A new sandpit for long side discussions, conspiracy theories, idees fixes and so on.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
A new sandpit for long side discussions, conspiracy theories, idees fixes and so on.
John Quiggin 
When the LNP want to contribute to a pointless and unnecessary war in Iraq, they have no trouble finding half a billion a year.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/16/tony-abbott-military-action-against-isis-cost-half-billion-dollars-year
When it comes to fighting climate change and bush-fires, Scott Morrison can’t find more than a few paltry tens of millions of dollars for a country of the vastness of Australia.
Australia needs a national professional wild-fire fighting service, like Canada has for example. The days that this daunting task can be left to volunteers putting their own lives and livelihoods on the line are well and truly over. Equally, we need a national water-bombing air wing and all military transports also need to be able to be converted to water-bombing and be able to convert back to military transport at need. Such conversion kits already exist. If Morrison had any imagination at all, any planning ability and any concern for the real dangers Australians face, he would pursue these policies. But he has none of these qualities. He wants to fluff about with religious rights (while ignoring human rights anyway).
Ikonoclast, I think forest fire management involves much more than fire-fighting. Many of the large fires currently burning will burn themselves out over the coming months. Forest fire efforts will not be particularly effective in causing this. And linking the climate change policies of the Morrison Government to the current fires is obviously pure nonsense – these policies have zero effect on the incidence of fires in Australia which are a consequence of high fuel loads and dry conditions that are possibly globally determined – though the precise effects of higher temperatures caused by global warming on rainfall are not as yet clear.
Maybe it can be argued that the deceit that these forest fires are being caused by less than enthusiastic climate policies of the Morrison Government is useful in the sense that this vivid, though deceptive, claim does make people think about the issue of climate policy and push for more action. Compounding this with some morally indignant verbiage might intensify the value of such deceit. The ends might then justify the means.
The Age, for example, sees this deception as a gun at the head of the Morrison Government.
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/morrison-suddenly-risks-frittering-away-his-miracle-election-win-20191227-p53n5y.html
My assumption, however, is that, whatever the virtue of a policy position, it is better to buttress it with truthful claims than obvious falsehoods. This is also likely to yield better policies since the premises are factually based.
I think we need policies that will limit forest fires to being much more local events through controlled burnoffs and through having much more cleared areas in forest reserves. At the same time, biodiversity corridors need to be selectively established to foster migratory movements of flora and fauna in response both to longer-term climate issues and to enable retreat from the immediate effects of forest fires. These are not, in the main, fire-fighting issues but anticipatory policies that seek to offset the biodiversity damages that the inevitable bushfires of the future will cause.
I don’t understand how an Australian could say that, all else equal, higher temperatures don’t result in greater bushfire risk. It simply blows my mind. It’s like finding out someone who has lived in Australia all their life doesn’t know that kangaroos have pouches or that Japan was an enemy in World War 2.
The average temperature increase over the past century in Australia has been around 1.5 degrees according to the BOM. To think that a day in which the mean temperature is 25 degrees not have a greater fire risk than one where the mean temperature is 23.5 degrees to me seems either nuts or the just the bald faced lie of someone who would rather see (parts) of the world burn than take action on climate change.
Harry, your reply to Ikon is either disingenuous or your talking about your opinion, not what Ikon stated… Harry said “Ikonoclast, I think forest fire management involves much more than fire-fighting.”. Wow.
Why did you state that as your opening para because it seeems derogatory as to what was written. Imo.
Ikon mentioned the differnce in funding of war vs “When it comes to fighting climate change and bush-fires,”. Do you have anything to say on this point Harry?
I posted something similar re funding of $18m for water bombers vs funding re terrorism.
Ikon then goes on to promote, rightly so imo, that we need;
– professionals and an example
– war bombers [ death ] able to be converted to water bombers [ life ]. Eminently sensible.
Ikon finishes with “He [ Morrison ] wants to fluff about with religious rights (while ignoring human rights anyway).”. Which again in my opinion if researched, would be found to be objective fact.
Can you point out in your reply where you engaged with Ikon, relevant to what he actually stated please Harry?
Harry said “And linking the climate change policies of the Morrison Government to the current fires is obviously pure nonsense”.
Please cite something re pure nonsense or it is off the the climate denialists grand bargin – Open forum for climate denialism
1.n% or 3.n% is our contribution to co2e. Not nonesense.
Harry said; “this vivid, though deceptive, claim”… cite something about “climate change policies of the Morrison Government” because, like our contribution to climate change, citing “climate change policies of the Morrison Government” IS, relatively, nonesense and a ” vivid, though deceptive, claim “. No deceptive greenies here:
AFR: – “Scott Morrison’s coal-fired climate hypocrisy”
News ltd: – “Scott Morrison: No change to climate policy amid bushfire crisis”
“Australia ranks last for the indicator on current levels in the GHG Emissions category. Further, experts observe that the government is playing an increasingly regressive force in international negotiations.”
https://www.germanwatch.org/en/17452
Harry, just use the Morrison defence:-
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister just on climate change, you said there’s a global effort, but Australia ranks last in the world on climate policy in a new global index. Isn’t that an indictment of your Government’s response?
