Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[Gough]

As one of the largest exporters of fossil fuel in the world the argument that we can't do anything is just parroting anti climate action bollocks. We can do a shit load but we choose not to.

 

[Cap]

As one of the largest exporters of fossil fuel in the world the argument that we can't do anything is just parroting anti climate action bollocks. We can do a s**t load but we choose not to.

A bit like the EU are trying to do with their carbon tax on imports.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

As one of the largest exporters of fossil fuel in the world the argument that we can't do anything is just parroting anti climate action bollocks. We can do a s**t load but we choose not to.

Yep, and we get very little $ in return for these exports.

These anti climate change parrots are unaustralian.

 

[sdfc]

If Australia stopped exporting fossil fuels tomorrow it would do little to mitigate climate change but it would marginally add to the rate of increase in greenhouse gases in the short term and make energy less affordable to poorer households.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

If Australia stopped exporting fossil fuels tomorrow it would do little to mitigate climate change but it would marginally add to the rate of increase in greenhouse gases in the short term and make energy less affordable to poorer households.

And Jim Chalmers wouldn’t get any more opportunities to gloat about a budget surplus. Our economy without resource exports would collapse.

 

[Cap]

If Australia stopped exporting fossil fuels tomorrow it would do little to mitigate climate change but it would marginally add to the rate of increase in greenhouse gases in the short term and make energy less affordable to poorer households.

Well it would because it would more than likely cause many power stations to stop and probably see the death of millions.

So it probably would have a material impact by way of less pollution and less humans

But no one is suggesting to do that, because it's stupid.

 

[Cap]

And Jim Chalmers wouldn’t get any more opportunities to gloat about a budget surplus. Our economy without resource exports would collapse.

On the upside, we'd have less people complaining about renewables

 

[sdfc]

Well it would because it would more than likely cause many power stations to stop and probably see the death of millions.

So it probably would have a material impact by way of less pollution and less humans

But no one is suggesting to do that, because it's stupid.

No but they are complaining about Aussie fossil fuel exports.

 

[royale with cheese]

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

www.bloomberg.com

As anyone who has ever worked in the industry knows

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

 

[sdfc]

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

www.bloomberg.com

As anyone who has ever worked in the industry knows

The transition is going to need a shitload of metals. Supply will have to ramp up. We've been mining copper for thousands of years. Gotta think the low hanging fruit has gone.

 

[Cap]

No but they are complaining about Aussie fossil fuel exports.

Are they?

 

[Cap]

View attachment 1691417

Not a fan of the Nuclear family ?

You must be woke

 

[sdfc]

Are they?

Not been reading the thread then. That's ok.

 

[Cap]

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

www.bloomberg.com

As anyone who has ever worked in the industry knows

You swallowing that line is the least surprising thing of 2023.

 

[Cap]

Not been reading the thread then. That's ok.

Look, it's reasonably obvious you aren't too bright so I'll try to break it down for you.

The point people are making is that the line 'Australia's 1% contribution to global emissions' is laughed at is because we export so much that our actual contribution is much higher than just what we create by our domestic use.

So they aren't saying, stop it over night, they are saying acknowledge our broader contribution to the problem. So being at the forefront of developing alternatives isn't about the 1% we use domestically, it's also what we export.

 

[royale with cheese]

You swallowing that line is the least surprising thing of 2023.

There are no dummies that work for Exxon

 

[Cap]

There are no dummies that work for Exxon

Exxon Also predicted temperatures rises from fossil fuel emissions.

 

[sdfc]

Look, it's reasonably obvious you aren't too bright so I'll try to break it down for you.

I've obviously upset you.

The point people are making is that the line 'Australia's 1% contribution to global emissions' is laughed at is because we export so much that our actual contribution is much higher than just what we create by our domestic use.

Comparing us to non-fossil fuel exporters is a silly slight of hand to beat us over the head. There is an importer for all fossil fuel exports. It's an integrated global energy market.

So they aren't saying, stop it over night, they are saying acknowledge our broader contribution to the problem. So being at the forefront of developing alternatives isn't about the 1% we use domestically, it's also what we export.

The contribution of fossil fuel exporters is no greater than the contribution of fossil fuel importers.

 

[Cap]

I've obviously upset you.

How have you upset me? I've acknowledged in the past that our education system has failed many. That doesn't upset me, my kids go private.

Comparing us to non-fossil fuel exporters is a silly slight of hand to beat us over the head. There is an importer for all fossil fuel exports. It's an integrated global energy market.

No, it's merely reflecting the reality of what we do.

For whatever reason you've decided you don't like that so want to call it something else.

The contribution of fossil fuel exporters is no greater than the contribution of fossil fuel importers.

No, because they just burn it and in many cases because of stupid people from Western Countries, they have little alternative.

We not only enable that burning, we burn it to produce more of it.

It all counts

 

[sdfc]

How have you upset me? I've acknowledged in the past that our education system has failed many. That doesn't upset me, my kids go private.

Gobbledygook

No, it's merely reflecting the reality of what we do.

For whatever reason you've decided you don't like that so want to call it something else.

More incoherence

No, because they just burn it and in many cases because of stupid people from Western Countries, they have little alternative.

We not only enable that burning, we burn it to produce more of it.

It all counts

So you do want us to stop exporting fossil fuels. Just what the hell are you arguing? You're all over the place.

 

[Cap]

Gobbledygook

No merely pointing out that fortunately I have the financial capacity to ensure my kids dont end up with the same challenges you obviously face. Was an attempt at humour. It failed.

More incoherence

No again merely pointing out we export C02. That's our thing, you for whatever reason don't want to acknowledge that.

So you do want us to stop exporting fossil fuels. Just what the hell are you arguing? You're all over the place.

No, again merely pointing out that as part of exporting C02 we generate more C02, again something you can't seem to accept.

The point is, the arguement is our role in c02 reduction goes beyond the stupid arguments that we only produce 1% and it makes no difference, noting our 1% still makes us a top 20 polluter in the world AND one of the highest per capita (we are after all only 0.3% of the world's population)

Because we clearly contribute more and have the ability to influence technologies that reduce C02 on a worldwide scale.

Washing our hands of the problem is quite frankly cowardly.

 

[royale with cheese]

Exxon Also predicted temperatures rises from fossil fuel emissions.

Yeah they’re not wrong there either. So did John von Neumann, the smartest man to have ever lived (you are typing on a von Neumann machine).

But von Neumann thought it would be a good thing. As do I.

 

[Cap]

Yeah they’re not wrong there either. So did John von Neumann, the smartest man to have ever lived (you are typing on a von Neumann machine).

But von Neumann thought it would be a good thing. As do I.

The guy wasn't in the field of climate science and you'd need to dismiss 50 years of advancement in climate science to hold that position.

More carbon being 'good' is also largely considered rubbish as well.

 

[royale with cheese]

The guy wasn't in the field of climate science and you'd need to dismiss 50 years of advancement in climate science to hold that position.

More carbon being 'good' is also largely considered rubbish as well.

Of course it’s good. We’re liberating it from the lithosphere to the biosphere where it is more useful.

Those cycads of the Carboniferous thought they could get away with it but they were wrong.