Slight movement back to the Coalition on the BludgerTrack poll aggregate this week after a soft result for Labor from Essential Research, which together with a Queensland-only result from Galaxy was the only new federal poll this week. This causes a 0.3% cut in the Labor primary vote and two losses on the seat projection – one in New South Wales and one in Queensland. Essential also had leadership ratings this week, and while the weak result for Bill Shorten hasn’t made too much difference to the poll aggregate reading, the difference is sufficient to put Malcolm Turnbull back in the lead on net approval.
‘ But it is not yet enough to stop us reaching 450 PPM (and 500 PPM soon after) unless we also do something about the other 50%..’
Get over that idea. Of course we can’t do a single thing to stop getting to 450 PPM. We’ve well and truly missed that boat.
And no, ‘we’ can’t do anything to stop it, either. Australia goes 100% renewable, the rest of the world does less; we’re still stuffed.
The action has to be global. That way, noone has to go 100% renewable (though it would be nice if everyone did, just like it would be nice if we achieved world peace and put an end to hunger) and we can still slow, then stop, then reverse global warming (each step of that is measured in decades).
We don’t need to eliminate coal burning power stations tomorrow (see ‘nice’ above). We need to decrease our emissions.
The environment doesn’t care how we do that. If we can do that by decreasing our reliance on fossil fuels, eventually phasing them out altogether, that’s fine.
trog sorrenson @ #1048 Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 10:49 am
Sorry, no it wasn’t. You may be right about the year (still not going to happen) but you didn’t include all the other provisos you are now claiming. You were quite definitive – this was going to happen.
Also, you need to learn the difference between exponential growth and logistics growth. You are making the same mistake that Tony Seba makes in the video BK posted last nigh, where he claims that we could be 100% solar in 14 years. In fact, since you both make many of the same basic mistakes, I wonder if this is where you got your ideas from originally?
The one thing Shelton does not appear to do is show any ‘Christian’ sympathy for the seriously injured driver.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/investigation-into-australian-christian-lobby-car-fire-stalled-due-to-drivers-medical-condition-20170216-gueiga.html
P1,
While Seba’s 100% in 14 years may well prove to be an overestimation, the problem I see with your position is you are AT&T and are underestimating the impact of new technologies.
P1
Solar will likely produce energy sufficient to fuel all electricity and transport by 2030 – or earlier. This is not the same as saying that there will be no fossil fuel powered plant left in the system – it takes time to replace.
e.g. All new cars sold by 2025 will probably be electric self driving, but it will still take 20 years to replace even the majority of the current fleet.
A lot of the cheap new solar energy will be put to other purposes – such as desalination.
Tony Seba is on the right track, although a lot of his material is old and has under estimated such as the rapidity in price drop for solar pv.
Solar pv auctions have been conducted recently for as little as 3c/Kw. This is half what Seba was projecting for this year.
zoomster
Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 8:14 am
Sorry, that’s my first brief advocating to the Victorian Labor party that all brown coal stations be closed down.
Had to heavily modify it, alas, to get it through the policy process.
And that is where we are at; reality is overtaking policy. Net result we need stuff to smooth the transition and it is not happening.
The brown coal stations are old; there are no more being built. If Victoria is to be energy self sufficient as they close down we need to get on with it.
Disruption of the energy market has already started. People need to understand this and move on.
Trog Sorrenson
Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 11:15 am
Disruption of the energy market has already started. People need to understand this and move on.
That is exactly right. I hope this railway line Queensland is building can be used for something other than transporting coal.
People still talking up fixed four year terms while ignoring the elephant in the room.
“Under the plan early elections could still occur by the government calling a double dissolution, a successful motion of no confidence, or through a provision that would allow the governor general to act in accordance with constitutional conventions in dissolving parliament.”
If the criteria for calling a double dissolution election is simply, the PM asking for one, then we don’t have fixed terms even if we vote to enforce fixed terms.
We need to change a DD so that it can only be called for essential bills, where the country is ungovernable otherwise. A DD is not to dredge up some old union busting stuff that hadn’t been discussed in years or relevant in decades. And then, after the election, Turnbull was willing and able to negotiate away any of the content of the bill (except the name) with a crossbench that was more hostile than the prior. There’s no point fixing normal election timing until we fix DD elections.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/21/fixed-four-year-parliamentary-terms-would-end-phoney-war-over-election-timing-liberal-mp-says
P1 isn’t close enough to the industry to see what is being engineered and what is being proposed. When you consider where the Liberal party is at it really is weird.
Did anyone hear this? I thought they agreed on the need to massage negative gearing (although defeated by other MPs)
VE – I don’t think we need any change. Agree with you on the DD issue. First thing any govt will do will be to get a trigger in its back pocket (to mix metaphors)
Should have added: if PM and Treasurer are at odds, what hope for a sensible budget.
zoomster @ #1051 Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 10:55 am
Quite likely. Avoiding 450 will be very, very hard, if not impossible – but you can’t use that as an excuse, because avoiding 500 is feasible – provided we act now.
