-
@reprobate said in Alternative needed from the absolute crap of stuff.co.nz:
@Mokey It's pathetic. But so many people now won't listen to experts that it seems that what we have now is the science side of the argument trying to use utter bullshit like this as a gimmick to get morons on board who won't listen to facts. Like the dumbing down of politics and everything else. Pretty depressing that idiocracy is real.
Unfortunately I think it's having the opposite effect and making people even more entrenched in their views. She has a largely fatalistic view of the climate unless we completely throw the baby out with the bath water and attempt a complete restructure of society (to something that appears to resemble communism).
As @Mokey says there are countless people developing tech like renewable energy and safe nuclear power, as well as planting millions of trees to help offset CO2 that should be recognised for the work they are doing. The solution to the climate problems, like pretty much every other problem that has faced humanity, is to innovate.
We should really take this to the climate thread though...
-
@Mokey said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@Bones I really wish they would highlight the work of all the climate scientists, or those who have planted trees, invented/designed things to clean up the earth, rather than the girl who flies from country to country to talk. I find it gross that there are actual experts who get zero airtime and she gets all the praise.
Point of order! She hitched a ride on a sail boat, I know this because it was publicised endlessly how amazing that is.
-
@chimoaus said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
"Australia is the worst-performing country on climate change policy, according to a new international ranking of 57 countries."
“While the government is not proposing any further targets for renewable energy beyond 2020, it continues to promote the expansion of fossil fuels and in April 2019 approved the opening of the highly controversial Adani coalmine,”Good on them....
-
@Mokey said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@Bones I really wish they would highlight the work of all the climate scientists, or those who have planted trees, invented/designed things to clean up the earth, rather than the girl who flies from country to country to talk. I find it gross that there are actual experts who get zero airtime and she gets all the praise.
As much as I want to agree to this, It's Greta that really got people talking. It's extraordinary some of the responses to her.
-
@chimoaus said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
Australia is the worst-performing country on climate change policy
Ridiculous. We don't have any national climate change policy.
Though it's funny on that very topic: the Lib govt here have quietly accepted the likelihood of getting to 50% renewables is a sort of policy now.
-
@voodoo said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@NTA though its also a stretch to say Australia "continues to promote the expansion of fossil fuels", unless they're referencing exporting thermal coal
I think that was their point. Also the LNP desire (Canavan, Craig Kelly etc) to build new thermal coal, despite the very small possibility of will actually happen
-
@nzzp said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@Winger said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
But I do like the look of these mini nukes. And they can use up a lot of reprocessed so called nuclear waste
Nuclear waste is recyclable. Once reactor fuel (uranium or thorium) is used in a reactor, it can be treated and put into another reactor as fuel. In fact, typical reactors only extract a few percent of the energy in their fuel.It's mindboggling how little fuel nuclear uses. The bomb at Hiroshima consumed about 0.7g of matter; less than the weight of a banknote. It's simply amazing.
SMR has been talked about for many years and I hope they get it moving because of the flexibility. Distributed generation is so much more robust than central big bang stuff. Modular build means less problems.
At this rate we probably won't see NuScale in production until around 2030 or so.
-
@chimoaus I also heard a stat a long the lines of there being 50% of world emissions being from countries of similar scale to AUS. So if all (or many) of them act then we can make a decent dent. And if no-one does because their individual footprint is small, then...
-
The thing with SMR's is going to be getting the cost down. It's one thing to get them theoretically efficient in the lab.
But when you could a 10/25/50 MW plant, the diligence costs are identical to a 1GW plant.
You still need legal, environmental, tax, accounting, model audit, insurance etc. All from reputable consultants providing reliance to equity and debt financiers.
Not to mention an understanding of the revenue model (PPA, proxy rev swap, corp PPA, merchant etc)
Unless you have a large experienced entity providing balance sheet (or government) support it's just going to be really hard.
-
@voodoo said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@chimoaus I also heard a stat a long the lines of there being 50% of world emissions being from countries of similar scale to AUS. So if all (or many) of them act then we can make a decent dent. And if no-one does because their individual footprint is small, then...
Exactly.
The best parallel I saw on social media: "But we only use 1.3% of the water on our street so why should we take any notice of water restrictions?"
-
@voodoo said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@NTA yeah, a given for large scale for sure.
And maybe same, same for small scale also.So who is stepping up to build these?
Government I guess. Will it be in time to help with the problem? Dunno.
A lot of the large scale builds are expensive because each one is effectively bespoke.
-
@chimoaus said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
Scomo is quick to say Australia is only responsible for a very small percentage of emissions, yet if you calculated usage of all the fossil fuels Australia exports it quickly climbs towards 5% which is a lot in terms of per capita.
It's an absurd argument that we're responsible for those.
-
This is interesting.
From ArmstrongEconomics
"What is fascinating is the revelation that mainstream media has indeed conspired with the group led by Greenpeace to sell climate change. This includes the top names like CBS, Bloomberg, BuzzFeed, HuffPost, The Daily Beast, Newsweek, Rolling Stone, Slate, Vanity Fair, and even the Weather Channel. However, both the left-leaning Washington Post and New York Times actually declined to participate in a project. They apparently were afraid that the conspiracy to sell climate change was really an activist movement in nature."
-
I am genuinely puzzled what the motivation would be to “sell” climate change. What is to be gained other than trying to get more donations / clicks in the case of media. Not really convincing. Can definitely see why deniers would do it. Fossil fuels are big money.
Is there actually an argument anymore that the climate is changing? The reasons for it are a different argument.
Climate Change