This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

Jump to new
Investoradam said:
The abc peddling the propaganda for the large corporations. I mean nothing speaks clean aboutdigging endless toxic products out of the ground to make something to ineffective at a wind mill.
Click to expand...

Really ? You seriously still believe windmills are ineffective or whatever ?

The story was of course much bigger than just windmills which I don't think got more than a passing mention. The essential question is that if we are going to achieve a carbon free future to somehow stop global heating from cooking everyone there will be massive engineering works required as well as technologies that will require many special metals. So the question is how do we obtain these without too much extra trashing of the environment.

FMG is a company that seems to taking this problem and turning it into an opportunity. Might be worth checking out their FFI projects.
 
Even as I spruik the wares of Twiggy and FMG to re engineer the world and save us from global heating.... there is some harder realities to face.

George Monbiot, as usual, offers a reality check on concreting our way to a sustainable climate.

We can’t build our way out of the environmental crisis​

George Monbiot



New infrastructure projects are all the rage, post-pandemic. But who benefits from a rising tide of concrete?

‘The nominal costs of HS2 have risen from £37.5bn in 2009 to somewhere between £72bn and £110bn today.’ HS2 construction in Buckinghamshire, January 2021. Photograph: Maureen McLean/REX/Shutterstock
Wed 1 Sep 2021 06.00 BST


Dig for victory: this, repurposed from the second world war, could be the slogan of our times. All over the world, governments are using the pandemic and the environmental crisis to justify a new splurge of infrastructure spending. In the US, Joe Biden’s bipartisan infrastructure framework “will make our economy more sustainable, resilient, and just”. In the UK, Boris Johnson’s build back better programme will “unite and level up the country”, under the banner of “green growth”. China’s belt and road project will bring the world together in hyper-connected harmony and prosperity.

Sure, we need some new infrastructure. If people are to drive less, we need new public transport links and safe cycling routes. We need better water treatment plants and recycling centres, new wind and solar plants, and the power lines required to connect them to the grid. But we can no more build our way out of the environmental crisis than we can consume our way out of it.

Why? Because new building is subject to the eight golden rules of infrastructure procurement.

We can’t build our way out of the environmental crisis | George Monbiot

New infrastructure projects are all the rage, post-pandemic. But who benefits from a rising tide of concrete, asks Guardian columnist George Monbiot
www.theguardian.com
 

This summer was meant to be brilliant - why did it end up being such a let-down?

What happened to our hot vaxxed summer?
metro.co.uk
There is no doubt in my mind that the poor weather this summer in the UK is due to Global Cooling.

Global cooling - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org
Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s, of imminent cooling of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive glaciation, due to the cooling effects of aerosols and orbital forcing. Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling; these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time, which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect.[1]

Hasn't Earth warmed and cooled naturally throughout history?

Earth has warmed in the past due to changes in the Sun, volcanic eruptions, and naturally occurring increases in greenhouse gases. Our ability to understand and explain past changes is one reason we are confident that recent changes are due to humans.
www.climate.gov
So it appears all the information put out about Global Warming is a myth. The planet Earth has gone through cold and warm periods in the past. So in due course the worm will turn and all the efforts to change the pattern of events will have been a complete waste of time.

So we can all sit back and just wait for the changing pattern some time in the future.
 
Well that is fantastic news Noirua !! In these days of despair and despondency it's great to have some good cheer.

I think that if we want keep up the good news we need to tidy up a few pesky global weather records and perhaps start painting some mountains that have inadvertently lost their snow cover.

And while we are at maybe reconstruct our scientific community so it properly reflects such a sunny disposition.
 

Ha Ha Ha ! It's not April 1st. Last time I checked Hades didn't have a cool change.

And suddenly, miraculously even, (almost) all the News Corp stable will simultaneously run a 14 day intensive campaign in support of a carbon neutral world by 2050.

Wonders will never cease. I'll have to have a chat with George Monbiot and suggest he writes a special story for them explaining just why this is so important.
 
News Corp, is the most popular and lucrative news, so to keep their circulation up they will follow the herd trend. So to me it would indicate that generally people are moving toward the narrative of climate change, therefore news corp is moving with them, it's just business IMO.
That's why the other media outlets struggle financially, they focus on minority groups, which is probably why they are struggling with circulation.
 

Indeed it is SP. This is just a business move. It has absolutely nothing to do with addressing what needs to happens if we are to have any viable businesses in 2050. In fact what we will see from News Corp is the latest morph of climate denial to climate delay and a boosterism of special pro business projects. Thats why I tongue in check suggested George Monbiot could write a decent story on just what has to be done and where this could happen.

What will the NZ 2050 story look like ?

