.8 million tonnes of carbon-dioxide equivalent, "a sizeable individual source" of such emissions, Justice Preston concluded. "It matters not that the aggregate of the Project's greenhouse gas emissions may represent a small fraction of the global total", he said. "The global problem of climate change needs to be addressed by multiple local actions to mitigate emissions by sources and remove greenhouse gases by sinks." More to come EmMac 1 Link to comment
Midfielder Posted February 11, 2019 Author Share Posted February 11, 2019 Coal miners derided climate action 'sideshow'. Now it's the main event DAVID MORRIS AND BRENDAN DOBBIE FEBRUARY 11, 2019 The nascent field of climate litigation in Australia came of age on Friday. The Chief Judge of the NSW Land and Environment Court, Brian Preston, delivered a landmark judgment refusing to approve a new coal mine because of its impacts on climate change. In the Chief Judge’s words, the mine proposal was in the wrong place at the wrong time. When we first argued that our client, the Groundswell Gloucester, should be a party to this case and put a climate-change ground before the court, the mining companies thought it a laughable proposition, and said it would be “a sideshow”. As it happens, climate change became the main event in this court, as it is elsewhere. A protest sign in Forbesdale, near Gloucester, opposing the proposed Rocky Hill coal mine.Credit:Liam Driver The ramifications are likely to ripple out across Australia and possibly the world. This is climate litigation writ large. The Chief Judge refused the Rocky Hill Coal Project, near the mid-north coast town of Gloucester, on a range of grounds, all of which are important, but what his judgment says about climate change is of greatest significance. The court accepted the evidence put by Professor Will Steffen about the global carbon budget – that is, there is a limit on the amount of fossil fuels that can be burnt if we are to meet the Paris Agreement targets and avoid dangerous climate change. The challenge of remaining within the global carbon budget presents a major barrier for new fossil fuel developments. They must overcome what we characterise as the Chief Judge’s “wrong time test”. To pass that test, a fossil fuel proponent must now establish why their project should be allowed to proceed at this time in history, when it is clearly recognised that there is an urgent need for rapid and deep decreases in greenhouse gas emissions. To achieve this, most fossil fuel reserves need to remain in the ground unburned. The Rocky Hill project failed this test. It failed because its impacts on climate change were adjudged to be unsuitable at this time. It failed notwithstanding it was a relatively small project, with comparatively fewer emissions, and one proposing to mine coking coal for steel making rather than the more frequently discussed thermal coal for energy. That would indicate that future fossil-fuel projects, which are either larger, produce more emissions, or seek to generate fuel for energy rather than steel making, face an even steeper challenge in passing the “wrong time test”. In the Rocky Hill case, the mining company put forward four arguments as to why its project should be allowed to pass the “wrong time test”. First, the emissions could theoretically be offset by alternate mitigation measures at some point in the future. The court rejected this as speculative and hypothetical. Second, it argued refusal of the project was not the most cost-efficient way to meet the global carbon budget. This was rejected, as it is not the court’s role to determine the least-cost way of achieving global emissions reduction (as an aside, that is the role of leadership and policy – in which we are sadly lacking). Third, the company mounted, effectively, the drug dealer’s defence: if we don’t mine it here, they’ll mine it somewhere else. This was rejected because there is “no inevitability that developing countries … will instead approve a new coking coal mine … rather than following Australia’s lead to refuse a new coal mine”. Fourth, the company argued the mine was necessary for the steel production industry. This was rejected on the basis that the mine is not in fact necessary to maintain worldwide steel production and therefore its impacts on climate change could not be justified. Gloucester residents were jubilant after their win in the Land and Environment Court.Credit:Janie Barrett These arguments are standard fare for fossil fuel companies. Until Friday, they had proven incredibly successful in frustrating attempts to address the cumulative impacts of multiple smaller projects on global climate change. The companies’ success had been enabled by policy settings that create no meaningful nexus between our international commitments to emissions reductions, and the approval of fossil fuel projects at a local level, where those emissions are