Fight for Planet A: Aussie PM Retreats from Charging Eco-Warrior

Eco loon charges the Aussie Prime Minister
Screenshot from the Fight for Planet A trailer

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The Guardian has accused Aussie Prime Minister Scott Morrison of “not wanting to engage”, after he beat a hasty retreat when charged by “Fight for Planet A” host Craig Reucassel carrying a large bunch of black balloons.

Fight for Planet A: the team behind War on Waste want to put climate crisis back on the agenda

Host Craig Reucassel uses balloons to give Australia’s emissions a visual representation and we’re left in no doubt there are too many of them

Brigid Delaney @BrigidWD
Tue 11 Aug 2020 13.39 AEST

There’s a scene in Fight for Planet A that is both absurd and thrilling. The host, Craig Reucassel, has tracked down the prime minister, Scott Morrison, at an event at a Sydney beach. A pile of black balloons representing Australia’s carbon emissions have been attached to the back of his shirt and as he runs down the beach chasing Morrison, one really does wonder if he’ll just lift off and float away. The prime minister’s minders stop Reucassel before he can tackle the prime minister who, in bare feet and boardshorts, is walking away as quick as you can in soft sand. But the metaphor is obvious: Morrison does not want to engage with Australia’s outsized emissions problem.

Over three episodes, the team that made the ABC’s highly successful War on Waste delve into the more abstract but urgent issue of carbon emissions, and with it a vital question: how do you convince Australians that something they cannot see represents their greatest existential threat?

“No one knew how long the pandemic would last, how serious it would be, how it would change people’s psychology. It’s still bad, but to some extent, with the exception of the situation in Melbourne, we have come to terms with it,” he says.

And although global lockdowns have caused emissions to plummet, it is long-term behaviour and policy change that will make a difference in the long term. So how do we make that happen?

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/aug/11/fight-for-planet-a-the-team-behind-war-on-waste-want-to-put-climate-crisis-back-on-the-agenda

I am no fan of Scott Morrison, but in an age when terrorist violence is an ever present threat, why would anyone in their right mind want to “engage” with an unbalanced looking shouty person charging at them holding a large bunch of black balloons?

Judge for yourself, the trailer below contains a short clip of the stunt.

86 thoughts on “Fight for Planet A: Aussie PM Retreats from Charging Eco-Warrior

    • Paraphrasing from memory, but the A Ark was to contain all the great artists and thinkers, with the C having all the actual workers.

      The overt joke Adams made is that 1/3rd of the population is useless, but then goes on to have the ‘useful’ 2/3rds killed off by something the B people would have easily prevented.

      Now while I would like to think that Adams was having a sly dig because deep down he knew the B people hold society together, but fear it was probably all more to do with a good punch line. Instead the entire Arc sub plot is basically a socialist utopia where the workers know there place as workers, the artists get to do their art in between meaningful conversations with their Thinking friends and those annoying deplorables with ideas above their station are just rounded up and sent away.

  1. A well thought argument here and there should have no chance against an avalanche of such dross. But it’s so poor that there is still hope.

      • It resides where oil/natural gas comes from—just ask Dave Middleton. A by-product of the radioactive decay of uranium.

    • yeah admit the same idea pop a few then front the idiot about balloons being an ecorisk and helium using energy to bottle etc
      poor scomo cant even get a break at the beach
      hope he guts the abc well n truly

  2. There is no Planet B and the reason we worry about that is that there is no statistics education in Planet A.

    If there were we would all know that atmospheric composition is not responsive to fossil fuel emissions and that therefore atmospheric CO2 can neither be increased by the industrial economy nor decreased by the climate action that these fine people are fighting for.

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/05/18/12479/

      • Chaamjamal,

        Yes, atmospheric CO2 is increasing slower than we are emitting it since the carbon cycle is far from saturated and can readily absorb it. In fact, the carbon cycle has been CO2 starved for millions of years. It’s good that we’re adding CO2 to the atmosphere to restore balance and robustness to the carbon cycle.

        Don’t deny that there’s a connection between burning fossil fuels and CO2 concentrations, that only invites the denier epithet. That part of the scam isn’t wrong. What’s wrong is the insanely exaggerated effect on the climate attributed to increasing CO2 emissions and claimed by the IPCC without any legitimate scientific foundation.

      • I agree humans did not cause the CO2 rise.

