-
@booboo said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
Or a battler ...
Kinda like Aussie Virat ... (although he is little, his rep, star power and bank balance aren't)
Matteo Canavanni also said "up to 15,000 jobs!" in another tweet. Which is ridiculous as even Adani's estimates are ~1500 FTE and the knock-on jobs are not going to amount to much more than that.
-
@nta said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@booboo said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
Or a battler ...
Kinda like Aussie Virat ... (although he is little, his rep, star power and bank balance aren't)
Matteo Canavanni also said "up to 15,000 jobs!" in another tweet. Which is ridiculous as even Adani's estimates are ~1500 FTE and the knock-on jobs are not going to amount to much more than that.
Even less if they FIFO them from OS.
-
@antipodean And they will, because Adani is corrupt as fuck, and all about taking the money for mates. The number of Indian "engineers" who make up that 1500 max will be interesting to see...
-
@nta said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@antipodean And they will, because Adani is corrupt as fuck, and all about taking the money for mates. The number of Indian "engineers" who make up that 1500 max will be interesting to see...
Cue 456 visas...
-
@antipodean They're all au pair so its good.
-
Just had to go looking for this thread - surprised to find it in the Politics Forum?
Anyway, just a little anecdote: I was running some figures for my work place the other day, and looking specifically at emissions intensity of our sites across Australasia vis-a-vis CO2 per kWh consumed.
Pretty fucking depressing to compare Australian sites to our NZ sites - for every kWh used in Australia, the average CO2-e emitted is about 0.8kg.
In NZ, it is about 0.14kg by the looks - I don't have the table in front of me.
The lowest state on the mainland is Tasmania with 0.19kg but we don't run a lot of our business there, obviously.
All comes down to energy source of course - here is the table we use for our figures:
Reasoning behind each level based on generation
VIC has a lot of brown coal (lignite) which is dogshit for emissions.
NSW & QLD have a lot of black coal which is cat shit for emissions. Both states will increase large solar rapidly over the next few years.
SA has a lot of wind BUT still uses some gas and occasionally imports coal generation - though it is a net exporter this FY I believe.
TAS is mostly hydro, a tiny bit of gas, and some wind and solar.You can see the NEM (National Energy Market) Watch here for generation and forecast.
Of the non-NEM grids:
WA has a mix of gas, black coal, and a decent chunk of small solar and wind compared to other states
NT is similar but trying to bring more solar and storage online - just that its a very twitchy grid stretched over a long distance to limited customers. -
@nta I like watching electricitymap.org
When the sun rises on a clear day and there's the right amount of wind, SA looks great and can export to VIC.
TAS looks great because it's hydro, unless they're pumping it back up.
But effectively the country currently needs QLD burning coal instead of exporting it all.
South island of NZ is hydro. Uruguay is brilliant, Norway, etc.
-
I found this discussion interesting with Dr Bjorn Lomborg from the Copenhagen Consensus Centre. They've been working with some of the worlds top economists on rank ordering the worlds problems and devising data on where resources are best invested in order attain the best return on investment, for the most amount of 'good', in the shortest amount of time.
They talk about the more 'celebrity endorsed' causes such as climate change which get the most attention but in the grand scheme of things are most likely not where we should be putting out money, at least not where we are currently. Worth a listen.
-
@rembrandt said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
I found this discussion interesting with Dr Bjorn Lomborg from the Copenhagen Consensus Centre. They've been working with some of the worlds top economists on rank ordering the worlds problems and devising data on where resources are best invested in order attain the best return on investment, for the most amount of 'good', in the shortest amount of time.
They talk about the more 'celebrity endorsed' causes such as climate change which get the most attention but in the grand scheme of things are most likely not where we should be putting out money, at least not where we are currently. Worth a listen.
It's well worth a listen for everybody trying to wrap their brain around too complex issues for us to accurately comprehend.
Should be compulsory viewing for the entire population
Classic ending where in 5 minutes JP began a meaningful and prudent strategy to help his own country which would take 2 million dollars and 18 months.
I wish someone in NZ would do the same
-
@siam Bjorn Lomborg has paid a heavy professional price for his stance on man's effect on the environment. Thing is, economically speaking there's very little in what he says that's controversial. My stats aren't of a high enough standard to comment on his analysis of the climate data but he was originally a statistics academic so I assume it is sound. His book and the furore surrounding it was what first alerted me to the duplicity of the climate change industry.
-
@siam said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@jc in your humble opinion mate, is he very trustworthy?
I really like what he presents and it seems very logical, but authenticity is such a fickle resource when it comes to learning things these days
I believe him. As I say, I'm hardly qualified to hazard an opinion on the science, but I believe he's undeniably correct that the amounts of money needed to halt climate change are such that it warrants a rational debate about whether or not that is the best thing to spend that money on.
His book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" makes the argument very well that there is no definitive evidence that anything we do will make any discernible difference on the climate, but in the meantime the trillions of dollars involved in doing so would make a material difference in the quality of life of practically everyone in the world. Clean water, disease eradication, ecology, education. And there's a very good chance that technology will advance alongside that at a pace so that we can effect climate impact modification when we need to. But he got caned hard by the climate establishment for suggesting it. Despite that he's stuck to his guns and his arguments are lucid and compelling.
To be clear he's never said there is no climate change, he's said that it may not be the most important thing to spend all that money on right now and it deserves careful analysis of the cost/benefit of doing other things instead.
see if you can get the book. It's a very easy read.
-
@JC thanks I will definitely have a read.
-
Here's the TED Talk Lomborg gave on the same topic in 2005 - 17 minutes instead of 90
-
Lomborg was supposed to set up a dept at an Aus university, but the Greenie screamers drove him out of town. He was demonised when the hysteria was at it's peak. Ultimately he believes the theory, but thinks there are much better ways of spending money to mitigate the effects. Says everything about the climate hysteria industry that even a guy like him is literally Hitler.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
Lomborg was supposed to set up a dept at an Aus university, but the Greenie screamers drove him out of town. He was demonised when the hysteria was at it's peak. Ultimately he believes the theory, but thinks there are much better ways of spending money to mitigate the effects. Says everything about the climate hysteria industry that even a guy like him is literally Hitler.
It's amazing how many people tell you that the science is settled and you should believe them, until someone points out we'd probably be better off solving a problem an entirely different way. All of a sudden replicable facts and figures are nonsense.
Climate Change