The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > 'Climate change' gets the heave-ho in the Budget > Comments

'Climate change' gets the heave-ho in the Budget : Comments

By Don Aitkin, published 17/5/2013

No longer are we hearing glowing accounts of how investing in new technologies will lead to a 'green-jobs' revolution.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. 10
  10. All
Hi Don, I guess the lack of investigative/critical thinking from our MSM has left Australians without the information we need to assess the truth.

There are hundreds of media articles available from Europe about the collapse of the CAGW alarmism. Very rarely do we see them break cover from under our MSM censorship.

This relating to green jobs is enough to make your eyes bleed. In the UK 2,298 permanent jobs created, whoopee! At only $11.45 million per job, what a bargain?

“Without much fanfare, the Department of Energy (DOE) recently updated the list of loan guarantee projects on its website. Unlike in 2008, when Barack Obama pledged to create 5 million jobs over 10 years by directing taxpayer funds toward renewable energy projects, there were no press conferences or stump speeches. But the data are nonetheless revealing: for the over $26 billion spent since 2009, DOE Section 1703 and 1705 loan guarantees have created only 2,298 permanent jobs for a cost of over $11.45 million per job. --Institute for Energy Research, 8 May 2013”
Posted by spindoc, Friday, 17 May 2013 9:07:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'climate change ' actually got the heave ho when Ms Gillard advised Rudd to drop the idea of the carbon tax because the polls were slipping. Then after she knived him she needed to reintroduce the importance because of the Greens so she broke her clear election promise. Oh the billions that have been wasted by the deceitful and gullible.
Posted by runner, Friday, 17 May 2013 9:20:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It’s a pity that Don’s thesis is tainted by his climate change scepticism because one could easily support most of his comments about the budget and climate change politics and still be concerned that rising carbon dioxide levels are problematic. After all, the basic chemistry (I’m a chemist, Don is not) warns us that the changing composition of the atmosphere will likely have a real effect on climate

The ‘green jobs’ stuff was always nonsense. Replacing cheap energy with more expensive energy MUST damage economic growth because energy inputs pervade economic activity and prosperity. Policy makers and their advisors probably understand this quite well – apart perhaps from the Greens. The climate change programs that Don happily notes have now been abandoned were based on the hope (that’s all it is) that ‘investing’ in alternative energy sources, efficiency and the like guarantees that these will eventually work or become cheaper. The energy cost problem would then just go away. After all, scientists are wonderful folk and they can solve every problem, can’t they? Well, no, we can’t, which doesn’t stop us from hoping, even promising.

Climate change sceptics can cheer at the failure of so-called green policies. But the prudent position to take is that rising carbon dioxide levels will become a global problem in all sorts of ways (as the IPCC keeps saying), that higher energy costs, or currently unpalatable (in Australia at least) nuclear energy, will be unavoidable in the effort to reduce emissions, and that we have to face the inevitable social and political problems that will follow.

Alternatively, or in addition, we can hope that the climate scientists are wrong. Don et al should stay alert on that one, but in my view it would be unwise to rely entirely on that prospect
Posted by Tombee, Friday, 17 May 2013 10:01:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There seems to be no question that Australia has closed her cheque-book on climate change mitigation, and maybe rightly so.
However, it's interesting to note that in a story in today's Fairfax news, out of 12,000 scientific papers published on the issue of climate change between 1991 and 2011, 97.1% of the authors who stated a position on the evidence for global warming endorsed the view that humans are to blame.
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/not-much-climate-change-doubt-science-says-20130515-2jmup.html
Blind Freddy can see the global climate is changing. What that will mean, and whether or not we can or will do anything about it, remain unanswered questions. But to think that it will be business as usual for all 7 billion of us (and counting) is head-in-the-sand denial.
Posted by halduell, Friday, 17 May 2013 10:26:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Halduel' Blind Freddy would have excellent credentials to be a climate observer or practicioner.Impared reasoning would be an added advantage
Posted by CARFAX, Friday, 17 May 2013 10:43:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What could one expect?
The climate change debate here in this country, has been poisoned by patently partisan politics; and, by some very poor choices by tin ear Labour.
Who arguably put their own political prospects and power, ahead of simply achieving pragmatic outcomes!?
I agree with those who say, simply choosing more expensive options is a real turnoff, particularly, by the 40+%, living below or just above the poverty line.
And all this asinine absurdity, in the face of carbon free options, that will literally walk out the door!
Like say, cheaper than coal, thorium power!
Or very localised and much more reliable, piped NG> ceramic cell> electricity.
Compare coal-fired power, with a energy coefficient of around 20%; and the 72% energy coefficient of the NG (methane) powered ceramic cell.
More than three times more electricity, for the same fuel consumption, equates to prices three times or more lower!
And vastly more reliable power, minus the interruptions provided by summer storms, or power poles falling over due to tempest, termites or forest fires!
Which in turn result in food spoilage, or silent pumps, needed to supply the very water, required to fight said fires.
Or, oil rich algae, which promises emission free coal-fired power, and additional profits, for those wise enough to invest in, closed cycle companion production!
If coal-fired power produces half our total emission? Then converting that same carbon emission to hydrocarbons/fuel, could quite literally supply our total transport requirements, all while quite literally, halving our current emission!
Consider, transport is currently producing the other half of our total carbon emission.
I've read estimates, that would see these endlessly sustainable, vastly less polluting algae sourced fuel options, being able to be retailed at a handsome profit, for just 45 cents a litre!
Now, if we were really serious about addressing climate change, rather than simply dismantling industry and forestalling essential development?
The end result of backing the green's preferred energy suite?
We would back the above, or similar options, which literally walk out the door and remain viable and affordable, for the world's poorest!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Friday, 17 May 2013 11:15:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. 10
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy