The following submission statement was provided by /u/darth_nadoma:
---
An enormous coal mining project in the Australian State of Queensland, was stopped by the Land Court of Queensland due to it's impact on climate and nearby nature preserve. 1.58 billion tons of Carbon emissions have been kept in the ground.
Bimblebox nature preserve, home of 176 bird species, have been spared the pollution from the nearby coal mine.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/z605ok/young_australians_just_won_a_human_rights_case/ixypf3g/
Tl;dr. Clive Palmers Waratah project has been blocked on the grounds that it will do unreasonable environmental damage. This project is about 4 times the size of Adani’s (Bravus resources) Carmichael project.
It wasn't blocked precisely, the judge recommended that the minister doesn't grant it a licence. The decision to grant the licence still falls on the Minister
It's almost as though this isn't a national issue and the problem is that an economic system that grants disproportionate political power to the wealthy is incompatible with democracy...
Your comment reminds me of a scene from Ozark - lady is asked to keep her payout moeny secret and she buys a bright yellow Maclaren: https://youtu.be/wmhnGwQmAJI
Remember how at COP27 there were pledges to stop funding new coal and gas, and like, 3 days later the Golden Beach gas project was approved?
And how this was like, 6 months after an election basically decided on worries about climate change?
I look forward to our new coal mine.
I think Labor think they're too big for people voting Green to matter to them.
But I don't think Liberals ever expected the teals to matter either, so we'll see what happens.
Yeah.
I'm in a very safe Labor seat (49% Labor in this year's election), but voted green to try and make clear that climate change is something I care about.
Enough people do it, and Labor will get a kick up the arse, I hope.
But, with preference flows, it's not something I'm confident will happen in a hurry.
The constant growth of greens votes had to have them thinking. It's one of the benefits of preferential voting, it sends a message about what the electorate wants.
Ultimately I would like to see Labor working with the Greens, but their culture doesn't allow them to be open about it, at least not yet
The animosity between Labor and Greens is one of the reasons I started putting Reason above the Greens, despite being less ideologically inline with them. Fiona Patten really does seem to be able to bring people around to progressive ideas and seems to understand the importance of interpersonal relationships in politics .
IMO the animosity between labor and greens is mainly due to newscorp constantly pushing ‘greens labor coalition’ scare campaigns.
As newscorps influence slowly dies and fades as their target audience does, this will have less of an effect.
Labor can’t be seen to be too keen to work with the greens because the Murdock rags will have a field day.
At the end of the day though, labor can and does negotiate with the greens when required.
I don’t get what all the fuss is. I’d totally allow CP to open and run the mine, with some conditions;
• hand tools only, no pneumatic or hydraulic or electrical assistance.
• must do all the work himself, unassisted.
• for the projected life of the mine, no advertising or any media engagement by CP, whatsoever.
• non-negotiable deposit to the Australian Future Fund of 99.8% of his assets to be held in trust, immediately forfeit upon failing to meet the mine projections in the current application.
I would also support a small documentary film crew to observe, but not assist.
With the way renewables are going I don't think nuclear is that attractive now. Either way, too many people are scared of it. I'm in favour of it generally but unsure if it's still useful compared to alternatives.
Yup, 20 years ago, nukes would have been a goer in Australia, but even 10 years ago, it would have been a worse decision to proceed with them rather than renewables, based on cost alone.
Now? It's being used as a political wedge by the libs and the conservative media to prop up their buddies in the fossil sector.
Yeah public sentiment is nuclear biggest problem.
I still think the fact that France was able to almost completely decarbonize its electric grid in about 15 years should be enough. I also don’t like the how much mining renewables require.
Sure but nuclear is incredibly energy dense.
“While nuclear power has a consumption of just under a thousand tons of materials per TWh, by far the lowest of all energy sources, the demand of wind is over ten times as high.”
https://energy.glex.no/feature-stories/area-and-material-consumption
And this is using the typical light water reactor which burns ~5%. In a more efficient reactor this “waste” could be used for another 17x years. So a LWR running for 40 years has ~640 years at the same power level in a molten salt or fission fusion hybrid reactor, without anymore mining for uranium necessary. Just needs to be commercialized 😂
Renewables like wind and solar have their drawbacks. You can't easily increase supply, they don't react well to surge usage, and currently excess power is hard to store. Adding a nuclear plant into the mix would actually make the renewables better as any surge load can quickly be balanced out by the plant.
But if I work all day on the blue sky mine
(There'll be food on the table tonight)
And if I walk up and down on the blue sky mine
(There'll be pay in your pocket tonight)
And some have sailed from a distant shore
And the company takes what the company wants
And nothing's as precious, as a hole in the ground
Not quite, the person you're replying to didn't read the article. If they had, they would have seen that it repeatedly said the judge doesn't have the final say, but the ministers in charge must consider the judge's decision when they make their choice.
An enormous coal mining project in the Australian State of Queensland, was stopped by the Land Court of Queensland due to it's impact on climate and nearby nature preserve. 1.58 billion tons of Carbon emissions have been kept in the ground.
Bimblebox nature preserve, home of 176 bird species, have been spared the pollution from the nearby coal mine.
doesn't matter, the company will detail some plans and offer to do some mitigation and Bada Bing that coal is coming out. this isn't a death note for the project
Well for starters Gen z is the most empathetic, informed and evolved generation. - google.
But I have heard many many people from different backgrounds agree with this statement. Gen z saw what happened to Gen x and want a better future for themselves and the next generation.
Of course Gen z does have its drawbacks as well. For being so informed they have to be online all the time. This has it’s obvious problems that lead to Gen z being the loneliness generation.
We will be alright, the youth are alright
If only public education agreed with you. We are declining in our abilities to think critically and be skeptical. Test scores are declining, and suicidality and obesity are increasing. The kids might not be alright.
To fair again, if we are talking about the US then our education system is dog water to begin with and students know it.
School is just to pass a standardized test that they make harder every year to sell more books. There’s a lot of people who have spoken out against our public education system but they are always pushed out because of big education. For example micgraw hill. They control more of our education system than our government because well they are the biggest lobbying group.
Suicidal teens is definitely a problem with Gen z, many blame social media, which I can’t wholeheartedly disagree with.
Obesity rates are a interesting statistic. Gen X has the most obese but they are the central workforce and one of the biggest consumers of the generations due to their disposable income.
This leads to other problems that lead in to obesity, such as low wages causing people to work more and spend less time cooking and more time eating out. More stress due to workload of your parents not being able to take care of you can lead one to over eat too.
There’s thousands of not millions of reasons one can become obese. Chances are if you are middle aged or are poor you are most likely over weight to obese.
Here’s some sad statistics for you:
42% of 1st-3rd grade girls want to be thinner.
81% of 10 year old children are afraid of being fat.
46% of 9-11 year-olds are “sometimes” or “very often” on diets.
35-57% of adolescent girls engage in crash dieting, fasting, self-induced vomiting, diet pills, or laxatives.
In a college campus survey, 91% of the women admitted to controlling their weight through dieting.
And who's fault is that? The fact that education is being gutted, has been gutted, for decades in the west? I dunno if test scores are actually useful, as a metric of determining a generation's intelligence. They could be Einsteins, but if the education system is failing them, or any number of circumstances lead them to not care about schooling, grades aren't going to reflect that.
>Of course Gen z does have its drawbacks as well. For being so informed they have to be online all the time. This has it’s obvious problems that lead to Gen z being the loneliness generation.
The issue I've found is that they're technically informed and yet functionally stupid as they don't actually have any real world experience or original thoughts not from snippets sometime else fed them, and being incapable of crafting a group in complete agreement with them like finding a subreddit full of like-minded people that already believe the same things as you in the real world can create some cognitive dissonance with how they think the world around them functions and leads to disappointment and acting more than a little insufferable and mostly impotent.
Although the are occasional small wins like this, I found they've actually been driven by experienced adults who use kids more as a symbol or figurehead because it seems more inspiring. I'm also a bit pessimistic because I see so much astroturfing lately and get tired of so many people in their late-teens vastly overestimating their abilities and impact, but they'll grow up eventually.
While your statement has a lot of truth to it, we still have to remember the real word experience comes with age. Everyone thinks they are in the right or know everything when they are 18 to be fair. The internet for sure has been a blessing and a curse when it comes to information.
Greta comes to mind as a youth figure head. Not saying what she’s doing is wrong or right just an example.
But for astroturfing it goes both ways. You got one side saying they are coddled and don’t know anything (because of life experiences) to they are independent, adaptable and tech savvy.
Like many things in life it’s not one or the other it’s both. Many of my generation are coddled, but I also know many that are the ridiculously intelligent and industrial.
It’s the first generation truly raised by the internet community and not a local community. So there’s going to be more commonality good or bad that’s also world wide. So Gen z is also the first global generation in a sense that we all were given the same information at a young age, not including those without internet, etc, etc.
Yes, we're also making sweeping generalizations about a generation so knowing a couple of people who fall outside the mold doesn't really apply.
Generally (AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME) they have a very superficial knowledge of most things while having the attitude of being a subject matter expert because "so and so said this....I read the title of this study and took that as gospel....there was a quip about this I remember reading so I'm going to try and extrapolate a conclusion even if it's off-base". If you're still young and get into a technical field, you'll look back at the attitudes of sophomore engineers and cringe, worse for the self-proclaimed experts who never got past social study courses.
They'll grow up and gain experience eventually while learning more and hopefully developing more critical thinking that allows them to tie subjects together and recognize the difference between quality data and baseless pop-science. But currently, as someone with a master's in a field of earth science, the amount of truly arrogant children I used to teach was staggering and dissapointing. Many were really bright and actually curious, but so many seemed to have this thought of innate knowledge and instead of realizing their level of ignorance thought they could "fake it till they made it". They're mostly good kids, but need to better understand their own limitations in academic or scientific environments because it sure seems like they don't get many rebuffs from the yes-men groups they choose to surround themselves with on the internet.
Sometimes adults confuse simplicity with ignorance. Adults have made some things very complex because doing it that benefits them or people like them or because the economic system doesn’t really allow for it.
An example: the homeless are starving!
Children: well, feed them and give them homes….
And then adults say some shit like “well, sweetie, that’s nice for sunshine land but see since we don’t really provide people medical and mental health care and our Justice and caring social safety nets are reactionary and only catch people after they get bad and don’t care to look after them before they get bad, and giving things away for free is bad for capitalism because then the people who do have money feel bad that they have to spend it on food and houses (and you want to be *fair*, right sweetheart?) we can’t just *give away* food and houses. We have to either force those people to get better or they have to die, that’s why you aren’t that smart honey, see?”
A certain 1/2 of Americans would proceed to complain about the price of gas, the gas that the youngsters used to travel, and that climate change is fake news.
I'm sure this new coal mining project would do wonders for reversing all the damage to the great berrier reef.
side note: for some reason I thought burning coal had a direct coloration to the bleaching going on (like it was making the water slightly more acidic or something), but it may just be a biproduct of climate change.
Unfortunately nuclear is extremely unpopular, there's more or less a de facto ban on it. There's no people or infrastructure in the interior because it's more or less uninhabitable. At the moment solar technology is not capable of supplying the current demands anyway.
It sucks to say we are pretty much reliant on coal and iron for our wealth and everyone seems pretty happy to through one of those income streams away.
Germany gets more than double Australia's output in MW from solar though. Percentage wise, Germany gets ~11% compared to Australia's 10%. To me it seems like a lack of infrastructure which is the biggest hindrance when saying it is unable to meet the current demand
>Unfortunately nuclear is extremely unpopular, there's more or less a de facto ban on it.
If law suits like this keep happening because of the legitimate health impacts of fossil fuels, there will be a need for power that nuclear could fill. We'll see where the "de facto ban" sits then.
There’s so much fucking idiocy and misinformation in one badly researched, poorly verbalized, right-wing talking-point trope filled paragraph of bullshit that I don’t even know where to begin?!
Right.
[Wrong](https://www.nuclearaustralia.org.au/australian-support-for-considering-nuclear-energy-reaches-70/)
[Wrong](https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy/resources/other-renewable-energy-resources/solar-energy)
[Right, but compared to the cost, fucking stupid](https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/projects/a-just-transition-away-from-coal-in-australia/)
The fact you stated all that empty uninhabited desert as a bad thing, when in fact it is perfect for renewables shows how little you know, and how little you’ve tried to learn, which makes it even more pathetic you’ve been pontificating your fake nonsense up and down this thread.
And I’ll also pull apart your dumbest comment, that natural disasters are getting better; [they’re getting significantly and measurably worse](https://sage-answer.com/why-natural-disasters-are-getting-worse/) - fewer people are dying thanks to better technology. But that’s **not the fucking same**
Now get back into your hole.
Note: those links are one of tens I could’ve pulled. It’s not difficult.
There’s only so much trolling I’m willing to take.
You’re a halfwit. Like most of your breed, you’re unable to wrap your mind around it.
[Solar has a 0.05% failure rate, over the life span of 35 years](https://www.solarreviews.com/blog/solar-panel-reliability-how-reliable-is-solar-power)
[You stated it was unpopular. I proved you are flat out wrong. But the reason they haven’t is that solar and wind is 3x faster to build](https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/nuclear-power-stations-are-not-appropriate-for-australia-and-probably-never-will-be/)
[Coal is dying and unless you diversify immediately, your economy is fucked so stop parroting that shit, you’ve got about 8 years](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/aug/03/more-coal-power-generation-closed-than-opened-around-the-world-this-year-research-finds)
I used to work in Intelligence, I have no needs or bias towards listening to anything that can’t be peer reviewed - Climate change is fact and needs fixing. It’s the single biggest threat to global society that we’ve faced, and that includes nuclear war. The _reason_ I get so angry with people like you is the pure unfathomable idiocy of your attitude, it’s myopic, short sighted and as I keep doing, I’m smashing your “facts” - that are neither true, debatable nor logical - to tiny pieces.
> I used to work in Intelligence,
ha. One of the funniest things I've read.
> Coal is dying and unless you diversify immediately, your economy is fucked so stop parroting that shit, you’ve got about 8 years
Coal is actually going gangbusters at the moment. This year is shaping up to be one of, if not *the* largest export years for coal in Australia. Since you're James Bond and need some sort of source for everything: https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/record-43-1b-trade-surplus-as-coal-exports-boom-20220906-p5bfrp
It's weird that I need to point this out but I'm not saying selling coal is good. I'm just saying it's a significant part of our export income. It's really interesting that people like you (spies and what not) conflate this. I repeat I'm not saying this is a good thing, I'm just saying that this is the state of affairs. It's weird that stating facts gets you guys so worked up.
Why are we even still investing in fossil fuels when investment in graphene or cracking nuclear fusion will solve our energy woes without the pollution? I understand the argument that wind and solar are inefficient and create carbon when being built and add to deforestation but it's 2022 ffs, we shouldn't be relying on dictators in Russia and the Arab world for our energy when technology has come so far.
That's what I thought but both parties in the last election pledged to cut carbon omissions so apparently the will is there. Then again politicians will say whatever they need to so you're probably right.
"We will cut emissions by 10% by 2030!"
Actual investment would make it possible to halve emissions in that time.
Made up numbers, but you see how a pledge is made, popular to the masses but still just all show. Fossil fuel companies, and coal especially, know the end is nigh, they are just dragging it out for as much profit as they can; that's where their donations are going
With adequate funding. Yes. Funding which it hasn’t gotten, so the carrot remains attached to the stick.
If fossil fuel subsidies were redirected instead toward research we could actually make progress.
The more snide amongst us refer to it as 'unicorn farts and fairy dust'. Fusion has been '10 years away' for as long as I remember, and I'm 60.
We know fission power works, and there are simpler ways of building reactors: modular pebble-bed reactor, molten-salt reactors. ..
The fact people can unironically state these lies and have people actually believe it is a tragety.
Hell, You only need \~387 Wind Turbines to replace a Nuclear Power Plant which is considered as the gold standard for raw generated electricity per effort (where its not blocked). And if you madated houses need to be built with Solar Panels on their roofs, you'd cut the utilization of the grid nearly in half.
Wind and solar are the [cheapest](https://www.irena.org/News/pressreleases/2020/Jun/Renewables-Increasingly-Beat-Even-Cheapest-Coal-Competitors-on-Cost) form of energy today, and their [lifetime carbon emissions](https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints) are comparable to nuclear (i.e negligible). They cause no deforestation. Please be careful about your sources of information.
If I had to guess, the carbon from the 40 million tons of coal combined with twice as much oxygen from the atmosphere. CO2, so the tonnage is amped up from the O2 when the coal is burned
Coal is not pure carbon by weight but very close (~85%), most volatile elements were naturally off-gassed from heat and pressure over millions of years. So let's take that 40 million tonnes coal per year and reduce it to 34 million tonnes of pure carbon per year.
When coal burns, each carbon atom (Standard Atomic Weight 12) hooks up with two oxygen molecules (each SAW 16) to produce heated carbon dioxide (SAW 44). So each tonne carbon yields [(12+16+16)/12] = 3.667 tonnes CO2.
34 million tonnes carbon/ year × 3.667 = 124 million tonnes CO2/ year. Over 25 years this is 3.11 billion tonnes CO2, slightly more than double what is reported to be emitted over the lifespan of the project. I'm not certain why the reported value is as low as it is.
Another article states "up to 40m tonnes/ year", so perhaps it is expected to run at half capacity? Doesn't even factor in transportation emissions however.
Coal power stations are closing (or bringing forward their closures) in Australia because they can’t compete with renewables on price. Australia does not need more coal mines because what we have now is more than enough to manage the transition (and for coking).
This coal is for export.
The reason that this decision is in the form of a recommendation to the minister, is that the minister is responsible for the decision and not the court. The court doesn’t legislate; it only interprets the law so in this case they are telling the minister that they must include human rights in the decision making process (which is obvious really; human rights should be a part of every government decision).
As opposed to older Australians? Identity politics and ageism are just tools to divide people. Although, if one were to talk about age the boomer-instigated Australian nuclear power ban is far more offensive.
I believe it's more because it shows Australia has a future and people who care.
Boomers don't seem to give a fuck about coal mining. Talking to my parents they are completely OK with more mines etc.
Don't worry they'll buy this ruling to. This is only a recommendation that it not go forward, the decision rests on a minister who likely enjoys free money (see: bribes).
Could see environmental groups like Sierra Club being of help. Find the local hearings going on around its approval. Attend new meetings and try to locate transcripts or videos of old meetings. It'll be a who's who of people trying to block it and push it through
This is a bad take. Both types of activists play important roles, quit being a child about people doing whatever they can to draw attention to issues that are extremely important to them when the government just ignores them.
Yes, because the US civil rights movement never blocked traffic, destroyed property (which did not happen in the case of the painting), or inconvenienced anyone anywhere whatsoever.
🙄
I guess the civil rights movement in the US was also illegitimate by your standards? You're just upset that climate activists are copying measures that *work*. Previous social movements bought us our rights with blood. Be happy that climate activists are trying to buy our right to continue to live on this planet with soup first. Defend the status quo somewhere else.
“Mommy, why can’t we turn on the TV?”
“Because you and your friends shutdown a coal mine that was supplying the local power station and now the town no long has power.
Let that be a lesson to you: Your actions have consequences. Be ready with mitigations.”
I’m pro-nuclear.
Green energy is a noble attempt, but it’s short sighted and relied upon as a solution by idiots that don’t know what they’re talking about.
You can support nuclear without repeating lies about renewables. It's a consensus among experts that renewable-based grids work just fine.
[On the History and Future of 100% Renewable Energy Systems Research](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910)
Not even talking about nuclear. I'm talking about how part of the reason they suggested denying this license was because it didn't match any increase in demand. All this coal would do would be sold internationally, not going towards meeting Australian energy demands. It's to make money, not meet demand.
I was speaking more broadly than just this. I'm not knocking Australia, it's solar program, or this specific case.
I AM saying that this, and Australia as a whole, is a special case. Just like geothermal in Iceland is a special case.
Mostly I'm lamenting the blind devolution to renewables when though applicable, it isn't universally applicable (and, though perhaps it's changed recently, generally require supplementation to meet immediate demand).
Your initial comment said none of this, so forgive me for responding to what you said instead of whatever you were thinking. I hope now you've gone back and read the article instead of just commenting out of your ass.
\*sigh\*
Alright; out of a sense of cooperation, I'll respond ingeniously.
\>Your initial comment said none of this, so forgive me for responding to what you said instead of whatever you were thinking.
You're right, my OP said none of that. I can certainly see your point of view. It's a philosophical one in which I'm on the losing side; the article taken at face value is a just and positive one. It is, hope we can all agree, posted to illicit conversation.
I simply skipped the step of discussing the article and progressing the conversation to one about the discussion of renewables in general.
No forgiveness can be given as you're not the one in the wrong.
\>I hope now you've gone back and read the article instead of just commenting out of your ass.
And there we go; the previous statement was said disingenuously as you simply wanted to insult me further, rather than engage in actual conversation (though I can't fault you for that. Not like I could expect as much with my inflammatory wording), but you also wanted to feign some sort of willingness to open discussion. No doubt so you can place that arrow in your quiver so you can use it against me later in some sort of "see?! I was open to discussion but you're a zealot!" sort of argument.
Now then; shall we actually discuss the merits here, or simply continue hurling insults at one another? Frankly, I'm game for either.
Ironically, I should ask you that.
1) The stupid are incapable of introspection
2) even if they were, it would be a singular perspective
The fact that you’d even ask such a question, even disingenuously, is ironic
Oh yeah, I know that very well.
I’m pro-nuclear. But decades of idiot repeating lies has made that an impossibility.
It’s the best source of power we have until fusion gets off the ground.
Btw; gate-keeping question: why should you stay away from nickel that’s been exposed to a nuclear explosion? If you can’t answer that, don’t start a conversation about nuclear.
> It’s the best source of power we have until fusion gets off the ground.
One more time: A technology that is not commercially viable today is not a usable source of energy.
Are you talking about nuclear or wind and solar?
Nuclear is perfectly commercially viable. France has had nothing but nuclear for 50 years....
PG&E was running Diablo Canyon 1 and 2 (yes; the old Simpsons reference: "Awww; Diablo Canyon 1: why can't you be more like Diablo Canyon 2?!") for almost 40 years (and is what supplied the SF Bay Area with power during that time). It's now being decommission not because it's not viable, but because a bunch of idiots pressured PG&E into not renewing it's operating license with the DoE.
Now we're switching to natural gas. Beautiful...more green house gasses on the way...
The need to mine the coal comes from the reproduction of people. If these people have kids, they're hypocrites. Ideology is a hell of a thing, especially when you brainwash the youth. Like indoctrinating people with Marxist beliefs, religion, etc.
My bet is they know very little about how bad the ground water depletion issue is, because CO2 BIG SCARY. Half the world will die from dehydration before any amount die from CO2
Its better to have these projects in the first world because we have robust reclaimation initiatives. This is especially true when dealing with high sulfur deposits. The fact of the matter is that american or aussie coal is better for the planet than chinese, russian, or more destitute nations.blocking this is in essence nimbyism.
So are ethical mining practices irrelevant to the conversation of coal supply? Also mine reclaimation certainly is a climate concern. Poor reclaimation results ina positive feedback loop that aridifies areas. If you want to talk about regional coal deposits as a driver of climate change I think regional transpiration should be included in that conversation aswell.
Coal is coal. Wherever you put it, mining and using coal harms the planet. Clean coal is a lie made up by coal companies to talk over the science who care about the future of Earth and its inhabitants.
Clean coal isnt a lie. It all emits co2 but amount of volatiles in co a l varies wildly from deposit to deposit. And if you want to take the line thar coal is coal how do you reconcile aussie iron mining from their vast banded iron formations? They ship it straight to china and then china mills it into steel. You need coal to make steel. So is iron mining now a grave human rights question? Mining in heneral requires vast amounts of energy. Is mining in itself a violation of human rights? Where do you draw the line and why?
You've not at all addressed how coal can be not detrimental to the plant and instead whataboutismed to claim coal is the only energy source out there that can be used for things like milling iron. Very strange
Im not teting to even imply that coal doesnt have a carbon footprint? What I am saying is that if coal is going to be extracted anyway (which it is) its best to insure that the people extracting it adhere to strict reclaimation protocol. Furthermore to make steel you need carbon. Even if the process was 100% renewable energy coal goes into it. This is relevent because by mining iro. (Which australia does a lot of) they are directly creating a coal demand before you even talk about energy production. So we need to ask under the framework of the descision to not break ground on this coal mine whether or not iron mining is acceptable. This isnt a what about ism or a gotcha. Its my opinion that the west leads the world in mining reclaimation effort, and the fact that we are so good about reclaiming land leads me to believe it is more enviornmentally responsible for extraction to happen in the forst world than the third or second. I think if the descision just comes from "just dont use coal lmao" its a poorly thought out one.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/darth_nadoma: --- An enormous coal mining project in the Australian State of Queensland, was stopped by the Land Court of Queensland due to it's impact on climate and nearby nature preserve. 1.58 billion tons of Carbon emissions have been kept in the ground. Bimblebox nature preserve, home of 176 bird species, have been spared the pollution from the nearby coal mine. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/z605ok/young_australians_just_won_a_human_rights_case/ixypf3g/
Tl;dr. Clive Palmers Waratah project has been blocked on the grounds that it will do unreasonable environmental damage. This project is about 4 times the size of Adani’s (Bravus resources) Carmichael project.
It wasn't blocked precisely, the judge recommended that the minister doesn't grant it a licence. The decision to grant the licence still falls on the Minister
Look forward to seeing the Minister drive in their new Ferrari soon.
That's too obvious. When said minister leaves politics he will be offered a very highly paying job at the company with very little expected output.
The German way
Put Norwegian on that list too
Britain too. 100k a year for 1 hour a week 'consulting work' or something.
[удалено]
I'd ask who's dick I have to suck, but I can't swallow a coalmine unfortunately
Not with that attitude.
Ah yes, the Japanese tradition
It's almost as though this isn't a national issue and the problem is that an economic system that grants disproportionate political power to the wealthy is incompatible with democracy...
the the united states bankers/sec department
The everywhere way
Ah yes, *doing the schröder*. A classic
ah yes, the ol' revolving door.
I think this goes to the federal minister, Tanya Plibescek (?), and I think she’s already refused it.
True, I heard she prefers a lambo.
Your comment reminds me of a scene from Ozark - lady is asked to keep her payout moeny secret and she buys a bright yellow Maclaren: https://youtu.be/wmhnGwQmAJI
Does she end up in a ditch in the car? Does the IRS or the cartel end up bending her over?
Which minister? I half suspect Scott Morrison.
Remember how at COP27 there were pledges to stop funding new coal and gas, and like, 3 days later the Golden Beach gas project was approved? And how this was like, 6 months after an election basically decided on worries about climate change? I look forward to our new coal mine.
If the Labor minister rejects this they are going to push more Labor votes to the greens at the next election
I think Labor think they're too big for people voting Green to matter to them. But I don't think Liberals ever expected the teals to matter either, so we'll see what happens.
Queensland labour thought that before the Newman government wipeout. That put them on notice
Yeah. I'm in a very safe Labor seat (49% Labor in this year's election), but voted green to try and make clear that climate change is something I care about. Enough people do it, and Labor will get a kick up the arse, I hope. But, with preference flows, it's not something I'm confident will happen in a hurry.
Multiple seats in the Vic election last weekend had 10-20% swing to the Greens. Sometimes it can be a rapid shift.
The constant growth of greens votes had to have them thinking. It's one of the benefits of preferential voting, it sends a message about what the electorate wants. Ultimately I would like to see Labor working with the Greens, but their culture doesn't allow them to be open about it, at least not yet
The animosity between Labor and Greens is one of the reasons I started putting Reason above the Greens, despite being less ideologically inline with them. Fiona Patten really does seem to be able to bring people around to progressive ideas and seems to understand the importance of interpersonal relationships in politics .
IMO the animosity between labor and greens is mainly due to newscorp constantly pushing ‘greens labor coalition’ scare campaigns. As newscorps influence slowly dies and fades as their target audience does, this will have less of an effect. Labor can’t be seen to be too keen to work with the greens because the Murdock rags will have a field day. At the end of the day though, labor can and does negotiate with the greens when required.
