- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,782
- Reactions
- 24,768
It would certainly fix the global warming problem if we did.
Even if we just got rid of all the a/c's it would help, we managed for a long time without them, now everyone has one.
It would certainly fix the global warming problem if we did.And I don't believe any of them live in caves either...
Hi SpIt would certainly fix the global warming problem if we did.
Times are a changing Bas a lot of this stuff will be taken out of peoples hands. ?Hi Sp
Please, please pass me toke on whatever it is your smoking. It must be really amazing stuff
Visionary and practical and will certainly be important. It stands in stark contrast to our current Federal Government policies which don't get close to recognising what is required of Australia to meet it's essential tasks in the field.Times are a changing Bas.
From the article:Europe takes on cheap flights and landlords in race to net zero emissions
Trains instead of flights, fossil fuel ad bans and charging landlords for tenant’s heating emissions will be legislated in parts of Europe.www.smh.com.au
Trains instead of flights, fossil fuel ad bans and charging landlords for their tenant’s heating emissions – these are not pie-in-the-sky but newly endorsed policies being implemented across Europe as governments prepare to make good on their net zero targets.
Last month France passed a law banning domestic flights of less than two-and-a-half hours where train routes also exist. The ban, which won’t apply to connecting international flights, is actually a watered-down version of what President Emmanuel Macron’s Citizens Climate Convention originally recommended. It will apply to eight routes inside France.
European countries are enacting laws to cut greenhouse gas emissions at least 40 per cent by 2030 compared to 1990 levels and the European Union agreed to a new 55 per cent reduction target in December.
Austria, which has pledged to become carbon neutral by 2040, last year banned flights of three hours where train travel is already possible. Further, it wants to make cheap flights a thing of the past, imposing a €30 ($47) tax on flights less than 300 kilometres.
The German government recently prepared legislation forcing landlords to pay half of a new carbon tax, also paid by tenants who live in buildings heated by oil and gas.
It just shows how easily people are conned into believing whatever is fed to them and what little understanding they have of the power system.Nah. They just gave $600m to mates in fossil fuel industry to build a gas powered powered generator that no credible person in the power industry believe has any economic or environmental credibility.
And that issue was a core one for the students who protested across Australia on Friday.
Rubbish.It just shows how easily people are conned into believing whatever is fed to them and what little understanding they have of the power system.
The fact that the Eastern States need a gas fired plant is obvious, the only ones who don't agree are those with vested interests.
Meanwhile China happily increases its pollution all the way through to at least 2030... nothing to see here folks
Kind of what I've been saying to you for a long time Bas, the quickest way to shut down coal and reduce emissions, is to get people to reduce the amount of power they use.An old drum that has been bought out for another beating.
Could we make a huge difference to chasing global heating reduction by just consuming less? Could we also take the strain off collapsing environmental systems with a bit of Make, Do and Mend thinking ? How about improving our social connections and skill sets ?
Thoughtful discussion on the latest book around this topic,
How might a lower-consuming society look? Everything is reoriented because people, brands and governments are no longer striving for economic growth. Individuals are more self-sufficient, growing food, mending things and embracing wabi-sabi, the Japanese concept of imperfect aesthetics (think patched-up pockets or chipped ceramics). Brands produce fewer but better-quality goods, while governments ban planned obsolescence (the practice of producing items to only function for a set period of time), stick “durability” labels on items so shoppers can be assured of longevity, and introduce tax subsidies so it’s cheaper to repair something than to bin it and buy a new version.
Overconsumption and the environment: should we all stop shopping?
Over-consumption is at the root of the planet’s environmental crisis. One solution, proposed by author JB MacKinnon, is that we should simply buy less. But would that really work?www.theguardian.com
That's not true at all as it does not change the generation base.Kind of what I've been saying to you for a long time Bas, the quickest way to shut down coal and reduce emissions, is to get people to reduce the amount of power they use.
Your wrong yet again, Rob, if the load is reduced, the ability and amount of renewables and storage is increased as a percentage of that load.That's not true at all as it does not change the generation base.
Also, if that's all the government wanted to achieve It would be quicker if they increased the price of electricity, just as putting up cigarette prices reduced smoking.
Far more practical and unavoidable is to move off coal/gas to renewables and facilitated it, rather than continue its laissez faire stance on energy.
You keep forgetting that it's government policies that drive commercial power generation decisions, and the inept Morrison government keeps laying out money for the fossil fuel industry.
Unless the fossil fuel generation footprint is reduced then CO2 emissions are not likely to change meaningfully, so your logic misses on this point. For example China is significantly inceasing its total share of renewables generation, but it's not reducing its CO2 footprint.Your wrong yet again, Rob, if the load is reduced, the ability and amount of renewables and storage is increased as a percentage of that load.
Also as the load is decreased, the viability of fossil fueled generation is decreased, as income produced is decreased but the holding costs remains constant i.e wages, fuel storage, maintenance.
It isn't government policy that drives commercial generation, it is the size of the commercial load that drives commercial fossil fueled generation, if there is no load there is no market because the plant isn't required to operate.
But you keep telling everyone how it is, and keep bashing the political tambourine, eventually everyone will tire of your nonsense.
You obviously have no understanding of how an electrical grid works, the generation footprint, is reducing, as smurf has posted up on several occasions.Unless the fossil fuel generation footprint is reduced then CO2 emissions are not likely to change meaningfully, so your logic misses on this point. For example China is significantly inceasing its total share of renewables generation, but it's not reducing its CO2 footprint.
Another point is that the increasing take up of rooftop solar allows millions of Australian housholds to maintain their energy use while simultaneously reducing their CO2 footprint and their power bills. Aside from that per capita (and household) electricity use has actually been declining for over a decade as the energy efficiency of consumer products increases.
What you have instead explained is how commercial operators tap into the available supplier market, and I know you are right as cheaper renewables are going to be purchased for distribution whenever possible.
My point about commercial power generation related to capacity investment decisions - sorry if not clear. If you were right then the government would not be building Snowy2.0 nor the gas power plant at Kurri Kurri.
Morrison's ineptitude on climate change is at an all time high because he has no credible policies to drive it.
I am pleased you mentioned the grid.You obviously have no understanding of how an electrical grid works, the generation footprint, is reducing, as smurf has posted up on several occasions.
Liddel is a 2,000MW coal station that is being closed, Kurri Kurri is going to be a 700MW gas fired station, that will reduce CO2 emissions just by capacity deferential alone there will be a further reduction due to the fact it is gas fired as opposed to coal fired.
Snowy2.0 is a hydro station, so fairly clean.
Of course the government needs to build Snowy 2.0 and other firming capacity, as the coal generation is closed and renewables take over the major generating capability.
You may be unaware, but renewables are intermittent generators, therefore until storage is sufficient, projects like Snowy2.0 and Kurri Kurri will be required.
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?