It will be a centrist, pro-business approach to climate action. It will make a show of dismissing the “hysterics” of climate activists, while urging governments, including Australia’s, to set distant, meaningless and non-binding climate targets. It won’t allow any room for emissions reductions in line with the 1.5C goals or the Paris agreement; no short-term meaningful targets or actions such as those highlighted in the IEA’s recent ‘net zero’ report. It won’t argue for a coal phase-out by 2030, or the end of all new coal, gas and oil mines in Australia, or a ban on combustion engine sales by 2030-2035; all vital actions if Australia is to align with any net zero target.

It’ll champion controversial technologies like CCS and fossil hydrogen. It’ll highlight personal responsibility: tree planting, recycling and electric vehicle purchases. It will not propose or argue in favour of any new policies; at least none that might reduce the burning of fossil fuels.

How can we know all this before we’ve seen the actual campaign? It’s easy – let me explain.

News Corp hasn’t seen the light on climate – they’re just updating their tactics

Is News Corp really seeing the light on climate? More likely it’s pivoting to a modern style of greenwashing and delay, just like Morrison.
reneweconomy.com.au
 
Which is why I take any thing the media say, with a pinch of salt, the media is driven by personal agenda at the journalist level, editorial agenda at the publishing level and by money at the corporate level.
Non are driven by an underlying obligation to give, fair, honest and unbiased reporting IMO. That is why, it is a dying medium, ask any young person what they think of the media, they all think it is rubbish.
The only people who follow the media narrative today, are old fossils who still think the media, is obligated to give honest content.?
 
Let’s dig up more of the earth with those toxic materials and call it green!
Solar panels and wind turbines cannot be recycled neither can batteries!
yet it’s clean and green! And nuclear is evil!
 
Investoradam said:
Let’s dig up more of the earth with those toxic materials and call it green!
Solar panels and wind turbines cannot be recycled neither can batteries!
yet it’s clean and green! And nuclear is evil!
Click to expand...

Actually the technology for recycling 80% of a battery is currently being built in Germany in partnership with an Australian company costs are around $2K a battery for $7K plus (excuse my memory costs maybe a little different) returns hugely commercially viable.

Costs, technology ( processing sovereign risk) and not in my back yard are the problems with nuclear power but if you go nuclear weapons then nuclear power makes perfect sense.
 
100% recycling of Solar Panels is now operational in Victoria. Everything is reused.

Australia’s first solar panel recycling plant swings into action​



Sophie Vorrath 7 May 2021 0
Share
Tweet
0Share



One of Australia’s first solar PV recycling facilities is up and running in Melbourne’s north, with video footage posted on LinkedIn on Wednesday showing the panel-crushing plant in action.

The plant, which was completed last September in Thomastown by Melbourne based co-operative Lotus Energy, claims to recycle 100% of end-of-life solar PV modules and all associated materials recovered – inverters, cables, optimisers, mounting structures – using no chemicals.

Lotus Energy confirmed this week’s operational milestone with RenewEconomy on Thursday, with more details on the plant’s capabilities and the company’s plans to come.

Lotus Energy also claims the title of Australia’s first dedicated solar panel recycling facility, although it is likely to be followed closely by Reclaim PV Recycling, which in February locked in plans to develop its first processing facility in the industrial Adelaide suburb of Lonsdale, in South Australia.

Australia’s first solar panel recycling plant swings into action

Video footage posted on LinkedIn this week shows Lotus Energy’s Melbourne solar panel recycling plant in action – is it Australia’s first?
reneweconomy.com.au
 
Dealing with Wind Turbines is also on the cards.
Frankly the mechanisms for dealing with renewable energy sources is far more advanced than decommissioning Nuclear Power stations. It can be done but the costs and ongoing risks are quite problematic. And unfortunately the companies that made the money from teh operations are normally not hanging around to clean them up.

Explainer: What happens to old wind turbines?

The wind power industry is making gains in its quest for full recyclability, but there is still much to do.
reneweconomy.com.au

Decommissioning nuclear reactors is a long-term and costly process - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

www.eia.gov
 

Very true of much/most of the commercial media. News Com, Fox News are particular examples of Corporate and political led media organisations that have a very strong focus on ensuring their political/business masters get value.

The Guardian offers a different agenda and that certainly takes it into conflict with many business and political organizations. It began as a voice for the powerless.

Since 1821 the mission of the Guardian has been to use clarity and imagination to build hope.

Guardian Media Group is a global news organisation that delivers fearless, investigative journalism - giving a voice to the powerless and holding power to account.

Our independent ownership structure means we are entirely free from political and commercial influence. Only our values determine the stories we choose to cover – relentlessly and courageously.

Our organisation

The Guardian is owned by Guardian Media Group, which has only one shareholder - the Scott Trust.

The Scott Trust, named after our longest serving editor, CP Scott, exists to secure the financial and editorial independence of the Guardian in perpetuity.

Today more than half of our revenue comes directly from our readers, helping to support Guardian journalism and keep it open for everyone

A mission for journalism in a time of crisis

In a turbulent era, the media must define its values and principles, writes Guardian editor-in-chief Katharine Viner
www.theguardian.com

About us | The Guardian

www.theguardian.com
 
They summed it up perfectly,
Only our values determine the stories we choose to cover – relentlessly and courageously.

As long as their values are aligned with the readers values, the reader will be happy, it is no different to any of the others.
You're happy with the Guardian, that's fine, some others will be happy with 9 groups news, others will be happy with News corps presentations.
Everyone to their own, it is just I feel they are all the same, driven by personal and or financial motives, not by an underlying obligation to give fair and unbiased reporting.
This is where the ABC is falling down in it's obligations, they are funded by all taxpayers, not just the left leaning ones.
 
SP you contention earlier was that Media organisations are driven by Business and political interests. I agreed and in fact commercial media follows that process very strongly.

The Guardian is significantly different because it doesn't allow itself to be guided by clear commercial and political interests.

In theory, by the way, News organisations say that their news desk is independently run. In theory the news desk doesn't kowtow to pressure from advertisers or media owners who want certain stories published, others ignored or particular themes to be explored.

Historically that principle had some truth. But in 2021 you would be had pressed to see an organisation News Corp even paying lip service to such an idea.
 
I'm only saying they are all driven by their bias, the Guardian is driven by its political, social and business interests, otherwise it would go broke.
Their bias will be reflective in their editorial content, if they feel that a political party isn't doing enough to further the agenda that they feel is right, they will give them a negative biased presentation.
Also you will find that the Guardian probably receives funds from left leaning commercial entities, the same as Greenpeace does, I'm not saying it is wrong.
I'm saying that the truth, lies somewhere between what all the media outlets present, because none just present the facts IMO.
If you take a pragmatic view of it, Newscorp is probably more a reflection of the views of the majority, the reason for making that assumption is they rely on selling content and they do it well.
If the circulation falls they will change their editorial content to attract the sales, whereas some other media just keep churning out the same rhetoric, which is fine but becomes niche.
Newscorp actually a week or so ago, said they were going to actively push climate change, which would indicate their polling is showing a major shift of public opinion toward the climate change side.
Therefore they adapt, that's business, that's what they do. It doesn't mean they are a crap newspaper, it just means they give a different side of an argument, if you read all the sides, then it is possible to work out what sits best with your reasoning.
 
Last edited:

Australia burying ‘head in the sand’ on security risks of climate change, former defence official says​

Warning comes as Climate Council report finds Australia will not have ‘lasting national security’ without addressing climate crisis

Australia has its “head in the sand” regarding the national security implications of climate change and should follow the US in spelling out the risks, a former senior Australian defence official says.

Australia’s “strategic weakness” on climate policy is also making it harder for the country to be seen as a preferred partner with Pacific Island countries, according to Cheryl Durrant, the defence department’s former head of preparedness.

The comments coincide with the release of a new report by the Climate Council that argues Australia has “fallen well behind the US, UK, Japan, New Zealand and other peers in analysis of climate and security risks”.



‘Not on the same page’: Australia set to face US pressure on climate as ministers head to Washington

Read more
The US president, Joe Biden, has ordered a review of the security implications of climate change. His defense secretary, Lloyd Austin, has said climate change is “making the world more unsafe and we need to act”.

...The Climate Council report urges the Australian government to launch a national climate and security threat assessment – an idea first recommended by a Senate inquiry in 2018.

Sherri Goodman, a former US deputy undersecretary of defense specialising in environmental security, welcomed the report, saying Australia “further risks being left behind the clean energy transition”.

Goodman told Guardian Australia climate change acted “as a threat multiplier, exacerbating risks for Australia and its allies, from extreme heat and wildfire at home, to devastating typhoons and extreme weather events across the Pacific”.

Australia burying ‘head in the sand’ on security risks of climate change, former defence official says

Warning comes as Climate Council report finds Australia will not have ‘lasting national security’ without addressing climate crisis
www.theguardian.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
605
Smurf1976
February 2025
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
6K
ducati916
Fake News - Global Warming Consensus
40 41 42
Replies
831
Views
46K
SirRumpole
What does Lloyds think is happening?
2
Replies
22
Views
6K
springhill
M
Rothschild Australia, leaders in carbon trading market
Replies
2
Views
5K
So_Cynical
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...