The thread about the Environment

[medusala]

Germany is hardly in love with coal either. They've just canned all of their nuclear power stations (unwisely in my view) and now they need something to quickly fill their energy needs that isn't Russian gas. Included in your own quote it even states that Germany plans to wean itself off coal eventually. That's hardly "coal is good for humanity" talk.

Its all talk. The Germans wont do anything (and nor will the Poles). German manufacturing is squealing due to cost competition from cheap US gas on the back of shale.

The Poms have started to smell the coffee too (finally). The Germans and Spaniards smelled it a while ago re subsidies to renewables.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/27/coal-power-stations-eu-emissions-target

Despite this, lignite-fuelled power stations are still being built, locking in consumption of the fuel for decades. There are 19 such facilities in various stages of approval, planning or construction in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Greece, Germany, Poland, Romania and Slovenia. Greenpeace figures show these new projects alone would emit almost 120m tonnes of CO2 every year – equivalent to three-quarters of the annual carbon output of the UK’s energy sector. The average lifespan for a coal power station is about 40 years, meaning the plants could release nearly 5bn tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...oal-fired-plants-in-two-decades-iwr-says.html

Germany will this year start up more coal-fired power stations than at any time in the past 20 years as the country advances a plan to exit nuclear energy by 2022.

 

[Sugar2Sideshow]

I'd class myself as a skeptic on the whole climate change debate. But assuming we are causing global warming, why should we sacrifice our economy to stop it?
I don't have any numbers but surely we contribute a miniscule % of all carbon emissions when compared to countries like China, America and India, as well as the EU.
If we halve our emissions, we are sending our economy down drain for absolutely zero benefit.
I am against any action until there is a binding agreement including all the biggest emitters, I'm not holding my breath.

Tl;Dr. Nothing Australia does in terms of reducing carbon emissions will make any real difference to the climate.

 

[smokingjacket]

Its all talk. The Germans wont do anything (and nor will the Poles). German manufacturing is squealing due to cost competition from cheap US gas on the back of shale.

The Poms have started to smell the coffee too (finally). The Germans and Spaniards smelled it a while ago re subsidies to renewables.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/27/coal-power-stations-eu-emissions-target

Despite this, lignite-fuelled power stations are still being built, locking in consumption of the fuel for decades. There are 19 such facilities in various stages of approval, planning or construction in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Greece, Germany, Poland, Romania and Slovenia. Greenpeace figures show these new projects alone would emit almost 120m tonnes of CO2 every year – equivalent to three-quarters of the annual carbon output of the UK’s energy sector. The average lifespan for a coal power station is about 40 years, meaning the plants could release nearly 5bn tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...oal-fired-plants-in-two-decades-iwr-says.html

Germany will this year start up more coal-fired power stations than at any time in the past 20 years as the country advances a plan to exit nuclear energy by 2022.

The Germans aren't known for just talking about things to be honest. They wrote the rulebook on how to build a successful modern manufacturing economy by government planning and stable, clear headed leadership.

My take is that they want to phase out their nuclear power, coal and gas for three different reasons. Safety, pollution and Russia respectively. They can't get rid of all three at once so keeping domestic coal as part of the energy mix seems fair enough in this circumstance if they really do plan on eventually phase it out.

What you're failing to point out though is that these new power plants being built aren't new supply that will contribute further emissions compared to existing coal. They're greener, more efficient replacement plants for the old brown coal rust buckets. Dirtier than nuclear, sure, but a shite load cleaner than the old brown coal plants. As stated in the article Germany, or most of Europe for that matter doesn't need any more capacity, they're already over supplied. However to meet their own emissions targets whilst closing down nuclear plants and I suspect Russian gas too, they need to build cleaner coal plants.

 

[swingdog]

I'd class myself as a skeptic on the whole climate change debate. But assuming we are causing global warming, why should we sacrifice our economy to stop it?
I don't have any numbers but surely we contribute a miniscule % of all carbon emissions when compared to countries like China, America and India, as well as the EU.
If we halve our emissions, we are sending our economy down drain for absolutely zero benefit.
I am against any action until there is a binding agreement including all the biggest emitters, I'm not holding my breath.

Tl;Dr. Nothing Australia does in terms of reducing carbon emissions will make any real difference to the climate.

As has been said elsewhere, we emit more than Italy and France, both of which have three times our population. So, they're off the hook as well?

 

[Sugar2Sideshow]

As has been said elsewhere, we emit more than Italy and France, both of which have three times our population. So, they're off the hook as well?

They are part of the eu and would probably be bound by any agreement made by them. But the fact remains that if the the biggest emitters do nothing, we are screwed (assuming we are warming the planet significantl), so why sacrifice our economy?

 

[Catfish Alley]

They are part of the eu and would probably be bound by any agreement made by them. But the fact remains that if the the biggest emitters do nothing, we are screwed (assuming we are warming the planet significantl), so why sacrifice our economy?

So we have already learnt to scavenge when everything turns to crap.

 

[Sugar2Sideshow]

So we have already learnt to scavenge when everything turns to crap.

Please...

 

[Catfish Alley]

Please...

Haha. I contemplated using but thought it was obvious that wasn't serious.

 

[Sugar2Sideshow]

Haha. I contemplated using but thought it was obvious that wasn't serious.

I just woke up gimme a break

 

[Gough]

They are part of the eu and would probably be bound by any agreement made by them. But the fact remains that if the the biggest emitters do nothing, we are screwed (assuming we are warming the planet significantl), so why sacrifice our economy?

The economy continued to grow and emissions dropped under a carbon price. Explain to me how it is sacrificing our economy.

 

[Sugar2Sideshow]

The economy continued to grow and emissions dropped under a carbon price. Explain to me how it is sacrificing our economy.

It hurts all manufacturing and construction by increasing costs, and reduces demand for their products and especially products that are not essentials, because people have less money to spend because they are taxed more. It gives overseas competitors a free hit, because if we buy from overseas that is an automatic x% off the final price.
Also, when the carbon price was introduced we had just got out of Kevin, lets give everyone as much money as we can, rudds reign so the economy was bound to rebound somewhat.

 

[smokingjacket]

I'd class myself as a skeptic on the whole climate change debate. But assuming we are causing global warming, why should we sacrifice our economy to stop it?
I don't have any numbers but surely we contribute a miniscule % of all carbon emissions when compared to countries like China, America and India, as well as the EU.
If we halve our emissions, we are sending our economy down drain for absolutely zero benefit.

WHEN WILL THIS CHINA AND INDIA NEED TO PULL THEIR WEIGHT IN CLIMATE ACTION MEME DIE!!!

India is a country in which half of the population has no access to toilets or proper sanitation. It has the largest number of the worlds extreme poor, as in those who earn around $2US a day. China has come along way but its regional areas are still as poor as India's in some parts. Despite this China already takes significant action against climate change. India has been doing it's bit for climate change for all these years by BEING SO GODDAMN POOR.

It hurts all manufacturing and construction by increasing costs, and reduces demand for their products and especially products that are not essentials, because people have less money to spend because they are taxed more. It gives overseas competitors a free hit, because if we buy from overseas that is an automatic x% off the final price.
Also, when the carbon price was introduced we had just got out of Kevin, lets give everyone as much money as we can, rudds reign so the economy was bound to rebound somewhat.

The whole point is that it's meant to be a transition. There might be some short term pain but trade exposed industries under the CPS and ETS were subsidised for any additional costs in any case. As in they didn't even pay more. The greater point though is that saying because a resource (in this case power) goes up in price then the industries associated will die is a fallacy. A great example is cars. Petrol has been going up in price for some years now and car manufacturers have been adapting to this new paradigm by bringing out more and more fuel efficient cars. Those that weren't were punished by consumers for failing to adapt. This was one of the main drivers behind the US car industry nearly collapsing. The EU on the other hand decided it wanted to speed up this process and so decided to regulate strict fuel efficiency measures for all European made cars. Sure some of the sportscar manufacturers moaned a bit at the start but now rather killing the industry the further incentive to innovate has led to growth in the German car industry and you now have a situation where the new Porsche's are fitted with 4-Cylinder (!!!) turbocharged engines that go as fast as the old 8-cylinder engines used to. Remarkable. Australia's overall power demand has been plummeting because of things like more efficient homes, appliances and manufacturing.

