This is my first video uploaded to Rumble. It is an interview Ben Fordham had with One Nation’s Mark Latham concerning the Liberal/Nationals push for 100% renewable energy in the next ten years.
Coal
All posts tagged Coal
When you have friends like this who needs enemies?
‘As a member of the Australian Parliament, we have a solemn duty to do everything we can to assist Australian exporters – because creates wealth and jobs, and revenue for the Treasury to enable our nation to pay for; our hospitals, listing life-saving drugs on the PBS, helping kids with disabilities, or defence, etc, etc. For a member of Parliament to travel to a foreign nation and encourage that nation not to buy Australian exports is nothing other than high treason. But that’s exactly what the leader of The Greens Party just did.https://www.smh.com.au/…/greens-accused-of-treachery…And who wins, if the South Korean’s did want Adam Bandt wanted, a new tax on Australian Coal exports ? The Russians ! https://www.smh.com.au/…/the-russians-are-coming-for…The Russians are already coming after our coal export markets – the Australian Greens are trying to help them.’https://www.facebook.com/CraigKellyMP
Can mankind change the climate? If you believe this I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.
‘Thanks to US president-elect Joe Biden’s declaration that his administration will set a target of net-zero emissions for the US by 2050, meaningless statements about emission targets are now the political vogue.
President-elect Biden had barely made this declaration before independent Federal MP Zali Steggall brought forward her previously announced plans to launch a private member’s bill containing the same target for Australia. Britain and France have already made such declarations, as has China.
The private bill is extremely unlikely to reach the governor-general’s desk for royal assent but means just as much as all the other pious declarations made by the other countries, as it does not spell out how Australia is going to reach such a target.
Instead the bill sets out various processes which may help in achieving the target, such as forming a Climate Change Commission (as opposed to the late and unlamented Climate Commission) to advise on the matter, as well as mandating a national climate risk and national adaptation programs in addition to adopting the government’s existing technology road map.
All the extra public servants that have to be hired for those initiatives will then work out the irksome details on just how to eliminate or offset the emissions from Australia’s aluminium smelters and steel-making operations, not to mention changing all of the power industry over to renewables and the cars to electric.
Just how any of those targets will be achieved in thirty years is anyone’s guess but the major advantage for Steggall and the other proponents of this bill is that they can pose as green saviours knowing that the bill will never become law. If the bill, or some variation on it, does eventually get through parliament they will never be held accountable for any failure to meet a target so far into the future — at least five parliamentary cycles. In the meantime, taxpayers will be left to pay the bill for an expanded green bureaucracy plus consultancies.
Much the same calculation may underpin the decision by organisations such as Oxfam, the Business Council of Australia, the ACTU and the Australian Medical Association to publicly support the bill. They get green street cred knowing that the bill is unlikely to see the light of day.
President-elect Biden is in a different position as he will be expected to do something about the target, but at 77 he is highly unlikely to be held accountable for a target 30 years from now and he has a host of ready made excuses. For Biden only has the power to set targets, not to enforce them.
In the disparate US system, individual states have more freedom to mess things up than in Australia, assuming they have any interest in climate targets in the first place. It is difficult to imagine hard- core Republican states such as Texas, for example, being impressed by Biden’s climate aspirations and the Republican senate is unlikely to pass legislation that would force them to do so.
Then there is the reality of decarbonisation. Even Democrat California, which has its own climate targets, will struggle to meet the President-elect’s intermediate goal of decarbonising the power industry by 2035. As has previously been noted, California’s emphasis on renewable energy and failure to invest in reliable power plants resulted in rolling blackouts during a Northern summer heatwave (‘Battery Battles’, The Spectator Australia, 29 August, 2020). Activists living in the state have excused this failure on the grounds that the blackouts did not last for long, while Democrat state governor Gavin Newsom has blamed neighbouring states (which faced similar high demand) for refusing to sell power to California.
The checks and balances of the American system will also make it difficult for President-elect Biden to take the US back into the Paris treaty framework for reducing emissions, as he has declared he will do. America was only ever able to sign it in the first place in 2015 as a presidential agreement rather than a treaty. The wording of Paris was even altered so that it could be considered an agreement rather than a treaty as far as the Americans were concerned. Treaties have to be ratified by the US Senate which would never have happened at the time and still won’t happen.
However, Biden can still sign the Paris deal as a presidential agreement, binding him to do what he can to meet climate targets, knowing that green activists will insist on calling it a treaty, without any of the legal obligations of a treaty.
He can also still waste a lot of taxpayers’ dollars once he reaches the White House in pursuit of his declared goal and already the sum of $US2 trillion to be spent on clean energy over four years has been mentioned. That is a lot of money to spend on batteries and wind farms.
Particularly hard to take for anyone with knowledge of the climate scene is activists hailing, as a breakthrough, the declaration by Chinese President Xi Jinping that his country will aim for net-zero emissions by 2060 to a virtual audience of world leaders at a meeting of the United Nations General Assembly last month.
Chinese mines dig up half the world’s coal (both power and smelting) and the country still has to import billions of dollars worth from Australia to feed its industry. Earlier this year US climate organisation CarbonBrief estimated that in 2019 the Chinese built coal plants capable of generating 37 gigawatts, net of closures, or about the same as the existing total coal-fired capacity of the Australian system.
Although coal’s share of the power generating market is declining despite that growth, thanks to increases in hydro power and nuclear, it is still very difficult to reconcile that building program with China’s net-zero emissions declaration.
This week Prime Minister Scott Morrison declared that Australia should meet the goal of net-zero emissions by 2050 ‘as quickly as possible, as quickly as it’s able’, but he declined to mandate a target until it was clear how it would be achieved and what the cost would be.
Former Prime Minister John Howard would not sign Australia up to the Kyoto Protocol in 2005 for the good reason that it was useless and was pilloried by the green movement for his honesty. Morrison may also be pilloried for his honesty but there is little doubt that until there is some indication about how net-zero emission targets can be achieved, such declarations are meaningless.’https://www.spectator.com.au/2020/11/zero-net-sense/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=OZWH%20%2020201114%20%20AL&utm_content=OZWH%20%2020201114%20%20AL+CID_ab1dd8456b37c5b72f40115308217c8a&utm_source=CampaignMonitor_Australia&utm_term=Zero%20net%20sense
The old Labor Party had its faults as do all political party’s. However, ‘In 1970 Gough Whitlam welcomed the federal government’s announcement that it would finance the building of the Gladstone Power Station.
Whitlam said “power was the determining factor in the development of natural resources in the area and the attraction of greater human resources to the area”.
Since that time the Labor Party has given up trying to attract working-class jobs to develop an area. This week Anthony Albanese has compared new, job-creating, coal-fired power stations to unicorns. Without new coal-fired power stations, thousands of manufacturing jobs across Australia will be lost.
There are 3000 people employed in alumina and aluminium production in central Queensland thanks to that Gladstone Power Station built by the federal government 50 years ago.
That was a time when we developed our resources not just to export overseas but to create jobs here too.
Without further investment, however, we will lose this industry and thousands of jobs. Other countries will instead take these jobs because, in the words of the Opposition Leader, they’re building lots of unicorns.
According to the environmental activists at Global Coal Plant Tracker, China is building 105 more unicorns (coal-fired power plants), India 31 more, Indonesia 24 more and Japan 14 more. Around the world 223 coal-fired power stations are being built, including seven in Europe, and there are 343 coal-fired power plants in the “pre-construction” planning stage. Coal-fired power is imaginary only in Albanese’s mind.
If other countries build coal-fired power stations (often fuelled with our coal), and we do not, they will take our jobs. We will not just be shipping the coal overseas, our jobs will be shipped over there too.
That will also happen if we succumb to the glib talk that we should adopt a target of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. How will this work? We are due to receive our last diesel submarine in 35 years, but apparently we can hit net-zero emissions in 30 years.
The net-zero advocates will respond that we can “offset” the diesel-powered subs with investments that help cut emissions in other countries.
But we are being told that we need all countries to hit net zero by 2050 to save the planet. Who are we going to buy carbon emissions from if all other countries have stopped emitting too? We can’t buy carbon credits from Mars.
What the advocates are really suggesting is that we can have our cake and eat it too. That we can still drive our cars, heat our homes and even fly around the world on holidays, providing we tick a box that says “green offset credits” for the low, low, low price of $2 a trip.
If only it were that simple.
The 223 coal-fired power stations that are being built around the world have economic lives that will last until 2070.
Other countries will not handicap their economies by shutting them down early. They will keep producing our wind turbines and solar panels using coal-fired power. And, they will make a lot of money out of this.
But renewable energy will not protect our manufacturing jobs and industries.
Electricity prices are cheaper in other countries that use our coal. The proposed policy of exporting our coal while denying ourselves the use of it hurts our manufacturing industry at both ends. Not only does it make the costs of making things here more expensive, it gives our competitors a leg up.
The proposed Collinsville power station is backed by an indigenous-led company, Shine Energy. This company is run by proud members of the Birri nation. They want to build a coal-fired power station on their land so they can enjoy good-paying jobs on their own country.
The Birri people have experience working on power projects. They worked on the Collinsville solar farm. They managed to get jobs out of that project, but they were temporary.
Once the panels were installed all the jobs disappeared, and that doesn’t help the Birri achieve their long-term economic goals.
Renewable energy investments are often just sugar hits for country towns. In contrast, a coal-fired power station promises to deliver 500 long-term, well-paid jobs for north Queensland. That’s heaps more than the Birri can hope to fill and the project will be a boon for all north Queenslanders, not just indigenous Australians. A new coal-fired power station in north Queensland would return us to Whitlam’s wise words of developing our natural resources to attract human resources to an area.’ http://www.mattcanavan.com.au/coal_fired_power_stations_create_jobs_and_give_a_free_kick_to_rivals_the_australian?utm_campaign=e_central_bulletin_28_2_20&utm_medium=email&utm_source=mattjcan
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Revelation 16:8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire. 9 And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.
Man is in rebellion against his Maker and the climate change lie is the New World Religion. In their rebellion against the Creator they think they can not only change the climate but the gender in which they were born! Poor dupes!
Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, 15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
However, there is hope and that is ‘if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved’ Romans 10:9.
‘Even so, come, Lord Jesus.’
What scares me most is not so much Ocasio-Cortez and her socialist ideas but those who voted her in!
‘According to an eye-popping PJ Media analysis based on a new report from Power the Future, the “Green New Deal” proposed by democratic socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) would cost more than 8,000 times as much as President Donald Trump’s border wall.
The “Green New Deal” will cost approximately $49,109 trillion in the first ten years, enough to fund Trump’s border wall 8,616 times over. The president is requesting $5.7 billion for the wall.
PJ Media calculated the cost of the “Green New Deal” by integrating each of the cost aspects involved in a Power the Future analysis and calculating their cost for the U.S. over about ten years — and in one case through 2050.
According to Ocasio-Cortez, the “Green New Deal” will force America to transition to an economy run from 100 percent renewable energy. Christopher Clark, a physicist who has studied rapid deployments of renewable energy, told The Hill that building this kind of generating capacity would cost “at least $2 trillion.”
Ocasio-Cortez has also called for a smart power grid to replace the U.S. power grid, an estimated cost of $338 billion on the low end ($476 billion on the high end), according to the Electric Power Research Institute. This kind of transition may be a good idea in general, but it drives up the cost of the “Green New Deal” nonetheless.
The proposal would also call for decarbonization of U.S. industries — a massive task. According to a June 2018 study from McKinsey and Company, the cost to decarbonize steel, cement, ethylene, and ammonia manufacturing worldwide is between $11 trillion and $21 trillion through 2050. It remains unclear exactly how long this would take for U.S. markets, but calculating the U.S. percentage of each industry and applying that industry’s percentage of the global $11 trillion cost should provide a ballpark figure.
The U.S. produces roughly 5 percent of the world’s steel, 1.8 percent of the world’s cement, 18.6 percent of the world’s ethylene, and 6.3 percent of the world’s ammonia. The McKinsey study did not explicitly break down the exact cost of decarbonizing each separate industry, but cement roughly contributed 60 percent of the cost, with steel contributing roughly 25 percent, ammonia roughly 5 percent, and ethylene roughly 10 percent. Applying these numbers to the U.S. production yields $496.3 billion.’ More of this insanity may be read at https://pjmedia.com/trending/ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal-would-cost-more-than-the-gdp-of-most-countries/?utm_source=PJMCoffeeBreak&utm_medium=email&utm_term=January2019
Here in Australia, the leftists believe pretty much the same thing. In New South Wales the so-called Energy Minister is ‘…a sanctimonious windbag, is part of a small and insidious clique of Liberal politicians and lobbyists heavily invested in the renewable energy scam. His recent unhinged rantings sound more like what might be heard at a Green party RE love in, rather than what should be emanating from a Minister in a notionally conservative government, claiming the pretense of caring about industry, jobs and growth.
Among the complete and utter nonsense spouted about Australia’s self-inflicted energy debacle, Harwin made the ludicrous statement that wind and solar are more reliable than the conventional generation sources, gas and coal. Perhaps the sun never sets on Harwin? And he can never have seen a graphic like the one above: the output from every wind turbine connected to Australia’s Eastern Grid last month.’ https://stopthesethings.com/2019/01/05/delusional-nsw-energy-minister-claims-wind-solar-more-reliable-than-coal-gas/
Why, are these elected officials so determined to take society back to the dark ages? I personally believe; (1) they are servants of the Devil. God has provided mankind with not only a mind that has thought through those methods to bring forth the machines that have made our lives better but God has given us the natural resources such as coal and gas that power most of the things that make our lives better. (2) They are at war with God. (3) They believe IF there is a God they are wiser than God is!
Well, they have a hard lesson to learn and all my ranting and writing will probably not stop these buffoons but I know He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
Genesis 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee…
Matthew 27:29 And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews!
Government? Could we exist without their decisions for perhaps, say, one year? Nevertheless, as long as they have your money to use they will make these kind of decsions.
‘The Queensland Premier, Annastacia Palasczcuk, was promoting green energy at the
Clare Solar Farm. Resources Minister Matt Canavan calculates the astonishing waste: “The Clare Solar Farm stands to get something like $340 million in subsidies over the next 13 years for 5 jobs! That works out at $60 million a job.”‘ http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/60-million-for-each-solar-job/news-story/bd9aa324ffbe4bef09375f1a55df20de?from=htc_rss
Remember Genesis 8:22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
Andrew Bolt wrote ‘Westpac, freaked by green activists, says it won’t invest in mines in new coal regions to save the world from global warming.
But what hypocrites:
WESTPAC … a worse greenhouse gas polluter than some of Australia’s biggest manufacturers.
The bank released its latest climate change action plan on Friday, ruling out finance for mines in new coal regions such as the giant Carmichael project planned by Adani for central Queensland’s Galilee Basin…
Official figures reported to the federal Clean Energy Regulator show carbon dioxide emissions related to the bank’s operations totalled 148,723 tonnes in 2015-16, equivalent to 29,000 cars.
Most of it is indirect pollution from energy used to run massive data centres. That is the highest level of any of the country’s big four banks – 45 per cent more than the Commonwealth.
But it also overshadows manufacturing companies such as Arnott’s Biscuits, brewer Foster’s, frozen food producer McCain, dairy giant Parmalat Australia and even carmaker General Motors.
Westpac was responsible for more emissions than fast food chain McDonald’s and infrastructure operations including Gladstone Ports and the Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal near Mackay.
Westpac has just proved that motly activists prepared to crash its parties can have a massive effect. It has now set itself up for further blackmail. What next? No investment in gas? Cancelling the back accounts of people who work in uranium mining? Banning finance for fatty foods?
Westpac has just declared it will not invest in money making things if activists claim (faslely) they are a sin. Is our future safe when a bank bans investment in projects that create jobs and revenue? Is the bank itself a good investment when it puts scare campaigns above reason?
Resources Minister Matt Canavan tries some pressure of his own:
Senator Canavan has called for a customer boycott of the bank.
“Apparently, everyone else should cut emissions but them,” he said.’
whatyareckon 