Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 ... 43
Send Topic Print
The fallacy of the Greens (Read 62398 times)
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20684
Gender: male
Re: The fallacy of the Greens
Reply #270 - Aug 20th, 2022 at 3:01pm
 
thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 20th, 2022 at 2:25pm:
Explain to us what you think I meant by that...


You were saying that it may be so or maybe not. As in it was "only my say so". But I showed that it wasn't just me.

It certainly isn't ignoring it. Roll Eyes
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 15271
Gender: male
Re: The fallacy of the Greens
Reply #271 - Aug 20th, 2022 at 4:34pm
 
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/14/people-are-waking-up-fight-w...

People are waking up: fight widens to stop new North Sea fossil fuel drilling

The fossil companies want to cash in on the war, of course....and  regardless of climate change, they will keep gouging consumers.


Instead of new fossil schemes which will take years to come on stream,  globalized investment in a solar farm covering less than 2% of the Sahara desert will power Europe (apparently sufficient for the world, amazing...)

https://blogs.kcl.ac.uk/sustainability/2021/08/what-would-happen-if-we-covered-t...

"1.2% of the surface (of the Sahara)  should be enough to generate enough electricity without having such extreme impacts on the environment.

But is it feasible?

It is probably not realistic to expect political cohesion and economic investment to quickly make such a concept a reality".


So there we have it, the barrier to free energy from the sun is not technical, but political...such is the evil flowing from the current entrenched global neoliberal market orthodoxy, as hideous as any extant religious fundamentalism. 

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Moderator
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 119535
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: The fallacy of the Greens
Reply #272 - Aug 20th, 2022 at 5:08pm
 
Sahara Desert solar cells?

But how would that energy be stored for the night time?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 15271
Gender: male
Re: The fallacy of the Greens
Reply #273 - Aug 20th, 2022 at 6:07pm
 
Bobby. wrote on Aug 20th, 2022 at 5:08pm:
Sahara Desert solar cells?

But how would that energy be stored for the night time?


For European storage,  in pumped-hydro storage schemes in Africa's  Atlas Mountains. 


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Moderator
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 119535
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: The fallacy of the Greens
Reply #274 - Aug 20th, 2022 at 6:26pm
 
thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 20th, 2022 at 6:07pm:
Bobby. wrote on Aug 20th, 2022 at 5:08pm:
Sahara Desert solar cells?

But how would that energy be stored for the night time?


For European storage,  in pumped-hydro storage schemes in Africa's  Atlas Mountains. 





Well they need to get it started quickly.

https://blogs.kcl.ac.uk/sustainability/2021/08/what-would-happen-if-we-covered-t...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 15271
Gender: male
Re: The fallacy of the Greens
Reply #275 - Aug 21st, 2022 at 12:51pm
 
Bobby. wrote on Aug 20th, 2022 at 6:26pm:
thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 20th, 2022 at 6:07pm:
Bobby. wrote on Aug 20th, 2022 at 5:08pm:
Sahara Desert solar cells?

But how would that energy be stored for the night time?


For European storage,  in pumped-hydro storage schemes in Africa's  Atlas Mountains. 



Well they need to get it started quickly.



Correct; but the politics of the 'human condition', torn between instinctive individual survival, and reasoned collective well-being, is a barrier to action, as already mentioned. 

If a climate change emergency is recognized by the majority  to be real, perhaps reason may triumph over instinct for the first time in the history of human affairs.

Allowing  'survival of the fittest (individual)' to give way to 'common prosperity'....
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20684
Gender: male
Re: The fallacy of the Greens
Reply #276 - Aug 21st, 2022 at 1:14pm
 
Michael E Mann of "hockeystick" "fame". Climate scientist

"Another new front in the new climate war is what you call “doomism”. What do you mean by that?
Doom-mongering has overtaken denial as a threat and as a tactic. Inactivists know that if people believe there is nothing you can do, they are led down a path of disengagement. They unwittingly do the bidding of fossil fuel interests by giving up.

What is so pernicious about this is that it seeks to weaponise environmental progressives who would otherwise be on the frontline demanding change. These are folk of good intentions and good will, but they become disillusioned or depressed and they fall into despair. But “too late” narratives are invariably based on a misunderstanding of science. Many of the prominent doomist narratives – [Jonathan] Franzen, David Wallace-Wells, the Deep Adaptation movement – can be traced back to a false notion that an Arctic methane bomb will cause runaway warming and extinguish all life on earth within 10 years. This is completely wrong. There is no science to support that."