By properly pricing the true cost of something, not just it's price of production, you eliminate inefficiency and waste. This is a good thing, particularly for an advanced economy with the skills and research base to be at the forefront of the patents and technology created in the search for these efficiency gains. Fast adaption by the market is a hallmark of Capitalism. If you're saying that industry can't adapt to higher prices of a good, you're really saying Capitalism doesn't work. Carbon pricing isn't about punishing industry it's about forcing them to be more efficient.

 

[Riseupaustralia]

WHEN WILL THIS CHINA AND INDIA NEED TO PULL THEIR WEIGHT IN CLIMATE ACTION MEME DIE!!!

It is the convenient facade of the ill-informed idiots of our society.

So, in answer to your question...never.

 

[smokingjacket]

It is the convenient facade of the ill-informed idiots of our society.

So, in answer to your question...never.

I fear so.

How's the new place mate? Wasn't sure you'd come back after finding your quiet bit of sub-tropical paradise

 

[Riseupaustralia]

I fear so.

How's the new place mate? Wasn't sure you'd come back after finding your quiet bit of sub-tropical paradise

3 more weeks.

 

[smokingjacket]

3 more weeks.

Oh well, at least the weathers been nice in Perf. (perf cliche)

 

[Riseupaustralia]

Oh well, at least the weathers been nice in Perf. (perf cliche)

Yep.

26 degrees
no chinese smog
daylight saving non-existent
shop on sundays from 11 to 4
bogans at full throttle in lime green V8 Marloo's.
woodstock bourbon in a can
not a hint of climate change

all is well in the world.

f*** my life

 

[little graham]

This bloke is on the money.

 

[The Coup]

I'd class myself as a skeptic on the whole climate change debate. But assuming we are causing global warming, why should we sacrifice our economy to stop it?
I don't have any numbers but surely we contribute a miniscule % of all carbon emissions when compared to countries like China, America and India, as well as the EU.
If we halve our emissions, we are sending our economy down drain for absolutely zero benefit.
I am against any action until there is a binding agreement including all the biggest emitters, I'm not holding my breath.

Tl;Dr. Nothing Australia does in terms of reducing carbon emissions will make any real difference to the climate.

Your opinion is based on an imaginary premise in the second sentence. Had to stop reading after that.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

This is the only thread I could find about the environment.

This is disgusting.
More than a tonne of antibiotics was used to control a potentially deadly fish disease at two salmon farms in southern Tasmania earlier this year, but the companies and government made no public announcements at the time.

But good news in NSW.

The NSW government’s native forestry bill has been scrapped just days after it was announced, after a number of key parliamentarians confirmed they would vote against it.

The agriculture minister, Dugald Saunders, on Monday evening announced the decision to scrap the bill that would have made it easier for private farmers to clear koala habitat.

 

[Gethelred]

This is the only thread I could find about the environment.

This is disgusting.
More than a tonne of antibiotics was used to control a potentially deadly fish disease at two salmon farms in southern Tasmania earlier this year, but the companies and government made no public announcements at the time.

Could you explain why this is a problem?

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Could you explain why this is a problem?

Because people eat the salmon that has been pumped full of anti-biotics, and they hide that fact.
Farmed salmon has other issues;


'What’s the problem with farmed salmon?
The majority of salmon on the market is farm-raised, meaning it’s farmed and harvested under controlled conditions in sea cages or net pens. The problem, according to some researchers, is that the crowded conditions of most farms can cause contamination. A 2003 report from the Environmental Working Group (EWG) found that seven out of ten farmed salmon purchased in grocery stores in San Francisco, Washington, DC, and Portland were contaminated with cancer-causing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) at “levels that raise health concerns.”

Additionally, farmed salmon has been found to contain toxic chemicals methylmercury and dioxins, and farms have been accused of polluting the oceans, fostering disease, and spreading sea lice. Salmon farms have also been criticized for other questionable practices, including the content of the feed, which is often supplemented with chemicals to give the fish their pink color (wild salmon develop it naturally).'

'The World Health Organisation has raised alarm over the overuse of antibiotics in humans and animals (including farmed fish) that it said was leading to the rise of drug-resistant superbugs – "the greatest and most urgent global risk".'

Antibiotics in salmon: Tassal quadruples amount, rivals reduce or eliminate use

The rise of superbugs has seen global health experts urge farmers to limit antibiotic use. But one salmon company says diseases have forced it to increase the dosage over the past few years.

www.smh.com.au