PRIME MINISTER: No, I completely reject that report. We don’t accept that.
JOURNALIST: You don’t accept the report?
PRIME MINISTER: No.
JOURNALIST: Why not?
PRIME MINISTER: Because I don’t think it’s credible.”
It is difficult, KT2, to respond to a free association rave but I will have a go.
My point was that there is a lot more to dealing with forest fire management than fighting forest fires. There is the issue of fuel load management and of taking steps to limit the spread of fires. These are core issues since, as I point out, fire-fighting efforts are often not particularly effective. I don’t care if you don’t think that “engages” or not. I think it is a valid argument and it bears on what Iconoclast was saying.
To identify the view that the current fires are not the product of the climate policies of the Morrison Government is not “climate denialism”. It is, if anything, stating the bleeding obvious. Constantly linking the fires with the climate policies of the current government is failing to deal with what sre obviously the real issues associated with a significant problem. The stupidity is that by misfocusing the analysis it leaves the environment wide open for further bouts of dramatic destruction. It is, to make it country simple, destructive stupidity.
Harry,
With respect, your argument is complete bullshit.
Read the findings from the Canberra fires.
Early intervention and communications were critical.
The govt needs to accept that these fires are extraordinary, that climate change has increased the risk of fire and that they need to make an adequate response.
If they aren’t up to the task then step aside.
On a different subject which should maybe be in the Monday Message board and not here.
Is this fake news? Or, is it partially fake news? If it is partially fake which part is fake?
If it is all or partly fake what is the motive? I mean how do the people responsible for this report being reported hope to decieve us? Does spreading false fear, or false hope seem like a plausible explination? Why is this happening at these locations?
https://www.businessinsider.com/giant-drone-swarm-mystery-in-colorado-nebraska-skies-2019-12?r=DE&IR=T
Harry Clarke,
I agree that there is a lot more to dealing with forest fire management than fighting forest fires. However, Scott Morrison and his government appear to be absent on all fronts. There’s no initiative coming from them at all. There have been a couple of reactive measures like reimbursing volunteers for lost earnings. There have been no statements like:
(1) We will professionalize forest fire fighting nationally.
(2) We will allocate new resources to forest management.
(3) We will fund new CSIRO studies on forest management and fire management.
(4) We will implement new national development standards to keep human structures/infrastructures and forests apart.
(5) We will start taking climate change seriously. The scientists are saying climate change is already intensifying these events. We will start listening to them because if we don’t the future will very likely get even worse.
None of these statements are coming from the government. The Morrison government is not “to blame” for these current fires but it is already showing that it will be to blame for failing to take the actions necessary to safeguard Australians in future. Being “not to blame” for something doesn’t mean you don’t have a duty to respond. The casualty doctor is not blame when a drunk driver hits a pedestrian. He is to blame if he sits on his ass and doesn’t treat the incoming patient. The Morrison government is sitting on its ass and doing absolutely nothing. I’ve never seen such a do-nothing government. What are they there for? Oh, I forgot, they are there to protect corporate profits and nothing else.
I bet that if I had all the resources at my disposal that the Australian or the US military have at their disposal I could come up with a successful plan (successful in the sense that no one would die as a result of the implimintation of the plan) which would reduce the fossil fuel consumption of the nation by 66% the first year that it is implemented. That would bring it to 33% of what it had been one year previously. But the plan would not stop there. It would reduce the fossil fuel consumption another 2/3rds in the second year. That would leave it at 11% of what it had been 2 years before. Then just for good measure it would reduce it another 2/3s in the 3rd year that would leave it at just under 4% of what it had been 3 years earier. The nation would have to be prepared to survive on this level of fossil
fuels indefinately.
Then I would the use of 4% of the total fossil fuel consumption from three years before for the production of solar panels. The next year that 4% would be reduced to 2% then 1% the year after that. These solar panels would then have to produce the power to make more solar panels which would eventually have to start providing the energy for those 3.63% percent of fossil fuels that were left and start to increase the total amount of available electrical power to begin to prepare for the collapse of the biosphere to be able to carry on human life for perhaps another decade with the hope that in that decade we humans will be rescued from our stupidity by an alien life form.
But I will obviously not ever be given the opportunity to fully develope this plan because that would make those who had the chance to do so and failed to do so look like complete idiots. They are not about to give me the chance to make them look like complete idiots because they know beyone any shadow of a doubt that I would be completely successful if such an opportunity were given to me.
The people who are in control would rather destroy the world than look bad to those whose admiration that they crave. The absolute worse outcome would be to allow someone with no pedigree what so ever make them look bad.
My potential as of yet undeveloped plan alone will not save the world. It is to late for that. But there is a slim slim tiny chance that in combination with other factors, such as being rescued by a more intellegent life form that humanity could be saved. But if I have any say in the matter and such a life form appears I will tell them to go the fuck home unless they can save all of us. Because a solution that saves those that were the most guilty while sacrificing those that were the most innocent is really no solution at all.
I am going to tell a true story. This story could just be a minor coincidence in a vast universe. Or it could be minor evidence of a vast conspiracy outside of a tiny computer simulation which is located inside of a vast universe.
It was about 1 year ago that I went down to the local Lidl grocery store. When I came out an old German couple asked me if I had jumper cables because their car would not start. I told them that unfortunately I did not have a jumper cables in my car and I drove home. Getting asked to help jump start someones car is something that happens perhaps once in a decade.
The next day I was driving to the US military grocery store, called a commissary, on Haineberg Housing Area in Wiesbaden. After passing through the gate and making a left had turn and then a right hand turn, one of three possible ways to drive to the commissary, I was pulled over by a military policewoman who was parked along side the road in front of me. She asked me if I could give this soldier who was standing next to her a jump start for his car. I said that I do not have any jumper cables. The young soldier said, I have some right here on my front seat. I then asked the MP why she did not use her MP vehicle to jump start the car. She said the due to the amount of electonics on an MP vehicle they are not allowed to use them to jump start cars.
So I was a bit unhappy about needing to give some aid and comfort to the enemy. But I figured not to do it might also carry unseen risks which could be easily avoided by one tiny act of treason. I allowed my vehicle to be used to jump start his car. I was wondering if this situation had been set up. This was the first time in my life that I had been asked to jump start a vehicle twice in two days. If these events were connected by a script what was the purpose of it? One year latter it seems to just be a minor coincidence in a vast universe. But I can not help but wonder if there was coordination between some Germans and some Americans in the military to pull this off. Or is it that some intellegnce unit at another level or a even higher level wants to create a false impression that such coordination exists?
What good does that do, unless there is a plan, that high levels of intellegence have that might work if people start cooperating over forbiden lines.
to reach these difficult goals might require that everyone has to eat raw carrots, celery, sweet potatos, and oats quite often. Uncooked (rolled) oats with a bit of yougurt or milk, and some cinnamon and a bit of sugar might end up being a a typical birthday cake, or what you celebrate your 50th anniversary with.
But those in charge are a bunch of sissys. They would never dream of being confronted with such luxury.
I want all Australians to know that our New York Property Developer stands ready to send you millions of rakes to help you prevent forest fire disasters.
mamikie – excellent, thanks the don.
We need to repurpose the rakes…
“To rake someone over the coals or to haul someone over the coals means to reprimand them severely, to chastise them in an angry manner, using insult and shame in order to cut them to the quick. One may be raked over the coals or hauled over the coals for making a mistake or for perpetrating something intentionally.
…” terms rake over the coals and haul over the coalshave ominous etymologies, as they refer to events that literally occurred. The terms are inspired by a certain torture that was applied to heretics in the Middle Ages, involving dragging the prisoner bodily over a bed of red-hot coals. An example from the mid-1500s: “S. Augustine, that knewe best how to fetche an heretike ouer the coles.”
Glad I’m in the 21C.
Harry on deceptive claims. This is tiresome. We all know that no individual firefighter puts out fires, that no individual LNP voter is responsible for the awful government we have, that no individual molecule of CO2 is responsible for global warming etc. No one makes this kind of argument, except to defend individual wrongdoing/shirking etc.
Yes that is true. People have to understand what is going to be expected of them and from them n the future. It (the future if we want all of us to survive) will be a lot like being under siege at Corregidor except that there will not be frequent artillary barrages landing on us. Anything less and the innocent die first. And if the innocent die first I myself will be praying for a biosphere collapse so that we all have to follow them out. That means everyone’s children and grandchildren. That might make me a Hitler or Stalin like charachter in the eyes of some.
But keep in mind I know that in some people’s eyes Hitler and Stalin were exemplary figures. You know tha one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter kind of thing. The conflicts of life never get permanently resolved because permanent resolution requires permanent fixed definitions of things like borders and ultimate responsibity that can not be permanently defined because an unchanging solution will eventually result in absurdity. But not having a temporaty solution results in absurdity too.
A good example is that in the 21st Century the idea of Catalonian independence is the biggesgt crock of shit that I have heard in more than 100 years. But independence for occupied Ireland in the 21st century would be a quiet resonable idea.
John Quiggin, quote “No one makes this kind of argument, except to defend individual wrongdoing/shirking etc.”
I didn’t make any of the claims you mention in your inaccurate attempted parody.
I did say that the bushfires were not caused by Australia’s climate change policies. That is so obviously correct that it is almost trite to point it out.
I also said that in the mix of policies that are designed to address the current fire catastrophe that anticipatory policies designed to limit the spread of fire and to limit the destruction of biodiversity are important. Also obviously true. Firefighting efforts are an imperfect means for limiting the damage caused by large established fires.
To suggest that I make these claims to “defend wrongdoing” is just offensive and inaccurate. There is no attempt to defend anyone in either of these claims but you suggest this is the ONLY reason for making them.
This blog has been a public policy discussion arena. If the claim is put forward that the key element in addressing forest fire problems in Australia is for the Federal Government to strengthen its climate policy stance then it is reasonable to point out that this claim is foolish and unhelpful. That policy will not lead to an improvement in Australian bushfire management. The policies I suggest have a better chance of being effective.
Harry Clarke:
It is called mindset. Think about it.
The Coalitions climate policy is ,and always has been, identical with that which is causing our crisis – it is part of the same body not separable from it. Therefore this government is directly responsible for this crisis – every part of it, fully responsible. Without climate change this would be another bad fire season not a national crisis. Forests are fuel load ,they cannot be cleared. Load reduction fires are tricky and are already being carried out . Giving land owners the right to start fires at will is condoning arson. Blaming ‘green tape’ is not the answer.
Curt – the jumper leads sounds like (but may not have been) a coincidence . Remember ,these are bound to happen – they will . Best to move on – its good to keep an open mind , but not too open , its a balancing act.
Sunshine, Yes it was probably a coincindence. After all what could have possibly been gained after going through all of that trouble if it had been a scripted event.
Another interesting event occured as I was walking home a few days ago.
I was walking along this street that runs along a power substation that transfers the power from long distance cables to the short distance lines. I turned off the street and started walking up hill on a paved way that is something less than a street but wider than a sidewalk. As I turned the corner a man on a bicycle started to come down the hill. He was picking up speed and then he suddenly veered to his left and rode smack in to the chain link fence that ran along the side of someone’s back yard. He was going fast enough to have caused quite a bit of damage to the fence.
I was not far away so I asked him if he was injured. He replied that he was fine, but that his brakes had failed and that is why he had to steer in to the chain link fence. That made sense. On the other side was a fence made of a much higher gauge of steel. If he would have continued down the hill he would have picked up even more speed and then slamed up against a high security steel fence which would have been like hitting a brick wall.
After learning that he was all right we exchanged holiday greetings and went our seperate ways.
But after reaching the top of the hill I had to wonder is that guy in a good marriage or does he have an unhappy wife. The guy appeared to me to be in his mid 50s and he was riding what was apparently an unsafe bike without a a helmet. Was he unaware that it was unsafe because he stole it? Or was his wife counting on him not wearing a helmet and crashing in to the high securtiy fence at the bottom of the hill? Or am I just making this story up because it involves a subject, in this case a man, being overthrown? Everyone knows that I love stories about something being overthrown.
The simulation speaks. ^^
Ikon, and I said “He is to blame if he sits on his ass and doesn’t treat the incoming patient. ”
Free association rant! Aka yiur first reply to Ikon as younreplied with your free associations. We are in the same boat Harry.
Your words and restrained tone make your arguments superficially plausible [ poli speak] in your mind, not others. See linked graph.
Harry’s policy;
“I think we need policies that will limit forest fires [ cum’on Harry -rainforest burning] to being much more local events through controlled burnoffs [no corridors then?] and through having much more cleared areas in forest reserves. [We reserved a bit of forest so we could point and say ‘forest!’.] ”
Limit bush fires to a locality – much more cleared areas – at odds with…
“At the same time, biodiversity corridors need to be selectively established to foster migratory movements of flora and fauna in response both to longer-term climate issues ”
We had corridors! They WERE called ‘the bush’! But the migratory birds and bogongs are already 80-98% effected. As are the bugs. So we will…
– cut down forest, (achieved already by fires)
– put in corridors of forest – the reverse already achieved by fires
– leaving a confined refuge making extinction a sure thing as the animals retreat to corridor and are burnt by fire with no where to go as we cleared more trees,
– and the flora and fauna which evolved only to a bioregion becuse – climate – and has to now withstand cleared forest, cleared settlements, back burning and high temps, deeper droughts and dumping rain.
. ..”and to enable retreat from the immediate effects of forest fires.”… where is that place called Retreat?
Harry, at some point in time after years of drought 50yrs hence at +4 deg C (Nordhaus) your policy will also go up in smoke, unless we truely tackle climate change.
“These are not, in the main, fire-fighting issues but anticipatory policies that seek to offset the biodiversity damages that the inevitable bushfires of the future will cause.” **are already 80-98% effected. Your ideas will lead to extinction of certain species. Been here. Done that.
Anticipatory??? Ket us pick as a starting point 1989 in Qld! 30+ years to “anticipate”. But what we need is NOT anticipation ( self fullfilling prophesies).
1989 Qld govt. Harry – “To delay examination of strategies for Queensland under such conditions until the technical arguments are fully resolved, could unnecessarily increase the state’s economic vulnerability to decisions taken elsewhere.”
“Mr Ahern and his cabinet agreed to spend $1.5 million over four years to develop a strategy to respond to international action, collect data on sea level rises and climate monitoring, and assist the CSIRO with further studies.” (Anyone able to find link to this study?)
https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-01/queensland-three-premiers-climate-change-warning-1989-cabinet/11815340
“that anticipatory policies designed to limit the spread of fire and to limit the destruction of biodiversity are important.”
30% already endangered koalas gone. 200 yrs to recharge local aquifers near me. NO ANTICIPATORY POLICY WILL FIX THIS in anything like an “appropriate” human time frame – geological yes.
Your great grand kids will be saying “yeh great grandad said an anticipatory policy designed to limit the spread of fire and destruction of biodiversity were appropriate in 2020, but the koalas went extinct in the wild anyway”. Fix the graph which shows greenhouse gases leaping vertically from the x axis compared to the last couple thousand or so years. This is what is in need of a policy Harry…
https://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/sites/enr/files/styles/horizontal_large/public/2000years.jpg?itok=kwpfm4IC
Anticipatory – “anticipatory policies”
“That policy will not lead to an improvement in Australian bushfire management.” Finally a correct statement.
