Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Both parties support gas? In yet another blow for Biden’s global climate ambitions, voter and union pressure on the opposition Australian Labor Party to support well paid mining jobs appears to be pushing politicians towards bipartisan support for fossil fuel projects.
Labor in new dispute over whether to back gas
By David Crowe
Updated June 1, 2021 — 3.51pmLabor MPs have split over a federal plan to open up new gas reserves in a new sign of disunity on climate change and whether Australia should phase out fossil fuel.
The debate included significant interventions from former leader Bill Shorten and former resources spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon to back policies that opened up gas reserves to supply energy for households and business.
Labor leader Anthony Albanese did not speak during the caucus discussion on gas but will back the mining industry in a speech to be delivered on Wednesday, praising sectors including gas and coal for providing jobs.
“Our nation’s top five resources exports are iron ore, LNG, gold, metallurgical coal and thermal coal,” he says in a draft of the speech to the Minerals Council of Australia.
“These industries provide jobs for Australians. They provide economic activity in regional Australia. And billions of dollars of revenue for governments. Australia will continue to export these commodities.“
Mr Albanese warns, however, that markets change and demand for some resources will decline, with growth switching to resources that can support electric vehicles and batteries.
…
Read more: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/labor-in-new-row-over-whether-to-back-gas-20210601-p57x2y.html
Labor, which identifies with workers, but also flirts with urban greens, recently suffered a bad loss in a mining district by-election in the Hunter Valley. A lot of people who live in the Hunter Valley work in coal mines. In addition, a recent major Aussie power blackout which affected people in multiple states, caused by a single catastrophic failure, has hilighted just how fragile Australia’s under-invested dispatchable power grid has become.
What about future job prospects for fossil fuel workers?
I don’t think anyone needs to worry about a drop in demand for Aussie coal and iron ore demand in the next few decades.
China utterly dominates global steel production. But as China openly diverts its enormous industrial capacity towards attempting to build a navy to rival the US Navy, challenging the USA’s domination of the Pacific Ocean, India, Vietnam, and the Philippines have quietly ramped up their own military expenditure and steel production, to counter the growing Chinese threat. Throughout Asia, steel foundries are running hot in a race to produce armour for a widely anticipated war in the Pacific.
Australia is reaping enormous profits from all this militaristic insanity, selling iron ore, coal and other minerals to anyone who asks for them.
I sense problems here.
First, Eric, linking to The Conversation? I’m shocked!
Second, profiteering in anticipation of a war in one’s own region, identifying oneself as a valuable strategic conquest, has rarely worked out for a country in the past.
and third:
Since those alleged ambitions come from the CCP, as well as the majority of the resource demand and the strategic threat, I don’t understand your feeling that this is a conflict. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood your usage of the word “blow?” Or did I miss the /sarc tag again?
When hasn’t profiteering in anticipation of a war worked out …. you are confusing those making the money with those left with the consequences … they aren’t the same people.
LdB,
You are correct, I wasn’t clear. I don’t think that it has worked out for the country at all, but I did say “rarely.” One Swedish conservative once claimed that it may have done so for them as a country in WWII (Swedish TIger occupation strategy), but he didn’t convince me. Probably I should have come up with a better word than profiteering when speaking for the activities of a country.
“When hasn’t profiteering in anticipation of a war worked out …. you are confusing those making the money with those left with the consequences … they aren’t the same people.”
As commentary goes, that’s batting 1,000
So, you’re advocating a defense by weakness strategy. In other words, just be so useless that nobody wants to conquer you.
Had Germany won WW2, Sweden and Switzerland couldn’t have maintained their independence. As it was, both managed to avoid actually getting embroiled in the fighting. Both were valuable potential conquests but were not worth the effort.
CB.
Not at all. I’m advocating that Australia cut China off, and develop their own Allies in the region, and only sell to them and at a discount. In fact, had the U.S. still a legitimate government, or the UK, I’d insist that Australia demand US and UK help.
