Essay by Eric Worrall
Still no ban on coal; The Green Party has vowed to oppose a weak “symbolic” climate bill which provides no roadmap for how the proposed emission cuts are to be achieved.
Greens slam Labor climate bill as government digs on 43 per cent ‘mandate’
By James Massola and Mike Foley
Updated July 14, 2022 — 7.06pmfirst published at 12.06pmLabor’s signature climate change bill to slash emissions by 43 per cent is facing defeat in the Senate after the Greens delivered a scathing assessment of the draft legislation.
A leaked draft of the climate change bill obtained by The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age revealed the proposed legislation is largely symbolic because it will only enshrine an emissions target and oblige the federal government to make an annual progress report to parliament.
Greens leader Adam Bandt said that “if you’re going to legislate targets then they should be Dutton-proof and protect Australia’s targets against a future climate wrecking-government”.
“Aside from the weak 43 per cent target, we’re concerned it puts a legal ceiling on lifting the target, allows future climate-wrecking governments to announce lower targets, doesn’t seem to require the government to actually do anything to cut pollution and allows more coal and gas projects, which will put even this weak target out of reach,” he said.
“If this or a future government increases targets, as the Greens will push them to do, any targets enshrined in law should automatically lift too, but the draft bill keeps the legislated targets stuck at a low 43 per cent.”
…
Read more: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/leaked-climate-change-bill-enshrines-43-per-cent-emissions-cut-20220714-p5b1km.html
I agree with Greens leader Adam Bandt. If we are going to have a green leaning government which has promised to “end the climate wars”, a weak bill which stinks of climate hypocrisy is not a good start, especially when the government needs green support to pass the bill.
Obviously any attempt to hit net zero will be a dismal failure, but lets get the Aussie Brandon moment over and done with. This constant low level threat of tighter carbon restrictions, chronically expensive green tainted energy, and rampant climate hypocrisy is likely far more economically damaging than a short, sharp learning experience would be.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
How about Greene’s Law?
One windmill + no wind = no electricity
One bazillion windmills + no wind = no electricity
Your logic is easier to follow than Mustang’s. He is concerned about getting maximum efficiency out of wind which is free (59.3% efficiency) which appears to be a non sequitur to this discussion, as without any wind energy capture device, the efficiency is zero.
But then he switches to EROI. That seems to be apples and oranges.
.
The discussion of how ICE simply wear out but do not fail catastrophically is foreign to my experience with engines. I have had piston rods puncture the block in three engines (motorcycle in college, diesel in semi I drove in college, and a friend’s engine in a new Toyota pickup about 30 years ago. Of course, few ICEs die catastrophically; but he presents no evidence that most wind turbines die catastrophically. The argument seems weird without such data.
Please understand that I would love to see evidence that wind turbines do not provide a net return on energy or capital invested. I made such a statement to a friend a few years ago, and he asked for supporting data. I have not been able to provide him with that, only that no one seems to invest in wind turbines without an underlying subsidy. That may just mean the return is too small for the investment otherwise.
Prove me right and I can get rid of the egg on my face. In the meantime, Betz’s Law has little or nothing to do with the argument IMHO.
As soon as all these green activists prove in their own homes and lives they can eliminate all fossil fuels, anything produced by fossil fuels and the byproducts of oil, I will consider their demands.
Not me – but it would give me a good dose of schadenfreude.
I attended an event at the National Press Club where Bandt was on stage speaking.
He is delusional. I had to endure such drivel from this leprechaun sized pee brain that I sat jaw agape at such stupidity he espoused.
This man?? is a blight on Australia. IMO, his best service to this country would be as a fertiliser, and then you would still have to wait a thousand years for the malfeasance of poison that courses through him to be eliminated from the ground.
It is a sad state of affairs that an electorate can be so ignorant to elect this ingenious bastard. This is what the shittiest state Premier and most unlivable city in Australia producers.
The founder and leader of Greens in Australia was Dr Bob Brown, when he addressed the National Press Club for the last time before he retired he spoke about his dream being a world with no border control, freedom of movement for all people and a world parliament: one world government.
And later as a retired person living in the State of Tasmania he argued against construction of a wind turbine installation on nearby hills that overlooked his property.
A couple of decades ago a journalist interviewed a group of female tennis players at tennis courts in a Sydney Eastern Suburbs location, a high wealth area, and as a Federal Election was not far away he asked them who they intended to vote for, and most said the Greens. He asked for what reasons and was told it was mainly for protection of the environment. They became known as the doctor’s wives.
The last three Greens leaders have been absolutists…our way or the highway, zero compromise!
That could well save us from the madness!?!?
Agree with the sentiment. We need to feel the pain until the stupid burns enough.
A worry meant as ensuring government treats climate legislation as if a tyrannical despot is running the country.
i.e., not good government for voters or citizen independence.