According to the Bank of America Institute:

"Jobs in the clean energy sector .... now account for more than 40% of all energy jobs in the US. Jobs related to battery electric
vehicles experienced growth of 27%, surpassing the gasoline and diesel vehicle sector by more than 17x, as reported in the US Energy & Employment Report. And in a significant shift towards greater gender diversity, women accounted for over half of the 300,000 energy jobs added in 2022."

Part of this investment and job creation is attributed to a government effort to make life more affordable for those living in the U.S.

So what? All very nice for Americans IF the government department referred to is truthful. And, what's the point of this post? Will it affect anyone reading it? Is it an unstated recommendation for the Australian government? If it's the latter, Albanese has no intention of making "life more affordable for those living (in Australia)".

It's all circuses (no bread) with Albanese: the Voice; the Matildas (let's have a holiday). Look over there - nothing to see here (as he tries to divide us along racial lines, bumps up power prices, wrecks the environment with wind and solar farms and chokes us with mass immigration).

There are few jobs in renewables, and most of these will go when Albanese has despoiled as much rainforest and farm land as he is allowed to get away with.

Electric cars? The workers are already there.

There is some hope for Australia in the unlikely form of David Littleproud, who on Sunday put in a word for his farmer constituents, and food security for all of us.

Distinguishing the Nationals from the wet Liberals, he expressed his and his party's objections to Albanese's insane energy policy (83% renewables by 2030), and the building of panels and windmills on PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND.

Littleproud suggests a pause in spreading the monstrosities over where our food comes from, and where many of our exports are derived, and a good hard think about Bowen baloney of thousands of kilometres of wires and pylons further trashing the Australian countryside.

And, it was only through some miserable coot criticising what Littleproud told Steve Price that I found out about it. That's the second time that I have had my attention drawn to someone I was not all that keen on and largely ignored. The last time was when that indigenous disgrace, Noel Pearson bad-mouthed Littleproud for announcing that the Nationals were saying NO to the Voice.

If there are any other reticent right wingers out there, speak up. Don't let the Left make all the noise.

ttbn,

How pleased I was to hear the news that the drop kick Loony Latham has beeen a-holed by the Lovely Pauline after the dismal failure of One Nation at the recent NSW State election. Hanson is bad enough, but Latham, the guys opinions on renewable's are off the planet.

Inflation Reduction Act? Some people will fall for anything.

Latham wrote: "The renewables guru and immediate-past Chief Scientist, Alan Finkel, has said that reducing Australia’s 1.3% share of global emissions to zero will have “virtually no impact” on climate change."

If politicians are going to start telling people the truth, we'll never get to net zero.

mhaze,

"“virtually no impact” on climate change." so this bloke Alan Finkel concedes that Australia's contribution will have an impact on climate change, so does Donald Duck, I agree it will be small. Do not give $1 to the Salvation Army's Red Shield Appeal as it will have "virtually no impact" on poverty in Australia. Look at all those individual fools who joined the Australian Army to fight the Japanese in WWII, individually they virtually had no impact on the outcome of the war.

Proves my point what a loony Latham is. But ttbn and others from the crazy extreme think Loony Latham is wonderful, their kinda guy, ttbn has given the fool the thumbs up before, just like his folk hero Corny Banana.

So WTF if 40% of all energy jobs are supplying less than 15% of electrical energy, & about 6% of all energy it is no wonder our electricity & fuel prices are skyrocketing. Is total inefficiency your green objective, or just an unanticipated result of crazy energy policy.

"so this bloke Alan Finkel concedes that Australia's contribution will have an impact on climate change"

Yes, an impact. So small that it's immeasurable. OTOH, the cost of achieving this small and immeasurable impact will be very measurable but will be borne by people who aren't you, so that's okey-dokey, I guess.

mhaze,

The cost of doing nothing is far greater, and the impact on human lives in Australia can be measured by the lives lost, and property damaged. Unlikely to have much of an impact on you personally, so that's okey-dokey, I guess.

Carbon dioxide emissions - harmless, natural, and vital to growing food - are not going away just because warped activists and liars want humans to reduce the mere 0.04% of the stuff that can be attributed to them just because that breath in and out, grow food, and manufacture essential goods.

