Resisting Climate Hysteria

[sails]

These threads prove that the fastest way to get opposition to any project is to apply a cost. The hip pocket nerve takes over 99% of the time. Is it actually resisting climate hysteria or resisting having to pay to fix a problem.

In reality, how many people really want to hand out their own cash to fix something that money may not be able to fix? If a government can implement a tax, I think we all know that they are not going to stop that tax even if the initial excuse for it no longer exists.

IMO, I think many people see this whole carbon tax thing as nothing more than another grab for cash to fund some extremely excessive spending habits.

 

[moXJO]

These threads prove that the fastest way to get opposition to any project is to apply a cost. The hip pocket nerve takes over 99% of the time. Is it actually resisting climate hysteria or resisting having to pay to fix a problem.

Pffft you mean an Aussie carbon tax was meant to fix it
The only difference you will notice on environmental hair brained tax schemes is the price not the air quality.

 

[Julia]

These threads prove that the fastest way to get opposition to any project is to apply a cost. The hip pocket nerve takes over 99% of the time. Is it actually resisting climate hysteria or resisting having to pay to fix a problem.

You have omitted the most important option, i.e. that much of the population have budgets that are already stretched to the limit with massive increases in electricity (even without the dreaded carbon price), water prices, and general cost of living. People on low incomes are already unable to heat their homes in winter, are having to choose between paying for medication or food at times.

Why should they be further marginalised by a tax that is absolutely not proven to be useful? Even if one were to accept the doubtful premise that anthropogenic warming is a fact, there is, as far as I know, no proof that putting price on carbon will materially make any difference.

It's therefore just another tax for the Labor government, plus an appeasement toward the Greens, without whom, plus the independents, they would not retain government.

In reality, how many people really want to hand out their own cash to fix something that money may not be able to fix? If a government can implement a tax, I think we all know that they are not going to stop that tax even if the initial excuse for it no longer exists.

IMO, I think many people see this whole carbon tax thing as nothing more than another grab for cash to fund some extremely excessive spending habits.

Yep, count me amongst those you refer to, Sails.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

You have omitted the most important option, i.e. that much of the population have budgets that are already stretched to the limit with massive increases in electricity (even without the dreaded carbon price), water prices, and general cost of living. People on low incomes are already unable to heat their homes in winter, are having to choose between paying for medication or food at times.

Why should they be further marginalised by a tax that is absolutely not proven to be useful? Even if one were to accept the doubtful premise that anthropogenic warming is a fact, there is, as far as I know, no proof that putting price on carbon will materially make any difference.

It's therefore just another tax for the Labor government, plus an appeasement toward the Greens, without whom, plus the independents, they would not retain government.


Yep, count me amongst those you refer to, Sails.

Hear hear, Julia, what a load of muppets not listening to their hip pocket nerves.

Labor = Taxes = Fatcats getting rich = Ordinary folk losing out.

Its happened before and it will happen again.

gg

 

[noco]

In reality, how many people really want to hand out their own cash to fix something that money may not be able to fix? If a government can implement a tax, I think we all know that they are not going to stop that tax even if the initial excuse for it no longer exists.

IMO, I think many people see this whole carbon tax thing as nothing more than another grab for cash to fund some extremely excessive spending habits.

The Labor Party are trying to play 'catch up' for the various state Labor Party's Governments neglect in not building new power stations and dams over the past decade and more in some cases. Through this neglect, we the taxpayers will have to foot the bill through this big new tax on carbon emmissions to pay for infrastructure that should have taken place years ago.

Oh yeah, you will being paying heaps more for your power and if the Greens have their way, there will be no more coal mines, no more coal fired power stations and no more dams. We have to look after the hairy red nose wombats and the lung fish. Nuclear is the way to go but can't see that happening while the Labor Party are in Government and the Greens in power.

 

[Logique]

My first energy and water instructions to the incoming Coalition Govt in NSW in March 2011 would be:

1. Build a coal-fired power station
2. Build a dam
3. Build another coal-fired power station
4. Investigate the possibilities of a nuclear power station in NSW (yes I would consider one in my backyard, the technology has moved on).
5. Immediately (if temporarily) de-commission the bottled electricity (water prod'n) plant in southern Sydney - until, and if, needed again.
6. A big research grant should go to the scientists working on developing cold fusion. Anywhere in the world you find them.

Here we have in Australia -vast reserves of minerals incl. uranium, and coal, and vast spaces away from people to place nuclear plants. Which are proliferating all over Europe and China because they can't afford the coal.

Yet domestic electricity prices are a runaway train, as are the hare-brained green schemes designed to substitute. Which they will never be able to do on baseload basis.

It's obscene. Other countries must laugh at Australia.

 

[nioka]

My first energy and water instructions to the incoming Coalition Govt in NSW in March 2011 would be:

1. Build a coal-fired power station
2. Build a dam
3. Build another coal-fired power station
4. Investigate the possibilities of a nuclear power station in NSW
5. Immediately (if temporarily) de-commission the bottled electricity (water prod'n) plant in southern Sydney - until, and if, needed again.

.

I'll suggest an amendment;

1. Build a dam, put in hydro.
2. Build another dam, put in hydro.
3 -10. Keep building dams, keep increasing hydro electricity availability.
11. Mothball the desal plants.
12. Investigate if there would still be a need for a nuclear power station.

I have not heard of a dam that ruined the enviroment. I have seen plenty that CHANGE it.... for the better.(visited one last week for an enjoyable day out. Better than my last visit to a weed infested national park.)

 

[moXJO]

I'll suggest an amendment;

1. Build a dam, put in hydro.
2. Build another dam, put in hydro.
3 -10. Keep building dams, keep increasing hydro electricity availability.
11. Mothball the desal plants.
12. Investigate if there would still be a need for a nuclear power station.

I have not heard of a dam that ruined the enviroment. I have seen plenty that CHANGE it.... for the better.(visited one last week for an enjoyable day out. Better than my last visit to a weed infested national park.)

Try passsing that through the greens, they were blocking them non stop back in the day. Dams are as hard to pass as nuke with them.

 

[Logique]

Not bad Nioka,
all that renewable and carbon-free hydro-energy would be quite acceptable, and the water would be alright too.

Agreed moXJO, I might have to pull that application for Greens membership.

 

[noco]

Not bad Nioka,
all that renewable and carbon-free hydro-energy would be quite acceptable, and the water would be alright too.

Agreed moXJO, I might have to pull that application for Greens membership.

Yeah me too Logique. A pity a few more didn't think like you and me.
The Greens will stuff this country if allowed to gain control. When building dams you have to think about what will happen to those long red nosed hairy wombats. Don't worry about water or power for people.

 

[Smurf1976]

Try passsing that through the greens, they were blocking them non stop back in the day. Dams are as hard to pass as nuke with them.

The world's first Green party was started in Australia (Tas) specifically to oppose dam construction. Historically, it supported nuclear at one point and for many years supported coal-fired power (safe in the knowledge that such a plant would never likely have been built in Tas due to lack of economic viability). At one point it even supported burning wood (from native forests) rather than consider building more dams.

The odds of the Greens supporting dams are about as high as the chances of Labor banning unions or the Liberals outlawing capitalism. It's an issue that goes to the heart of the very basis of the party.

Personally, my own conclusion is that the Greens themselves are only moderately concerned about climate change and do not rank it as the highest environmental priority. If they were genuinely concerned, they would not oppose any and all means of producing more than a third of our electricity from non-fossil sources.

 

[Smurf1976]

My first energy and water instructions to the incoming Coalition Govt in NSW in March 2011 would be:

1. Build a coal-fired power station
2. Build a dam
3. Build another coal-fired power station
4. Investigate the possibilities of a nuclear power station in NSW (yes I would consider one in my backyard, the technology has moved on).
5. Immediately (if temporarily) de-commission the bottled electricity (water prod'n) plant in southern Sydney - until, and if, needed again.
6. A big research grant should go to the scientists working on developing cold fusion. Anywhere in the world you find them.

Here we have in Australia -vast reserves of minerals incl. uranium, and coal, and vast spaces away from people to place nuclear plants. Which are proliferating all over Europe and China because they can't afford the coal.

Yet domestic electricity prices are a runaway train, as are the hare-brained green schemes designed to substitute. Which they will never be able to do on baseload basis.

It's obscene. Other countries must laugh at Australia.

I understand what you are saying, but there is a certain reality being ignored here.

The soaring cost of electricity is not due to the means of generation since that is still producing cheap electricity. The crux of the problem is the existence of a "market" and the associated fortune spent to facilitate it.

Get rid of pointless "competition" which has directly introduced massive inefficiencies in the industry and forced costs up both operationally and through unnecessary (in engineering terms) investment required to make this "market" work.

It's a classic case of an economic theory that sounds nice but which is failing miserably in practice. It is a situation not unique to Australia. Introduce "reforms" and a "competitive market" and then watch as prices go through the roof. It is an idea that is flawed from an engineering perspective and which costs a fortune. It adds a lot of unnecessary CO2 too by the way...

We had the third cheapest electricity in the OECD, behind only Canada and NZ, both of which rely heavily on cheap hydro-electricity. Within Australia, we were world leaders in coal technology (Vic) and there are numerous engineering achievements in the Snowy and Tasmanian hydro schemes too. It is something that many hate to admit, but the state-owned electricity suppliers were genuinely first class operations.

Then along came the Thatcher-inspired economists who turned the industry on its head and made it operate less efficiently - that is the cause of your soaring power bills at home.

Outside of Tasmania where their influence has been huge, the Greens haven't really done much to change the nature of the Australian electricity industry. A few protests here and there but, apart from in Tas, nothing really changed. The "economic rationalists" did far more damage in far less time than anything the Greens have done.

 

[noco]

The world's first Green party was started in Australia (Tas) specifically to oppose dam construction. Historically, it supported nuclear at one point and for many years supported coal-fired power (safe in the knowledge that such a plant would never likely have been built in Tas due to lack of economic viability). At one point it even supported burning wood (from native forests) rather than consider building more dams.

The odds of the Greens supporting dams are about as high as the chances of Labor banning unions or the Liberals outlawing capitalism. It's an issue that goes to the heart of the very basis of the party.

Personally, my own conclusion is that the Greens themselves are only moderately concerned about climate change and do not rank it as the highest environmental priority. If they were genuinely concerned, they would not oppose any and all means of producing more than a third of our electricity from non-fossil sources.

The Green movement goes futher back than Bob Brown in Tasmania as per link below.It is true that he started the Green Party in Australia in the seventies.

As I mentioned on a previous post, Al Gore is the World Patron of the Green movement with Ki Moon UN Secretary General a known sympathizer. Ki moon appointed Kevin Rudd to the UN Climate Change committee

http://webecoist.com/2008/08/17/a-brief-history-of-the-modern-green-movement

 

[nioka]

If we didn't have a two party political system then we wouldnt have the damn dam opposing greens. The greens get their votes from those that dont want to vote for either of the other two parties. It's time Tasmania woke up to the damage they are doing in that state.

They have ruined the cheap electricity availability. They have prevented an irrigated food bowl that would be the envy of the world. They have forced forestry to adapt to monoculture and Tasmania has some of the best sterile pine forests to be seen. Chasing their vote has seen some very bad decisions made by the other parties.

The other thing about dams. The NIMBY factor. Imagine the problems we could be having if they had blocked the Snowy scheme and most of the other storages that do supply the water now. The Clarence is a massive river with plenty of water to spare but local politics is fighting hard to stop anything happening there. We need a government strong enough to force these things through. Another Bjelke Peterson. At least he was "action man"

 

[Smurf1976]

The Green movement goes futher back than Bob Brown in Tasmania as per link below.It is true that he started the Green Party in Australia in the seventies.