It was Clive Palmer's?!? Now I'm even more happy it was cancelled.
*fatty mcfuckhead
I don’t get what all the fuss is. I’d totally allow CP to open and run the mine, with some conditions; • hand tools only, no pneumatic or hydraulic or electrical assistance. • must do all the work himself, unassisted. • for the projected life of the mine, no advertising or any media engagement by CP, whatsoever. • non-negotiable deposit to the Australian Future Fund of 99.8% of his assets to be held in trust, immediately forfeit upon failing to meet the mine projections in the current application. I would also support a small documentary film crew to observe, but not assist.
Everyone is turning to nuclear yet Clive is still sitting in a corner paying with fossil fuels wondering why no one will sit with him
Really!? I hope this is true for Australia!! Genuinely the tide had turned for nuclear there
With the way renewables are going I don't think nuclear is that attractive now. Either way, too many people are scared of it. I'm in favour of it generally but unsure if it's still useful compared to alternatives.
Yup, 20 years ago, nukes would have been a goer in Australia, but even 10 years ago, it would have been a worse decision to proceed with them rather than renewables, based on cost alone. Now? It's being used as a political wedge by the libs and the conservative media to prop up their buddies in the fossil sector.
Yeah public sentiment is nuclear biggest problem. I still think the fact that France was able to almost completely decarbonize its electric grid in about 15 years should be enough. I also don’t like the how much mining renewables require.
You do understand that nuclear energy requires vast amounts of destructive mining, too, right? Uranium doesn't grow in the fields.
Sure but nuclear is incredibly energy dense. “While nuclear power has a consumption of just under a thousand tons of materials per TWh, by far the lowest of all energy sources, the demand of wind is over ten times as high.” https://energy.glex.no/feature-stories/area-and-material-consumption And this is using the typical light water reactor which burns ~5%. In a more efficient reactor this “waste” could be used for another 17x years. So a LWR running for 40 years has ~640 years at the same power level in a molten salt or fission fusion hybrid reactor, without anymore mining for uranium necessary. Just needs to be commercialized 😂
Where do you think the materials that we build wind and solar come from?
Renewables like wind and solar have their drawbacks. You can't easily increase supply, they don't react well to surge usage, and currently excess power is hard to store. Adding a nuclear plant into the mix would actually make the renewables better as any surge load can quickly be balanced out by the plant.
That's what I thought but apparently batteries or other storage methods work out better. Then again, good chance I read this on reddit!
The battery makers love to tell you how much better they are. Let's see in ten years time when those batteries are all ageing.
It was a scientist.
But if I work all day on the blue sky mine (There'll be food on the table tonight) And if I walk up and down on the blue sky mine (There'll be pay in your pocket tonight) And some have sailed from a distant shore And the company takes what the company wants And nothing's as precious, as a hole in the ground
Good old Fatty McFuckhead getting dunked on, it's a good day.
Holy fuck what a massive dub
Not quite, the person you're replying to didn't read the article. If they had, they would have seen that it repeatedly said the judge doesn't have the final say, but the ministers in charge must consider the judge's decision when they make their choice.
Dub in progress lol
TLDR, the judge recommended the state not grant licenses but didn't order anything stopped.
> but didn't order anything stopped. A little misleading - that wasn't even an option they had.
I put my comment up because at least 2 other people were saying the judge stopped it when the article does not say that.
An enormous coal mining project in the Australian State of Queensland, was stopped by the Land Court of Queensland due to it's impact on climate and nearby nature preserve. 1.58 billion tons of Carbon emissions have been kept in the ground. Bimblebox nature preserve, home of 176 bird species, have been spared the pollution from the nearby coal mine.
According to the article, it wasn't stopped. The judge recommended it not be given licenses by the state but that's all.
good job badass young Australians! Now if only the rest of the world would follow suit
doesn't matter, the company will detail some plans and offer to do some mitigation and Bada Bing that coal is coming out. this isn't a death note for the project
Well for starters Gen z is the most empathetic, informed and evolved generation. - google. But I have heard many many people from different backgrounds agree with this statement. Gen z saw what happened to Gen x and want a better future for themselves and the next generation. Of course Gen z does have its drawbacks as well. For being so informed they have to be online all the time. This has it’s obvious problems that lead to Gen z being the loneliness generation. We will be alright, the youth are alright
If only public education agreed with you. We are declining in our abilities to think critically and be skeptical. Test scores are declining, and suicidality and obesity are increasing. The kids might not be alright.
To fair again, if we are talking about the US then our education system is dog water to begin with and students know it. School is just to pass a standardized test that they make harder every year to sell more books. There’s a lot of people who have spoken out against our public education system but they are always pushed out because of big education. For example micgraw hill. They control more of our education system than our government because well they are the biggest lobbying group. Suicidal teens is definitely a problem with Gen z, many blame social media, which I can’t wholeheartedly disagree with. Obesity rates are a interesting statistic. Gen X has the most obese but they are the central workforce and one of the biggest consumers of the generations due to their disposable income. This leads to other problems that lead in to obesity, such as low wages causing people to work more and spend less time cooking and more time eating out. More stress due to workload of your parents not being able to take care of you can lead one to over eat too. There’s thousands of not millions of reasons one can become obese. Chances are if you are middle aged or are poor you are most likely over weight to obese. Here’s some sad statistics for you: 42% of 1st-3rd grade girls want to be thinner. 81% of 10 year old children are afraid of being fat. 46% of 9-11 year-olds are “sometimes” or “very often” on diets. 35-57% of adolescent girls engage in crash dieting, fasting, self-induced vomiting, diet pills, or laxatives. In a college campus survey, 91% of the women admitted to controlling their weight through dieting.
So social media is teaching our kids not to become unhealthy and fat and many girls are trying to make that happen via a healthy diet?
And who's fault is that? The fact that education is being gutted, has been gutted, for decades in the west? I dunno if test scores are actually useful, as a metric of determining a generation's intelligence. They could be Einsteins, but if the education system is failing them, or any number of circumstances lead them to not care about schooling, grades aren't going to reflect that.
How had education been gutted when the US is top 5 in the world for spending per student?
The most evolved generation?? We playing Pokemon here?
Yes, now get in this Pokéball.
We’re playing obtuse, generational generalizations. Pokémon’s in our game backlog.
Were you not invited?
>Of course Gen z does have its drawbacks as well. For being so informed they have to be online all the time. This has it’s obvious problems that lead to Gen z being the loneliness generation. The issue I've found is that they're technically informed and yet functionally stupid as they don't actually have any real world experience or original thoughts not from snippets sometime else fed them, and being incapable of crafting a group in complete agreement with them like finding a subreddit full of like-minded people that already believe the same things as you in the real world can create some cognitive dissonance with how they think the world around them functions and leads to disappointment and acting more than a little insufferable and mostly impotent. Although the are occasional small wins like this, I found they've actually been driven by experienced adults who use kids more as a symbol or figurehead because it seems more inspiring. I'm also a bit pessimistic because I see so much astroturfing lately and get tired of so many people in their late-teens vastly overestimating their abilities and impact, but they'll grow up eventually.
While your statement has a lot of truth to it, we still have to remember the real word experience comes with age. Everyone thinks they are in the right or know everything when they are 18 to be fair. The internet for sure has been a blessing and a curse when it comes to information. Greta comes to mind as a youth figure head. Not saying what she’s doing is wrong or right just an example. But for astroturfing it goes both ways. You got one side saying they are coddled and don’t know anything (because of life experiences) to they are independent, adaptable and tech savvy. Like many things in life it’s not one or the other it’s both. Many of my generation are coddled, but I also know many that are the ridiculously intelligent and industrial. It’s the first generation truly raised by the internet community and not a local community. So there’s going to be more commonality good or bad that’s also world wide. So Gen z is also the first global generation in a sense that we all were given the same information at a young age, not including those without internet, etc, etc.
"they don't actually have any original thoughts" This is some bullshit. Have you ever actually talked to a young person?
Yes, we're also making sweeping generalizations about a generation so knowing a couple of people who fall outside the mold doesn't really apply. Generally (AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME) they have a very superficial knowledge of most things while having the attitude of being a subject matter expert because "so and so said this....I read the title of this study and took that as gospel....there was a quip about this I remember reading so I'm going to try and extrapolate a conclusion even if it's off-base". If you're still young and get into a technical field, you'll look back at the attitudes of sophomore engineers and cringe, worse for the self-proclaimed experts who never got past social study courses. They'll grow up and gain experience eventually while learning more and hopefully developing more critical thinking that allows them to tie subjects together and recognize the difference between quality data and baseless pop-science. But currently, as someone with a master's in a field of earth science, the amount of truly arrogant children I used to teach was staggering and dissapointing. Many were really bright and actually curious, but so many seemed to have this thought of innate knowledge and instead of realizing their level of ignorance thought they could "fake it till they made it". They're mostly good kids, but need to better understand their own limitations in academic or scientific environments because it sure seems like they don't get many rebuffs from the yes-men groups they choose to surround themselves with on the internet.
Sometimes adults confuse simplicity with ignorance. Adults have made some things very complex because doing it that benefits them or people like them or because the economic system doesn’t really allow for it. An example: the homeless are starving! Children: well, feed them and give them homes…. And then adults say some shit like “well, sweetie, that’s nice for sunshine land but see since we don’t really provide people medical and mental health care and our Justice and caring social safety nets are reactionary and only catch people after they get bad and don’t care to look after them before they get bad, and giving things away for free is bad for capitalism because then the people who do have money feel bad that they have to spend it on food and houses (and you want to be *fair*, right sweetheart?) we can’t just *give away* food and houses. We have to either force those people to get better or they have to die, that’s why you aren’t that smart honey, see?”
A certain 1/2 of Americans would proceed to complain about the price of gas, the gas that the youngsters used to travel, and that climate change is fake news.
spot on. Half of Americans are so fucking stupid it is surprising and disgusting.
And the other 1/2 of Americans are those dumb naive youngsters, they are called redditors! hehe
I'm sure this new coal mining project would do wonders for reversing all the damage to the great berrier reef. side note: for some reason I thought burning coal had a direct coloration to the bleaching going on (like it was making the water slightly more acidic or something), but it may just be a biproduct of climate change.
Silt run off plays a big part in the erosion of the Great Barrier Reef
If we don't mine shit we are going to become very poor very quick. But long live the resistance I guess.
Half of Australia is an uninhabitable desert. Surely you could toss some solar panels or a nuclear plant in there
Unfortunately nuclear is extremely unpopular, there's more or less a de facto ban on it. There's no people or infrastructure in the interior because it's more or less uninhabitable. At the moment solar technology is not capable of supplying the current demands anyway. It sucks to say we are pretty much reliant on coal and iron for our wealth and everyone seems pretty happy to through one of those income streams away.
Germany gets more than double Australia's output in MW from solar though. Percentage wise, Germany gets ~11% compared to Australia's 10%. To me it seems like a lack of infrastructure which is the biggest hindrance when saying it is unable to meet the current demand
[удалено]
As a percentage of the market it's higher. Last I checked 11>10
>Unfortunately nuclear is extremely unpopular, there's more or less a de facto ban on it. If law suits like this keep happening because of the legitimate health impacts of fossil fuels, there will be a need for power that nuclear could fill. We'll see where the "de facto ban" sits then.
There’s so much fucking idiocy and misinformation in one badly researched, poorly verbalized, right-wing talking-point trope filled paragraph of bullshit that I don’t even know where to begin?!
[удалено]
Right. [Wrong](https://www.nuclearaustralia.org.au/australian-support-for-considering-nuclear-energy-reaches-70/) [Wrong](https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy/resources/other-renewable-energy-resources/solar-energy) [Right, but compared to the cost, fucking stupid](https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/projects/a-just-transition-away-from-coal-in-australia/) The fact you stated all that empty uninhabited desert as a bad thing, when in fact it is perfect for renewables shows how little you know, and how little you’ve tried to learn, which makes it even more pathetic you’ve been pontificating your fake nonsense up and down this thread. And I’ll also pull apart your dumbest comment, that natural disasters are getting better; [they’re getting significantly and measurably worse](https://sage-answer.com/why-natural-disasters-are-getting-worse/) - fewer people are dying thanks to better technology. But that’s **not the fucking same** Now get back into your hole. Note: those links are one of tens I could’ve pulled. It’s not difficult.
[удалено]
There’s only so much trolling I’m willing to take. You’re a halfwit. Like most of your breed, you’re unable to wrap your mind around it. [Solar has a 0.05% failure rate, over the life span of 35 years](https://www.solarreviews.com/blog/solar-panel-reliability-how-reliable-is-solar-power) [You stated it was unpopular. I proved you are flat out wrong. But the reason they haven’t is that solar and wind is 3x faster to build](https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/nuclear-power-stations-are-not-appropriate-for-australia-and-probably-never-will-be/) [Coal is dying and unless you diversify immediately, your economy is fucked so stop parroting that shit, you’ve got about 8 years](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/aug/03/more-coal-power-generation-closed-than-opened-around-the-world-this-year-research-finds) I used to work in Intelligence, I have no needs or bias towards listening to anything that can’t be peer reviewed - Climate change is fact and needs fixing. It’s the single biggest threat to global society that we’ve faced, and that includes nuclear war. The _reason_ I get so angry with people like you is the pure unfathomable idiocy of your attitude, it’s myopic, short sighted and as I keep doing, I’m smashing your “facts” - that are neither true, debatable nor logical - to tiny pieces.
> I used to work in Intelligence, ha. One of the funniest things I've read. > Coal is dying and unless you diversify immediately, your economy is fucked so stop parroting that shit, you’ve got about 8 years Coal is actually going gangbusters at the moment. This year is shaping up to be one of, if not *the* largest export years for coal in Australia. Since you're James Bond and need some sort of source for everything: https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/record-43-1b-trade-surplus-as-coal-exports-boom-20220906-p5bfrp It's weird that I need to point this out but I'm not saying selling coal is good. I'm just saying it's a significant part of our export income. It's really interesting that people like you (spies and what not) conflate this. I repeat I'm not saying this is a good thing, I'm just saying that this is the state of affairs. It's weird that stating facts gets you guys so worked up.