China is the biggest emitter, and they are not going to bow down to the nonsense and let their 1.4 billion people go back to poverty and starvation.

So, little old Australia, with 25 million people and the ability to feed the world, is just virtue-signalling and pissing into the wind.

Even lefty ex-UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, is telling the 60 or so million Brits that they are ruining their economy for no good reason, while China and the Third World (rightly) go about the everyday business of improving the lives of their people.

Economist, Alan Moran (Spectator 13/8/23), compared the onset of bankruptcy, which "comes slowly at first then rapidly", with the the myth of cheap wind and solar.

Other countries are waking up, but not Albostralia, where there are only a few "muted grumbles" about electricity prices from consumers, and the "green-hued" media has joined the lying political class in "attributing price rises to foreign causes".

So 40% of workers in the energy field are employed on renewables. Renewables (excluding pre-existing hydro) account for 15% of the energy produced in the USA, this is definitely the least productive portion of the energy sector.

Add in the reality of renewables' short life span and that 20 years from now most of the solar panels and wind turbines will need replacing and the question needs to be asked "why the hell aren't they going nuclear?"

"The cost of doing nothing is far greater, "

"Chief Scientist, Alan Finkel, has said that reducing Australia’s 1.3% share of global emissions to zero will have “virtually no impact” on climate change."

Some, not Paul obviously, but some, will see the illogicality of this. To think that "doing nothing" will be costlier than doing 'sumfing' even though the 'sumfing' will have virtually no impact, defies all claims to common sense.

mhaze,

Martin Luther King, Jr. must have had you and the other forum Trumpsters and Lathamites in mind when he said;

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.

So having lost the argument Paul, as per usual, reverts to the invective.

mhaze,

So easily offended, claiming I am being invective quoting MLK jr. I agreed with the "virtually" statement by Alan Finkel. I don't agree with those whom claim human activity is not contributing to climate change the evidence is overwhelming, and I don't agree with those who say Australia should do nothing. What price do YOU and others put on the human lives lost as a result of human induced CC?

Selectively quoting King.

"I don't agree with those whom claim human activity is not contributing to climate change"

Nor do I.

" What price do YOU and others put on the human lives lost as a result of human induced CC?"

If its true that Australia's emissions do virtually nothing to affect the climate as per Finkel, then there is no evidence that human lives are lost due to our emissions. FYI, a study done 5 years ago using IPCC models showed that reducing Australian emissions to zero would result in a theoretic decline in temperatures of 0.007c which is so low as to be beyond the scale of current technology to measure. How many lives do you think will be lost due to a 0.007c increase in temps? Any advance on none? So asking what price I put on lives NOT lost is superfluous. BTW, do you realise more Australian lives are lost due to cold than heat? What price do you put on those lives?

Kudos. ttbn, mhaze again

mhaze,

Good to see you, like Finkel, agree that activity by Australian's is having an impact on the Earths climate, and as individuals, or as a nation our contribution is relatively small VIRTUALLY nothing, I agree. Well the figure can't be "immeasurable", now can it as you quote Finkel's figure of 1.3%. Your out is the use of that word VIRTUALLY, which doesn't mean zero at all, it implies the measurement is quantitative, which it is. If Australia's contribution was measurably zero, yes a big fat "0", nothing, zilch, couldn't be less, non existent, etc etc, then I would agree with you, Australia would have to do nothing to reduce its contribution to climate change. But since its not zilch, zero, nothing, 0,0,0 naught etc etc, and as you have indicated it is something then we have to do something about it. Agree?

If Australia's contribution is VIRTUALLY nothing, then there are about 200 other countries who could claim the same thing. Big population countries like China and India could use their people numbers to say their contribution is VIRTUALLY nothing. See using your reasoning no one would have to do anything, jack sh!t in fact, with that reasoning of VIRTUALLY nothing.

Paul,
You're getting confused (again). The level of emission is measurable but, if those levels were reduced to zero, the change in temperature of theoretically 0.007c would be immeasurable by the temperature gauges currently in use. Or to put it another way, 0.007c falls well within the margin of error of the gauges.

"Big population countries like China and India could use their people numbers to say their contribution is VIRTUALLY nothing. "

Could say that AND do say that. China and India and a whole bunch of other nations have basically refused to play this silly net zero game. Only virtue signalling nations like us are making the claim that we will get to net zero. Of course, we won't get there but plenty of pain will be spread around in the meantime and plenty of wealth will be diverted to people you, via your ideology, would normally despise.

Couldn't help but notice that you decided to drop the whole malarkey about increased deaths due to warming....wise move.

mhaze,

"whole malarkey about increased deaths due to warming" 110 DEAD in Hawaiian wild fires! Now that's not malarkey! Your 'Ostrich Approach' to climate change is understandable, there is a cost due the impact of CC, although visible now, generally its not impacting people like you and me to a great extent, insurance up 30%, well we can live with that can't we.

Glad you are not using the word immeasurable, relying on a 5 year old report using the James Bond number 007, well not for me. AND you have dropped that weasel word "virtually"

p/s Being a devout Trumpster, why the Old Joe word "malarkey" (how American) shouldn't you be using FAKE NEWS, FAKE NEWS, like Danerous Doctor Donald does?

Paul,

110 dead in Hawaii. Well has it been proven this was caused by climate change? Or is every disaster these days caused by climate change in the minds of the alarmists? After all, there were never forest fires before the rise of the dreaded CO2. </sarc>

I can see the nature of climate change and the effects of a purported net zero eludes you. Just one last time.... the alarmist community can use their climate models to see what would happen if Australia got to net zero. This is all theory based on models that have yet to be verified. Still, based on these theoretic models, the effect of Australia going net zero would be a reduction in world temperatures in 2100 of 0.007c. But, in the real world (and you should join us one day) such a decline would be immeasurable by current technology. If you look up, you'll see the logic of that going over your head.

"110 dead in Hawaii."

Well it turns out it was caused by man....but not in the way your standard alarmist 'thinks'.

Poor maintenance of the power lines which then resulted in the lines causing sparks that caused the fires.

Warnings in the past that the areas that ultimately burned were in danger of catastrophic fires which were ignored. Recommendations as to how to reduce the risks, ignored.

But the classic... the chap in charge of the water resources thought the water was sacred and shouldn't be used for mundane things like putting out fires. So he refused to release the water resources to fight the fire while it was still fightable!!

Until a time when the adults are back in charge, we're screwed.

mhaze,

You have no understanding of climate change, and the part human activity is playing in exacerbating that change, you simply see it all as severe weather phenomena. Well you probably do know, but for selfish reasons you choose to ignore the reality. The science is unequivocal, and the juries not out, it along with the rest of the court, has well and truly gone home, the judge has past sentence; "Do something about human induced climate change, or suffer the diabolical consequences of inaction!"

In the case of the unprecedented Hawaiian wild firers that have claimed the lives of at least 111 people. Unless you believe in spontaneous combustion, there must have been a cause of ignition in the first instance, either natural, for example lightning, or through human activity, such as fallen power lines. The climatic conditions were so out of the ordinary that it only took a spark to cause this catastrophic event. This is not unusual, now more than previously, disasters as a result of human induced climate change, are happening with monotonous regularity all over the planet.

Now forget human induced climate change, lets debate your other belief, that the Earth is flat!

Paul,

It is clear that you have no clue about climate change.

Climate change does not start fires, nor does it cause the alarm system not to work or the rescue teams not to spring into action. There have been many natural disasters before CO2 became a problem and in fact, the No of people dying due to natural disasters has been constantly dropping since WW2.

That China has recently started constructing coal-fired power stations that will emit more CO2 than Aus makes a mockery of the tiny savings we are making at a huge cost.

While I agree that some action needs to be taken, the zealotry of Labor and the Greens is doing more damage to the cause than say the Nationals.

Lots of assertions there Paul. Not a single testable fact.

Standard operating procedure for Paul. But he's got all the memes down pat. 'science is settled". "Flat earther". "climate disasters".

