The reptiles are wildly excited, and naturally Lloydie is in on the push about the health impacts of wind farms …after all, the Donald himself is a keen student of wind farms, and we all know thanks to him that they cause cancer …
"If you have a windmill anywhere near your house, congratulations, your house just went down 75 percent in value. And they say the noise causes cancer. You tell me that one, okay?"
Meanwhile, as the Labor party is keen to lose voters not interested in following the reptiles down the dinkum clean Oz coal path, the reptiles called on nattering "Ned" to deal with the crisis facing the wily SloMo.
How to pretend you give a toss about climate science, when you really don't …perhaps talk "realities", code for "nah, not really?"
How to pretend you give a toss about climate science, when you really don't …perhaps talk "realities", code for "nah, not really?"
The good news is that for once someone must have told "Ned" to keep it short, and so this is a relatively brief wedge ...
Good old Nats. Where would the miners be without them? Come to think of it, where would the farmers be without them as they dig up the Liverpool plains in the quest for more dinkum clean Oz coal, in support of a planet warming until the goose is cooked?
How can "Ned" sort his way through all this, given the reptiles love of climate science denialism? How can SloMo? What to say when the Canavan caravan as it rolls into town again, talking the talk that once came naturally to SloMo, but now lips must be pressed elsewhere to give the necessary lip service the country needs?
Simple. We must talk of realities ...
Indeed, indeed, it's impossible to grasp the reality that climate science is just a mass delusion and a new religion, and yet it's not as if SloMo didn't show us all the way forward …
Ah precious, how cruel they are, in an uncaring world … unloved, and unwanted by those heathen inner city 'leets, and yet so dear to those who love you deeply ...
While the quivering jellyfish known as "Ned" poses a moral question yet again (remember, sweet coal isn't a matter of science, it's a matter of morality), the pond believes that the government will rise to the challenge, and so does the immortal Rowe. Just look at the supercharged buggie they're hooning around in …
Well there's more Rowe here, and so to the good news.
The Canavan caravan has also roared into reptile HQ in an FX, or given the date, perhaps a HT Kingswood … ready to deliver seemly outburst in favour of dinkum clean Oz coal, oi, oi, oi …
The Canavan caravan has also roared into reptile HQ in an FX, or given the date, perhaps a HT Kingswood … ready to deliver seemly outburst in favour of dinkum clean Oz coal, oi, oi, oi …
Yes, never mind the climate science, it's coal, coal, coal … and all you have to do is hop on your treadlie and wheel your way back to 1970 and Gough for forward-thinking inspiration, because trust the pond and the Canavan caravan, nothing has changed since 1970, at least in the deep north known as Queensland … (where's Albert Field when he's needed so he could give the Canavan a good French polish?)
Ah, those climate scientists with their glib talk … completely unlike the current mob …
Well there's more Wilcox here, and now it's back to the Canavan caravan explaining how only coal can produce the required resilience and adaptation the country so badly needs …
Reading all that guff, it's not often that the pond invokes troglodytes and dinosaurs, and yet whenever the pond reads the Canavan caravan, that's what comes to mind …
And so to something completely different.
The pond noticed that music popped up in the comments section … and it recently stumbled across a Prom concert performance of the short Bartok opera Bluebeard's Castle …
It has the advantage of sub-titles, and while not the best image, it was given a favourable review here … and it does offer a change from coal-loving and climate science denialism ...
Watch it on YouTube here ...
Thank you DP. Where to start with Canavan's specious argument?
ReplyDelete"Who are we going to buy carbon emissions from if all other countries have stopped emitting too?"
Senator Canavan, have you heard the term 'stranded asset'? That will make a new power station the ultimate boondoggle. The only way we will have nothing to trade emissions for is if every other country in the world removes its emissions so there is no trade. That is, they will have achieved their climate change goals, and Australia won't.
Indeed "we can't buy carbon credits from Mars" but perhaps Canavan is eyeing Mars off as a possible Planet B, once earth becomes inhabitable.
Given the US is also unlikely to achieve zero emissions (by whatever date is proposed), that will probably leave Australia and the US as countries with stranded fossil-fuel assets. Perhaps we can have a sweetheart trade deal with the US where emissions don't count, but it is likely we will be up against tariffs imposed by the rest of the world - tariffs on just about everything exported - as it moves closer to zero emissions. We will then have to rely on the US as a partner in this dirty crime.
It has previously been demonstrated that the 223 stations "being built" around the world are not in fact 'stations', but 'units', a much smaller measure (a coal-fired power station is made up of multiple units). The number of new stations is nowhere near 223. Even Google tells me "China is involved in 15 coal power plants in operation, six under construction and at least two in the planning stages, according to Nguyen Thi Hang with Hanoi-based environmental group Green Innovation and Development Centre."
So other countries "will keep producing our wind turbines and solar panels using coal-fired power. They will make a lot of money out of this" and yet a solar farm near Collinsville in Queensland provided only temporary jobs. And presumably no money.
A new coal-fired power station might return us to Whitlam's wise words, but they would also return us to a 70s level of pollution.
I also understand that quite a few (don't know exactly how many offhand) of the Chinese plants/units are actually left inoperative due to many of them being initially "approved" by Chinese regional governments but then being disapproved by the Chinese central government.
DeleteIt'll probably take a decade or three for the Chinese to actually sort their power setup out. But I'd be very surprised if coal continues as the primary power fuel.
Matt the Canny Van: "We are told that we need all countries to hit net zero by 2050 to save the planet."
ReplyDeleteNo, not really Matt, the"planet" will survive, it's just that a large percentage of current live species will no longer be so not very long after 2050. That has happened before, you know; see the Great Permian-Triassic Dying. Yes, that was "natural" due mainly to the Siberian Traps but it shows how things can end up even in "nature".
However, the main issue I think is two-fold: firstly the Canavans and McCormacks of this world (by far a large majority of the human race) just do not understand anything about the way this planet works so they really don't understand the scale of the problem; and secondly, they do not grasp that the GHGs we're pouring into the atmosphere have a lifetime of many hundreds to thousands of years.
Once we wreck the life environment of this planet, it's going to stay wrecked for a long time. And if we really do a good job, we just might turn Earth into a second Venus (runaway warming is not impossible). And don't push "a trillion trees" at us, we all know that's a complete fantasy - and it would take about 100 years to have any significant effect anyway.
Oh and good choice for "top left" today DP. Barners just doen't have the staying power of an onion muncher, does he. Though it does illustrate that the real problem is ignorant non-thinkers such as Canavan pretending that they have any real idea what they're rabbiting on about which, being elected by like minded people, they do not.
I second the nomination of Signor Canavan to the banner of loons atop your blog, DP. He seems an entirely appropriate addition to the cast. Yesterday I was watching Barners on the TV having some sort of gaga meltdown. I'm not sure why he was on screen; likely pure circus value - whereas I think the banner should be reserved for serious loons.
DeleteThanks for the Bartok, DP. I have to confess that I'm not a big fan of opera, and not overly of 'recitative' opera where the performers just stand around 'reciting'. I do love, as many people do, a ragbag collection of arias though - after all, who doesn't love 'Au fond du temple saint' (all time ever greatest male duet) without having to love all of the rather banal The Pearl Fishers.
ReplyDeleteBut just for a reverse compliment (complement ?), here's a definitive 'light opera' performed and acted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLoghfRwWdE
Yes, that is John Gay's 'Beggars Opera' complete with Captain Macheath, Jenny Diver and Suky Tawdry. :-) Unfortunately it's a bit more than twice as long as the Bartok.
Of course, I quite like the Threepenny Opera also. Especially including Lotte Lenya (yes, the lady credited with having a voice "two octaves below laryngitis", but who else can perform Seerauber Jenny as it should be).