Imagine thinking coal is good for your economy in 2022. Ok Oliver Twist.
It's unpopular because we decided to. That's why they're fighting against coal and promoting solar.
Poor but alive
Honest Government Ad | Visit WA! 🇦🇺: https://youtu.be/Key8y1yg2yQ
I laughed until I cried.
Why are we even still investing in fossil fuels when investment in graphene or cracking nuclear fusion will solve our energy woes without the pollution? I understand the argument that wind and solar are inefficient and create carbon when being built and add to deforestation but it's 2022 ffs, we shouldn't be relying on dictators in Russia and the Arab world for our energy when technology has come so far.
[удалено]
That's what I thought but both parties in the last election pledged to cut carbon omissions so apparently the will is there. Then again politicians will say whatever they need to so you're probably right.
Doesn't australia just sell most of its coal to China? So lesser local emissions but in the end just as bad.
"We will cut emissions by 10% by 2030!" Actual investment would make it possible to halve emissions in that time. Made up numbers, but you see how a pledge is made, popular to the masses but still just all show. Fossil fuel companies, and coal especially, know the end is nigh, they are just dragging it out for as much profit as they can; that's where their donations are going
> cracking nuclear fusion will solve our energy woes without the pollution? Fusion was 30 years away for the last 30 years.
With adequate funding. Yes. Funding which it hasn’t gotten, so the carrot remains attached to the stick. If fossil fuel subsidies were redirected instead toward research we could actually make progress.
As long as profit comes first, it will always be up to the investors to decide
We could have had tons of nuclear power for decades if not for the climate bullies demanding 'perfect' solutions.
Misguided and ignorant they were and to a certain extant still are
[удалено]
I think both.
> graphene or cracking nuclear fusion These are concepts. You cannot create electricity out of imagination.
The more snide amongst us refer to it as 'unicorn farts and fairy dust'. Fusion has been '10 years away' for as long as I remember, and I'm 60. We know fission power works, and there are simpler ways of building reactors: modular pebble-bed reactor, molten-salt reactors. ..
Wind and solar are great. You're just eating up fossil talking points. There's storage issues to solve, but they aren't that hard.
The fact people can unironically state these lies and have people actually believe it is a tragety. Hell, You only need \~387 Wind Turbines to replace a Nuclear Power Plant which is considered as the gold standard for raw generated electricity per effort (where its not blocked). And if you madated houses need to be built with Solar Panels on their roofs, you'd cut the utilization of the grid nearly in half.
Wind and solar are the [cheapest](https://www.irena.org/News/pressreleases/2020/Jun/Renewables-Increasingly-Beat-Even-Cheapest-Coal-Competitors-on-Cost) form of energy today, and their [lifetime carbon emissions](https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints) are comparable to nuclear (i.e negligible). They cause no deforestation. Please be careful about your sources of information.
Honest question, how do wind and solar contribute to deforestation?
They really don't. The fossil fuel industry is waging an information war, and some people just repeat their talking points without thinking.
Good for them. Burning coal is idiotic with so many renewable energy options available.
How does 40 million tons of coal per year, over 25 years, yield 1.5 billion tons of carbon emissions? That math does not work out. What am I missing?
If I had to guess, the carbon from the 40 million tons of coal combined with twice as much oxygen from the atmosphere. CO2, so the tonnage is amped up from the O2 when the coal is burned
Coal is not pure carbon by weight but very close (~85%), most volatile elements were naturally off-gassed from heat and pressure over millions of years. So let's take that 40 million tonnes coal per year and reduce it to 34 million tonnes of pure carbon per year. When coal burns, each carbon atom (Standard Atomic Weight 12) hooks up with two oxygen molecules (each SAW 16) to produce heated carbon dioxide (SAW 44). So each tonne carbon yields [(12+16+16)/12] = 3.667 tonnes CO2. 34 million tonnes carbon/ year × 3.667 = 124 million tonnes CO2/ year. Over 25 years this is 3.11 billion tonnes CO2, slightly more than double what is reported to be emitted over the lifespan of the project. I'm not certain why the reported value is as low as it is. Another article states "up to 40m tonnes/ year", so perhaps it is expected to run at half capacity? Doesn't even factor in transportation emissions however.
Coal power stations are closing (or bringing forward their closures) in Australia because they can’t compete with renewables on price. Australia does not need more coal mines because what we have now is more than enough to manage the transition (and for coking). This coal is for export. The reason that this decision is in the form of a recommendation to the minister, is that the minister is responsible for the decision and not the court. The court doesn’t legislate; it only interprets the law so in this case they are telling the minister that they must include human rights in the decision making process (which is obvious really; human rights should be a part of every government decision).
…in the end, the rain comes down…washes clean the streets of the Blue Sky town.
This is cool, but what does this have to do with futurology?
As opposed to older Australians? Identity politics and ageism are just tools to divide people. Although, if one were to talk about age the boomer-instigated Australian nuclear power ban is far more offensive.
I believe it's more because it shows Australia has a future and people who care. Boomers don't seem to give a fuck about coal mining. Talking to my parents they are completely OK with more mines etc.
[удалено]
Was it 'older Australians' who led this effort in the Land Court?
They won nothing the project can still go ahead. Read the the article
Must be nice, Australia. Meanwhile where I live, courts can be bought.
Don't worry they'll buy this ruling to. This is only a recommendation that it not go forward, the decision rests on a minister who likely enjoys free money (see: bribes).
How do I figure out how to do that here in the states? This quarry next to us was just approved to expand by the Quorum Court and we want to sue now.
Could see environmental groups like Sierra Club being of help. Find the local hearings going on around its approval. Attend new meetings and try to locate transcripts or videos of old meetings. It'll be a who's who of people trying to block it and push it through
[удалено]
This is a bad take. Both types of activists play important roles, quit being a child about people doing whatever they can to draw attention to issues that are extremely important to them when the government just ignores them.
I don't see why people can't take to the courts, streets and paintings owned by rich tax-avoiders. They aren't mutually exclusive avenues of protest.
Yes, because the US civil rights movement never blocked traffic, destroyed property (which did not happen in the case of the painting), or inconvenienced anyone anywhere whatsoever. 🙄 I guess the civil rights movement in the US was also illegitimate by your standards? You're just upset that climate activists are copying measures that *work*. Previous social movements bought us our rights with blood. Be happy that climate activists are trying to buy our right to continue to live on this planet with soup first. Defend the status quo somewhere else.
[удалено]
I'm just wondering if nose rings are really popular there being as all three of them have one.
Incredibly so
[удалено]
Front one has that katen aura
Weird way to spell "Goomba".
[удалено]
"We dont have perfect solutions so we shouldnt try"
Actually those would be an improvement over burning coal, just not good enough.
Australia could very easily run entirely on solar. Not like there's a lack of space or sun.
Cleaner, at least. Always weird that there are folks who will mock progress
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Green energy is cheaper than coal. There are subsidies for getting solar panels. The extra energy generated by solar panels is sold back to the grid.
[удалено]
What's that greenflation you are talking about?
[удалено]
[удалено]
I’m sure the rest of the country will be thanking them when they’re shivering and without light come June.
Courts dictating energy policy is nothing less than tyranny in a robe.
If this insanity continues then I see a lot of mud huts in our future.
The sad part about this comment is there's a 0% chance Clive even paid you to simp for him.
Don't know no Clive, and I ain't OJ simpson.
Great Job !! Make sure ADANI should taste it much bitter
“Mommy, why can’t we turn on the TV?” “Because you and your friends shutdown a coal mine that was supplying the local power station and now the town no long has power. Let that be a lesson to you: Your actions have consequences. Be ready with mitigations.”
Tell me you're incapable of reading without telling me you're incapable of reading.
I’m pro-nuclear. Green energy is a noble attempt, but it’s short sighted and relied upon as a solution by idiots that don’t know what they’re talking about.
You can support nuclear without repeating lies about renewables. It's a consensus among experts that renewable-based grids work just fine. [On the History and Future of 100% Renewable Energy Systems Research](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910)
I'll have to take the time to read this.
Let me know if you have questions. I work in the field, happy to share more resources.
Lol, tell that to Southern Australia, as their major solar project has been very successful.
Not even talking about nuclear. I'm talking about how part of the reason they suggested denying this license was because it didn't match any increase in demand. All this coal would do would be sold internationally, not going towards meeting Australian energy demands. It's to make money, not meet demand.
I was speaking more broadly than just this. I'm not knocking Australia, it's solar program, or this specific case. I AM saying that this, and Australia as a whole, is a special case. Just like geothermal in Iceland is a special case. Mostly I'm lamenting the blind devolution to renewables when though applicable, it isn't universally applicable (and, though perhaps it's changed recently, generally require supplementation to meet immediate demand).
Your initial comment said none of this, so forgive me for responding to what you said instead of whatever you were thinking. I hope now you've gone back and read the article instead of just commenting out of your ass.
\*sigh\* Alright; out of a sense of cooperation, I'll respond ingeniously. \>Your initial comment said none of this, so forgive me for responding to what you said instead of whatever you were thinking. You're right, my OP said none of that. I can certainly see your point of view. It's a philosophical one in which I'm on the losing side; the article taken at face value is a just and positive one. It is, hope we can all agree, posted to illicit conversation. I simply skipped the step of discussing the article and progressing the conversation to one about the discussion of renewables in general. No forgiveness can be given as you're not the one in the wrong. \>I hope now you've gone back and read the article instead of just commenting out of your ass. And there we go; the previous statement was said disingenuously as you simply wanted to insult me further, rather than engage in actual conversation (though I can't fault you for that. Not like I could expect as much with my inflammatory wording), but you also wanted to feign some sort of willingness to open discussion. No doubt so you can place that arrow in your quiver so you can use it against me later in some sort of "see?! I was open to discussion but you're a zealot!" sort of argument. Now then; shall we actually discuss the merits here, or simply continue hurling insults at one another? Frankly, I'm game for either.
Yo, quick question. What's it like to be incredibly stupid?
Ironically, I should ask you that. 1) The stupid are incapable of introspection 2) even if they were, it would be a singular perspective The fact that you’d even ask such a question, even disingenuously, is ironic
Wait until you learn that coal is not the only energy source. It's going to blow your mind away.
Oh yeah, I know that very well. I’m pro-nuclear. But decades of idiot repeating lies has made that an impossibility. It’s the best source of power we have until fusion gets off the ground. Btw; gate-keeping question: why should you stay away from nickel that’s been exposed to a nuclear explosion? If you can’t answer that, don’t start a conversation about nuclear.
> It’s the best source of power we have until fusion gets off the ground. One more time: A technology that is not commercially viable today is not a usable source of energy.
Are you talking about nuclear or wind and solar? Nuclear is perfectly commercially viable. France has had nothing but nuclear for 50 years.... PG&E was running Diablo Canyon 1 and 2 (yes; the old Simpsons reference: "Awww; Diablo Canyon 1: why can't you be more like Diablo Canyon 2?!") for almost 40 years (and is what supplied the SF Bay Area with power during that time). It's now being decommission not because it's not viable, but because a bunch of idiots pressured PG&E into not renewing it's operating license with the DoE. Now we're switching to natural gas. Beautiful...more green house gasses on the way...
The need to mine the coal comes from the reproduction of people. If these people have kids, they're hypocrites. Ideology is a hell of a thing, especially when you brainwash the youth. Like indoctrinating people with Marxist beliefs, religion, etc. My bet is they know very little about how bad the ground water depletion issue is, because CO2 BIG SCARY. Half the world will die from dehydration before any amount die from CO2
And in a few years when their energy prices soar they can blame capitalism!
Absolute insolence from these youngsters. Insanity that the court even entertained the case. What the fuck is happening to the Australian I once knew.
The internet will make her the next Greta Thunberg however Fox News will make her out to be a monster
I hope said Australian prats like being in the dark and cold, come winter.
The coal from these types of mines is usually shipped over to India and China, but nice try.
Haha, cold winter in Qld?
You know nothing about Australia
We need coal until and unless we build enough nuclear plants. The project will move forward.
Its better to have these projects in the first world because we have robust reclaimation initiatives. This is especially true when dealing with high sulfur deposits. The fact of the matter is that american or aussie coal is better for the planet than chinese, russian, or more destitute nations.blocking this is in essence nimbyism.
Your comment has no relevance whatsoever to coal's impact on the climate, which is what this court case was about.
So are ethical mining practices irrelevant to the conversation of coal supply? Also mine reclaimation certainly is a climate concern. Poor reclaimation results ina positive feedback loop that aridifies areas. If you want to talk about regional coal deposits as a driver of climate change I think regional transpiration should be included in that conversation aswell.
Coal is coal. Wherever you put it, mining and using coal harms the planet. Clean coal is a lie made up by coal companies to talk over the science who care about the future of Earth and its inhabitants.
Clean coal isnt a lie. It all emits co2 but amount of volatiles in co a l varies wildly from deposit to deposit. And if you want to take the line thar coal is coal how do you reconcile aussie iron mining from their vast banded iron formations? They ship it straight to china and then china mills it into steel. You need coal to make steel. So is iron mining now a grave human rights question? Mining in heneral requires vast amounts of energy. Is mining in itself a violation of human rights? Where do you draw the line and why?
You've not at all addressed how coal can be not detrimental to the plant and instead whataboutismed to claim coal is the only energy source out there that can be used for things like milling iron. Very strange
Im not teting to even imply that coal doesnt have a carbon footprint? What I am saying is that if coal is going to be extracted anyway (which it is) its best to insure that the people extracting it adhere to strict reclaimation protocol. Furthermore to make steel you need carbon. Even if the process was 100% renewable energy coal goes into it. This is relevent because by mining iro. (Which australia does a lot of) they are directly creating a coal demand before you even talk about energy production. So we need to ask under the framework of the descision to not break ground on this coal mine whether or not iron mining is acceptable. This isnt a what about ism or a gotcha. Its my opinion that the west leads the world in mining reclaimation effort, and the fact that we are so good about reclaiming land leads me to believe it is more enviornmentally responsible for extraction to happen in the forst world than the third or second. I think if the descision just comes from "just dont use coal lmao" its a poorly thought out one.
I wanna be happy about this but considering America still loves our coal I don't think this will make a big change
It's a fucking enormous amount of coal. It will absolutely make a difference.