actually produced. Now the Land and Environment Court’s most senior judge has accepted the causal link between a project’s contribution to cumulative greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change. That, in and of itself, is a matter of great importance. In one sense this case says the starting point for a new fossil fuel project is “no” because of climate change. A fossil fuel development may argue its unique circumstances justify approval, but it must do so in light of climate change science telling us that there are already sufficient fossil fuel projects approved to exceed the target limit agreed in Paris of a 1.5C rise on the pre-industrial global average temperature. We suspect we are only beginning to understand how profoundly influential this judgment will be on the legal landscape in Australia. This won’t be the last project consigned to the dust-bin of history on the grounds of climate change. It is just the first. David Morris is CEO of the NSW Environmental Defenders Office and Brendan Dobbie is its acting principal lawyer. Paul01 1 Link to comment
hawks2767 Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 That pic NIMBY baby boomers bored of ruining the housing market for young families so now they're out protesting at anything and everything. All we need is one nuclear plant, SA is the most likely - then after the natural hysterics from the recumbent bike owners & freetrade coffee drinkers shown above has died down this will open the door to another plant, then another. Link to comment
Midfielder Posted February 13, 2019 Author Share Posted February 13, 2019 SMH https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/we-could-be-among-the-world-s-climate-change-winners-20190212-p50x6u.html We could be among the world's climate change winners ROSS GITTINS FEBRUARY 12, 2019 In the dim distant past, politicians got themselves elected by showing us a Vision of Australia’s future that was brighter and more alluring than their opponent’s. These days the pollies prefer a more negative approach, pointing to the daunting problems we face and warning that, in such uncertain times, switching to the other guy would be far too risky. We’ve gone from “I’m much better than him” to “if you think I’m bad, he’d be worse”. Maybe they simply lack any vision of the future beyond advancing their own careers. Management-types tell us we should conduct “SWOT analysis” – considering our strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats. But we’ve become mesmerised by the threats and incapable of seeing the opportunities. Such a pessimistic mindset is crippling us when we could be going from strength to strength. Take climate change. It, of course, is a threat – to our climate, and hence to our comfort and our economy – but think a bit more about it and you realise that, for a country like ours, it’s also a new gravy train we could be climbing aboard. The stumbling block is that responding to climate change requires change – and no one likes change, especially those who earn their living from the present way of doing things. So, what more natural reaction than to resist change? Economists are always warning politicians not to try “picking winners”. In reality, they’re far more likely to resist change by spending lots of money trying to prop up losers. Start by denying that change is necessary. Global warming isn’t happening, it’s just a conspiracy by scientists angling for more research funds. Nothing new about heatwaves, droughts, floods and cyclones – they’ve always existed. They’re becoming bigger and more frequent? Just your imagination. What you’re not imagining is the ever-higher cost of electricity. But that’s just because those ideologues imposed a carbon tax and are making us subsidise renewable energy. Get rid of the taxes and subsidies and the cost falls back to what it was. And those terrible wind turbines. They’re unnatural and unsightly, they kill rare birds and their noise endangers farmers’ health. Renewable energy is unreliable because it depends on the wind blowing or the sun shining. You need coal for steady supply. With the greater reliance on renewable, where do you think the blackouts are coming from? And renewable energy is so expensive. Coal-fired electricity is much cheaper. Plus, we’ve got all our chips stacked on coal. We’re world experts at open-cut coal mining. Our coal is much higher quality than most other countries. Coal provides jobs for 30,000 workers. There are towns desperate for jobs who’d just love another coal mine. And, of course, we’ve still got huge reserves of the stuff that’s of no value if it stays in the ground. Some of these claims have always been untrue, some are no longer true and some are less true than they were. Just this week, for instance, a report from the independent Grattan Institute has debunked the claim that “outages” are being caused by renewables, saying more than 