Treat the cause not the symptoms. I hope I can say many here are trying to say something like “Treat. The. Cause!”.
All else is just humans virtue / vice signalling and justifying bau.
See graph. Your anticipatory policies, are just a slap in the face to every concerned citzen, scientist and fire fighter – imho.
sunshine said “Giving land owners the right to start fires at will is condoning arson.” Yes sunshine. We have an anticipatory policy for arsonists already Harry.
Harry said “John Quiggin, quote “No one makes this kind of argument, except to defend individual wrongdoing/shirking etc.”
I didn’t make any of the claims you mention in your inaccurate attempted parody.”
Where is the parody? It is as Poselequestion says “It is called mindset” . We cant change yours and thanks for listening. See graph.
THE GRAPH…
Risk
FEBRUARY 14, 2009
JOHN QUIGGIN
…”Risk and uncertainty attend everything we do. However carefully we plan, our projects may be derailed by unforeseen contingencies. But we don’t always plan carefully. And, all too frequently, we dismiss ‘worst case scenarios’ as being too awful to think about, rather than carefully considering whether or not they can happen and how to prevent them.
“Even when the problems are evident, as with climate change, we shrink from the necessary remedies. It all seems too hard, and there are so many ways to dodge the issue: from the allegedly hardheaded political calculations of professional compromisers to the “Let George do it” irresponsibility of climate laggards to the delusional belief that the whole problem has been made up by grant-grubbing scientists or evil UN bureaucrats.
Matter are even worse when several intractable problems are intertwined. “…
https://johnquiggin.com/2009/02/14/risk/
Quiggin, John
The importance of ‘extremely unlikely’ events: tail risk and the costs of climate change
Abstract
“In assessing the risks associated with climate change, ‘tail risks’ (low-probability extreme events) often play a much larger role than their probability alone might indicate. There are three main reasons for this: the linear relationship between sensitivity and warming; the convexity of the damage function; and the concavity of the utility function. Ignoring the upper tail of the distribution of possible outcomes will result in serious underestimates of the social cost of carbon dioxide (CO) emissions and of the socially optimal price for emissions.”
Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ERA 2010, 2012, 2015, 2018 Journal(s) Listed)
ISSN1467-84891364-985X
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.12238
Grant, Simon, Quiggin, John
“Inductive reasoning about unawareness
…”We show that, for the standard modal-logical interpretations of belief and awareness, a player cannot believe there exist propositions of which he is unaware. Nevertheless, we argue that a boundedly rational individual may regard the possibility that there exist propositions of which she is unaware as being supported by inductive reasoning, based on past experience and consideration of the limited awareness of others.”…
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00199-012-0734-y
So JQ decides to open this blog to the denialists and – surprise – Harry posts some denialist waffle which prompts others into arguing the various points with him. Why bother? Harry and his fellow flat-earthers will never concede any rational point; they’ll burn in their own homes and blame, say, the Greens, rather than admit they might be wrong.
JQ, Australia already has a nationwide publication dedicated to promulgating views like Harry’s as verifiable fact. I’m not convinced you need to give them yet another outlet to spout their nonsense.
Jandra, thanks for the reminder, and blunt assessment.
More lies, (“climate denialist”, “flat earther”) and a real low from the propounder of these manifestly false deceits that non-believers in obvious nonsense (specifically, that ScoMo caused the bushfires) should be banned from even commenting here. Believe in the ridiculous or you should be banned!
FYI Jandra I have been publishing papers on climate since 1990 and have, since that time, recognized the reality of human-caused climate change/ I have argued publicly for strong policies to address it. I just don’t go along with group-think based on obvious falsehoods.
Your totalitarian viewpoint, based on these falsehoods, is disturbing.
Michael Mann is in Sydney, studying the link between climate change and extreme weather events.
He is quite clear about it, we have to vote out fossil fuelled politicians and vote in people who will act. Strangely NSW young Libs are supportive of this, saying that;
“Climate change is a phenomenon that will affect our generation’s future. Intergenerational equity requires that governments take the challenge seriously now for the sake of our generation.”
It wasn’t that long ago that the whaling industry argued that a ban on whaling would be a loss of jobs and specifically a hit to the regional community of Albany. Today whale watching is a multi $M business spread around the Australian coastline.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/02/australia-your-country-is-burning-dangerous-climate-change-is-here-with-you-now
Harry, from what I have read, you say you support action on climate change while at the same time supporting Australian coal exports. The logic of running these two arguments side by side quite escapes me. I believe that you are genuine and in good faith in both arenas from your analytical perspective. However, due to your particular brand of economics education it seems you do not understand the fundamental contradictions in your position. And you seem to rate empirical facts below financial “facts” which latter are really fictive human constructs.
We are now on the cusp of the crisis which climate scientists predicted. We are seeing what might be termed a phase change or a discontinuity in the climate system. The system is destablizing and heading towards a more extreme and chaotic phase. This is happening more rapidly than even the most concerned or “alarmist” scientists predicted. It is the beginning of the climate crisis. To continue with business as usual is strongly contra-indicated.
The rapid phase-out of exporting and burning coal (then oil, then gas) is now critical. This will entail considerable economic costs. But doing nothing will inflict far greater costs on Australia. The argument that we (Australia) contribute little to global warming is disingenuous. Every contribution counts. Otherwise, governments would accept the argument from each individual PAYE tax payer that “I contribute little to overall taxes so it doesn’t matter if I don’t pay my tax.” The fact is many small contributions add up to a big number so each and every small contribution counts; negatively in the case of CO2 emissions.
Australia indeed runs the risk of becoming a global pariah if we persist in the mass mining and export of coal. It is quite feasible that we could have trade sanctions imposed on us by more climate aware polities like the EU. To be in phase, locked in and dependent economically and ideologically on this issue (coal burning) with totalitarian China is scarcely something to be proud of nor is it good economics or good politics for our future well being.
Do you think it’s possible that if you had opened with reference to the strong policies you favour you might have received a different reaction from the one that you actually received? I think that’s likely. You could have opened by referring to the strong climate change policies you favour and still moved on to make other points afterwards if you wanted to. Is there a particular reason why you didn’t open in that way? Is there a particular reason why you still haven’t given any details of the strong climate change policies you favour? A quick Web search hasn’t turned up anything for me so far.
In addition the Saudi Royal Family needs to be flat out murdered. Perhaps the leaders of some other OPEC nations as well. Dont accuse me of being irresposible for saying that. I didnt say that they should be tortured first.
The fact of the matter is humanity can not have leaders in OPEC countries trying to sabotage the world’s efforts to break its addiction to fossil fuels. That means that the needs of the people caught inside of OPEC have to be met. One of the first needs that they have is to be free of the rulers that they have. Dont call me a unfair person. The Israeli leadership needs to be flat out murdered as well. And they should be tortured first. The unfaithful lying ********* (insert cussword) deserve the same treatment that should be meeted out to those in the ranks above O6 of the US MIC.
Putin will come around to supporting the my goals on reducing the the use of fossil fuels by two thirds three years in a row. If he doesn´t then he should be murdered too. Same goes for Xi.
As for the Iranians they catch a break. They get a grace period to be able to rebuild Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. But they have to take my advice on how to do it or ELSE. They do not want to see me when I am angry. I look scarier than Jackie Chan when I get angry.
Look don’t be squimish with the truth. The people that I have pointed out are every bit as evil as Saddam Hussein’s sons. In fact that Coulumbian drug lord from the 1990s was a Saint compared with these manipulators who control the institutions of their nations governments.
I might seem harsh. But I am mericiful. Sending them to an early grave will reduce the amount of time that they have to spend in purgatory.
Totalitarian is good when I am the Titan, or is it the Titian or Ty Ranter?
Am I insane? Was I the one who gave the order to build aircraft carriers when the world needed solar panels. Was I the one who not only allowed auto makers to continue making cars when we needed trains and busses? Was I the one who placed orders for sky scrappers when the world needed bamboo houses? Was I the one who placed new orders for airliners when the world needed needed modern computer controled sailing ships?
Knives should be oiled and drawn. But ohhhh the Saudi national guard are so bought and paid for. I bet that there is not even one member of the Saudi National guard who has even ever read one word that i have ever written anywhere. And the Mossad. Don’t get me started. The Mossad is the paymaster for the Saudi national guard. If those jerks want to accuse me of being an Iranian agent they would be full of shit. But if they wanted to accuse me of being an agent for the People’s Front for the Liberation of Palestine I would simply say that they are slow learners.
And one other thing. To reduce the carbon footprint of rebuilding the war torn countries of the middle east the US military is going to have to go back and help. But next time without weapons. With the excpetion of knives and 9mm pistols and 30 rounds of ammo. They are to be treated as POWs. They get to keep a minimal amount of protection as a guarantee that they will not be tortured.
Laugh laugh go ahead and laugh. By the time 2040 rolls aroung you won’t be able to laugh any more.
JQ a yellow card needed…
Curt needs “needs to be flat out xxxxxxxx ” = sin binned at least.
Harry – we understand you get climate change. You imply I / we are deceiptful. Then you say maybe the ends justify the means!
HC …”these policies have zero effect on the incidence of fires in Australia
[1. Technically incorrect – maybe you were deceiptfully saying – “cant be measured”? Infinitesimal?]
which are a consequence of high fuel loads and dry conditions that are possibly globally determined –
[See point 1. ] though the precise effects of higher temperatures caused by global warming on rainfall are not as yet clear.”. Yes, it is harrrrd.
As JD said, the tone and implications of your comment obviously triggered a response. Even from JQ. And J-D (thanks for such a decent generous suggestion for HC].
And cite something HC – please.
I urge us all the review and refresh our ideas re climate v weather… 1% chance [ 1 in 100 yr event ] = 99% chance in 500yrs.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/extreme-event-attribution-climate-versus-weather-blame-game
Hope you like graph.
in the past I have pointed out around 10 industries that are failing terribly to act in a responsible manner.
