Science Australia backs gas beyond 2050 despite climate fears - The policy comes despite global calls to drastically phase out fossil fuels to reach climate targets.

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

1715275117920.png

Australia has announced it will ramp up its extraction and use of gas until "2050 and beyond", despite global calls to phase out fossil fuels.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's government says the move is needed to shore up domestic energy supply while supporting a transition to net zero.

But critics argue the move is a rejection of science, pointing to the International Energy Agency (IEA) call for "huge declines in the use of coal, oil and gas" to reach climate targets.

Australia - one of the world's largest exporters of liquefied natural gas - has also said the policy is based on "its commitment to being a reliable trading partner".

Released on Thursday, the strategy outlines the government's plans to work with industry and state leaders to increase both the production and exploration of the fossil fuel.

The government will also continue to support the expansion of the country's existing gas projects, the largest of which are run by Chevron and Woodside Energy Group in Western Australia.

It argues these moves are needed for Australia's domestic energy supply as it tracks towards its targets of delivering 82% renewable energy to the grid by 2030, and achieving net zero emissions by 2050.

Currently gas accounts for 27% of the country's existing energy needs. But the bulk of what is produced domestically is exported to countries such as China, Japan, and South Korea.

Gas is responsible for roughly a quarter of Australia's total emissions, according to government data.

The policy has sparked fierce backlash from environmental groups and critics - who say it puts the interest of powerful fossil fuel companies before people.

"Fossil gas is not a transition fuel. It’s one of the main contributors to global warming and has been the largest source of increases of CO2 [emissions] over the last decade," Prof Bill Hare, chief executive of Climate Analytics and author of numerous UN climate change reports told the BBC.

Independent Senator David Pocock lashed it as “morally bankrupt, negligent and just plain stupid” in a statement on Thursday.

Successive Australian governments have touted gas as a key "bridging fuel", arguing that turning it off too soon could have "significant adverse impacts" on Australia's economy and energy needs.

But Prof Hare and other scientists have warned that building a net zero policy around gas will "contribute to locking in 2.7-3C global warming, which will have catastrophic consequences".

In 2015, world leaders promised to try to limit long-term temperature rises to 1.5C, which is seen as crucial to avoiding the most damaging impacts of climate change.

That limit was recently exceeded for the first time - from February 2023 to January 2024, according to the EU's climate service.


The Aussie Uncuckening begins.
 
Click to expand...
ZazietheBeast said:
Muh climate is a total meme and deserves to get shat on.
Click to expand...
Just another way to control the plebs.

Meanwhile (as silver will be needed for weapons of war), the solar panel wank age will die the death sooner rather than later as China monopolizes it all. There's a reason shitty electric mowers can't even manage to cut half your grass before the battery needs replacing, it just doesn't bring the same power that dead dinosaurs do.
 
Super-Chevy454 said:
This is the new version of the boy who cried wolf....
Click to expand...
Yeah, eventually somebody will be right and it'll be too late because we didn't listen. Natural gas in and of itself isn't bad at all as a fuel source, it's almost entirely methane so it can be produced from organic sources like Taco Bell. There's enormous abiotic sources too, Titan is basically a moon made of methane.

It seems like the piece that is never considered is the ability of the planet to adapt to changes without major impacts on the ecosystem. It can do so for a while but eventually something will give. Then things get really bad and fast due to catastrophic failures. And it works for both heating and cooling, which is why I am so concerned about ideas like geoengineering.

If your approach doesn't impact peoples' quality of life, they have no problem with it. I don't think anybody wants to go back to the way things were before the Clean Air Act, for example.
 
Agamemnon Busmalis said:
Yeah, eventually somebody will be right and it'll be too late because we didn't listen. Natural gas in and of itself isn't bad at all as a fuel source, it's almost entirely methane so it can be produced from organic sources like Taco Bell. There's enormous abiotic sources too, Titan is basically a moon made of methane.

