Warministas Like JM are aware enough of the reality of their advocacy so they tend to be reluctant to be totally honest with their interlocutors when it comes to how quickly they really want to see an end to the burning of coal to generate electricity. They will talk in euphemisms like wanting to “phase out Coal” or “transition” but when pressed for a time frame for this they try to ignore the hard questions or to change the emphasis of the debate. Well I expect that He will be rather hard pressed to make excuses for the real away with the fairies senator of the Greens team, Yep that loonies Loony Christine Milne:
Christine Milne is away with the Green fairies
Greens’ call for coalmines ban pits them against PM
THE Greens have demanded a ban on the development of any new coalmines and coal-seam gas facilities, hardening their rhetoric on climate change and highlighting the depth of their differences with Julia Gillard.Greens deputy leader Christine Milne yesterday seized on a report by the government’s Climate Commission, which called for swift action to reduce carbon emissions, to declare Australia must stop investing in fossil fuel energy sources.
The comments came as the report of the government-appointed commission sparked torrid debate in parliament, with the government demanding opposition acceptance of the need for action as it pressed its case for its planned carbon tax.
As a party outsider I am well pleased that Christine Milne has come out and stated what we all know about the reality of the Warminista liturgy, they believe that they only way to entirely placate the wrath of Gaia is to entirely close down the mining and burning of coal and oil as soon as is possible.
The way I see it there is just no practical way that the world’s current energy requirements can be realistically replaced by renewables, there are likely to be unforeseen consequences if we try, for instance when I had some solar panels to augment or power supply at our previous residence I noticed that as well as generating voltage that the panels themselves got rather warm absorbing heat, Now its easy to imagine that PV panels on every roof may have an effect on the climate. Likewise there are beginning to be few concerns about the ecological effects of those wind turbines especially for the future of birds who seem to be most vulnerable to the fast moving rotors of death. I have seen this for myself when a neighbour’s small scale wind turbine sliced off the wing of a kestrel, the bird was subsequently put out of its misery but imagine the creatures of the air being totally decimated if we had the numbers of of wind turbines that loonies like Christine Milne would require?
The other issue about wind turbines that has not been thought out is the effect of the air turbulence that they create in their wake. Now I don’t know if this will be a good or bad consequence but knowing that the effect is there should inspire some reticence from those who want us to have a coal free future. Turbulence form one turbine can probably be ignored but what if you have 1000? Or 10,000? Or even 100,000? The effect could make a big difference to localised climate, In fact I can imagine that this could be more significant to the planet than the minuscule effect of human released CO2…
Anyway I ask again JM, what sort of time-frame do you envisage for the closing down of coal mining?
Further how do you propose that both the revenue and economic befits be replaced?
Cheers Comrades
Iain Hall's SANDPIT 
Iain, regrettably your evangelical vitriol against the Greens appears to be driven by one thing: denial about climate change or, at the very least, a refusal to be constructive about what we should do about it.
All the science points to global warming and that humans cause it. Carbon is a key issue, so we must limit its manufacture. The key cause of carbon being relieased into the atmosphere? Burning of fossil fuels.
Thankfully human beings have found a variety of ways of making energy. Some of these ways are clearner than others, but none of them are perfect (e.g. I find wind turbines ugly and I too worry about their impact on bird populations, but in the right locations they do much less damage than burning coal).
What this debate needs is balance and a willing to move forward, not this ongoing anti-environment tirade that comes from blogs like this one.
A head in the sand (or coal seam) won’t get any of us anywhere.
Its not against the Greens per sae Nigel, rather, against the ability of the greens to use just a little common sense in their policy development.
There are issues with green power as well as burning coal. We have to lessen our reliance on burning coal, no argument there, but it must be tempered with what technology is available. At the moment, as I have said previously, coal is pretty much all we have. If you advocate a new technolgy, or development of what is out there, how are we going to pay for that ? Respective state governments have already forwarned us, of massive increases in electricity prices. They haven’t done anything to green up the industry, it is purely a plan to increase their coffers, and pay back massive debt from respective financial mismanagement.
I don’t just ask you, but the rest of the Green movement, if you get rid of coal, what is your alternative ? You get rid of coal, how are you going to stop the inevitable of throwing this country into the darkness ?
Pray to Gaia ?
Nigel
the science is actually far from settled no matter how convinced you are that it is,
Now I am actually very constructive when it comes to the future of humanity, here at the Sandpit I advocate caring for the environment and I stand against excessive consumerism and wasteful design. I just don’t buy the AGW argument.
When it comes to:
I would love to see you provide some figures for this (see I’m channelling JM 😉 ) because I don’t think that you can sustain this claim
If you look at the amount of coal fired energy that would have to be replaced by renewables and extrapolate the number of turbines that would need (keeping in mind that they never produce their rated capacity) the whole country would need to have them rotor tip to rotor tip, as Sax has pointed out in the previous thread Hydro is not on in this dry land and Solar gives us nothing at night, Just how can we possibly get enough energy without moving back into the caves?
To be fair Iain, there was the case last year of the windfarm down south, (Woolnorth I think they call it ?), having to turn off the turbines, simply cos a pair of wedgetails began to nest in the region. I would love to find a compromise. Moving the wedgetails a possibility. Down there, wind is perfect, along with the hydro.
Nearly seventy percent of our continent is unpopulated, and basks in sunshine for 300 plus days a year. Hmm, not hard to see. The cost of doing this however is something entirely different, especially considering the lack of ability of respective governments to be able to manage a bloody chook raffle, let alone anything of this grandeur ?
Firstly, just because I give a shit about the environment doesn’t mean that I’m interested in praying to Gaia – all that hippy crap drives me nuts. I’m a pragmatist.
What I’m advocating for is a managed transition away from a singular reliance on coal, and utilising the variety of energy-making techniques that we have at our disposal – wind, solar, wave, I’m sure there are others that we don’t discuss. We simply have to move on from coal at some stage, now is a good time to start.
Iain, no one needs figures to substantiate that we have at our disposal various ways of making energy. It’s also not hard to see that many of them produce less carbon than burning coal.
Oh, Sax, re: ‘The cost of doing this however is something entirely different, especially considering the lack of ability of respective governments to be able to manage a bloody chook raffle, let alone anything of this grandeur’. I couldn’t agree more – no government has the guts to take this issue on properly. To give her credit, Julia Gillard’s having a go, the problem is it’s not a very convincing go. Abbott’s playing stupid populist politics on this, and it’s morally backwards.
I just know that Australia has a chance to be leader in the clean-energy industry – there’s money to be made, and a stack of jobs that could come with it.
Why is it so hard to make that future happen?
Because Nigel, we are creatures that are abhorrent to change ?
You’re right though. I had forgotten about the wave generators. What a great idea they would be. Don’t have to be big, nor enviromentally intrusive. Dotted all over the place, what a bottler of an idea. They wouldn’t be that expensive to produce either ?
I don’t think they are having a go though. Personally, I think it is all lip service. They know deep down, that we don’t have the dough to do anything, other than what we have been, and are doing. Which is ? Next to nothing.
The only way things will change, is to do what we are doing, but increase the pace. i.e ? The installation of solar panels, and wind turbines on our properties when we can. That may be difficult though, as the supply is not out there. It’s a relatively new industry, and stock of panels is short from what I hear ? If the government is serious about this whole renewable energy campaign, then they should be seriously looking at subsidies towards it. Similar to the idea they had with insulation, but on the proviso that experienced/licenced installers are the ones doing the work this time perhaps ? Work it the same way you build a house. When the wiring gets completed, an inspector comes around, checks it, and signs off on it.
Sax, on cost, we have a proposal to build another coal fired plant in Victoria, this will cost. Don’t you think we should start spending on clean energy options?
We can get ‘base load’ from clean sources, just Google it if you want to find out.
Iain Can you give me one Government recognised scientific authority, or one peer reviewed paper that backs up this statement you made:
“the science is actually far from settled”
Why is the current report a pack of lies in your opinion?
Oh… and care to give us your opinion on why ‘The Bolt Report’ comedy half hour is failing?
You did suggest that it would be popular and that MTR is a good quality station that would grow.
Care to give us your view on why this is not what is happening?
Sure Craigy.
The victorian coastline could be dotted with windfarms. They are adjacent to some of the windiest and wildest waters out there, and strong winds are common. Windfarms along that coastline ideal. Solar farms up in the Wimmera another perfect location. More hydro up and around the snowies, along the Murray on a smaller scale, again, it’s not that hard is it ?
Unfortunately though, as previously stated, coal is cheap, relatively easy, and the infrastructure is already there to burn the hell out of it. Pretty sad, but that is going to be the pollies excuse ?
Don’t have to google it mate. The industry that makes me rich, and lets me play airreoplanes, reminds me every bloody day ? 😉
The rest will leave to Iain, but a quick comment about MTR ?
AW has been the leader in this field for years. Added to that, I really think people are tiring of talkback news type format. Lets face it, that particular format has been literally flogged to death over the last years wouldn’t you agree ?
Craigy
Peer review has been shown to have some rather clear problems when it comes to climate science (ref climategate) and it can not be relied up to prove that any paper is unbiased or having veracity.
Further it is self evident that the science is not settled because there are so many voices out there dissenting from the AGW orthodoxy.
The Bolt Report is rating far better than expected by its producers so I don’t think that it can be considered any sort of failure as for MTR I think that it would dearly like more listeners now but there is no doubt that its backers are playing a longer game that sees them winning audience at a slow but steady rate.
So the answer is that Iain can’t show one Government recognised scientific authority, or one peer reviewed paper that supports his views on climate change.
He must be very afraid when he takes his kids to the doctor, after all, the treatment is based on peer reviewed science. On this, Iain is sounding just like Bolt, a snake oil salesman.
MTR is bleeding big time and won’t last in its current format. Do you think all those high profile stars come cheap? So Iain, you wanna bet that it won’t last as is?
The Bolt report will only survive with the support of a ‘fellow travellers’ big pockets. If the much loved ‘market forces’ were let run Bolt would have been axed already. And I do know a bit about TV production, it’s the industry I work in.
Sax, yes it has been flogged but the extreme, shock jock, MTR kind of radio, that Iain is so keen on, has never worked in Melbourne. 3AW has always been soft right, with the odd exception. Melbourne is more mature than rural Queensland and people here aren’t sucked in by the rubbish Bolt, Price and others try and pedal.
You can see by Iain’s response above that people like him are just completely devoted to Bolt and his like. So much so that they even now are willing to turn their backs on science and democratic Government to continue to follow their guru’s discredited lead.
Fortunately for us, we have a Government that bases its policies on proper science and not the ranting of a pied piper for wingnuts.
MTR under its previous persona of 3MP is renown for this sort of stunt. That is how it first came into being, way back to the seventies. It threw money at every popular jock in Oz, and killed its main foe, 3XY for years in the process. It has taken many routes over the years since. The beautiful music route, to try and kill 3AK’s market share, and after years trying that didn’t eventuate either. It finally went back to its roots, and started playing sixties type stuff again, and was doing ok. Then talkback radio out of the blue ? Bloody hell. I liked 3mp. Its signal is one of the strongest here on the island, regular and reliable. But talkback radio, no thanks.
As for the government basing itself on science ? Hmm, have to think about that. I agree, but only to a certain degree. That degree is that they agree, ONLY when the science agrees with their policy plans, and future revenue projections. This is, again, nothing more than a massive tax grab, and for the labor party, an easy one. All they have to do, is get it past our fine tuned scepticism, and attack our guilt genes in the process ?
“That degree is that they agree, ONLY when the science agrees with their policy plans, and future revenue projections.”
I agree with you Sax, that on most issues it is the case, but I doubt that any party would put up something this hard to sell for such little gain.
And I don’t go with the opinion that this is all just a stunt to keep ‘greenies’ happy or that the ALP is doing this for pure political reasons.
It is clear that both major parties will bring in some kind of system to reduce the amount of carbon we produce as both parties can see the science is beyond argument. It is only those who get their opinions from the likes of Bolt who hang on to their anti-science stand. Isn’t it Iain?
There are only two ways they can pull this masterstroke of genius off.
One, is by giving the environmental departments, finally, the teeth to go after the pollutants in the first instance ; or
Two, which is much more favourable to a sick treasury, allowing the pollutants to keep on destroying the planet, but at a price. That price goes into the sick treasury. It lessens the government’s guilt trip, about it not doing anything.
Nothing will change btw. The polluting will continue on, but now there will be millions of dollars going into the sick treasury, and the government madly spending it’s new cash, will say, hey we are doing something about the problem.
In fact nothing is happening at all, except the blackmail monies will grow exponentially, at least until the producers of the pollution finally wake up to themselves, and change their ways, or go broke ?
Either way, I can’t see the environment being the winner here ? There is just too much money involved ?
Can anyone seriously see any different ?
I’d have to say I agree with Craigy here. Both major parties will bring in some kind of system to reduce the amount of carbon we produce, but not because of the science. It’ll happen because of the politics. Anyone who believes that major parties in of any colour, in any political market, do any thing because of science is sadly naive. I don’t agree that the science on this is settled – rather – I believe the politics of it amoung scientists is settled. However, that said, the argument that the science is settled is not new. This dogma has been about for years, yet no political party has moved. It is only now that the politics appears to be shifting that political parties (major ones that is) are doing anything. They are attempting to take ground from the Greens not CO2 from the atmosphere.
Here’s another thing I thought of.
Petrol excise is supposed to be spent on the environmental issues caused by petrolium fuels. So does it go now that there is a CO2 tax?
Very cynical Sax, but you are not far from the truth I think.
I tend to optimism and hope it does work out better than you think it will.
AGW is basically adherence to a doomsday cult. How does it “tend to optimism?”
Actually as I have pointed out before at least there will be some other environmental benefits from the coalition’s Polices (like improving the fertility of agricultural soils ) just what benifits will we see from Gillard’s policy apart from higher energy costs ?
Craigy
No I don’t think that it is in any way necessary so I have not bothered to look.
The pool of people suitable to do peer review for medical papers is actually orders of magnitude bigger than the pool available to review climate science papers and when you have incestuous little cliques like the one at the University of East Anglia have been shown to be very partisan and some might even suggest corrupt then how on earth can you think that a paper being “peer reviewed” guarantees anything? .
As you know I’m not in Melbourne and frankly I’m not that interested in any sort of commercial radio, but there does not seem to be any sort of concern from the station owners about its performance, I think that you are projecting here.
No the Bolt report will survive because it is rating better than even its producers and backers expected it to and Bolt has a very loyal following who are happy to tune in every week .
You seem to think that anyone to the right of Chairman Mao on the radio is a “shock Jock” the time that I have listened to Andrew’s spot with Steve Price they are anything but shocking
The thing Is Craigy even if you are right about AGW you have to be asking will what the Gillard government proposed actually do anything for the climate? and if you don’t think it will make a difference then you have to find a good reason for the unavoidable economic pain that will flow from a Carbon Tax, If you can’t find a real upside then why support it?
No we have a Government who are genuflecting to the liturgy of The green faith to pay the Greens their pound of flesh in return for holding the treasury benches.
The ice caps will stop melting Iain.
Sea level rise – halted.
World temperature – heading down.
Human poverty – stopped – completely.
Polar bears – saved.
Coral – colourful again.
Dinosaurs, Passenger Pigeon and Dodos- once again roaming the planet
Craigy – happy.
All worth the pain.
Damage – Where are all the humans in this scenario?
They have all been taxed into extinction !
ah yes, the dinosaurs, because it is really their planet. They were here before us.
They are still here GD waiting in the wings to take it back 😉
Dinosaurs, the true indigenous. They didn’t use fossil fuels, although the methane emissions must have been considerable.
You do realise that birds are the descendants of Dinosaurs don’t you GD? hence my ‘waiting in the wings” quip…
yes 🙂
So Alred Hitchcock was right! “The Birds”
Oh this is Fun: blogging free association time 😉
Although how about….
because that’s what the Bob Brown must be when he writes his fairy tale policies 🙂
I got one (although I do like Gun’s version better)
Frankly I think that the Greens are really in a bizarre wonderland so how about this one?
because here’s to the extinction of mankind under the greens
perhaps this explains where Gillard, Brown and Flannery are leading us with this tax…
oops…
Maybe a crude but is still in theme.
I dedicate this to Christine and Bob
I don’t remember that Skyhooks song being on the radio playlists…
what cheeky boys they were, and quite talented
Alarmists reckon it’s….
but sceptics agree, it’s just…
Ok GD now I am laughing. The sexy version !!!!
I’ll trade you a sexy maid for ……………… SLASH
touché, although aren’t you married to one of them blokes….
In a heartbeat for Slash
Well, each to their own, I’ve got the ‘sexy takin’ care of business skeptic girls’ and you’ve got Slash burning carbon like there’s no tomorrow. I guess we’re on the same side 🙂
You have a few more than me so throw in an Axl as well, would be appreciated.
Actually, Angel I can shred a guitar like Slash, but sadly for me these days this is more my style…
You pick up the Beatles influence in that. I like it.
Is this more like it then.
By the way Slash has a pacemaker. All of us are getting on, sadly.
No Angel, sorry, it may be a generational thing, but even that country rock tune had more energy to it that your Slash whimpering on about whatever. The Gunners et al never came close to the sixties rockers. The sixties musos were in a space in time that won’t be, can’t be replicated, though most 90s rock dudes tried to.
GD Gunners were 80’s, my teen years
This one is for Richard Ryan xxx