97 per cent of outage hours can be traced to problems with the local poles and wires that transport power to businesses and homes. While it’s true that power from existing coal-fired generators is dirt cheap, many of these are old and close to the end of their useful lives. They’re not being replaced by new coal generators because there’s too much risk that the demand for coal-fired power will dry up before the generators have returned the money invested in them. The latest report from the CSIRO says the lowest-cost power from a newly built facility is now produced by solar and wind. The cost of solar, battery storage and, to a lesser extent, wind power, has fallen dramatically over this decade, partly because of advances in technology but mainly because of economies of scale as China and many other countries jump on the bandwagon. These falls are likely to continue. This has gone so far that the old arguments about the need for a price on carbon and subsidies for renewables are being overtaken by events. Installation of renewable generation is proceeding apace, with all renewables’ share of generation in the national electricity market jumping from 16 per cent to 21 per cent, just over the year to December, according to Green Energy Markets. So, as the economist Frank Jotzo, of the Australian National University, has said, coal is on the way out. The only question is how soon it happens. According to our present way of looking at it, this is disastrous news. But not if we see it as more an opportunity than a threat. Professor Ross Garnaut, of the University of Melbourne, has said that “nowhere in the developed world are solar and wind resources together so abundant as in the west-facing coasts and peninsulas of southern Australia. “Play our cards right, and Australia’s exceptionally rich endowment per person in renewable energy resources makes us a low-cost location for energy supply in a low-carbon world economy. “That would make us the economically rational location within the developed world of a high proportion of energy-intensive processing and manufacturing activity.” Ross Gittins is the Herald’s economics editor. wendybr and sonar 2 Link to comment
Midfielder Posted February 13, 2019 Author Share Posted February 13, 2019 (edited) MUST WATCH IF YOU DON'T WATCH ANYTHING ELSE WATCH THIS Edited February 13, 2019 by Midfielder EmMac 1 Link to comment
Midfielder Posted February 13, 2019 Author Share Posted February 13, 2019 Mega good news in this article and some amazing facts.. kinda makes you proud to be in Australia ... so to the climate deniers read and weep. I will also put a second link below which shows the output of our coal fired power stations... First the good news and read the output figures under construction then look at the second link and the coal output... https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/renewable-projects-investment-record/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coal_fired_power_stations_in_Australia Cynth and wendybr 2 Link to comment
Midfielder Posted February 17, 2019 Author Share Posted February 17, 2019 These residents stopped a coal mine, made history and sent ripples through boardrooms around the world PETER HANNAM FEBRUARY 17, 2019 A NSW court sent shock waves through the nation's mining industry earlier this month when it rejected a coal mine planned in Gloucester, a dairy and beef farming area on the state's mid-north coast. The reason, in part, was the mine's impact on climate change. That a court had taken into account climate change was lauded as a landmark. But this case is just part of a much bigger picture. All around the world, there is a growing push to use the law to nudge companies and investors to take action to curb global warming – particularly as our politicians are failing to do so. It's called climate litigation and you can expect to start hearing about it more often. Wrong place, wrong time: what the case was about Ostensibly, the case was about whether a Rocky Hill open-cut coal mine should be allowed to go ahead. On February 8, in the NSW Land and Environment Court, Chief Justice Brian Preston handed down his decision in an appeal by Gloucester Resources, a company privately held by Hans Juergen Mende, a German billionaire dubbed the "godfather of coal". Gloucester Resources was fighting an earlier rejection, by a planning commission, of its bid to build a 2.5-million-tonne-a-year coking coal mine. The judge concluded that an open-cut coal mine "would be in the wrong place at the wrong time". "Wrong place because an open-cut coal mine in this scenic and cultural landscape, proximate to many people's homes and farms, will cause significant planning, amenity, visual and social impacts," he said. "Wrong time because the greenhouse gas emissions of the coal mine and its coal product will increase global total concentrations of [those gases] at a time when what is now urgently needed, in order to meet generally agreed climate targets, is a rapid and deep decrease in [those] emissions. "These dire consequences should be avoided." Decorative coal? Why the verdict was significant Law firms quickly recognised the decision as a landmark – not just for its direct effect on the Rocky Hill project, but also for its palling effect on economic sentiment towards fossil-fuel industries. As lawyers at Corrs Chambers Westgarth put it: "The decision will have wide-reaching consequences and will likely affect the viability of coal and other fossil fuel-dependent industries in Australia. "The growth in international jurisprudence directly linking fossil fuel developments with climate change may also lead banks and others who would traditionally invest in these industries to consider alternatives." The judgment reminds companies and investors that fossil fuels carry regulatory risks, not all of which can be anticipated. Chief Justice Preston included in his reasoning the fact that there must be a carbon budget – a total amount of emissions that can be released – if targets under the Paris Climate Agreement are to be met. And even if the proposed mine was relatively small, it wasn't enough for a company to calculate the direct emissions that come from scraping out 100-million-year-old coal – the fugitive methane, the pollution generated by the digging and transport, and so on; the actual burning of that fuel, wherever it occurred in the world, also had to be taken into account. "The difference between this case and other coal mine planning appeals [such as those against the Adani project in Queensland] is that the court has accepted that scope 3 emissions from the burning of the mine's coal in other countries should be taken into account in determining environmental impacts," says Sarah Barker, a special counsel dealing with environmental, social and governance risks, adding the emphasis. As one lawyer put it, Gloucester Resources mounted "a curious argument" that total emissions would be hard to determine: "Is it 'decorative coal' they are digging up, with no anticipation it will be burned?" Baker & McKenzie partner Martijn Wilder told clients: "The decision does not necessarily mean the end of any new coal mine approvals in NSW, because it was highly specific to the particular facts of this application." Still, "a proponent of any new mine in NSW would be well advised to arrange offsets for anticipated greenhouse gas emissions prior to seeking approval for the project. As a commercial matter, there may be questions as to how obtaining these offsets could affect the profitability of the endeavour," Wilder says. sonar 1 Link to comment
Midfielder Posted February 22, 2019 Author Share Posted February 22, 2019 (edited) Simply UFB From the article below.. """The department admitted in Estimates that a briefing and recommendation was awaiting a response from Federal Energy Minister Angus Taylor.""" https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-22/offshore-wind-farm-delayed-due-to-lack-of-regulatory-framework/10833482 Offshore wind farm continues to be delayed due to lack of federal policy, Senate Estimates hears ABC Gippsland By Beth Gibson Posted about 7 hours ago PHOTO: Offshore Energy plans to build Australia's first offshore wind farm in Victoria near Port Albert. (Supplied: Offshore Energy) RELATED STORY: Plans to build Australia's first offshore wind farm revealed RELATED STORY: No-go wind farms zone being considered Space to play or pause, M to mute, left and right arrows to seek, up and down arrows for volume. AUDIO: UK approaching 20 per cent electricity from renewables(Science Show) A proposal for Australia's first offshore wind farm in Victoria's east has been significantly delayed due to a lack of regulatory framework, but the Maritime Union of Australia is accusing the Government of having a "blind hatred" for renewable energy. The Department of Environment and Energy told Senate Estimates Committee on Monday that they were working with Offshore Energy on its proposal, but the process had been delayed while the department developed a "bespoke" licensing arrangement. "We've been working through the various regulatory issues and requirements necessary for doing a bespoke arrangement," Jo Evans, deputy secretary of Australia's Climate Change and Energy Innovation division, said. The wind farm, which would be built 10–25 kilometres offshore in waters near Port Albert, would spread over 570 square kilometres in Commonwealth waters and could provide 18 per cent of Victoria's energy. Offshore Energy first began working with the Federal Government on a feasibility study for the $8-billion, 250-turbine proposal in early 2017. But the company has not received approval to commence the exploration phase of the project, which would not involve any construction. The department admitted in Estimates that a