But just shouting the propaganda isn't all that convincing.

mhaze,

The evidence is clear, its unequivocal, confirmed by research carried out by non-partisan independent scientists, experts in the field, over many years. Those "scientist", like Ian Pilmer, who are in opposition to reality are totally compromised, and in the pay of Big Oil, Big Coal which have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, it makes them billions annually. Similar to the way Big Tobacco would say in the past; "Smoking isn't harmful", they were able to trot out "doctors" who would confirm that for them. I say flat earth, as those arguing that CC is not real, may as well argue the Earth is flat, given the overwhelming evidence that its otherwise, would be just as sensible.

One test is why are insurance companies being forced to hike their premiums, far greater than would be expected in the normal course of events. I assume you believe its all a conspiracy, more Trump like fake news.

The unprecedented Hawaiian wild fires, condition were set by climate change, then the catastrophe was ignited by human failure, humans then created a bigger disaster through incompetence. If climatic conditions were not there in the first place, human failure would not have played a part in the disaster. The fires would just not have happened!

" Those "scientist", like Ian Pilmer, who are in opposition to reality are totally compromised, and in the pay of Big Oil, Big Coal which have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, it makes them billions annually. "

You see Paul, again you are just shouting, without any thought, the propaganda of the alarmists. There is more than ample evidence that the alarmist scientists receive vastly more funding than scientists you would call deniers. But even if that weren't true, if these scientists get money from fossil fuel interests doesn't invalidate their science. For example, do they oppose so-called consensus climate science because they get the money or do they get the money because that oppose so-called consensus science? But the crux here is that these scientists are recieving vastly less than the people you treat as inherently pure.

But why pick Plimer? What about Lindzen, Idso, Lomborg, Dyson Freeman, Tsonis, Curry, Patrick Moore, Ivar Giaever, Will Happer and thousands of others? All in the pay of big oil?

I'll wager you'd never heard of most of them and certainly never read or considered their perspective. But you don't need to, do you? Because you have faith in what you think is The Science

"The evidence is clear, its unequivocal, confirmed by research carried out by non-partisan independent scientists, experts in the field, over many years."

Sounds familiar, isn't that the same tune they played during COVID...

mhaze,

“VIRTUALLY all scientists agree that global warming is happening.” There's your word "VIRTUALLY", my capitals. The National Library of Medicine (US) quote. As for your "scientist" how do they find the time to tear themselves away from Big Oil and Big Coal board meetings, where they are paid thousands, while looking for new profit avenues for their employers and do their "research". Mate, there were unbiased NAZI "scientists" who "proved" that the Japanese were Aryans, well to the satisfaction of Hitler that is. Hitler was the Big Oil and Big Coal of his day, he employed a lot of 'scientists".

Well there's nothing like keeping to the facts....and Paul's last post was nothing like keeping to the facts. Seriously, Dyson Freeman attending "Big Oil and Big Coal board meetings". You really are a dill sometimes, Paul.

"Well there's nothing like keeping to the facts"

Hmm... yeah well, sign of the times I guess Paul
I didn't know facts actually mattered to the general population anymore
You know if you're a boy, you can be a girl and vice versa.
All men are rapists, and can even have periods too.

Facts? Since when were facts relevant?

Irrelevant and inconvenient in this brave new messed up world...
We must do away with facts!
Inconvenient facts must be challenged and labelled as mistruths!
- All punish all those promoting them!

Heil Wokeness.

mhaze,

What should I do with your Google list of "scientists". I note your go to "expert" Plimer didn't make the list. Why was that? Cause he's well and truly in the pockets of Big Oil and Big Coal, that's why. As for your list, I could Google up 1200 real independent scientists that can tell you climate change is happening now! But the debate is over climate change is real, nothing more to prove Mr Flat Earth Man.

I took the first name on your Google list Lindzen, is that the same Richard Lindzen who was funded by Peabody Energy, the largest private US coal mining company headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri to do "research" and prove "climate change is fake news":. Peabody's primary business consists of the mining, sale, and distribution of coal, well, well, well. Tell me its not so! Now I wont bother with the rest of your Google list of "experts".