        So, what does that ‘mean’ scientifically? Conceptually? Science is more than plotting graphs and talking about data.

        This is painful. The CAGW crowd are absolutely clueless. Due to the climate wars, no one is trying to solve the scientific puzzles. Science is actually fun and interesting when there are piles and piles of known mature paradoxes.

        If humans did not cause the recent CO2 rise, there is no CAGW or AGW.

        The Bern equation is based on the concept that the water on the surface of the planet and CO2 in the atmosphere are ‘recycled’. That concept/theory is dead. It cannot explain the observation.

        In the recycle ‘theory’ the only ‘new’ source of water and CO2 coming into the atmosphere is water vapour and CO2 gas coming out of volcanic eruptions and the ocean floor where it is ‘spreading’. The ocean floor does not ‘spread’ it is being pushed, as there is evidence of compression fracturing at the ocean ridges.

        The ‘recycled’ water and CO2 theory cannot explain the geological record and cannot explain the Water and CO2 loss paradoxes and the late timing of the appearance advance life on the surface of the planet.

        Evolutionary scientists have determined the rate of evolution. Advanced life should have appear billions of years earlier on the earth. It appeared roughly 500 million years ago in the first deep oceans.

        The logical explanation for the late appearance of life is that something around a billion years ago changed to make the earth fertile for life.

        Water Losses from the Atmosphere/Surface

        Solar wind takes hydrogen from the atmosphere which converts water to CO2. This is a slow leak of water form the biosphere.

        The problem is we know water is removed from the atmosphere by the solar wind and a simple calculation indicates the earth would be dry and lifeless, if the surface water was recycled, after 4.7 billion years of losses.

        Observational, in the geological record, advance life is believed to develop because there was suddenly the start of the first deep oceans on the earth, at around 500 million years ago.
        Observational the evidence is there was only shallow oceans and little water until around a billion years ago which is the same time as it is believed that the liquid core of the planet started to crystallize.

        Ocean plates when they are pushed under the continents, drag large volumes of water, into the mantel where due to the hot temperatures, the water chemically bonds to the hot ‘plastic’ solid mantel rock and is no longer available as water.

        The ocean plates when they are pushed under the continents have been found to drag three times more water down with them, that is coming out from volcanic eruptions and ocean ridges.

        There must be and is an immense primordial source of hydrogen and carbon that is coming into the biosphere. The source is CH4 that is dissolved in the liquid core of the planet. When the core solidified, roughly a billion years ago, the CH4 is extruded out of the core, as the liquid core is saturated with CH4.

        At high temperatures, metals chemically bind with the CH4, forming a shealth about the liquid CH4.

        The liquid CH4 carries within it heavy metals. This explains why all of the commercial helium is found in gas and oil reserves.

        https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181114132013.htm

        Seismic study reveals huge amount of water dragged into Earth’s interior
        Summary:
        Slow-motion collisions of tectonic plates under the ocean drag about three times more water down into the deep Earth than previously estimated, according to a first-of-its-kind seismic study that spans the Mariana Trench.

        The Bern equation assumes zero biological material is being sequestered in the ocean.

        This recent observation that C14 is making to the deepest ocean with no delay is an observational fact that disproves the CAGW team created absurdly non-physical so-called Bern model of CO2 sinks and sources and resident times.

        The Bern model assumes that ocean circulation (with hundreds of years delay) is the only method for deep sequestration of CO2 in the ocean.

        The alleged long lifetime of 500 years for carbon diffusing to the deep ocean is of no relevance to the debate on the fate of anthropogenic CO2 and the “Greenhouse Effect”, because POC (particular organic carbon; carbon pool of about 1000 giga-tonnes; some 130% of the atmospheric carbon pool) can sink to the bottom of the ocean in less than a year (Toggweiler, 1990).

        https://www.livescience.com/65466-bomb-carbon-deepest-ocean-trenches.html
        Bomb C14 Found in Ocean Deepest Trenches
        ‘Bomb Carbon’ from Cold War Nuclear Tests Found in the Ocean’s Deepest Trenches

        • The Late Appearance of advanced Life Paradox

          This is the observation that advanced life suddenly appeared on the earth 570 million years ago and was limited at that time, for 15 million years, to advance life in deep oceans.

          https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181212134354.htm#:~:text=A%20new%20study%20from%20Stanford,use%20of%20limited%20oxygen%20supplies.

