The reasons for moving from non renewable polluting energy sources like coal/oil/gas to renewable cleaner processes include:
1) Longer term energy savings
2) National energy security
3) Heading off (or trying to) the risk of complete societal collapse when current energy sources turn down (Peak oil/coal )
4) Local energy control
5) Reduction in carbon pollutants. (The most obvious of these are carbon particulates but obviously you can include CO2 emissions.)
And exactly who mentioned 'climate change' folks ? I certainly didn't do so in any way.
Writing in The Sun on Sunday he said he was shocked by the number of wind turbines he saw on a recent drive to Scotland.
"It is a good 20 years since I last drove all the way to Scotland, and in the interim something unbelievable has been done – in our name – to our green, pleasant and precious countryside," he said.
"I mean the windmills, the turbines – whatever they are called. I mean the things that look like some hideous Venusian invasion, marching over the moors and destroying the dales; the colossal seaside toys plonked erratically across our ancient landscape; the endless parade of waving white-armed old lunatics, gesticulating feebly at each other across the fields and the glens.
"They seemed to be everywhere, and I asked myself, when were we consulted? Was there a referendum? Did someone ever warn the British people that these moaning seagull slicers were going to be erected on some of the most sensational scenery that God ever called into being?
Any thread will do. Basilio isn't too discriminating about taking every opportunity to go on about climate change.
For once I agree with Andrew Bolt. Last night's ABCTV's program seemed in its entirety to be designed for maximum attempt to influence the PUP senators before the vote on the carbon tax is taken.
The ABC has no compunction in ignoring any notion of balance when it comes to pushing their own agenda.
Opinion writers who are "polarisation entrepreneurs", inspire dozens and dozens of comments on their articles, and grow fat with online status in this market. Non-partisan analysis, which educates rather than angers, is not valued as highly as that which triggers righteous outrage. As a result, we have reactive, frothing debates, which lurch from one insignificance to the next, week after week.
A girl, named by the Tamil Refugee Council as three-year-old Febrina, who they say was onboard the boat intercepted by Australian authorities
The reasons for moving from non renewable polluting energy sources like coal/oil/gas to renewable cleaner processes include:
1) Longer term energy savings
2) National energy security
3) Heading off (or trying to) the risk of complete societal collapse when current energy sources turn down (Peak oil/coal )
4) Local energy control
5) Reduction in carbon pollutants. (The most obvious of these are carbon particulates but obviously you can include CO2 emissions.) basilo
All great reasons. ...
Put across this way, society will willingly move to renewables poste haste, rather than resisting them due to the ever more obvious corruption of climate science imo. Wayne l
The world can be powered by alternative energy, using today's technology, in 20-40 years, says Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson
A new study – co-authored by Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson and UC-Davis researcher Mark A. Delucchi – analyzing what is needed to convert the world's energy supplies to clean and sustainable sources says that it can be done with today's technology at costs roughly comparable to conventional energy. But converting will be a massive undertaking on the scale of the moon landings. What is needed most is the societal and political will to make it happen.
Renewable energy target can go all the way to 100% – if we let it
The political outlook for renewable energy is not great – and I’m not just talking about the view out of Joe Hockey’s car window. The Renewable Energy Target (RET), which aims to deliver 41 million megawatt-hours…
Author
Andrew Blakers
Director of the Centre for Sustainable Energy Systems (CSES) at Australian National University
The political outlook for renewable energy is not great – and I’m not just talking about the view out of Joe Hockey’s car window.
The Renewable Energy Target (RET), which aims to deliver 41 million megawatt-hours of extra renewable energy by 2020, is under review by the federal government. The signs are not promising for preservation of the target, given the views espoused by the Treasurer and the composition of the Review Committee.
But the RET is not an end in its own right. It is also a stepping stone for moving to a 100% renewable power sector by 2050. The problem is that getting there requires not just a practical plan, but also the political will to put it into action.
I thought that would be the answer that would come back.What population could we sustain under such a scenario ? Just can't say Dr Smith. Fact is on a whole range of issues we can't sustain the current worlds population for much longer. Energy is one issue but water, food supplies and other resources are also up there as problems.
Ah, the irony!I though this phrase summed up the likes of Bolt very well....of course its from the ABC
The ABC's campaign against the government's border protection policies continues with images such as this,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-...l-operation-sovereign-borders-secrets/5581384
And who would have guessed what political party would be behind this court action....They are outrages and will do anything to allow the boats back in.
OMG......if the court action is successful expect the flood gates to open again......that will make the Fabian society indoctrinated Green/Labor socialist left wings more than happy.
THE Abbott government has no intention of sending 153 asylum- seekers at the centre of a High Court challenge to Sri Lanka where Tamil refugees claim they face persecution, as fresh doubts surfaced over the route of their voyage and the identities of those on board.
After weeks of denying the boat’s existence, lawyers for the government yesterday revealed the group was being held on a *Customs boat after it was intercepted outside the country’s *migration zone.
Lawyers for the asylum-*seekers told the High Court the boatload, which includes women and young children, came from a Tamil refugee camp in Pondicherry in southern India.
But The Australian can reveal Indian authorities have cast doubt on claims the boat left from its *waters, raising questions over the fate of 93 passengers who refugee advocates say can be traced back to India’s Sri Lankan Tamil community and that of the remaining 60 whose origins are unknown.
During an urgent High Court hearing, government lawyers rejected that those onboard have any legal standing to seek asylum in Australia because they were *intercepted outside Australia’s *migration zone ”” more than 12 miles from Australian land.
The Australian understands the government has no intention of sending the boatload to Sri Lanka, nor are authorities in Colombo preparing to receive them.