But now I am going to add a group of people that have up until now escaped my notice. What I mean is that their irresponsible behavior has escaped my notice. That is the leadership of the world’s worker unions.
For example these union leaders represent the workers of one ot the most important industries in terms of its effect on climate change. The auto industry. If the leaders of the unions had a lick of sense they would say OK the Auto manufacturers have to stop making auto just as much as BP, Shell, Total, Esso, Mobil, and Texaco need to stop selling gasoline and diesel fuel. So how do we manage to stop the workers that we represent from killing themselves and us by continuing to do what they do and get them to do some other activity that actually helps mitigate the problems that we face. But has even one Auto Union expert ever said one word about this? Has any labor union leader even taken the lead in pushing fo electic autos? I bet that they haven’t? But even if they had the tactic or strategy if you prefer to call it that of producing electric automobils to replace gasoline ones is grossly irresponsible. Automobils are a symptom of a militarized society.
I have said this before too. That so many people in such important positions of responsibity can be so stupid is proof beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt that I am trapped in a computer simulation that has been programed to produce failure. I have no idea what the purpose of this simulation is.
Because it seems that this simulation has been programed to fail it does not make a lot of sense logically speaking to be angry with the people who are failing. They are just doing their jobs the way those outside of the simulation want them to do their jobs. Such people may even be devoid of self awareness. On the otherhand be trapped in a simulation is quite similar to having a role in a movie to play. To be a good actor one has to react in a way that would be plausible to an audiance. Though the way an actor reacts is largely determined by the script writer and the director. An actor who would not be driven to the point of being willing to kill people at this point is either a bad actor, OR and this is a very important OR they have a pacifist background such as with the Mennonites, Quakers, Amish, Hutteriets, or some such group. As much as I admire them, I think that they are mistaken.
For better or worse, depending upon the point of view of those running the simulation I am not in a position in which I can say to some one like William, hey William go over to Harry’s house and pick up a flask of carbon monoxide and then drive over to Andrew’s house and pick up a hose. Then go to this office in London and release the carbon monoxide in to the office of someone who deserves to be quickly sent to a different simulation. The people who are in a position to do that are going to have to come to the conclusion on their own that those are the types of things that they need to be doing.
They need to decide, shit I have been a sleeper agent simulation administrators all of my life. Now the simulation administrators are trying to activate me on their behalf. Am I going to listen to the to what those administators are trying to tell me? Or am I going to ignore them because if I listen lots of people that I am close to are going to think that I am as crasy as David Berkowitz. The German word Witz means joke in English. Just in case you did not know. After all if you listen to the messages that are being sent to you from sources outside of the simulation you are going to have to have faith that they are actually trying to help humanity and are not just toying with it to amuse themselves as they watch us die.
Very interesting from the slow burn thread:
“NW Tablelands Eucalypt forest that had been subjected to “hazard reduction” 6 weeks previously burned like a furnace late last year. The reason is simple, the trees were already stressed from years of below normal rainfall and had created abnormal amounts of leaf drop and litter.”
That dry conditions would cause more and not less litter sounds a bit odd. Though it may be species dependent. But its pretty clear that dry stressed trees in a very general sense, independent largely of species, are less resistant to fire.
What this means is that fuel reduction is necessary but not sufficient.
Dry conditions produce far more leaf litter, dropped twigs and dropped branches in the period of transition from a wet into an extended dry. I know this from empirical observation of my own property. A wet year encourages growth and the branches and canopies become replete with leaves. As the dry takes hold and extends in duration, the leaves, twigs and small branches fall more or less continuously for many months as the trees shed to prevent further water losses. This is true for Eucalyptus, bunya pines, Brachychitons (kurrajongs, flame trees, bottletrees etc.), Flindersia (crow’s ash, bumpy ash) and other genuses.
Oops I pressed enter too soon. I am “i”.
Well I am virtually commuting now back and forth between Australia and Canada. I decided that I actaully have time to write comments on blogs now in both countries.
Ah yes I notice that the word “of” is missing in my comment above, I should have said, a sleeper agent of the simulation administrators. But hopefully that would have been clear by reading the next sentence.
In anycase with the death of General Suleimani at the hands of US forces it appears at this point that the simulation has been toying with me to build up my hopes only to cruch those hopes at a latter date.
The thing is I will not really be all that crushed because I realized, being the pessimist that I am, that I could have been the butt of the simulation joke all along.
I recognize now that the man who ran in to the fence in front of me when the brakes on his bike failed last weekend could have been an attempt by the simulation to warn someone through me that their life was in danger. But the warning was not specific enough to do any good. Anyways from the point of view of the simulation administrators it might have very well been time for a younger man to take over the position that he had held.
I say that I was being toyed with because my hopes that my frequent talking points were actually getting through to mid level employees of the US MIC and having an effect now at this point do not seem to be justified. All the evidence that I had used to create a picture seems to have been an illusion. Well perhaps not completely an illusion. But the effect that I was having does not seem at this point to have actually made any difference. If it had the opposition would have been able to sabotage the results of the attack on Gen. Suleimani.
So now the US is going to get the war with Iran that it has sought for so long. And the dissidents in the US military are not prepared to take advantage of the opportunity. If they were prepared this opportunity would not have come about in the first place. Becuase real dissidents do not need another justificaton to take down the US government they have dozens of them from the last half a century already.
Now the Iranians will launch some attacks that will kill 5 or maybe 6 American soldiers. Then the US will retaliate and kill hundreds if not thousands of Iranians. And it will go back and forth until Iran is a heap of rubble. All I can do is look on.
Oh yes it is true if I still lived in the US I could pick up a gun and go kill some Americans. But if I am actinig alone that would be pointless. And If I am not acting alone for me to kill some Americans would not be neccessary because others would do that job for me. Anyways the deaths of low level Americans does nothing to brighten my day. I am only delighted by the deaths of those above the level of O6s and their civilian counterparts. And even when those deaths are to quick it is clear that they got away with their crimes.
Below are some comments that I posted earlier on the blog of the Canadian Armed Forces Blog.
I get a message that these comments are awaiting moderation. I know that they will never be posted.
But what I do not know is if the comments go straight to spam never to be read by anyone, or, if they actually have to be read by someone to check for a threats or anything that could be of intellegence value. If they have to be read I am confident that I can corrupt the people who have to read them as part of their job. Well unless they are not real with self awarness but mere shallow masks that take the place of a real human in this “simulation”.
Of course I was well aware when I began my failed campaign of sedition directed against the US military that because the US military had such a large head start and such a massive technological lead that any dosloyalty to the institution that I might create could just be identified and harvested by the US military and warped to its own purposes.
But it was important to go forward none the less. Because although the resistance to evil may be turned in to a fake resistance to evil the opposition that I create is not fake. Some day someone will come along that has the ability to beat the leadership of the US MIC and who has the intention to take its policies in an entirely different direction.
No one would take the risk to fail unless they had a strong motive. The only motive that could motivate someone to take that kind of risk would be the desire to take policies in a totally different direction than has been put forward by the ongoing leadership.
Of course I recongnize that the Canadian military is miniscule compared to the US military. It is really nothing more than one division of the US military. But being somewhat seperate it creates an opportunity for a culture of disbelief towards the proclaimed, but false, values and purpose of the US military. If that were to happen its officers could try to infect that disbelief in to the US officer corp.
You have nothing to loose except your chains, the certian death of your families due to climate change, and your border with the US Military*. If you are not willing to take great risks to achieve that you should have never joined the military in the first place.
Curt, even though “war is a racket” there’s bound to be a Smedley Butler simulacrum emerge to block the way of your US military dissidents. It’ll be a sham Butler, no doubt about that. The Butlerian antithesis will have plenty space remaining for the pinning of decorations, and decorations higher than already received, that’s for sure, and without any need at all to create new categories! The bogus simulacrum will be happy to be a decorative tool of any warpig fascist bagmen.
http://www.eclectica.org/v1n1/reviews/wharton_plot.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
libertarianism.org/publications/essays/smedley-butler-business-plot-part-i
npr.org/2012/02/12/145472726/when-the-bankers-plotted-to-overthrow-fdr
arcadiapublishing.com/Navigation/Community/Arcadia-and-THP-Blog/September-2018/Smedley-Butler-and-the-1930s-Plot-to-Overthrow-the
Svante,
Thank you,
The NaK / hydrogen solar power cycle.
I don’t know whether this will be profitable if implemented on an industrial scale, there are material safety issues. (To make technologies not based on fossil fuels profitable in general we may need to offset exchange-values / prices of input commodities and labour by taxes and subsidies so that they incorporate an estimated monetary environmental cost. This particular technology may still not be profitable then, comparing with other alternatives). Anyway, here it goes…
This is the basic idea
To produce sodium by electrolysis of molten salt / NaOH using either solar or wind energy and then use sodium for energy storage / transportation. Hydrogen can be produced by reacting sodium with water.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5618470
https://www.intechopen.com/books/recent-improvements-of-power-plants-management-and-technology/scalable-self-contained-sodium-metal-production-plant-for-a-hydrogen-fuel-clean-energy-cycle
Here is an idea for the improvement of the basic idea. I don’t have time to work on this, I am aware of the safety issues so this is not something I will try in my backyard / garage and I am not a chemical engineer. Maybe someone can “feel inspired”. I don’t care about the so-called “intellectual property” or whatever.
1. Instead of performing electrolysis of molten NaOH + NaCl, use NaOH and KOH. The melting point of the eutectic is around 165C https://patents.google.com/patent/US20050072837
2. This produces a NaK alloy which again has lower melting point than Na or K (-11C) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-potassium_alloy
3. the precise mix of Na and K produced during the process is to be determined, some fine-tuning of the process such as working with current densities may be required
4. Liquid NaK can be transported in tankers as logistic is important in remote areas (such as outback and deserts in Australia), there is no risk it will freeze there as the temperature never drops far below zero
5. The by-product Cl2 is almost entirely eliminated
6. The liquid NaK can be pumped using this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pump
7. NaK can react with water to produce H2, NaOH and KOH is then recycled.
8. There are quite high losses of energy in the whole cycle but the point is we can produce hydrogen on site instead of storing it and transporting.