          Why deep oceans gave life to the first big, complex organisms

          Stanford’s School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences
          Summary:
          Why did the first big, complex organisms spring to life in deep, dark oceans where food was scarce? A new study finds great depths provided a stable, life-sustaining refuge from wild temperature swings in the shallows.
          Share:

          FULL STORY

          In the beginning, life was small. For billions of years, all life on Earth was microscopic, consisting mostly of single cells.

          Then suddenly, about 570 million years ago, complex organisms including animals with soft, sponge-like bodies up to a meter long sprang to life. And for 15 million years, life at this size and complexity existed only in deep water.

          Scientists have long questioned why these organisms appeared when and where they did: in the deep ocean, where light and food are scarce, in a time when oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere was in particularly short supply.

          A new study from Stanford University, published Dec. 12 in the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the Royal Society B, suggests that the more stable temperatures of the ocean’s depths allowed the burgeoning life forms to make the best use of limited oxygen supplies.

    • Well there might be a Planet B if NASA actually kept its eyes on space research, instead of wondering if their naming policies were offensive or not.

  3. Craig Reucassel is obviously a scam artist who has found a winning formula. Terrifying children is the easy part, then they take it home with them. Australia is no longer the Aussies I fought with in Vietnam, those guys would deal with a nutjob chasing their Prime Minister directly and effectively.

    • Spot on Ron.
      The brave Aussies of yesterday have been replaced by yellow-gutted traitors.
      Even our press is scared of the powerful left.

    • Did you notice the clip where he’s haranguing a passel if kids? He gets them all to thrust their fists skyward in unison. Can you say “Hitler Jugend?”

  4. Blaming CO2 for the forest fires, when apart from being plant food, it is used in fire extinguishers.

    You got to love the loony left, when it is their insistence on not clearing forest debris that gave rise to such big fires, fires which are of course natural, and on which many species depend to reproduce.

    The unnatural state is therefore NOT to have huge fires.

    The loony logic of the eco-nazi, it is a joy to see!

  5. The ABC is always keen to maximise any opportunity to promote alternatives to reliable inexpensive energy, and on 8 August 2018 published an interview with Dr Michael Dolan, BAppSc, MBA, PhD, then CSIRO Principal Research Scientist. Dr Nolan was promoting the operation of motor vehicles using hydrogen produced from ammonia using a membrane technology developed by the CSIRO (at taxpayers’ expense). Dr Nolan was quoted:
    The membrane breakthrough will allow hydrogen to be safely transported and used as a mass production energy source. We are certainly the first to demonstrate the production of very clean hydrogen from ammonia. Today is the very first time in the world that hydrogen cars have been fuelled with a fuel derived from ammonia — carbon-free fuel.
    Dr Nolan said that the cost of the hydrogen fuel would be around A$15 per kilogram, which translates to A$12.50 for the cost of 100MJ of stored energy. That is 36% higher than my calculation of $9.17 for the cost of 100MJ stored in hydrogen from solar energy, and 1,000% higher than my calculation of the cost of 100MJ of energy stored in petrol. In January 2019 Dr Nolan left the CSIRO for Fortescue Metals Group and was appointed Manager Hydrogen for FMG in January 2020.
    In coming weeks there will be a proliferation of malign attempts by Governments and profiteers worldwide to squeeze out of the COVID-19 pandemic every excuse to promote hostility to reliable energy. Here is an extract from a 6 August 2020 article in Renew Economy:
    West Australia looks to establish local wind turbine manufacturing industry
    Western Australia’s MacGowan Labor government has launched a study into the feasibility of producing wind turbine components locally – a move that would mark a first for the state and a rarity for Australia as a whole. The initiative, part of the government’s $92.4 million package to boost local manufacturing and bolster employment, will look at supply opportunities for wind farms, market trends, and local industry participation opportunities including for component manufacturing. The study brief also includes investigating opportunities to create jobs in both metropolitan and regional areas, as well as the potential to generate investment.
    The initiative comes as two new wind farms Warradarge and Yandin – are nearing completion that will double the state’s wind output, and as major international players such as BP, Siemens, and a group comprising Vestas, Macquarie and CWP look at a range of potential multi-gigawatt scale wind and solar arrays that could deliver energy exports, green hydrogen, or a green metals and manufacturing industry.
    State energy minister Bill Johnston said the study, led by the Department of Jobs, Tourism, Science and Innovation, would delve into the feasibility of how to increase local manufacturing to help in evolving industries like the renewable energy sector.
    Note in the second paragraph the “energy exports” threat to implement the proposed Pilbara-to-Vietnam extension cord project , an ugly sister to the Darwin-to-Singapore extension cord scam. What has happened to human thought processes when a government can discuss “a green metals and manufacturing industry”? This has been tried before. It was called the Stone Age. We are right to be alarmed at the enthusiasm of major companies to profit from activities which are so easily demonstrable as contrary to the national interest and especially hostile to the poor and disadvantaged.

    • Cornwall council (UK) are busily erecting a “smart ” 2.3MW windmill near Carland Cross. I assume it whistles up a wind when I turn on my kettle.

        • Trump says if they put a windmill within sight or sound of your house, your house’s value drops by 50 percent.

          He’s a real estate guy, after all.

          • That comment needs this context:

            News writer Salena Zito made an interesting observation.
            Here is the way it is expressed in an ‘Atlantic’ article:

            When he makes claims like this, the press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.

            When I presented that thought to him, he paused again, “Now that’s interesting.”

        • “Taxes paid for it” Cornwall council have paid £3million into it. Source: local radio website.

    • “In coming weeks there will be a proliferation of malign attempts by Governments and profiteers worldwide to squeeze out of the COVID-19 pandemic every excuse to promote hostility to reliable energy.”

      One religion using another. There are many honest doctors and enough scientists who are beginning to see how governments and profiteers are denying existing immunity and are using fear to take advantage of COVID-19.

    • Ammonia is one of the things they use to make fertilizer. It is made using the Haber process, whose primary source of hydrogen and energy is…. natural gas. So where does this carbon free ammonia come from?

    • This is the same CSIRO that is emailing all employees daily to wear purple on some day set aside for LGBTIx. The same CSIRO that spends tax payers money on unconscious bias training run by consultants that show you an optical illusion and equate fooling the visual cortex with hating people of colour. My boss is on a selection committee and when the 3 best blind CVs turn out to be white people the committee is told to try again. Thank God my contract is almost up.

  6. Australia has a small and stable emissions profile, contributing only 1% to annual global emissions. These loony climate alarmists are not interested in global emissions anyway as evidenced by their lack of concern of China’s enormous 30% contribution. They only care about the underlying Marxist agenda which is to cripple their own economy so as to bring about a Marxist change. Morrison is smart to not engage in debating with fools, as this would only reduce him down to their level.

    • 1% of human emissions, which are themselves only 5% of world emissions. The remaining 95% are natural.

    • Question: if Reucassel was holding helium balloons equivalent to China’s emissions on the scale he used for Australia’s, would he have left the ground?

      • That would be a good visual: The number of black balloons representing Australia’s CO2 contributions compared to the number representing China’s CO2 contributions.

        Austrailia shouldn’t even worry about its CO2 contributions, because they are so small that doing anyting about it wouldn’t make a difference one way or the other, in the grand scheme of things.

  7. >>how do you convince Australians that something they cannot see represents their greatest existential threat?<<
    That's tricky. More accurate would be to ask "how do you convince Australians that something they cannot MEASURE represents their greatest existential threat?"
    More honest still would be "how do you convince Australians that something non-existent represents their greatest existential threat?"

    • The biggest existential threat was in plain view, attached to a bunch of black balloons.

    • Its dead easy to get humans scared of things they cannot see. eg, viruses. And just think of the old Anglican prayer book: ‘from goolies and ghoosties and long legged beasties and things that go bump in the night, dear Lord deliver us. Also the basic operating manual for shamans for millenia.

  8. Like many eco-loons, not much science Craig Reucassel doesn’t know much about CO2 if he did he would understand that his bunch of floating balloons doesn’t cut it. CO2 is heavier than air hence his balloons certainly ain’t filled with that “evil” life giving trace gas.
    Somewhat like the Bracks/Thwaites “black balloons” ads of 12 or so years ago, bursting forth from electrical appliances and heading for the sky!

  9. Craig Reucassel is a foundation member of The Chaser comedy team long linked to the ABC.
    Their satire leans way left and is distinctly of the undergraduate variety notwithstanding the odd funny piece.
    Their TV show “CNNNN”, a sendup of an amalgam of CNN and Fox News had its moments.
    However their pursuit of PR publicity stunts has had several bad outcomes.
    They were visited by Federal Police after giving out the telephone number of the PM John Howard after a stance he took opposing a rally they supported.
    In 2008 eleven members of their team escaped conviction after charges were withdrawn for entering an APEC restricted area illegally.
    The pranksters had driven a fake Canadian motorcade, flanked by bogus motorcycle and security guard escorts, through APEC checkpoints to within metres of the hotel where President George Bush was staying.
    Months of the strain of prosecution by unamused authorities took the edge off the prank.
    This effort may get some media attention but the program being promoted is boring and another example of attempts to regain public interest in ‘saving the planet’ now that the CoVid pandemic has predominated.

  10. We need to remove most mainstream media organisations and people who are just illiterate lying propagandists, seeking to further a series of political agendas. Objective media and open debate need to be restored to our western societies, before these evil people drive us into a totalitarian pogrom where there is the states truth only and no debate or challenge is tolerated. were close to this via climate extremism and Covid 19 nonsense, How to achieve this is the question!

  11. If the black balloons represent “carbon pollution”, then the helium inside those balloons represents the solidity of the climaloons arguments, and the spaces between the ballons represents the nothingness within the skulls of Craig and his ilk.

  12. Simple really. Our lockdown laws are quite explicit on this matter: a minimum of 1.5 metres separation in public from normal people, 15 metres from leftists.

  13. Carrying around a bunch of single use plastic balloons, presumably with the intend of discarding them into the atmosphere only to return to the land or ocean as waste, should disqualify this nutter as an ‘environmentalists’.

    The hypocrisy and projection of these people is mindblowing.

    All the best,
    Willem

    • Some poor turtle will end up choking on a deflated black balloon, released into the air by a loon.

    • Mr Reucassel should watch a 2017 documentary series’War on Waste’. The second episode was all about plastic waste.
      As I recall, the presenter was…. Mr Reucassel

  14. What is very obvious with climate activism is it’s lack of concern for the issue that is claims is an existential threat, with its real focus seemingly on spreading Marxism and economic demise to western democracies. This lack of concern for climate change can be seen from the UN policy framework, right down to street protesters and is most evident in small emitting countries such as Australia, where insignificant emissions are met with hostile protest, whilst the big emitting socialist countries such as China get a free pass. One telltale sign of this free pass is the complete lack of any protesters on the lawn of the Chinese embassy in Canberra or in any other western country.

    In terms of understanding the real intentions of the UN, its IPCC community and the alarmist community in general, I was recently thinking about the issue of emissions from a policy perspective, putting aside for a moment the reality that CO2 is not harmful. In terms of emissions, if the UN and general climate movement was serious about global emissions reductions, it would view each country from an emissions potential perspective. Emissions potential can be viewed as the total emissions of a country once it becomes developed. The emissions potential ultimately comes down to population size and it can be measured on a total country or potential per square km level.

    In terms of CO2 management, each country should be listed by it’s emissions potential status. For example most western countries have been at 100% of their potential for many decades, and there is almost no further potential for emissions growth, however the developing countries are all in different phases of their emissions potential realisation curve. China for example is probably at around 70% of it’s total potential, but what we do know is that they believe they will reach their peak by around 2030, which is why they negotiated a deal with the UN and Obama to maintain their developing status until 2030, so as to allow them to reach peak emissions without constraint.

    Why this concept of peak emissions realisation is important, is because it determines the future atmospheric levels of CO2 into the future, based on the development rates of countries such as China, India, SE Asia and African nations. Any policy framework that aims at CO2 reductions must therefore have it’s entire structure based around managing these emissions potentials, which of course it doesn’t. For example, using the population of the developed world, which is around 1.2B, and it’s total emissions of 35%, we can come up with a neat figure that 1B people will equate to an emissions total similar to that of China today (30% of global today) when they reach developed status. Thus, China with a population of 1.4B people, has potential to move up from 30% to almost 40% when it achieves full emissions potential in another decade.

    Going back to 1992, the UN and climate community must have understood this basic concept of emissions potential when they formed the first climate convention and they knew that the risk for the next 20, 30, 50 and even 100 years, was not going to come from the developed nations, who had almost no further potential, but from the developing nations which have about 7x the potential of the developed countries today, but will have about 9x the potential in 2100 when world population reaches 11B, with almost all population growth coming from the developing nations. This means that back in 1992, the UN would have known that global CO2 was destined to rise by a factor of up to 7x it’s 1992 level by 2100, assuming the entire world reached its emissions potential by that time, and with all of those extra emissions coming from the developing countries.

    Faced with this reality, the UN and climate alarmist community put in place policy measures that gave unrestricted emissions rights to all developing nations that would hold ~90% of the emissions potential up to 2100 and only placed restrictions on ~10% of emissions from the developed countries that had almost no further potential for growth. To make matters worse, they insisted that emissions must be measured on a per capita basis, which effectively locked in these potential emissions to be fully realised, as emissions potential is a factor of population size and has nothing to do with per capita measurement. To make matters even worse, they supported the abandonment of the only source of emissions free energy which was nuclear and insisted that all developed nations move to extremely low density and intermittent sources of RE that they know would lead to a hastening of industry relocation to the developing countries and result in a faster realisation of their emissions potential. Since 1980, we now have a situation where emissions have doubled as the developing countries move further up their emissions realisation curve, and yet there is still no focus by the UN and climate alarmist community on reducing this vast and growing emissions source.

    Based on policy framework and current activism, one can only conclude that the UN and climate alarmist community in general are all climate skeptics and therefore are engaged entirely in a political campaign being driven under the guise of CC. There can be no other explanation. Of course, CO2 is harmless at levels being driven by humans, but what is not harmless are the policies being pursued and initiated in countries such as Australia by these fake green Marxist activists, that threaten the survival of the free world.

  15. Fight for planet A…. Give me a break! I thought they told us there was no planet B. ?????
    Mental giants using any crappy propaganda meme as long as it fits their bullshit.

  16. I have yet to figure out why anyone in their right mind would think Craig Reucassel was a comedian (except himself)

    A rank idiot, at best !

    And as for him knowing anything about actual science… now that idea makes me laugh !

  17. Typical Aunty now degenerated into supporting and applauding lefty undergrad stunts and they wonder why adults want their taxes saved. Flog off Aunty and SBS and promise to put that and the $1.5 billion recurrent annual expenditure into improving the National Broadband Network and you’d be on a winner with the kiddies.

  18. Please turn a blind eye toward all the fossil fuels Craig uses every day and all that used to make the film – what a flaming hypocrite. I think that he feels it is okay to use fossil fuels himself as long as he bangs the climate drum.

  19. In most countries the PM is so enclosed in their security bubble that this stunt could not be done. It is to Morrison’s credit that he is this accessible.

    Had they tried it in the US with the President (whichever one), they would have been shot.

  20. Ask Craig Reucassel to sit down in front of a panel of informed skeptics and defend his beliefs. Who would be the runner then?

  21. Wiki:
    “Millions of years ago, the Australian continent was warm and humid and rainfall was plentiful.During this time rainforest thrived in places such as the Uluru (Ayers Rock) region. As Australia became more arid, fewer and fewer places rainforests were able to survive. In the Daintree region, however, the climate and topography were ideal, so the area became a last remaining refuge for the rainforest.”

    Apparently the climate change caused our Ice Age [the last few millions of years} has resulted in Australia having less tropical forests.

    “WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Republican lawmakers on Wednesday proposed legislation setting a goal for the United States to plant a trillion trees by 2050 to fight global warming, a plan intended to address climate change by sucking carbon out of the air instead of by cutting emissions….
    Republican President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly cast doubt on the science of climate change, had expressed support for the idea of a massive tree-planting campaign during a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last month.”
    https://tinyurl.com/y4lrt83k