It seems like the piece that is never considered is the ability of the planet to adapt to changes without major impacts on the ecosystem. It can do so for a while but eventually something will give. Then things get really bad and fast due to catastrophic failures. And it works for both heating and cooling, which is why I am so concerned about ideas like geoengineering.

If your approach doesn't impact peoples' quality of life, they have no problem with it. I don't think anybody wants to go back to the way things were before the Clean Air Act, for example.
Click to expand...
If the answer to any of these changes is global, centralized governance and planning, I would rather just keep going and destroy the planet. I'll die either way, and I'll be able to die on my feet instead of my knees that way.
 
frozen_runner said:
If the answer to any of these changes is global, centralized governance and planning, I would rather just keep going and destroy the planet. I'll die either way, and I'll be able to die on my feet instead of my knees that way.
Click to expand...
That's how anybody should die in the face of tyranny, if they can. If you kneel you're already dead.

What I'd do is subsidize development of uranium mines and construction of nuclear power including new technologies like thorium reactors, as well as subsidize rooftop solar for homeowners with them receiving credit for surplus power, and the federal government compensating utilities for providers. Phase out coal first via solar, then gas once there is enough nuclear power.

Then provide incentives and funding for mass transit, electric vehicles, charging stations and hybrids, but not penalize owners of gas-powered vehicles or those who choose to fly instead of take a train. Make the service fast and reliable enough and people will want to use it, flying sucks.

Lastly, a massive effort to restore fallow and abandoned pasture/farm land in the Great Plains with native grasslands. This is an enormous carbon sink and would also improve the ecosystem and bring more opportunities for tourism and hunting.
 
Agamemnon Busmalis said:
That's how anybody should die in the face of tyranny, if they can. If you kneel you're already dead.

What I'd do is subsidize development of uranium mines and construction of nuclear power including new technologies like thorium reactors, as well as subsidize rooftop solar for homeowners with them receiving credit for surplus power, and the federal government compensating utilities for providers. Phase out coal first via solar, then gas once there is enough nuclear power.

Then provide incentives and funding for mass transit, electric vehicles, charging stations and hybrids, but not penalize owners of gas-powered vehicles or those who choose to fly instead of take a train. Make the service fast and reliable enough and people will want to use it, flying sucks.

Lastly, a massive effort to restore fallow and abandoned pasture/farm land in the Great Plains with native grasslands. This is an enormous carbon sink and would also improve the ecosystem and bring more opportunities for tourism and hunting.
Click to expand...
In other words, there are other options besides globalhomocaust. Of course there are.

So the question is, why do they keep pushing for the worst possible "solutions?" (Analogy: see the way COVID was handled.)
 
Agamemnon Busmalis said:
If your approach doesn't impact peoples' quality of life, they have no problem with it. I don't think anybody wants to go back to the way things were before the Clean Air Act, for example.
Click to expand...
That's the key point most people want. Do stuff as cleanly as possible, try not to pollute, and don't crash national economies or wreck First World standards of living in the process.

Unfortunately, those people aren't in charge and the people who are have their own agendas, either ideological or the want to line their own pockets, and both of those types don't mind using one crisis after another to do it. The environment is something that is important to normal people so that's the excuse du jour that allows our better to get what they want.
 
frozen_runner said:
In other words, there are other options besides globalhomocaust. Of course there are.

So the question is, why do they keep pushing for the worst possible "solutions?" (Analogy: see the way COVID was handled.)
Click to expand...
Because those solutions don't give them control. The mitigation measures I listed are completely voluntary for citizens, the impact on businesses is mitigated, and it encourages people with rewards, not penalties for their changes in behavior.

Why do the WEF et al want control? I think they're simply mentally ill narcissists and amoral psychopaths who want power over others for its own sake and are willing to do things to attain it it that a normal person would never consider. The problem is basically worldwide we've allowed the state to have so much power over our lives they can now weaponize it for that purpose.

The "elite" self-selects for that type even though they are not particularly smart or competent. They bungled the Great Reset and New Normal because of the sunk-cost fallacy of all things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom