Global Climate Change Science News

[pErvinalia]

I'm not saying that we can absolve countries who supply fossil fuels from blame, but neither can we absolve those who buy and burn it. It is a global problem.

What a logic? What is the whole purpose of coal and why was Ozland flogging it to all and sundry?

Because people want to burn it. What don't you get about this exceedingly obvious point?

[pErvinalia]

Oh, and if i'm not allowed to call you demonstrably thick as shit, I think it's entirely reasonable that you don't continue with the retarded TB insult.

[Hermit]

What is the whole purpose of coal

To burn it for various reasons. Steel manufacture is one of them. The Netherlands, for instance burns coal to make steel that finishes up in DAF trucks, pushbikes, washing machines and so on. In 2019 the Netherlands imported 41,514 thousand short tons of coal from Australia and other countries. Without doing so it couldn't build those pushbikes that make the country so pleasant, nor the bridges and tunnels they pass cross and through. Without coal the apartment block you live in wouldn't exist.

why was Ozland flogging it to all and sundry? If you did not have the coal how would you burn it?

Because all and sundry, including the Netherlands, buy it, and they buy it for various reasons. Steel manufacture is one of them. The Netherlands, for instance burns coal to make steel that finishes up in DAF trucks, pushbikes, washing machines and so on. In 2019 the Netherlands imported 41,514 thousand short tons of coal from Australia and other countries. Without doing so it couldn't build those pushbikes that make the country so pleasant, nor the bridges and tunnels they pass cross and through. Without coal the apartment block you live in wouldn't exist.

Why cant they not dig it up?

Because coal is needed for various reasons. Steel manufacture is one of them. The Netherlands, for instance burns coal to make steel that finishes up in DAF trucks, pushbikes, washing machines and so on. In 2019 the Netherlands imported 41,514 thousand short tons of coal from Australia and other countries. Without doing so it couldn't build those pushbikes that make the country so pleasant, nor the bridges and tunnels they pass cross and through. Without coal the apartment block you live in wouldn't exist.

When are they going to stop mining?

When there are no reasons to need coal any more. Steel manufacture is one of them. The Netherlands, for instance burns coal to make steel that finishes up in DAF trucks, pushbikes, washing machines and so on. In 2019 the Netherlands imported 41,514 thousand short tons of coal from Australia and other countries. Without doing so it couldn't build those pushbikes that make the country so pleasant, nor the bridges and tunnels they pass across and through. Without coal the apartment block you live in wouldn't exist.

[pErvinalia]

[Brian Peacock]

This is so ridiculous.
What is all that exported coal worth in tons of co2?

Australia is the world's third-largest exporter of CO2 in fossil fuels, report finds

When we think of big fossil-fuel-producing nations, it's usually Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and maybe Venezuela that spring to mind — but a new report places Australia near the very top of that list.

What is it with you guys? Trying to make the buyer responsible.



A one billion dollar coal mine.

Again, nobody is disputing Australia's carbon footprint, the scale of its mining, or its exports. You're picking a fight with a spectre only you can see. It is worth pointing out however that even given the size of Australia's coal mining and exporting the overwhelming majority of the atmospheric CO₂ from those operations is added at the point of combustion, not at the mine or the point of sale.

I'm not saying that we can absolve countries who supply fossil fuels from blame, but neither can we absolve those who buy and burn it. It is a global problem.

What a logic? What is the whole purpose of coal and why was Ozland flogging it to all and sundry? If you did not have the coal how would you burn it? Coal is worth to Ozland 56 billion dollars annually. Why cant they not dig it up? For that reason alone. When are they going to stop mining? Probably not for a long time. It is an Ozland problem as they cant afford not to mine it.

There are coal fields on every continent, even Antarctica. Oil and gas reserves too. But we have to get to a point where pretty much all of it is left in the ground.

You ask why can't Australia not dig coal up? Well, we all know the answer to that one: if we stopped global production of coal, oil and gas today what will we do for energy tomorrow?

Sure, coal is worth around AU$ 60bn pa, but 90% of the NL (for example) total primary energy source is from fossil fuels - the vast majority of it imported. If countries like Oz just stop digging it up the lights in countries like the NL go out. Yes Australia, and others, are feeding the World's coal addiction, but it's countries like the NL that are buying, burning it, and as a result pumping an increasing amount of CO₂ into the atmosphere. In a way countries like Australia are the pushers, as Jim put it, and countries like the NL are the addicts, but to blame the coal producer alone is a little like only blaming the ammunition manufacturer for the death toll of a mass shooting.

(I'd like to stress again that mentioning Australia and the NL in the same paragraph does not pit each country against each other, it merely highlights the global nature of the energy economy.)

Nonetheless, what you said at the end there is undoubtedly true: Australia cannot afford leave the coal in the ground - but only under the current structure of the global energy economy. And for the same reason neither can countries like the NL afford to not buy it. However, the global energy economy isn't a force of nature like the winds or the tides; it isn't an absolute given, a brute fact of life, something that just is, etc. It's a system of economic relationships built around energy production, consumption and infrastructure that has been developed by humans over time.

So, as I suggested, if we ceased all fossil fuel production today our civilisation would collapse tomorrow, because we just don't have the production capacity and infrastructure to meet our energy consumption needs with renewables or other alternatives. Of production and infrastructure the latter has to be in place before we can ramp up the former - there's no point building a wind farm or a hydro plant if you can't get the energy to people. This requires forward planning and a massive investment of course: and so, given the huge amount of money we're already investing in fossil fuels through our taxes and pensions etc, we need to systematically divest from hydrocarbons and move those resources, and more, into renewables - and quickly.

By building up renewable energy production capacity and infrastructure we automatically reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, and as the renewable sector grows more private investment will shift from from fossil to renewable power. We've started the ball rolling, but now we need to give it an almighty shove and get it up to a speed where we can achieve a transition from a global energy economy which is killing us (and will kill us all if left unchecked) to one which is orders of magnitude cleaner and, by comparison with coal, oil and gas, almost limitless.

Only govts can get the ball rolling and keep it moving in the right direction, and so it's up to all of us to insist that they do more, that they go further, quicker, for all our sakes. Governments and political parties which are rendered hidebound by their association and financial complicity with the fossil fuel sector need to be replaced, and so, where possible, we need to divest our support and votes from the lickspittles of the corporatist hegemony and start investing our time, energy, and votes in parties which have a vision of the future that doesn't depend on the seas boiling away to nothing.

[pErvinalia]

Untitled.jpg (57.49 KiB) Viewed 1845 times

[Cunt]

I didn't see how Hermit defended China's environmental policies.

Though I'm sure he would leap to defend them somehow...

[Hermit]

I didn't see how Hermit defended China's environmental policies.

That may be the case because I did not defend China's environmental policies.

Though I'm sure he would leap to defend them somehow...

Provided environmental policies are not in fact metaphorical Potemkin villages I will leap to defend them, if necessary, regardless of which country they are implemented in.

[JimC]

Environment policies are not just about carbon emissions per capita. I read consistently that Chinese industries in general are serious polluters of both water and air; air quality in Chinese cities frequently reaches dangerous levels.

When they refine rare earths and manufacture electronic components to sell to consumers in the west, they seriously pollute their surroundings. The west is very good at outsourcing pollution and other evils, and quietly ignoring the global problems this creates...

[Cunt]

I didn't see how Hermit defended China's environmental policies.

That may be the case because I did not defend China's environmental policies.

I know.

Good job modeling the modern fact-check properly.

I think the top ten worst national governments in regards to environmental policies are:
1. China
2. China...

[Brian Peacock]

Environment policies are not just about carbon emissions per capita. I read consistently that Chinese industries in general are serious polluters of both water and air; air quality in Chinese cities frequently reaches dangerous levels.

...

WHO estimates deaths due to air pollution in China at 73 per 100,000.

[Cunt]

My pal is about to replace her car (I'm guessing...electrical weirdness and long service)

There simply isn't any other way, that I can see. Running everywhere is NOT an option, for parenting and other reasons. Public transit here is woefully inadequate, and electric is an amusing experiment at -40 degrees.

If one of you would be so kind as to find something better, I'll try to see that she knows about it.

[Hermit]

I didn't see how Hermit defended China's environmental policies.

That may be the case because I did not defend China's environmental policies.

I know.

Good job modeling the modern fact-check properly.

I think the top ten worst national governments in regards to environmental policies are:
1. China
2. China...

The "Mainland Taiwan" bit was so amusing I forgot to fact-check it*.

*That's a fib. I did a little reading about the island. It appears that Taiwan has officially abandoned its policy of reunification with the mainland in 2006.

[Cunt]

I hope it gets back to that Winnie the Pooh-looking old fucker.

[rainbow]

My pal is about to replace her car (I'm guessing...electrical weirdness and long service)

There simply isn't any other way, that I can see. Running everywhere is NOT an option, for parenting and other reasons. Public transit here is woefully inadequate, and electric is an amusing experiment at -40 degrees.

If one of you would be so kind as to find something better, I'll try to see that she knows about it.

How about a big ol' Merkin V8?