"If the science objectively demonstrated it was too late to limit warming below catastrophic levels, that would be one thing and we scientists would be faithful to that. But science doesn’t say that."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/27/climatologist-michael-e-mann-doomism-climate-crisis-interview
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 15271
Gender: male
Re: The fallacy of the Greens
Reply #277 - Aug 21st, 2022 at 2:55pm
 
lee wrote on Aug 21st, 2022 at 1:14pm:
Michael E Mann of "hockeystick" "fame". Climate scientist

"Another new front in the new climate war is what you call “doomism”. What do you mean by that?
Doom-mongering has overtaken denial as a threat and as a tactic. Inactivists know that if people believe there is nothing you can do, they are led down a path of disengagement. They unwittingly do the bidding of fossil fuel interests by giving up.

What is so pernicious about this is that it seeks to weaponise environmental progressives who would otherwise be on the frontline demanding change. These are folk of good intentions and good will, but they become disillusioned or depressed and they fall into despair. But “too late” narratives are invariably based on a misunderstanding of science. Many of the prominent doomist narratives – [Jonathan] Franzen, David Wallace-Wells, the Deep Adaptation movement – can be traced back to a false notion that an Arctic methane bomb will cause runaway warming and extinguish all life on earth within 10 years. This is completely wrong. There is no science to support that."

"If the science objectively demonstrated it was too late to limit warming below catastrophic levels, that would be one thing and we scientists would be faithful to that. But science doesn’t say that."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/27/climatologist-michael-e-mann-doomism-climate-crisis-interview


A consensus on an AGW-CO2 climate change emergency is not the same as positing a real irreversible doomsday scenario.   
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20684
Gender: male
Re: The fallacy of the Greens
Reply #278 - Aug 21st, 2022 at 3:14pm
 
thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 21st, 2022 at 2:55pm:
A consensus on an AGW-CO2 climate change emergency is not the same as positing a real irreversible doomsday scenario.   


Oh, A Clayton's climate emergency, a climate emergency when you don't have a climate emergency. Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 15271
Gender: male
Re: The fallacy of the Greens
Reply #279 - Aug 21st, 2022 at 3:37pm
 
lee wrote on Aug 21st, 2022 at 3:14pm:
thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 21st, 2022 at 2:55pm:
A consensus on an AGW-CO2 climate change emergency is not the same as positing a real irreversible doomsday scenario.   


Oh, A Clayton's climate emergency, a climate emergency when you don't have a climate emergency. Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin


From your article:

"But “too late” narratives are invariably based on a misunderstanding of science".

Whereas recognition we must exit fossils ASAP is based on science (according to climate scientists, who you reject). 


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20684
Gender: male
Re: The fallacy of the Greens
Reply #280 - Aug 21st, 2022 at 4:34pm
 
thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 21st, 2022 at 3:37pm:
Whereas recognition we must exit fossils ASAP is based on science (according to climate scientists, who you reject).

Really where have  I rejected them? Also please explain which "climate emergencies"?

The poor need cheap reliable electricity. That means if you are using unreliables you need cheap reliable storage. Even the rabid SMH recognises the Snowy 2 is a white elephant.

"Five years on, Snowy 2.0 emerges as a $10 billion white elephant"

"The nation-building vision was for a big battery to be added to the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Scheme. It was to be completed in four years (that is, by last year) at a cost of $2 billion without any taxpayer subsidy, bring down electricity prices, generate renewable energy and incur minimal environmental impact on Kosciuszko National Park.

Inspiring stuff. But not one of these grand claims has turned out to be true. Worse, Australian taxpayers and NSW electricity consumers will be up for billions of dollars in subsidies and increased electricity costs, all while Kosciuszko is trashed. Let’s have a quick recap.

Snowy Hydro now expects completion in 10 years, not four, by 2026. Some experts consider even this extended timeframe to be optimistic. Construction of the tunnels is running at least six months behind the latest schedule and the transmission connection is unlikely to be built by 2026 anyway. The all-up cost has increased at least five-fold, to $10 billion-plus, as energy experts warned the Prime Minister and the then NSW premier in 2020.

The underground power station and tunnels alone will cost more than $6 billion, and Snowy Hydro avoids mentioning the transmission connections to Sydney – $4 billion-plus for HumeLink and the Sydney ring – and to Victoria. To make matters worse, Snowy Hydro refuses to contribute to these transmission works, leaving it to electricity consumers to pick up the tab. Transmission tariffs in NSW will increase by more than 50 per cent if the NSW government allows Snowy Hydro to get its way, based on analysis in a Victoria Energy Policy Centre report."

https://www.smh.com.au/national/five-years-on-snowy-2-0-emerges-as-a-10-billion-...

Wow. That will make electricity really cheap. Roll Eyes
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 15271
Gender: male
Re: The fallacy of the Greens
Reply #281 - Aug 21st, 2022 at 6:14pm
 
lee wrote on Aug 21st, 2022 at 4:34pm:
thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 21st, 2022 at 3:37pm:
Whereas recognition we must exit fossils ASAP is based on science (according to climate scientists, who you reject).

Really where have  I rejected them?


You claim the IPPC reports are contradictory, and hence no need to take action re AGW/man-made CO2 emissions. 

Quote:
Also please explain which "climate emergencies"?


You know: the negative consequences  of >2 degrees of warming, if we keep burning fossils.

Quote:
The poor need cheap reliable electricity. That means if you are using unreliables you need cheap reliable storage. Even the rabid SMH recognises the Snowy 2 is a white elephant.

"Five years on, Snowy 2.0 emerges as a $10 billion white elephant"

"The nation-building vision was for a big battery to be added to the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Scheme. It was to be completed in four years (that is, by last year) at a cost of $2 billion without any taxpayer subsidy, bring down electricity prices, generate renewable energy and incur minimal environmental impact on Kosciuszko National Park.

Inspiring stuff. But not one of these grand claims has turned out to be true. Worse, Australian taxpayers and NSW electricity consumers will be up for billions of dollars in subsidies and increased electricity costs, all while Kosciuszko is trashed. Let’s have a quick recap.

Snowy Hydro now expects completion in 10 years, not four, by 2026. Some experts consider even this extended timeframe to be optimistic. Construction of the tunnels is running at least six months behind the latest schedule and the transmission connection is unlikely to be built by 2026 anyway. The all-up cost has increased at least five-fold, to $10 billion-plus, as energy experts warned the Prime Minister and the then NSW premier in 2020.

The underground power station and tunnels alone will cost more than $6 billion, and Snowy Hydro avoids mentioning the transmission connections to Sydney – $4 billion-plus for HumeLink and the Sydney ring – and to Victoria. To make matters worse, Snowy Hydro refuses to contribute to these transmission works, leaving it to electricity consumers to pick up the tab. Transmission tariffs in NSW will increase by more than 50 per cent if the NSW government allows Snowy Hydro to get its way, based on analysis in a Victoria Energy Policy Centre report."

https://www.smh.com.au/national/five-years-on-snowy-2-0-emerges-as-a-10-billion-...

Wow. That will make electricity really cheap. Roll Eyes


It will, if the govt. nationalizes the entire scheme including renewables to power it, and funds connection to an upgraded national grid; and authorizes Lowe to fund it ...he can create money out of thin air..magic....

That's the problem of course, the private sector are opposing  every step of the way, with their stupid carbon taxes and desire for profits.  The scheme is too important to be subject to the whims of private sector greed.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 21st, 2022 at 6:20pm by thegreatdivide »  
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20684
Gender: male
Re: The fallacy of the Greens
Reply #282 - Aug 21st, 2022 at 6:30pm
 
thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 21st, 2022 at 6:14pm:
You know: the negative consequences  of >2 degrees of warming, if we keep burning fossils.


What are they? Enumerate them. Or are you just a closet alarmist with no clue. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 21st, 2022 at 6:14pm:
It will, if the govt. nationalizes the entire scheme including renewables to power it, and funds connection to an upgraded national grid; and authorizes Lowe to fund it ...he can create money out of thin air..magic....



Ah only if we have all that fiat money and no inflation. Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin

.thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 21st, 2022 at 6:14pm:
That's the problem of course, the private sector are opposing  every step of the way, with their stupid carbon taxes and desire for profits.  The scheme is too important to be subject to the whims of private sector greed.



And so we should bow down to government greed. Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 15271
Gender: male
Re: The fallacy of the Greens
Reply #283 - Aug 22nd, 2022 at 1:47am
 
lee wrote on Aug 21st, 2022 at 6:30pm:
thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 21st, 2022 at 6:14pm:
You know: the negative consequences  of >2 degrees of warming, if we keep burning fossils.


What are they? Enumerate them. Or are you just a closet alarmist with no clue. Roll Eyes


I''ll let the scientists who you reject do that.

Quote:
Ah only if we have all that fiat money and no inflation. Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin


Inflation is a monetary sham. Resources management, not money management by greedy private financiers, is the issue at hand. 

Quote:
And so we should bow down to government greed. Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin


You've got it back to front, as usual. Resources mobilization by government on behalf of the general welfare is not greed; funding government via private financiers demanding interest on their loans is private greed.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20684
Gender: male
Re: The fallacy of the Greens
Reply #284 - Aug 22nd, 2022 at 11:25am
 
thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 22nd, 2022 at 1:47am:
I''ll let the scientists who you reject do that.



So you don't know. Grin Grin Grin Grin

I'll help you out -

Droughts?

Floods?

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 22nd, 2022 at 1:47am:
You've got it back to front, as usual. Resources mobilization by government on behalf of the general welfare is not greed; funding government via private financiers demanding interest on their loans is private greed.



Oh yes the free money. No-one ever has to pay. Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 ... 43
Send Topic Print