briefing and recommendation was awaiting a response from Federal Energy Minister Angus Taylor. No regulatory framework for offshore renewables PHOTO: An artist's impression of a ship building wind turbines in the ocean. (Supplied: Offshore Energy) Ms Evans told the hearing the process had been significantly delayed because there was no regulatory framework for offshore renewable energy. She said the department was drawing from existing frameworks from offshore oil and gas explorations to develop a bespoke arrangement. "The project has certainly been around for a long time, it's just because the circumstances are so complicated without there being an existing regulatory framework to handle what they are proposing to do," she said. Ms Evans said part of the complication was due to the proposed wind farm being located in Commonwealth waters, rather than state-controlled waters, because it would be built more than 3km offshore. Ms Evans emphasised that the proposal in consideration was for an exploration of the resource, and would not authorise any actual development. "That will be a separate decision that will come later," she said. When asked by Labor Senator Anthony Chisholm whether the department had given the Energy Minister a recommendation on the proposal, she indicated that the department had been briefed and that briefing contained a recommendation. Ms Evans also said that the department had received a number of public submissions about the proposal. "These have not been made public yet because the decision is still pending consideration by the Minister," she said. Government has 'blind hatred' of renewables Will Tracey from the Maritime Union of Australia said the Government had a "blind hatred" towards renewable energy and was deliberately stalling the project. He said that while it was true there was no regulatory framework for wind farms in the country, he believed it was not an excuse for delaying an exploration proposal. "We are talking about simple measurement procedures which have been involved in the offshore for 60 years in this country," Mr Tracey said. "It has taken three or fours years to get to a stage where a recommendation has been made to the department, and the Minister sits on it. "It has been smothered and stalled because of the ideological hatred this government has of renewable energy." Mr Tracey said the union was calling on the Government to approve the exploration phase of the project because it could create thousands of jobs in the region. "It will provide permanent, stable, good-paying jobs for our members who work on vessels that will service this project, as well as onshore jobs and construction-related activity through the construction phase," he said. Local support for offshore wind farm PHOTO: Local group Save Yarram have been opposing a planned windfarm in South Gippsland. (ABC Gippsland: Emma Field) A local group that opposes a proposal for the construction of large wind turbines inland near Yarram in South Gippsland, are strongly supporting the nearby offshore wind farm proposal. "It's a major investment that would help Victoria seriously meet the Government's targets of 50 per cent renewables," Alan McDonald, convener of Save Yarram, said. "Compare that to the little 'Mickey Mouse' project [in Yarram] that's going to destroy a lot of valuable farmland, habitat and utility. "It's not just the impact on locals, it will have a serious impact on tourism." Mr McDonald said the local community would much rather wind turbines go offshore than be on people's land. "The local community is well-informed and are not anti-development," he said. "They want to see their town prosper, and serious investments like the offshore wind farm can only help." A project spokesperson for Offshore Energy's Star of the South project said they had been working closely with the Federal Government on all the relevant approvals: "We look forward to progressing our studies once we have these approvals in place." The spokesperson said that the proposed exploration would include "wind monitoring, seabed surveys using low-level seismic techniques and general marine studies". "There will be significant community and stakeholder consultation to share information about our proposed activities and to incorporate local feedback into our approach." Edited February 22, 2019 by Midfielder wendybr 1 Link to comment
Midfielder Posted February 22, 2019 Author Share Posted February 22, 2019 This is soooooooooooooooooooo soooooooooooooooooo hhhhhrrrrrr kinda close to modern day pollies... wendybr 1 Link to comment
sonar Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Midfielder said: just wow My thinking is instead of drilling for oil in the Great Australian Bight we should be doing this instead....a far more infinite source of energy. Edited February 25, 2019 by sonar Midfielder and wendybr 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts