It's a perspective that isn't how I'd like the world to be but it's how things are.
As a case in point, AGL.
The company is Australia's largest coal user, they also mine the stuff, and has total CO2 emissions more than twice as high as anyone else.
Now AGL do have a plan and that plan is to cease using coal completely by 2048. In doing this their plan is to close 25% of the company's coal-fired power generating capacity in 2022 rising to 66% by 2035 and the rest by 2048.
Given it's a for-profit listed company, overall I'd say it's not a bad response. They're supposed to be making money for shareholders not losing it and from an environmental perspective it's a major step forward.
Practical reality though is the whole thing has brought nothing but conflict.
On one hand there has been opposition from the sillier elements of the environmental movement to the company's plan to invest $200 million improving fuel efficiency and output at the Bayswater plant which they intend to operate through to 2035. Those opposed wanted a far more costly improvement which, given the intent is to close the plant 12 years after completion of the upgrade, just doesn't stack up as a business proposal.
On the other hand government has given the company one hell of a bashing publicly for doing too much to reduce their use of coal, threatening all manner of things going as far as forced sale of assets.
In view of all that, well it's not hard to see why there's a lot of sitting on hands and saying nothing going on across the industry. Someone "big" sticks their head up, announces a major plan funded entirely at private expense, and gets whacked by everyone from environmentalists to government for doing so.
My own view is quite simple really. If the biggest emitter in the country is saying they're going to get out of coal completely by a set date, and are going to do a quarter of it within 5 years, then I'll take that as being a big step forward and won't quibble on whatever imperfections I happen to notice about their plans. They're a business, they need to make money, and there's a lot of different aspects to balance in all of that and if those imperfections are how they're saving or making money then I'll live with them yes.
Ideology is what stops progress on all this. Ideology from a government that wants to burn coal for the sake of burning coal and ideology from supposed environmental groups who object to any plan that isn't 100% perfect rather than accepting real progress when it's offered.
Much the same could be said for plenty of other things. Ideas rejected because they don't suit whatever ideology despite being a big step forward. End result is not much gets achieved.
A quick footnote to the 40 ... hours I spent on just the Great Barrier reef ... likely 100 hrs or more.
The Marine Park Authority I knew dumbed down and downplayed the impacts. It on one hand is used for TOURISTS and on the other, does some publishing of results.
So I decided to read, the latest and then go through the reefs individually. ones NOT altered by runoff or crown of thorns, ones basically in the outlying region.
I shared some above, but ... for the vast MAJORITY .... sadly the say 1980 Coral cover is NOW around the 12-14% in 2019 for virtually every single reef, ALL OF THEM .... the Southern Ones do better but lack the diversity and when a Reef, depending on where it is, will go from say 60% to 4% Coral cover and the average cover was 60% in the whole of the 1980's average and its now 4% is NOT usual. Some very very popular tourist destinations and names, cover is ... well ... unlikely .. EVER ... EVER to recover even NOW, let alone by 2050.
Sobering when one reads the source as I gave when I knew giving the politically correct GBMA would of course have doubters, v the actual source of their politically correct watered down stuff, when a Reef has gone to 12.5% of what it was ... and the cover, due to where it is was never great, and its down to 3% COVER, verses 24% ave for the 1980's and same for 1990;s and same for 2000-2010 period then hit over the head ... three times for some ... twice for others via being warmed, its ... unlikely they exist as I said by 2050. and in some cases 2025.
The overall average as of 2019, and I used the conservative overall 2018 number .... at 75% gone, in 2018, initial reefs in 2019 and findings looks a LOT WORSE. Those that did not get hit by floods, nor for SOME not hit by heat in 2018/19 but SOME WERE ... they did not recover or regrow and regrowing something that's 12% of what it was ... and expecting NO new heat events is bloody unlikely.
Not happy. Just sad. But still deny deny deny ... its not a problem, Vote one Pauline Hanson or Liberal party or Trump !!
Pauline Hanson went the the GBR put on googles / snorkel and declared the reef to be fine vote 1 Pauline.
No argument there but personally I gave up any hope of that one once the big boom in coal use globally took place.The problem Smurf is that 20-30 years ago we had the opportunity to take a longer view and plan for a move to a carbon free energy future that left minimal stranded assets.
That time is now past.
My own view is quite simple really. If the biggest emitter in the country is saying they're going to get out of coal completely by a set date, and are going to do a quarter of it within 5 years, then I'll take that as being a big step forward and won't quibble on whatever imperfections I happen to notice about their plans. They're a business, they need to make money, and there's a lot of different aspects to balance in all of that and if those imperfections are how they're saving or making money then I'll live with them yes.