Thanks to Blackout Bowen, the electricity market is approaching a labor created crisis:

"The nation’s energy market operator is poised to issue a stark warning about threats to supply in the electricity grid and will make an urgent call for business and investors to proceed with planned generation projects amid concern about a rough transition to green power.

The Australian Energy Market Operator will issue its 10-year outlook for the market – the Electricity Statement of Opportunities – before the end of August.

Industry sources expect the forecast to spell out ongoing reliability risks in the system, including a potential crisis this summer, along with the need for industry to urgently approve a pipeline of developments."

"Part of this investment and job creation is attributed to a government effort to make life more affordable for those living in the U.S."

Nothing in the US is designed to make life more affordable for its citizens.

It's about benefiting the political class and big business, and why US citizens can't make ends meet, their living expenses often higher than their incomes, and why they have over a trillion dollars in credit card debt at 22% interest rate.

Meanwhile you have millions of people crossing the southern border putting billions of dollars into the hands of Mexican cartels, impacting wages and exacerbating a housing crisis while insider trading by politicians earns a far greater return than leading investment companies can give their own clients.

U.S. Inflation Reduction Act is meant to lure European businesses to the US, and this, after blowing up Nordstream pipeline and destroying Europe's main source of wealth and prosperity, forcing them to become de-industrialised.

The US is the epicentre of global corruption and filth.
It uses threats, blackmail, regime change and military intervention to impose it's model on others to make them vassal states.
It's model of divisive democracy is tainting all others.
It is a cancer.

Paul wrote: "I note your go to "expert" Plimer didn't make the list. Why was that?"

Well I didn't "go to" Plimer at all. That was you - but it was two days ago so we can understand how you would have forgotten that. And he wasn't on the list since he'd already been mentioned and therefore mentioning him again would have been redundant - much like most of your posts.

Paul asked " is that the same Richard Lindzen who was funded by Peabody Energy"

No its the highly respected Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, who has written several hundred peer reviewed papers on climate and related issues and been cited in other papers several 10's of thousands of times. Its the Professor Lindzen who is paid and funded by MIT and the US government, who, due to his expertise in his area is occasionally hired to do consulting work for various organisations, including, sometimes, organisations involved with the dreaded CO2 - oh the horror!

I'm always fascinated by the type of thinking that claims to be following the science but, as soon as it sees science it doesn't like , runs off to SourceWatch or the like to try to find a reason to pretend to reject the unwanted science. If we had a Christian who said they ignored those parts of the Bible that didn't suit their prejudices, Paul would be the first to call them out. I doubt he understands the hypocrisy

mhaze,

So it was a coincidence that YOUR Richard Lindzen, is a different Richard Lindzen to the one on mega bucks from the giant coal company Peabody Energy, well known for its opposition to any science which sh!ts on their coal. AND its not the same Richard Lindzen who in 2005 said he was going to prove climate change was a fallacy, and guess what, he did just that years later, probably with funding from Peabody Energy.

If your Mr Lindzen, is a different Mr Lindzen from my Mr 'Fossil Fuel' Lindzen, then I'll apologise, but if he's the same Mr Lindzen, then I'm right and he's been compromised by Big Coal, and his opinions are not worth a cracker! Even if the board of Peabody Energy has "peer reviewed" all his hogwash!

You can probably buy peer-reviews as easily as you can buy a diploma.
- Just send money and your 'diploma' is sent straight out.

MIT, it's a renowned university alright.
Up there with Georgetown University.

Renowned favorite of globalist liberals, and close to Hillary's place at Martha's vineyard.

Hi AC,

Martha does her finest down there at the vineyard, "Moonshine" that is... liquid loveliness... that heavenly elixir, its the nectar of the gods they say! Hilley loves a slurp or three, at Martha's...pure "gold" is hers, Donald is permanent and on the sauce when at the old barn, and Joe, well... well... the old fella just can't resist, hasn't been seen sober at Martha's since 1964. You'll find em' all down on a Saturday night, for a good ole' knees up hootenanny shindig, come one, come all... don't you be shy now!.

Nup, same man Paul. Except I look at the research and you fall for the propaganda. To each his own.