I think currently we look at climate change as a political and economic inconvenience. For a country still desperately reliant mining income we cant afford to acknowledge the desperation of the situation. Much better we act surprised down the track when it is too late.
The way I see it, at least striving for the solutions will be the biggest economic boom of the 21st century. Climate change or not, finding renewable energy sources capable of replacing fossil fuels will be worth gozillions of dollars. Even if our only motivation is to stop paying billions to the middle east then its still worth it.
Thatâs the hilarious/frustratingly ironic thing about it. We were leading the way with this a while back. Like most things in Australia though. Change? Risk? What are these things?
I think that's unfair on Lomborg, he simply doesn't believe that catastrophic global warming is going to occur and that preventing moderate global warming should be a low priority based on a cost - benefit analysis.
its not unfair. The guy passes outright lies as scientific fact. 19 countries have him up on charges for scientific dishonesty. That's a very serious charge. Its the sort of charge that tobbaco company crettins got charged with in the early 80's that forged scientific documents to say there was no link between their product and cancer.
I might be being harsh in my overall appraisal of him, but his work was totally funded by oil companies and he has no scientific background only political and most of Europe wants him locked away.
I am married to a scientist and I have young children, I am acutely aware that he is as dangerous to my childrenâs future as anyone on earth.
Yep. Professional science obfuscator. Heâs there to dud people who have a little understanding on the subject. The ones who have no idea donât need convincing.
I think currently we look at climate change as a political and economic inconvenience. For a country still desperately reliant mining income we cant afford to acknowledge the desperation of the situation. Much better we act surprised down the track when it is too late.
The way I see it, at least striving for the solutions will be the biggest economic boom of the 21st century. Climate change or not, finding renewable energy sources capable of replacing fossil fuels will be worth gozillions of dollars. Even if our only motivation is to stop paying billions to the middle east then its still worth it.
Not often I agree with you JB but think you are spot on. Would love to see Australia lead the way on this
we do, and are, global leaders in this, our technology development on this is second only to Germany. The only problem here is the people and organisations doing the development are critically under funded and as a result are selling off overseas.
less than 12 months ago a division of CSRIO had what the global industry called be breaking the sound barrier moment when it came to renewables, they developed a method of Solar/Supercritial Steam that made both techs 10 times more efficient.
that has been earmarked for closure due to cut backs.
Mining cant afford for renewables to be effective.
We have a choice here in Australia over the next 50 years. We can either be a countries whos economy is driven by Renewable Engergy development, generation and international trade of, and agriculture. Or mining. Because its blatently clear moving forward we cant do both.
Youâd be better off completely scrubbing the term âglobal warmingâ and calling it âclimate changeâ simply because when you have a cold snap, some sub-intellectual moron like Ted Cruz ridicules warming.
You'd be better off completely scrubbing the term 'global warming' and calling it 'climate change' simply because when you have a cold snap, some sub-intellectual moron like Ted Cruz ridicules warming.
The term global warming was always the wrong term to use and left doors open so people could come in and bag it out. Climate change is much easier to accept and work with, it is fairly obvious to everyone that there has been a change in the worldâs climate and leaves less room for silly arguments.
You'd be better off completely scrubbing the term 'global warming' and calling it 'climate change' simply because when you have a cold snap, some sub-intellectual moron like Ted Cruz ridicules warming.
The term global warming was always the wrong term to use and left doors open so people could come in and bag it out. Climate change is much easier to accept and work with, it is fairly obvious to everyone that there has been a change in the worldâs climate and leaves less room for silly arguments.
Youâd think, but we just spent 4 mil on the king of silly arguments.
You'd be better off completely scrubbing the term 'global warming' and calling it 'climate change' simply because when you have a cold snap, some sub-intellectual moron like Ted Cruz ridicules warming.
Why pander to them? They're arseholes and liars and shouldn't be given the time of day.
You'd be better off completely scrubbing the term 'global warming' and calling it 'climate change' simply because when you have a cold snap, some sub-intellectual moron like Ted Cruz ridicules warming.
Why pander to them? They're arseholes and liars and shouldn't be given the time of day.
Theyâre arseholes and liars who might run the biggest economy on Earth.
The Carbon abatement contracts as part of ERF are interesting. A lot of flexibility built in for project owners in relation to milestone deliveries of carbon credit units. Very little in relation penalty for non delivery.
An interesting point - a project is required for registration in the auction process however your project need not deliver carbon credit units. As long as they are sourced - secondary market - the project for abatement really becomes irrelevant.