Immigration Minister Scott Morrison will be in Sri Lanka today to formally hand over two Bay Class patrol boats to the Sri Lankan Navy, an event that was organised some time ago.
Those now on board the *Customs boat could be transferred to the Manus Island offshore processing centre in Papua New Guinea, the Nauru centre or repatriated to India. Refugee advocates are arguing Tamils should not be returned to Sri Lanka because they fear persecution.
A separate boatload of 41 *people was returned to Sri Lanka and offloaded on Monday after being transferred to a Sri Lankan navy ship at sea. Thirty-seven of those 41 were from Sri Lanka’s *majority Sinhalese community, not generally thought to be at risk of persecution. Only four were Tamils.
At least one Sinhalese asylum- seeker who was offered a chance to seek asylum declined further processing. The rest of the group were screened out.
Thirty-six of the group, who had been held for questioning by Sri Lankan police for the past 24 hours, were released on bail by the Galle Magistrates Court.
Twenty-seven adults were released on a 5000 rupee ($40) cash bail and SLR100,000 surety, while nine children under 16 were released unconditionally.
A remaining five Sinhalese men, alleged to have been either crew or organisers, were remanded to reappear on July 14 where they are expected to face charges of people smuggling and other jailable offences under the country’s strict immigration laws.
Of the second boat, now the subject of the High Court challenge, refugee advocates in Australia say they have been able to identify 48 of the 153 on board as having come from India’s 60,000-odd strong, unregistered Sri Lankan Tamil refugee community, and at least 11 of those had been tortured in Sri Lanka.
The Chennai-based Organisation for Eelan Refugees Rehabilitation, which represents India’s 40,000 registered Tamil refugees living in designated camps, claims to have traced another 45 people on board the boat.
But that still leaves a question mark over the origins of 60 fellow passengers.
The organisation founder Samuel Chandrahasan said the number of passengers from south India’s refugee camps had been revised down in recent days after four families contacted the organisation to say they had opted not to join the boat and were now seeking refunds for deposits paid to people smuggling agents.
“The people we have been speaking to at the local level have taken up the position that no boat has officially sailed from India and, therefore, as far as they’re concerned no one has left from India,” Mr Chandrahasan said.
He added it was possible passengers were ferried out from Pondicherry to a mother boat anchored in international waters. The Indian High Commissioner to Australia, Biren Nanda said: “We have not received any communication from the Australian government. We have no details on the case. We have no official information either from the government or the police authorities here.’’
And Sri Lanka’s High Commissioner to Australia, Admiral Thisara Samarasinghe, said his country had no plans to accept the group, saying: “I can categorically deny and reject any plans of Sri Lanka to take over the suspected, speculated, presumed asylum- seekers coming from India.’’
Officials in Tamil Nadu, a state historically sympathetic to the plight of Sri Lankan Tamil refugees, have denied the boat left from their waters, indicating a reluctance to accept any returnees.
Sri Lankan Navy spokesman Commodore Kosala Warnakulasooriya also dismissed suggestions the boat first left from Sri Lankan waters, pointing to how heavily patrolled the maritime border has become since tensions rose over fisheries poaching.
While asylum-seekers from the camps would likely be able to produce documents proving their refugee status and Indian residency permits, those from outside the camps could struggle to prove they left from India in order to argue they should be returned there.
Before the High Court hearing in Melbourne, Tony Abbott said “the Labor Party and its activists, the Greens and their activists, they will try to disrupt the government’s policies; they will try to do things that start the boats up again because that’s in Labor’s DNA.’’
Government frontbencher Senator Michaelia Cash told the Senate “at all times this government believes it is acting in accordance with our international obligations and our obligations regarding safety at sea … the *assurances that we have received from the Sri Lankan government are the same assurances as were given to the former government’’.
But Labor’s immigration spokesman Richard Marles accused Mr Morrison of risking Australia’s international reputation to protect his “political scoreboard’’.
It is understood Mr Morrison met on Monday the UN High Commissioner for Refugees regional representative Thomas Albrecht to outline Australia’s enhanced-screening processes.
The UNHCR issued a statement last night saying it “does not object to the returns of persons properly found not to be in need of international protection, but considers anyone claiming asylum has a right to have their case properly assessed by qualified personnel in accordance with the necessary procedural and legal safeguards”.
The latest from the Australian,
The Australian understands the government has no intention of sending the boatload to Sri Lanka, nor are authorities in Colombo preparing to receive them.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ple-to-sri-lanka/story-e6frg6n6-1226982334346
I meant to put that in the asylum seeker thread.Nice to see the government supporting the Liberal daily News paper with backgrounding.
It's so simple Noco... it's just so simple that only a truly simple person (like yourself no doubt and of course Ms Flint ) can grasp the simple, obvious reality.
There is no such thing as truth. When hand wringing do gooders and human rights lawyers plead for the lives of aslyum seekers they have to fall behind the right of Australia to do whatever it wants to secure its borders.
When animal rights fanatics weep and wail at casual, gratuitous cruelty to sheep dying on stranded boats to the Middle East or brutally butchered in Indonesia they just don't understand the financial facts of life of poor farmers.
And of course, worst of all, when every bleeding climate scientist worth their degree tell us we are cooking the climate and we will be wet toast in a few years they just don't understand how critical the fossil fuel industry is to our survival !!
But you Noco and the other friendly, simple folk at the Courier Mail know reality so clearly.
It is simply whatever you want to believe isn't it mate ?
Any of course you don't want to let any pesky facts, legal issues or humanitarian questions get in the way do you ?
So tell me how is your post related to this thread....."ABC is political."?
So tell me how is your post related to this thread....."ABC is political."?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?