Oz is green, clean and sustaining far better than most and....
Greenbacks should be flowing Oz way.
But if AGW is real as the Green-deluded Politicians think then we should be being paid compensation by the UN and the International 'community', from the vast promised funds flowing into corrupt pockets, for cleaning up the atmosphere of other nation's backyards.
Oz is a Greeny deluded place but should be paid the Gold it is due.
But not because of Greenies or ther lackies and running dogs.
We had a couple of chaps in today to spell it out for us. First Ian Pilmer who likes to look into these matters, and who made the claim for compensation: and then Justin Campbell who has tasted the rotting fruits.
One lonely molecule…The 24 million people in Australia generate 1.5 per cent of annual global human-induced CO2 emissions. USA emits 14 times and China emits 26 times more CO2 than Australia.
Australia has 0.33 per cent of the global population.
Our high standard of living, a landmass of 7,692,024 square kilometres with a sparse inland population and greenhouse gas-emitting livestock, combined with the transport of livestock, food and mined products long distances to cities and ports, and the export of ores, coal, metals and food for 80 million people, result in high per capita CO2 emissions.
Australia’s exports of coal, iron ore and gas contributes to increasing the standard of living, longevity and health of billions of people in Asia.If Australia emits 1.5 per cent of global annual CO2 emissions, 3 per cent of the total annual global emissions are anthropogenic: and as the atmosphere contains 400 parts per million by volume of CO2, then one molecule in 6.6 million molecules in the atmosphere is CO2 emmitted from humans in Australia.
This molecule has an atmospheric life of about 7 years before it is removed from the atmosphere by natural sequestration into life and limey sediments.
Australia has far greater economic priorities than to change a whole economy, increase energy costs, decrease employment and decrease international competiveness because of one poor lonely molecule of plant food in 6.6 million other atmospheric molecules.
It is a very long bow to argue that this one molecule of plant food in 6.6 million other atmospheric molecules derived from Australia has any measurable effect whatsoever on global climate. Furthermore, it has yet to be shown that human emissions of CO2 drive global warming, so why even bother with a Renewables Energy Target?Australia exports a significant global share of refined aluminium, zinc, lead, copper and gold and hence takes a per capita emissions hit for countries that import and use Australia’s metals, because smelting and refining in Australia result in CO2 emissions. Neither smelting nor refining of the metals for other countries could take place without burning fossil fuels. For example, a steel mill uses coal to reduce iron oxide into iron metal and the carbon in coal is oxidised to CO2. A modern economy cannot rely on sea breezes and sunbeams to generate base load electricity for industry and a decarbonised economy would be a deindustrialised economy.Annual Australian per capita CO2 emissions are in the order of 20 tonnes per person.
There are 30 hectares of forest and 74 hectares of grassland for every Australian and each hectare annually sequesters about 1 tonne of CO2 by photosynthesis. CO2 is plant food. On the continental Australian landmass,
Australians are removing by natural sequestration more than three times the amount of CO2 they emit.
Crops remove even more CO2 from the atmosphere. Australia’s net contribution to atmospheric CO2 is negative and this is confirmed by the net CO2 flux estimates from the IBUKI satellite CO2 data set.
Australia’s continental shelf is 2,500,000 square kilometres in area. Carbon dioxide dissolves in ocean water and the cooler the water, the more CO2 dissolves in water. Living organisms extract dissolved CO2 and calcium from seawater to build corals and shells. This natural marine sequestration locks away even more Australian emissions of CO2 and adds to the negative contribution of atmospheric CO2 made by Australia.Using the thinking of the IPCC, UN and activist green groups,......
Australia should be very generously financially rewarded with money
....from populous, desert and landlocked countries, for removing from the atmosphere its own emitted CO2 AND the CO2 emissions from many other nations.
It ain't going to happen, of course, as our politicians are just as in Thrall to stupidity and lies as the politicians of all other nations.By this method, wealthy Australia can take money from poor countries. This is, of course, normal for the green industry. For example, the subsidising of wind and solar power takes money from the poor and passes it on to companies making a fortune from the government’s RET.
Stupid Rules.
But by my own quick pencilled calculations on the back of a beer coaster, for every 20 tonnes of CO2 our population of fine OzFolk produces, we gobble it all up plus 75 tonnes of the stuff produced by others in our region: and instead of us shelling out billions of OzBucks to them in Furrin' Aid, they should be filling our treasury.
And we experience the consequences right through society, even down to young Justin, for whom I had a pint ready when he stood.
Why do you hate the environment?Whenever I object to the government banning plastic bags or tripling my electricity bill, I’m always asked, “Why do you hate the environment?”
The truth is: I don’t.
What I do hate is environmentalism. I hate its eco-austerity, its quasi-religious demands for penance and its anti-human rejection of progress.
I love the environment, its eco-diversity, clean air and its beauty. What I’m not prepared to do is give up on human progress and economic development for some vision of an environmental nirvana.Last year, I travelled to Sydney for the Australian Libertarian Society’s Friedman Conference. My original Airbnb cancelled last minute and as a last resort I booked a room in “Sydney’s sustainability house”.
To rent $1500 a week: 3 bedrooms, 1 office, 1 bath, restful garden.
This inner Sydney terrace is offered as a whole house for lease from the month of June, 2018.
It is Sydney’s Sustainable House, one of Earth’s first inner city off-grid houses, a famous model of how to keep our lovely oceans and air clean.
Since 1996 four people have lived here for energy and water bills less than $300 a year.
You can, too.
(see what the owner says. Let him show you around. Click the link)
The Ultimo terrace house was completely off the grid, it generated its own solar electricity and stored it in batteries. The house used rainwater that my host informed me was cleaner than Sydney’s tap water. He told me that I was welcome to flush the toilet, but he chose to use water from a bucket he kept in the shower instead.To say the amenities were basic is an understatement. The shower was cold and the lighting in my room was extremely dim. The experience reminded me of my trip tracking through the mountains of Nepal with its shack-like guesthouses.
To my host’s credit he was practising what he preached
....and was living the eco-austerity lifestyle demanded by environmentalism. I suspect most of Australia’s 24 million inhabitants are unwilling to do the same; even those who claim to support environmentalism.My experience in Sydney contrasted starkly with environmentalism’s propaganda. On YouTube, I follow a British environmental technology channel, Fully Charged. The show’s focus is to test new technologies that allow environmentalists to go off the grid.
One episode focused on a home that generated solar energy that was stored in Tesla batteries. The stored energy was used both to provide electricity to the home and charge an electric vehicle. While impressive, at no point in the show did it ever focus on the practicality of investing the best part of $100k to achieve what fossil fuels make affordable to even the poorest households.What’s entirely absent from the policy discussion of environmentalists is any acknowledgement of their class privilege. Much of the cost of environmental policies fall on the poorest households. The poor subsidise the solar panels of the rich through their ever increasing electricity bills.
When government mandates higher environmental standards it’s the poor who are disproportionately harmed through higher prices.
It’s the poor who are harmed by the banning of plastic shopping bags being forced to buy expensive ‘green’ bags.
The rich get to feel virtuous while the poor get higher prices.Growing up in Queensland one of the most significant benefits of economic growth and globalisation was the increasing affordability of home air conditioning. Despite Willis Carrier inventing the modern air conditioner in 1902, until the 1990s few work class homes enjoyed such a luxury. I still have memories of being stuck in sweltering school classrooms while ceiling fans mockingly blew hot air down on us. Now many homes have air conditioning installed but the poorest homes can’t afford to turn it on due to rapidly increasing electricity prices.
Nowhere is the environmentalist rejection of human progress more apparent than in the case of coal. Carbon emissions can be reduced through improved energy efficiency, replacing old coal power stations with newer less emitting coal-powered technologies, nuclear power and via using renewables strategically to meet peak demand. Instead, the environmentalists demand the replacement of all coal power stations with expensive unreliable renewables.The obsession with abolishing coal has resulted in increased energy prices, the de-industrialisation of Australia and less reliability in the energy supply.
The effect of these policies was seen in South Australia after the Playford B power station was mothballed leaving the state at the mercy of wind power. Predictably South Australia experienced blackouts and higher energy prices. The state soon announced a $550 million energy package that included the purchase of the world’s biggest lithium battery farm from Tesla and the building of a new gas power plant.
One must wonder how much cheaper a more rational attitude towards coal would have been.One doesn’t have to be an environmentalist to care about the environment or to be concerned about climate change.
There’s a difference between good policy and ideology
– one weighs the costs vs the benefits of any policy change; the other is driven by quasi-religious devotion. For too long environmental policy has been driven by ideology and emotion. Australia deserves better than to have its future ruined by green ideologues. Through rational unemotional policy Australia can have a cleaner future without destroying the economy and imposing eco-austerity on the masses.
(Justin works in technology and has degrees in accounting and economics. He lives in Brisbane, Queensland. He is a reformed leftie having previously been a member of the Australian Democrats and the Australian Labor Party. Justin is passion about protecting free markets and a free society. He is interested in free speech advocacy, social liberties and free market economic reform.)
He and Ian were given the finest Ales on the house.
Drink up and Think up.
Pray for Oz.
We need it.
Pax
What’s entirely absent from the policy discussion of environmentalists is any acknowledgement of their class privilege. Much of the cost of environmental policies fall on the poorest households. The poor subsidise the solar panels of the rich through their ever increasing electricity bills.
ReplyDeleteI'm more and more convinced that just about all of the so-called cultural marxist agenda comes down to this - it's a class war of the rich against the poor. A class war started by the rich, and driven not by actual class interests but almost entirely by a mixture of hatred and fear. Mostly hatred.
As for global warming (or whatever it's called this week) - the scientific consensus is essentially a class consensus. The consensus is that privileged university-educated middle-class people (and scientists are very much privileged university-educated middle-class people) hate poor people. They hate people who aren't university-educated.
That may well be the case, although I see it as more disdain than hatred. Still, that asidee, the solar panel issue is to my mind not unreasoned nor unreasonable. By all means be as self-sufficient in power generation. My problem is as you see it, that subsidies go to those that can otherwise fund their panels themselves. It is the poor with their inflated power bills that suffer.
DeleteThere is no 'need' for government to subsidise, at the individual or the corporate level.
Talking of solar panels reminds me of a low level humming sound that I first noticed around 10 years ago. The low level hum pervaded the quieter moments of day and night (disturbing my peace).
DeleteAt first I thought it was the generator at the local hospital, but I could also hear it from further away, a low throb in the background and on one occasion at night, near to where I worked the noise was really audible.
More recently that I deduced from my observations (of noise levels) that the noise was probably coming from the transformer/s at a nearby solar farm.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?ei=XBrdWrLcJeXOgAa52ImoAw&q=solar+farm+transformer+hum&oq=solar+farm+transformer+hum&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i160k1l2.15907.17357.0.17834.4.4.0.0.0.0.87.317.4.4.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.4.315...0i22i30k1j33i22i29i30k1j33i21k1.0.79kASTMFUaE
The government plays a tune and the inverters hum along, eh? Added to that background chorus we have air conditioners, heat exchangers, and of course the ubiquitous tinny sound of the portable music players that everyone under thirty seem to be compelled to carry around attached to their ears with wires.
DeleteThankfully most of those sounds are localised and do not pervade the wider environment. The more locally sounds are turned of at least sometimes, giving respite from the noise pollution overnight. Well... at least in my sleepy part of Shropshire ;-)
DeleteI've been surfing on-line greater than 3 hours these days, but I
ReplyDeleteby no means found any attention-grabbing article like yours.
It's pretty price enough for me. In my view, if all website owners and
bloggers made good content material as you did, the internet will probably be a lot more helpful than ever before.
Have a pint and wander it through the other bars. There has been a lot of good conversation.
DeleteWow such a advantageous internet site.
ReplyDelete