    I think the best kind of tree to plant is tropical trees and seems Australia could a good place to plant them and Australia could have national goal of planting a billion tropical trees. And put the trees where there once was tropical trees- and the Uluru (Ayers Rock) region, appears to be a dry region, so one would need to transport a lot water to it.
    What would be easier, in terms of planting a lot to trees, could be to plant drought tolerant trees or trees that needed less water, but I think though unit cost of a tree might cheaper, that is probably a direction in which the trees would eventually burn down in forest fires, whereas adding a lot water to a region, and growing tropical trees, is more of barrier to forest fires.
    And I think the general idea of planting a trillion or billion trees is not have forest burn down, nor to be tree which are later clear cut by logging. Or one should make parks which have forests. And should be parks which people can visit and can enjoy. And people going a park with forest which dry, seem it’s going to cause forest fires.
    So planting a billion tropical tree is going to mostly involve a massive water project, which involve water reservoirs and pumped-storage.
    If insist on wind power one should focused a lot on pumped storage, even without wind power, pumped storage is useful for any power grid. But pumped storage should only be using small portion of water, or you huge amount in terms of water reservoirs, in sense that it’s strategic water storage, in which if Australia has severe national drought, it would be last place that runs of water, rather the first place that depletes it’s water.

    • Much of the Australian desert already has scrubby dryland bushes and trees, but its doubtful planting more trees would do anything beneficial.

    • Gbaikie
      Another reason for Australia’s slow warming is the northward tectonic movement of the whole continent by about 10cm every year.

      Together we can stop this.

  22. If those balloons were supposed to represent CO2 shouldn’t they be invisible and impossible to detect by smell or taste? Just asking? 🤷‍♂️😉

  23. It is reported that soldiers in the Australian Army carry a standard issue 9mm Mark 3 semi-automatic pistol. Special Forces units prefer the Heckler & Koch USP with 18 rounds of 9mm.
    If your PM Scott and a couple of the SF were carrying, they could have popped all those balloons and had a few rounds left over to aerate Craig Reucassel.
    Is it legal to say this? In the USA? On an Aussie blog?

  24. By any stretch of the imagination the person nominated as Scott Morrison is nonsense. Obviously female and dressed in a manner I have never seen him in. Presented by an ex-comedian and like all things from the ABC a joke. Please don’t spread their lies. These days I only see things from the ABC are clips like this I do not watch any of it. They do great damage to our nation and I would like them to be sold.

  25. Shouldn’t he have used clear balloons considering CO2 is an odourless & colourless gas?
    Oh that’s right! CO2 is the black, nasty stuff in an eco warrior’s mind!
    Let’s not forget Reucassel was one of the team sued by journalist, Chris Kenny for defamation.

  26. PM was right to retreat from this ambush … if you get down with the pigs, you’re sure to get mud on you.

  27. Look carefully at the trailer from Fight for Planet A and the labelled cut from this. The trailer has no labels. Compare photos of Scott Morrison from, say, the Instagram site, with the photo of the person running away. I cannot say that it is a girl, but it is definitely NOT Scott. Scott has very little hair, and it would be best described as ‘nearly silver’. The person running away has plenty of hair, it is black, and it ends in something which I think we would have called a ‘DA’ haircut.

    The person lifting up the rope to duck under it and chase the ‘ecoloon’ is more likely to be Scott, hair nearly silver and wearing heavy glasses. I think Scott’s glasses are thin wire so I suggest that this is a guard who is chasing the ecoloon away. Scott would not run away from a young ecoloon – he would be ready to debate him and try to educate him.

  28. Far left fantasy street theater… meh.
    Suggest an appropriate response is “Oh! We gotta wise guy, eh?”, followed by a ‘pie to the face’ of the ‘artist’ and a couple of Curly (Three Stooges) “Nyuck Nyucks!”

  29. If I were Morrison, I would have lured the charger to his doom, and unleashed the meanest of my minders onto him when he got close, taken him down.,,with extreme prejudice….and then off to be charged for a variety of offences and then done an interview breathing in the helium and mocking the fool with humorous voices and fun CO2 facts, like Einstein’s CO2 law that shows CO2 cannot exceed the immediate heat source and dissipates heat at the exact same rate as is applied. Therefore CO2 cannot force heating, a fact backed up by the Vostok Ice Core samples where it is shown unambiguously that a change in temp always precedes a change in CO2 atmospheric saturations. I think that would sound extremely humorous in a helium induced Elma Fudd voice. I would point out what Martin Feynman would have to say about the Climate Change models, and what the geologists would say about the massively high CO2 levels we have had in the past and that is seems a little odd to suggest we will have run away global warming from 410 PPM CO2 when we didn’t at levels of 8,000 PPM and more in he past.
    I know I would find that utterly compelling viewing. I would record it for those days when I needed a laugh.
    Oh well, we can but dream.

Comments are closed.