Environmentalism per se certainly goes back a long way internationally. Locally, the first real reference to it in Tas dates from the 1930's - and yes it was associated with the construction of the Tarraleah hydro scheme and damming of Lake St Clair (still dammed, but now also a National Park and very few visitors realise this lake is a water storage used for power generation).

But in terms of political parties, my understanding is that the somewhat inappropriately named United Tasmania Group formed in the early 1970's and its successors ("The Independents", "The Green Independents", "Tasmanian Greens" and now "Australian Greens") was technically the world's first Green political party to actually have members elected to parliament. That is what the party itself claims anyway - "world's first Green party".

Tas presently has an actual Labor-Green government, as distinct from a minority Labor government relying on Green support, with Greens holding a number of ministerial portfolios including some in no way related to the environment (eg Greens leader Nick McKim holds responsibility for, amongst other things, prisons).

Interesting to see how it goes. The previous Labor-Green government, technically a Labor minority government relying on Green support, lasted about 2.5 years but did achieve sweeping economic reforms during that time. The Liberal-Green government of the late 1990's was absolutely associated with "doom and gloom" economics and was firmly kicked out over the issue of, you guessed it, the Hydro.

Looking at local politics, I'll simply make one observation. There's a growing campaign locally to the effect that the National Electricity Market is a farce (hard to deny...) that isn't working in consumers' interests. Central to that is the notion that the industry should be put back together - that is, re-establish a state-owned monopoly electricity supplier.

The idea seems to have fairly broad support, even the Chamber of Commerce & Industry, an organisation you would not expect to be supporting state-owned enterprise, is willing to at least look at the idea as are Liberal, Green and, somewhat cautiously, Labor. Such is the level of dissatisfaction and growing outrage with the present arrangements and ridiculous household power bills.

Power goes up again on 1st December this year (last rise was 1st July) and it's a big jump. Then another one on the first of July next year, and another one after that... Everyone from pensioners to business has had enough of this electricity nonsense...

One state, One electricity company. I suspect we may well hear those words in use during the next election campaign if nothing happens sooner. There's a pretty long history of the power industry influencing election outcomes in Tas over the years...

 

[Smurf1976]

If we didn't have a two party political system then we wouldnt have the damn dam opposing greens. The greens get their votes from those that dont want to vote for either of the other two parties. It's time Tasmania woke up to the damage they are doing in that state.

They have ruined the cheap electricity availability. They have prevented an irrigated food bowl that would be the envy of the world. They have forced forestry to adapt to monoculture and Tasmania has some of the best sterile pine forests to be seen. Chasing their vote has seen some very bad decisions made by the other parties.

40 years ago Tasmania accounted for 23% of Australia's energy-intensive heavy manufacturing industry. In 2010 it is basically irrelevant.

Port Huon pulp mill - gone.
Electrona - gone.
Glass factory (not sure of the proper name) - gone.
Blundstone - gone.
Sheridan - gone.
Stanley Works - gone.
Southern Aluminium - gone.
Coats Paton - gone.
APPM Burnie - gone.
APPM Wesley Vale - gone.
North-West Acid - gone.
Tioxide - gone.

Nyrstar (previously known as EZ) - still here but depends absolutely on cheap energy to be viable.
Norske Skog (previously known as ANM) - still here but now processes only pine.
Rio Tinto (previously known as Comalco) - still here but unlikely to remain due to energy issue.
TEMCO - still here but depends on what happens with the carbon tax and electricity prices.
Cadbury - plenty of rumors that it is only a matter of time...
Port Latta - still here but with the upgrade proposal to process imported product dead, its' life is limited to that of a single mine supplying raw materials.

I do not claim that the Greens are solely responsible for every one of those industry closures, but lack of available electricity at reasonable prices (ie competitive with other states or overseas) delivered a pretty big blow. Throw in arguments over access to resources and it is no wonder that investors walked away.

Unions certainly haven't helped the cause either. Neither have the Labor party's boffins in Canberra, always keen to buy votes in Sydney and Melbourne at the expense of industry in the bush or smaller states.

I am not suggesting that we ought to log or dam the whole state. But it is absolutely ridiculous that Australia sells wood and coal (fuel) to Japan, a high wage developed country, and buys back paper. Madness economically and madness environmentally once the added shipping (and CO2 emissions) are considered. Meanwhile we've had 3 pulp mills and 2 paper mills shut down in Tas over the past 20 years, two of them as a direct consequence of Greens / Labor blocking further investment in the mills such that in due course the machinery simply wore out etc.

Now we're about to repeat this madness in the other states. We'll be closing aluminium smelters and exporting bauxite (one NSW smelter has already made the first moves in this direction). Closing steel mills, car factories and all sorts of other things. In short, completely gutting what remains of Australian manufacturing and becoming a mining-only exporter.

Better hope there's never a war, tade embargo, drop in mineral prices etc or we'll be completely stuffed. And if history is any guide, it is only a matter of time before some or all of those things actually happen. Then we're stuffed - even frozen vegetables are made in China these days.

Worth noting that national defence is in fact the reason the three largest energy users were set up in Tas in the first place. The aluminium smelter was actually owned by the Australian Government when first built, being privatised in the 1960's. No aluminium = no aeroplanes. The zinc works started amidst similar concerns - no zinc = no ammunition and lots of other things. Likewise no ferro alloys (TEMCO plant) = no ability to produce steel at the mills in NSW and SA = no ability to produce machinery in Australia. As I said, we'd better hope this country is never in a situation of having to defend itself when we'll soon lack even basic metals production capability.

 

[Julia]

Um, could someone kindly explain to me what it is that the Greens have against dams?

What means of generating sufficient electricity to provide full availability to all consumers, no power outages, do they actually approve of?

 

[Smurf1976]

Um, could someone kindly explain to me what it is that the Greens have against dams?

What means of generating sufficient electricity to provide full availability to all consumers, no power outages, do they actually approve of?

Getting a lot of mice and connecting their exercise wheels to a generator is about the only option that comes to mind as not being specifically opposed by someone, somewhere.

Trouble is, you'll only have power when the mice are running. Fortunately however, mice tend to run on wheels mostly at night such that you'll be able to use the power for lighting. If you need extra power for some reason, for example to run power tools or cook dinner, just temporarily replace the mice with rats.

Before anyone says that I'm being silly, when you really think about it I'm not. Any serious source of power has plenty of opposition, leaving only silly ones like mouse power. That's how truly absurd the debate has become - we've ruled out literally everything that could actually work, thus leaving "do nothing" as the outcome.

Edit: Just realised that my mice are in fact consumers of electricity, not producers, since their cage is electrically heated. So that's another power source to cross off the list...

 

[Julia]

I appreciate the testimony regarding the amazing capacity of mice to generate power, Smurf.

But seriously, can you say what exactly the Greens object to with the provision of dams?
I'd have thought to dig a big hole in the ground to store rainwater wasn't offensive to anyone.
Silly me, I guess.

 

[Smurf1976]

But seriously, can you say what exactly the Greens object to with the provision of dams?
I'd have thought to dig a big hole in the ground to store rainwater wasn't offensive to anyone.
Silly me, I guess.

The objection is to what the industry once referred to as "modification" of the natural environment (ie covering the land with water). It is not the dam construction per se, but rather the water storage created upstream, to which environmentalists are generally opposed.

There's a quote circa 1960 that I'll try and find which explains it all quite well. And of course that was written long before anyone had actually stopped a dam being built on environmental grounds. I'll have a look for it over the next few days.