Yep.Yes, they do need to make money, whether in Australia or elsewhere. Global businesses shop around for countries that best suit them. If another country lets them dig up coal dirt cheap and screw money from the masses then that's where they will go.
Another issue here is conflict between multiple environmental issues.
One example of that is urban air quality. Pretty much any petrol or diesel engine can be tuned to emit less CO2 so long as you don't mind an increase in other pollutants as the downside. So we've cut the smog but in return we get more CO2.
Burning biomass is another example of that. As long as it's regrown then it's sustainable as such. Terrible for local air quality in most cases though if we're talking about solid fuels. Getting rid of wood as a fuel source in homes and industry has cleared the air but at the expense of more CO2.
Another example is things like nuclear and hydro which between them have accounted for most non-fossil electricity ever generated. There are perfectly reasonable environmental arguments against some hydro projects, and there are arguments against nuclear more generally, but the reality is stark. A nuclear or hydro plant not built due to environmental issues is rarely replaced with an alternative nuclear or hydro plant supplying the same grid. Sometimes that has occurred but more commonly the outcome ends up being replacement with fossil fuels in practice. More CO2.
Hydraulic fracturing is another example. It's not at all popular with environmentalists due to various concerns but in the USA, the country which uses it far more than anywhere else, the reality is rather harsh. Less fracking = less natural gas production = more coal used for power generation = more CO2.
There are many situations where fixing one problem causes another and the problem is that the downside rather often ends up being the same old story. Fixing whatever other problem results in more CO2 being emitted.
I'm not saying that many of those other things aren't real problems or shouldn't be fixed but if we choose to fix those then we have to accept the consequences of doing so and vice versa.
To throw another one into the mix, well if your only measure is CO2 well then there's a really great material for making things out of which is commonly known as plastic. As has been drawn to attention in recent times it has definite environmental downsides but CO2 isn't really one of them - not much in making it and being so light not much in transporting it either.
There's a lot of complexity in all this.
No complexity at all as the problem would have been solved a long time ago with a price on carbon.Another issue here is conflict between multiple environmental issues.
One example of that is urban air quality. Pretty much any petrol or diesel engine can be tuned to emit less CO2 so long as you don't mind an increase in other pollutants as the downside. So we've cut the smog but in return we get more CO2.
Burning biomass is another example of that. As long as it's regrown then it's sustainable as such. Terrible for local air quality in most cases though if we're talking about solid fuels. Getting rid of wood as a fuel source in homes and industry has cleared the air but at the expense of more CO2.
Another example is things like nuclear and hydro which between them have accounted for most non-fossil electricity ever generated. There are perfectly reasonable environmental arguments against some hydro projects, and there are arguments against nuclear more generally, but the reality is stark. A nuclear or hydro plant not built due to environmental issues is rarely replaced with an alternative nuclear or hydro plant supplying the same grid. Sometimes that has occurred but more commonly the outcome ends up being replacement with fossil fuels in practice. More CO2.
Hydraulic fracturing is another example. It's not at all popular with environmentalists due to various concerns but in the USA, the country which uses it far more than anywhere else, the reality is rather harsh. Less fracking = less natural gas production = more coal used for power generation = more CO2.
There are many situations where fixing one problem causes another and the problem is that the downside rather often ends up being the same old story. Fixing whatever other problem results in more CO2 being emitted.
I'm not saying that many of those other things aren't real problems or shouldn't be fixed but if we choose to fix those then we have to accept the consequences of doing so and vice versa.
To throw another one into the mix, well if your only measure is CO2 well then there's a really great material for making things out of which is commonly known as plastic. As has been drawn to attention in recent times it has definite environmental downsides but CO2 isn't really one of them - not much in making it and being so light not much in transporting it either.
There's a lot of complexity in all this.
A price on carbon provides an economic incentive to take action but does not of itself constitute action.No complexity at all as the problem would have been solved a long time ago with a price on carbon.
It also does not prevent (encourages in fact) the export of emmisions (along with economic activity) to some other country.A price on carbon provides an economic incentive to take action but does not of itself constitute action.
It provides an incentive to change but that's all, it won't magically remove some body corporate that doesn't like solar and it doesn't change the laws which prioritise reducing PM, HC, CO and NOx emissions even if doing so increases CO2 (which I'm not saying is good or bad, just noting the trade-off due to technology and that CO2 has thus far been deemed the lower priority).
I do agree with the basic point of your post though, I'm just pointing out that it's the physical action that actually cuts emissions assuming we don't intend to simply sit in the dark etc (which I note nobody is seriously suggesting).
Another post without a scintilla of evidence.It also does not prevent (encourages in fact) the export of emmisions (along with economic activity) to some other country.
...and probably overall increases both co2 emissions and other pollution
A price on carbon would have made extraction of coal the most expensive energy alternative, and in the immediate term given the price edge to gas. While gas was hardly the solution, were that to have happened, we would be many years ahead of where we are now with renewables, and with a significantly lesser global CO2 footprint.
In plain English it would have meant that CO2 at 400ppm was never going to happen, and the hottest years of the modern temperature era would have occurred largely last century.
I have been talking a global perspective, although a national perspective still would have achieved a lot in terms of Australia globally leading in renewables, and we are not far off it on a per capita basis. That's occurred in spite of having no national direction on a renewables policy.Although it would certainly have meant that coal would have been uneconomic as an energy source in Australia, it would not have had any effect on many of the main coal using countries such as India and China. In fact, it may have increased CO2 pollution as these countries would have sourced their coal from dirtier sources.
I have been talking a global perspective...
Your ideas that we, as a nation, would have been the poorer for it is totally unfounded. Have a look at what Denmark has achieved for itself: Vestas (wind power behemoth) alone has a workforce of almost 25k, while the total Australian coal industry employs less than 55k. And Denmark has a population of less than 6m compared to our 25m.
Climate change has been about since the 1970s. We are up to IPCC AR5 and these are intergovernmental, so what exactly has our government been doing to mitigate the impending dire consequences of inaction? Certainly nothing like they should have or could have.It is the duty of our government to assess what is likely to happen and based on the more probable scenarios make decisions that will best serve Australians.
So to is the very obvious impact of burning fossil fuels.Each country has certain advantages. We in Australia are blessed with various natural resources. If we stop exporting coal we are hurt. That is not unfounded. That is just obvious.
I hope you understand that this boat sailed and we were not on board.There is nothing stopping us emulating Denmark where it is feasible. In fact the returns from coal exports will allow us to invest in alternative energy sources.
So what? You don't own a coal mine do you?Putting a carbon price on coal to make it more expensive comparatively is just removing an advantage that we have over other countries.
First, gas is cheaper. We have not unlocked gas for our local energy market. Just ask Australian manufacturers.It makes no sense for us to provide cheap energy to our competitors while denying the same to our manufacturers.
Climate change has been about since the 1970s. We are up to IPCC AR5 and these are intergovernmental, so what exactly has our government been doing to mitigate the impending dire consequences of inaction? Certainly nothing like they should have or could have.
China is the greatest CO2 emitter, but not on a per capita basis. It also happens to be moving into renewables at a greater rate than any other nation, but I see you are making lame excuses rather than dealing with facts.
I hope you understand that this boat sailed and we were not on board.
And your idea about using coal revenue to invest in renewables is pie in the sky. Exactly where has this been mooted politically, or acted upon. Instead we have had massive government investment in failed carbon capture technologies to support the oxymoronic concept of clean coal.
So what? You don't own a coal mine do you?
The big players include BHP Billiton Mitsubishi Alliance (BMA is Australia's largest producer) and BHP Billiton Mitsui Coal, Glencore, Anglo American, Vale and the prospect of a massive Adani mine. So most profits from coal mining head offshore.
So we are not talking a "country" advantage at all, given the profits overwhelmingly do not stay in Australia.
First, gas is cheaper. We have not unlocked gas for our local energy market. Just ask Australian manufacturers.
Second, renewables are now cheaper.
Thirdly, energy is a small part of the overseas equation for our "competitors". Labour costs are where we lose out.
So is the USA, and Australia and a lot of other countries.What are the lame excuses? They are still burning coal and if we do not export to them they will source it elsewhere. Do you think they will suddenly decide that if one potential source of coal supply dries up for a planned power plant, they will simply decide say oh just build a solar or wind farm instead in that location. They will buy the coal elsewhere.
Exactly where is this apparent revenue, in that it has been there for decades and not used or considered for your idea?I didn't say it has been mooted politically. But it is revenue that will be available to us should the powers that be decide to use it wisely. Throwing that revenue away doesn't make sense.
It mostly provides jobs, not revenue.Profits are just part of the equation. The cost of the actual production and export of coal provides income to Australia. Salary and wages of all those directly and indirectly involved and material demands from other sectors.
That's not a smart sentence. Coal is the worst option and should be avoided at all costs because its long run costs are never factored in to present prices.But artificially increasing the cost of coal to make it appear more expensive is not the way to go.
Except that we are using the most expensive energy option, and it's legacy costs keep making it more expensive. On the other hand, renewables keep getting cheaper on every metric except labour (and that's a factor common to both).With some companies managing to maintain export volume by being just slightly more competitive than those overseas, the margin that cheaper energy provides could be all that's in it.
Ummm..what advantage is that?You do not throw away your advantage for tokenism.
Climate change has been about since the 1970s.
Wake up Sdajii..LOL!!! HAHAHA!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?