Australia's Prime Minister has all but confirmed he won't join global leaders 4 crucial climate talk

'Australia's Prime Minister has all but confirmed he won't join global leaders at crucial climate talks in Glasgow.

Two more weeks of Covid-19 quarantine would be too much, Scott Morrison said on Friday, claiming that while there are "a lot of international interests," the most important audience for his yet-to-be-unveiled climate plan remains at home...'

Source: Analysis: Australia's climate policy is being dictated by a former accountant in a cowboy hat - CNN

I sure hope he is spending the lost opportunity brainstorming innovative ways to retrain and re-employ coal miners in more sustainable industries.

In my opinion.

Another country heading into the dark ages.

Altfish said:

Another country heading into the dark ages.

Click to expand...

The light at the end of the tunnel is that in a matter of months Australians can give Scott Morrison the sack if we have the moral courage to.

In my opinion.

danieldemol said:

'Australia's Prime Minister has all but confirmed he won't join global leaders at crucial climate talks in Glasgow.

Two more weeks of Covid-19 quarantine would be too much, Scott Morrison said on Friday, claiming that while there are "a lot of international interests," the most important audience for his yet-to-be-unveiled climate plan remains at home...'

Source: Analysis: Australia's climate policy is being dictated by a former accountant in a cowboy hat - CNN

I sure hope he is spending the lost opportunity brainstorming innovative ways to retrain and re-employ coal miners in more sustainable industries.

In my opinion.

Click to expand...

So the competition for ******* of the year is hotting up*, evidently.

*as it were

danieldemol said:

The light at the end of the tunnel is that in a matter of months Australians can give Scott Morrison the sack if we have the moral courage to.

In my opinion.

Click to expand...

Hmm, I hope you do; we are stuck with Johnson and/or his corrupt cronies for the foreseeable future

danieldemol said:

'Australia's Prime Minister has all but confirmed he won't join global leaders at crucial climate talks in Glasgow.

Two more weeks of Covid-19 quarantine would be too much, Scott Morrison said on Friday, claiming that while there are "a lot of international interests," the most important audience for his yet-to-be-unveiled climate plan remains at home...'

Source: Analysis: Australia's climate policy is being dictated by a former accountant in a cowboy hat - CNN

I sure hope he is spending the lost opportunity brainstorming innovative ways to retrain and re-employ coal miners in more sustainable industries.

In my opinion.

Click to expand...

ScoMo is such a boomer. I say we vote that guy out. But eh, that’s just me

danieldemol said:

'Australia's Prime Minister has all but confirmed he won't join global leaders at crucial climate talks in Glasgow.

Two more weeks of Covid-19 quarantine would be too much, Scott Morrison said on Friday, claiming that while there are "a lot of international interests," the most important audience for his yet-to-be-unveiled climate plan remains at home...'

Source: Analysis: Australia's climate policy is being dictated by a former accountant in a cowboy hat - CNN

I sure hope he is spending the lost opportunity brainstorming innovative ways to retrain and re-employ coal miners in more sustainable industries.

In my opinion.

Click to expand...

Climate talks are a waste of time.

Fallen Prophet said:

Climate talks are a waste of time.

Click to expand...

If they make binding agreements to reduce fossil fuel emissions they are productive.

In my opinion.

danieldemol said:

If they make binding agreements to reduce fossil fuel emissions they are productive.

In my opinion.

Click to expand...

I don't agree. That would destroy many industries and possibly millions of jobs.

If they go full Green New Deal - well - kiss everything that has been built goodbye.

They need to first prove - beyond the shadow of any doubt - that there is such a threat that requires such desperate action.

And they haven't.

Fallen Prophet said:

I don't agree. That would destroy many industries and possibly millions of jobs.

Click to expand...

According to the article it would destroy 50,000 jobs in coal mining, whilst creating jobs in the renewable energy sector.

Do you have a source for your claim of many industries and millions of jobs or where they made up statistics pulled out of thin air?

If they go full Green New Deal - well - kiss everything that has been built goodbye.

Click to expand...

The article does not mention "full Green New Deal" whatever that is, it mentions net zero emissions by 2050, and is supported by the minerals council of Australia;
"Minerals Council of Australia, the country's mining advocacy group, announced it supported net zero emissions by 2050."

They need to first prove - beyond the shadow of any doubt - that there is such a threat that requires such desperate action.

And they haven't.

Click to expand...

'The current scientific consensus is that:

• Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s.[a]
• Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary cause.
• Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects.
• People and nations can act individually and collectively to slow the pace of global warming, while also preparing for unavoidable climate change and its consequences.'

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

If we can reduce the severity of those effects by retraining 50,000 people i don't see any reason we shouldn't.

In my opinion.

danieldemol said:

'Australia's Prime Minister has all but confirmed he won't join global leaders at crucial climate talks in Glasgow.

Two more weeks of Covid-19 quarantine would be too much, Scott Morrison said on Friday, claiming that while there are "a lot of international interests," the most important audience for his yet-to-be-unveiled climate plan remains at home...'

Source: Analysis: Australia's climate policy is being dictated by a former accountant in a cowboy hat - CNN

I sure hope he is spending the lost opportunity brainstorming innovative ways to retrain and re-employ coal miners in more sustainable industries.

In my opinion.

Click to expand...

Scumo hitched his wagon to the fossil fuel industry a long time ago and is seriously neck deep in the sunk cost fallacy. It's pretty well understood here that our only hope is to vote him out at the next election, he proudly and pig headedly refuses to change position on any issue, no matter the evidence or social feeling. And I say that as a former card carrying member of the party he belongs to.

danieldemol said:

According to the article it would destroy 50,000 jobs in coal mining, whilst creating jobs in the renewable energy sector.

Click to expand...

Renewable energy depends on fossil fuels - which is why Germany needs to purchase energy from Russia.

danieldemol said:

Do you have a source for your claim of many industries and millions of jobs or where they made up statistics pulled out of thin air?

Click to expand...

It's trickle down economics.

You disable one industry and it disables others. Especially if the goal is zero emissions.

danieldemol said:

The article does not mention "full Green New Deal" whatever that is, it mentions net zero emissions by 2050, and is supported by the minerals council of Australia; "Minerals Council of Australia, the country's mining advocacy group, announced it supported net zero emissions by 2050."

Click to expand...

I don't know why any nation would want to castrate itself so - but you can't put anything passed the Aussies.

danieldemol said:

'The current scientific consensus is that:

• Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s.[a]
• Human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary cause.
• Continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects.
• People and nations can act individually and collectively to slow the pace of global warming, while also preparing for unavoidable climate change and its consequences.'

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

If we can reduce the severity of those effects by retraining 50,000 people i don't see any reason we shouldn't.

Click to expand...

Are these the same scientists who have been making doomsday prediction after doomsday prediction?

Unfortunately - the scientific community has been co-opted by politics and it is motivated by money.

They want to change the energy market and by so doing line their own pockets.

It's a sham.

Fallen Prophet said:

Renewable energy depends on fossil fuels - which is why Germany needs to purchase energy from Russia.

Click to expand...

'According to several studies and politicians, Germany will have to import significant amounts of these green fuels, because space for generating electricity from renewables is limited in the country...'
Source: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-dependence-imported-fossil-fuels

I'm pretty sure Australia does not have the space constraints of Germany so its a non-issue for us.

You disable one industry and it disables others. Especially if the goal is zero emissions.

Click to expand...

Renewable energy produced more jobs in the US than it took from the fossil fuel industry, why do you assume it would be different in Australia?

'At the start of 2020, the clean energy sector employed about 3.4 million workers in the U.S., with much of the workforce concentrated in the energy efficiency industry. In 2019, clean energy jobs outnumbered jobs in the fossil fuel sector 3 to 1; across 42 states and the District of Columbia, the clean energy workforce was larger than that of the fossil fuel industry. The quality of these jobs is also important. According to research by the Brookings Institute, clean energy workers earn higher and more equitable wages when compared to workers nationally, with mean hourly wages exceeding the national average by 8 to 19%.'

Source: https://www.wri.org/insights/setting-record-straight-about-renewable-energy

Are these the same scientists who have been making doomsday prediction after doomsday prediction?

Click to expand...

Considering Christianity's history of doomsday predictions i find this statement ironic.

Unfortunately - the scientific community has been co-opted by politics and it is motivated by money.

Click to expand...

Again ironic considering the fossil fuel industry is motivated by profit.

They want to change the energy market and by so doing line their own pockets.

It's a sham.

Click to expand...

And what happens when the fossil fuels run out such as they already have in Germany? Would it not make more sense to be developing the technology to replace the inevitable dry up of energy supply now than wait till the fossil fuel industry collapses due to exhaustion of supply to pull the finger out and start trying to innovate when it is too late to do so?

In my opinion.

Why not go all out nuclear, clean, can supply base load, spent fuel can be recycled, what's not to like?

5 Fast Facts about Spent Nuclear Fuel

Fallen Prophet said:

I don't agree. That would destroy many industries and possibly millions of jobs.

Click to expand...

What you're argueing here is that they have a material and provable effect - the exact opposite of a "waste of time" - but you happen to dislike the effects they have.

Kooky said:

What you're argueing here is that they have a material and provable effect - the exact opposite of a "waste of time" - but you happen to dislike the effects they have.

Click to expand...

An effect on the economy and jobs market - yes - but not the environment.

Kooky said:

What you're argueing here is that they have a material and provable effect - the exact opposite of a "waste of time" - but you happen to dislike the effects they have.

Click to expand...

Are you implying that destroying many industries and possibly millions of jobs which reduces productivity is a good thing?

Fallen Prophet said:

Renewable energy depends on fossil fuels - which is why Germany needs to purchase energy from Russia.

It's trickle down economics.

You disable one industry and it disables others. Especially if the goal is zero emissions.

I don't know why any nation would want to castrate itself so - but you can't put anything passed the Aussies.

Are these the same scientists who have been making doomsday prediction after doomsday prediction?

Unfortunately - the scientific community has been co-opted by politics and it is motivated by money.

They want to change the energy market and by so doing line their own pockets.

It's a sham.

Click to expand...

Well I counted 4 falsehoods and zero citations...

ben d said:

Are you implying that destroying many industries and possibly millions of jobs which reduces productivity is a good thing?

Click to expand...

If you ignore the fact that new industries are created to fill the gaps left by the "destroyed" ones, I guess? Or the fact that people leaving obsolete jobs can get employed in new industries. Or did you worry that the automotive industry would destroy the buggy whip industry and put blacksmiths out of work?

Also, there are ~26 million Australians, about 1% of us are employed directly in the fossil resource extraction sector, and another 1 % employed in secondary support roles to the fossil resource sector. So even if the fossil fuel extraction industry vanished tomorrow (it won't) that's about 500,000 jobs, not "millions". And the vast majority of those workers have transferable skills.

Kangaroo Feathers said:

If you ignore the fact that new industries are created to fill the gaps left by the "destroyed" ones, I guess? Or the fact that people leaving obsolete jobs can get employed in new industries. Or did you worry that the automotive industry would destroy the buggy whip industry and put blacksmiths out of work?

Also, there are ~26 million Australians, about 1% of us are employed directly in the fossil resource extraction sector, and another 1 % employed in secondary support roles to the fossil resource sector. So even if the fossil fuel extraction industry vanished tomorrow (it won't) that's about 500,000 jobs, not "millions". And the vast majority of those workers have transferable skills.

Click to expand...

Wind Farms don't produce much power when there is no wind or little, and that happens a lot.
Solar Panels don't produce power of a night or on cloudy days.
Wind and Solar power is more costly per kwh for the customer, than coal and gas power which produce electricity 24/7.

Wind and solar is like dissing cars and going back to horse and buggy.

However Nuclear is the future, clean, 24/7, no waste, spent fuel is recycled.