I didn’t bring up Switzerland, and I said the Swedish guy didn’t convince me.
But you’ve done this kind of argument before, making up something else and getting off on arguing aginst something out of your own head, and we should all know what to expect by now. Please play through, I’ve no patience to argue with another of your sort at the moment.
I should have quoted exactly what I was replying to:
So, as a blanket statement, that’s wrong.
Does your cheap ad hominem make you feel superior. IMHO, it just makes you look like a garden variety troll.
Actually no, and you should look up ad hominem. And considering your record it was brief, but quite accurate. And you are continuing it now, so I feel even better about it.
Switzerland made a nice profit doing banking for the Germans.
Switzerland is fierce about its neutrality and independence, and has always been so. Banking allows them to do that.
But I didn’t bring them up, and they are off topic. For the latter, I apologize.
You said something wrong and I used them as a counter-example, as did Joseph. So, yes you did cause them to be brought up.
With regard to how Switzerland maintains its independence … Switzerland doesn’t have an army … it is an army.
dk_,
Whoever invades and occupies Australia will likely dominate the 21st century, so to an extent Australia is protected by other countries not wanting to see one of their rivals gain an overwhelming advantage. But I agree the situation is potentially precarious.
Eric,
Apologize if I seemed too flippant. I know the situation is serious. I do not take anything the conversation writes as serious and was really trying to make fun of them. Carried away.
Didn’t China recently complain that America was sending a few thousand troops to Australia for training? I found that mind blowing.
The recent outcome of the Upper Hunter by-election punished the Labour Party and reaffirmed to all politicians that coal workers do not want to be re-trained as computer specialists or coders. With a cold winter coming on the ‘Climate Crisis” does not look so well supported by ‘Global Warming’.
the hate gas campaigns being stepped up in Aus
“experts” on abc daily almost decrying natural gas for home heat/cook/hws as its Unlclean gives you asthma and has PM2.5 etc etc
some less then bright fella was saying our lpg gas buses were uneconomical compared to leccy ones at 1c a km’
(ignore the outlay the batteries etc)
and the gas fleet was being scrapped cos no buyers
wtf?
they oughta advertise em then cos it beats diesel per km, but they are limited for turning into big travel home options due to inland aus NOT selling lpg widely
Greenpeace attacking AGL daily using Google ads. Our ABC pumping relentless gas misinformation. AU gas is under co-ordinated attack. I love it! Coulbn’t happen to a nicer bunch of two-faced ripoff merchants. Screw the gas industry . . .
“….challenging the USA’s domination of the Pacific Ocean…”
Fat chance they’ll succeed at that. The USA’s navy has vast experience in war and peace. And the USA’s military has been at war more often than not since WWII. Experience matters. Yes, China now has missiles that can sink an aircraft carrier. They can threaten to use it but they wouldn’t dare. America will not give up dominance of the Pacific.
Laugh or cry….
Quote:”…..o build a navy to rival the US Navy, challengi….“”
Meanwhile, here in the UK, Bumbling Buffoon Boris with Balls in a Vice come up with…
New British Tank
‘Tank’ is such a fabatanktastic word here, top o’ my head may fall off 😀
Me personally am all-a-tingle with excitement (really I am) – they’re next planning on building a ship.
oh dear oh dear oh dear sigh
CO2 is two parts oxygen for 1 part carbon. For every 12 kg of carbon, CO2 has 32 kg of oxygen.
Shouldn’t CO2 be called oxygen pollution? Dont truth in publication laws require that one mentions the main ingredient first?
What about sea level rise? Why don’t we call that salt pollution?
Inconsistent rules for word choice suggests we are hearing propaganda dressed up as science.
” … with growth switching to resources that can support electric vehicles and batteries.” Only fossil fuels can support a “green” infrastructure. One cannot currently make steel, cement, aluminum and etc. without fossil fuels.
Net zero carbon
Equals rationing
Just what a power hungry socialist wants.
You mean gas and coal?
World’s coal producers now planning more than 400 new mines – research (yahoo.com)