The three biggest impediments to effective action are (a) not believing anything needs to be done because global warming is not happening (the alt-right view), (b) not believing anything effective can be done (which seems to be an increasingly common centrist view); and (c) not believing anything needs to be done because technology and the markets will save us anyway (the alt-left view).
Seriously? Are you really in the camp of the “we can’t do it alone, so let’s not bother …” – I thought most sensible people got over this furphy years ago. There are at least three actions we can take now that will have a genuinely profound impact on global emissions:
1. Stop exporting coal
2. Replace our own coal use with gas ASAP
3. Export more uranium to those who can use it
Yes, but we need to decrease them faster than is currently planned. As does the rest of the world. The Paris agreement allows some of the world’s biggest emitters to increase emissions, not decrease them.
Exactly – the environment doesn’t care how, but it does care when. For us, gas is a faster way to reduce emissions than relying on renewables alone (of course they will be in the mix, but they cannot do it all because we have left it so late to get started) – but gas plants can be built at utility scale quickly. For the rest of the world the fastest method is a mix of gas, nuclear and renewables (it is of course ironic many places are now far in advance of us on renewables, including China).
Labor’s policy of 50% renewables is a good start, and it should be achievable – but it literally only goes half way!
Good morning all,
Interesting how some commentators are now saying labor has back flipped again and is now once again supporting the 50% target.
Labor has been consistent with its policy all along and those who think otherwise have simply followed MSM bull shit.
With regard to the verbs being nouns and nouns into verbs discussion the biggest pain in the arse for me is the turning of the noun medal into a verb.
Eg ” Australian swimmers hope to medal at the Olympics ”
For some reason it annoys the be jezus out of me but then I am a grumpy Ol man.
Cheers.
frednk @ #1060 Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 11:26 am
What are you talking about? This is not an engineering problem – we have the technologies we need, we just need to use them, and stop constantly arguing that we should instead just wait till better stuff comes along.
doyley @ #1065 Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 11:32 am
Yes, I had the same thought. The RenewEconomy website takes every potshot at Labor it can – even if it has to make stuff up to do so.
What sort of a dog’s breakfast of a Senate would we end up with if a Prime Minister could call a Double Dissolution of Parliament on a whim, whenever they felt like it!?! It’s bad enough as it is now with One Notion Senators being elected on half the number of votes needed normally!
Yes, I had the same thought. The RenewEconomy website takes every potshot at Labor it can – even if it has to make stuff up to do so.
Which is why the Green Trog turns to it so readily for his talking points. 🙂
trog sorrenson @ #1057 Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 11:15 am
Another “let’s do nothing” post from you?
This is hardly the fastest way to a low carbon future, as it means building new gas plants.
Easier and cheaper to simply replace coal with solar plus storage.
Doyley
It’s a wonderful thing to come to PB and discover there are people who think the same as I do. But the “language is always changing” fraternity dismiss us with a wave of the hand.
@ Cat – the PM CAN call a DD pretty much whenever he wants. Put an insignificant bill forward twice, with a small waiting period. Then with a straight face, tell the GG that that bill is vital for the future of the country. The GG is required to accept the PM’s word on this, so they call a DD.
trog sorrenson @ #1055 Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 11:13 am
All nonsense, of course. But at least we now know where you get it from.
So one of Morrison’s staffers was an unsuccessful applicant for the ABA job?
I think we now know why Morrison’s so pissed off. He was hoping to have someone on the inside that he could push around.
Now he has to deal with a woman he can’t push around. And a Labor woman at that.
Oh, the horror!
Your proposal to build more fossil fuel (gas) plants is as close to “do nothing” as I can think of. Sit back, wring your hands about climate change, and then propose a status quo solution.
Building more solar/wind plus storage is the proactive way to go.
trog sorrenson @ #1071 Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 11:37 am
Neither easier, cheaper nor faster. But other than these minor points, you are 100% correct.
work.
Lizzie,
In my school days I absolutely loved grammar and looked forward to the class every day. I still do love grammar and get annoyed with the standards today. Very old school I am.
Cheers and a great day to you.
Chinda63 – I think that Anna Blyth has made it pretty clear that she’ll do whatever she’s told if the price is right. Morrison is pissed off because the bankers have made it pretty clear they think the libs are on the way out.
Indeed………..
59m
Rhys Muldoon @rhysam
Seems to be happening a lot these days…
Bradd Jaffy @BraddJaffy
Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Vitaly Churkin has died suddenly in New York, Russian Federation confirms
Voice Endeavour,
So really the Fixed 4 Year Terms Bill is an Osteogenesis Imperfecta Bill. It can be broken with the wave of a hand if the PM decides they want to confect an election trigger for a DD? Which basically brings us back to where we are now, with the PM deciding the election date, except they can bring a greater degree of urgency to the proceedings, and the Clown Car has to be made bigger for the new Senators to sit in after the election.
P1
Taking a phrase or sentence by itself, out of context, does not help with sensible discussion.
In the same way, dissing a policy because it only proposes what should be achievable in the timeframe given is pointless, unless you can demonstrate that 100% renewables is achievable in the same timeframe – and I thought your basic contention is that it isn’t.
A target is a target; you aim to get there, you make it achievable so you have no excuse not to get there. If you exceed it, that’s great.
Having a target you know isn’t achievable may be laudable, but it’s pointless.
AB11,
I also think Anna Bligh was chosen by the Bankers because they think the Coalition are on the way out the door at the next election. She will be their bridge to the inner sanctum of the new federal government.
trog sorrenson @ #1076 Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 11:42 am
Replacing coal with gas reduces our C02 emissions by 50%. And gas fired power plants are cheaper and faster than all other technologies at utility scale.
By all means knock yourself out building as much wind and solar as you can … then in 10 years time, we can see which has contributed most to C02 emission reduction (hint: it will not be solar or wind).
lizzie
Sorry, I do! Shakespeare did exactly what jenauthor is complaining about, and added many useful words to the language as a result.
That’s pretty much it, Cat.
zoomster @ #1083 Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 11:51 am
Yes, my contention is that 100% renewables is not achievable in the necessary timeframe – neither in Australia nor globally. My other contention is that 50% renewables for Australia – while achievable – is not enough, and more can easily be done both fast and economically. And if it can be done, why are we not doing it?
Put simply, if we aimed for both 50% renewables, but also replacing the other 50% (which, lets face it, is mostly brown coal) with gas, we could achieve not just a 50% reduction in emissions, but more like a 75% reduction (not quite of course, because we already have some gas).
And we could do it in 10 years.
Now that’s a policy!
“which, lets face it, is mostly brown coal”
Sorry – remove the word “brown”.
Zoomster
I know your attitude to Shakespeare. 🙂
But he was writing at a time when fewer people were literate and the language was in a state of flux.
Innovative language I enjoy. I read Time magazine every week, back in the fifties, and found their different use of words rather exciting.
But … usage which just arises from the mistakes of sportspeople and their commentators are simply mistakes and when they are taken up by everyone else, I dislike it.
I have spent quite a lot of my life editing the writing of others, trying to mine their meaning to make it clear to other readers. Therefore I am sensitised to sloppiness.
Essendon accident.
When will Trump blame this on terrorism?
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/21/more-than-70-believe-coalition-not-doing-enough-on-energy-poll?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+AUS+v1+-+AUS+morning+mail+callout&utm_term=214220&subid=10875476&CMP=ema_632
lizzie @ #1072 Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 11:39 am
You will no doubt appreciate the reintroduction of things like grammar int the NSW HSC English course. 😀
bemused @ #1093 Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 12:17 pm
My knowledge and respect for grammar ONLY came from my study of French and Latin for three and four years respectively. I abhorred the “English” subject,
Player One
Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 11:33 am
frednk @ #1060 Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 11:26 am
P1 isn’t close enough to the industry to see what is being engineered and what is being proposed. When you consider where the Liberal party is at it really is weird.
What are you talking about? This is not an engineering problem – we have the technologies we need, we just need to use them, and stop constantly arguing that we should instead just wait till better stuff comes along.
No mate; what is on the drawing board to be built; it is all happening like it or not. Arguing for gas; you are back in the 2010 at best. Been personally involved in a couple of gas project; not going to happen no more; it’s over. Solar and wind is where it is at.
lizzie
Language is always in a state of flux!
P1
Until it is built it is an engineering problem.
As for grammarians, you do know that grammar text books not only disagree amongst themselves, but are almost always (I don’t know of any exceptions, but am allowing for them) self contradictory?
The media is hyper sensitive to any change of messaging by Labor.
On renewables last week Labor was sloppy, untidy call it what you want, while I wasn’t following it too closely, I couldn’t see a change in the previous ‘goal’ of 50%by 2030, just different terminology.
The GG on Friday had a banner headline on a Labor retreat.
Other media e.g the Guardian was similar.
Also the Coalition is heavily into digging up old quotes by Labor, an example we know of is Shorten’s comments on company tax cuts.
IIRC these were in the context of a mining tax, carbon tax and debt less than it is now.
No mention of the Coalition voting against the bill.
I feel a party vote against a bill is more significant than a comment.
Player One
Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 11:51 am
…
(hint: it will not be solar or wind).
Oh yes it will because that is what is getting built.