Sections

Services

Information

UK United Kingdom

Federals faff with carbon, Western Australian emissions skyrocket

The ability of a country to make its mind up says a lot about how prepared it is for the future, its resilience and its competitive standing. How a country goes about reducing its carbon is very revealing…

With profitability comes responsibility - will Australia’s emissions reduction policy hold LNG producers to account? AAP Image/Kim Christian

The ability of a country to make its mind up says a lot about how prepared it is for the future, its resilience and its competitive standing.

How a country goes about reducing its carbon is very revealing. Germany always seem to have a clear resolve. Korea’s low carbon growth plans are underway. Even China has got itself disciplined. India, and Canada seem to faff.

In Australia, we have perfected the art of the faff.

Australia’s indecisiveness comes from the change-over of federal governments and their differing carbon legislation. While the carbon price was firmly in place, state governments abdicated their role in reducing emissions. All of this variation and political uncertainty is reaping a carbon harvest.

Much of the uptick in Australian emissions is coming from LNG.

When burned, gas emits around half the carbon dioxide of coal. But producing LNG uses large volumes of energy. And if that energy comes from a fossilised source, by extension it produces large volumes of carbon dioxide. Further, natural gas contains varying amounts of carbon dioxide, which needs to be removed before making LNG. Around 4% is fairly typical.

The Pilbara in Western Australia is responsible for around 85% of Australia’s LNG and 80% of crude oil and concentrate. Some of the gas projects in the Pilbara contain a great deal more than usual carbon dioxide, with Gorgon containing 14 per cent, which will sequester some but not all of this from the atmosphere.

LNG production in the Pilbara is set to more than double by 2017. Current production sits at 16.3 Million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) of LNG. This will increase by 24.5Mtpa once the Wheatstone and Gorgon projects come online in 2017, and these will emit around 16Mtpa of carbon dioxide, even with sequestration. LNG production is growing rapidly with a further 40Mtpa of expansions in the pipeline.

In Western Australia, carbon emissions currently stand at around 76Mtpa. With the raft of new LNG and other industrial projects currently under construction, WA’s emissions will double by around 2020.

To put that into context, WA’s 2000 carbon emissions levels were 65Mtpa. It’s a phenomenal increase.

In 2000, Australia emitted 565Mtpa of carbon dioxide equivalents. In 1990, when the Kyoto Protocol was created, it was nearly the same at 550Mtpa and currently sits at 556.4Mtpa.

Australia has unconditionally committed that by 2020 it will reduce its carbon emissions 5%, based on 2000 levels, equating to 28Mtpa. This would mean it should emit no more than 537Mtpa.

Depending on what the rest of the world does, Australia has committed to further reductions of between 15 and 25%. According to Professor Ross Garnaut from the University of Melbourne, this could happen, requiring reductions down to between 423 and 480Mtpa.

Gas projects are currently subject to the Clean Energy Act, the so called “carbon tax”. Under the current federal legislation, thanks to the Jobs & Competitiveness Program, gas producers were granted a substantial carbon cost exemption of 66%, declining at 1.3% per annum. (The “rebate” was given as a carbon cost assistance determined as 66% of industry baseline emissions from 2007/8, declining at 1.3% per annum.)

West Australia had required Chevron to sequester the carbon from some of its Wheatstone emissions, but in January 2013, Chevron successfully lobbied to have that restriction lifted. They argued that their carbon is “captured” under the federal carbon price. This was despite the EPA’s own independent expert advice stating their case was “poor”.

Using the same rationale, Shell got its greenhouse gas conditions removed from the WA environmental approval process for their Prelude floating LNG operation, again because the project was covered under the federal scheme.

It’s a similar story for greenhouse gas control conditions on the Browse LNG project that were recommended by the WA EPA and supported by the Appeals Committee.

And it’s unclear whether the relinquished state-based controls are now being factored into the federal baselines and growth projections.

Another looming issue is the potential for fugitive carbon emissions from Western Australia’s shale gas industry. There is a draft methodology for measuring fugitive emissions for coal seam gas in Australia, but no methodology has been produced for the shale industry, which is the latest fossil-fuel frontier.

In the US, regulators and industry have resorted to using “factor” estimates; these assume best practice for construction, operation and completion of shale projects. Further research using ambient monitoring has shown that actual emissions are a great deal higher.

Given the dramatic expansion in LNG, and the uncertainty around shale emissions, the carbon budget doesn’t seem to add up. Australia’s carbon emissions quota is presently long on promises, long on lip service and short on accountability.

This is adding to a declining rank of Australia’s competitiveness, which - according to the World Economic Forum - fell behind New Zealand’s as of 2013. Australia’s competitiveness is only in the top brackets for food and pharmaceutical exports, financial markets, macroeconomic situation and the capacity to innovate.

Australia lags across a broad range of metrics, including bureaucratic red tape where we stand 128th out of 148 countries. Tidying up our carbon legislation could do wonders to reduce this.

Without a credible accounting and reduction plan, Australia’s ability to play with the top table of countries like Germany, Denmark, Finland, the UK, Korea and Switzerland will be stymied. These countries see that their efficiency and competitiveness is linked to low carbon growth. If all Australia can muster is lip service, we’ll be relegated to the carbon banana republic status, with the likes of India, Nigeria and Canada.

The Coalition claims that the current scheme is an expensive way to reduce carbon emissions. Their alternative - Direct Action - seeks to achieve reductions using a reverse auction, a kind of competitive grant, to buy abatement for their Emissions Reduction Fund.

The Emissions Reductions Fund’s Terms of Reference published last week offer no detail about how this might work. Meanwhile, the Coalition government told industry they didn’t need to pay their third year’s fixed price carbon payment, removing what little was left of the LNG producers' incentives to reduce their carbon emissions.

Apart from the carbon tax rebates being offered by the federal government, it is difficult to know what Direct Action will do to address Western Australia’s burgeoning carbon profile. If it is allowed to grow unfettered, what burden will that place on the other Australian states and territories? Will they have to reduce their emissions by a great deal more than 5% to make up for Western Australia’s dramatic carbon growth?

To be equitable, Direct Action needs to ensure the LNG industry sequesters much of its carbon and improves its efficiency. This will ensure a fair go for other industries and the rest of Australia.

Germany is capable of being honest about its accountancy in money and carbon terms – the fact is the two are related. Perhaps its no coincidence that the richest country in the western world is also the one that’s most honest about its carbon issues. When we learn to solve Australia’s carbon problem, we won’t just be helping the globe, we’ll also be helping ourselves.

Join the conversation

114 Comments sorted by

Comments on this article are now closed.

    1. Daryl Mather

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to John Newlands

      And how much do you and your band of alarmists estimate that this will heat the globe by?

      Before you advocate us all returning to stone age living with naked women washing clothes with stones, exactly how much do you believe that this will heat the globe by?

      Or could it be that you are just caught up in the hype and hysteria trying to make the nation suffer so you can force an inconsequential act like the carbon tax?

      report
    2. Robert McDougall

      Small Business Owner

      In reply to Daryl Mather

      Well, if it turns out that rampant AGW does bring civilisation to its knees, then your stone age synopsis may come true.

      Fair amount of hysteria going on in your post too i see.

      report
    3. Daryl Mather

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Robert McDougall

      Robert come on.

      "if it turns out that rampant AGW does bring civilisation to its knees" really? Is this what you think? Even the most extreme alarmists among the cultists aren't saying this.

      Yet right now people are dying because funds that should be targeting poverty, hunger and the effects of overpopulation are being spent on this massive climate change industry.

      Take heart, the world is not going to end.

      report
    4. Robert McDougall

      Small Business Owner

      In reply to Daryl Mather

      oh, the world will survive, of that i have no doubt.

      "right now people are dying because funds that should be targeting poverty, hunger and the effects of overpopulation are being spent on this massive climate change industry" oh?

      And what about the fossil fuel industry? Weapons industry? International Banking Industry?

      i fear it is not i who suffers delusion.

      report
    5. Daryl Mather

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Robert McDougall

      Of course the world will survive, and there are those who are dedicated to preserving the forces that have lifted more people out of poverty than any other force in history.

      You are trying to compare government funding with the spending of private industries. Not an equitable comparison Robert.

      Companies do what companies do, my argument is that the funds currently being spent on this bunk could be redirected to do great things to issues that are REAL and impacting us today.

      report
    6. Robert McDougall

      Small Business Owner

      In reply to Daryl Mather

      out of curiosity who are "those who are dedicated to preserving the forces that have lifted more people out of poverty than any other force in history."?

      report
    7. Daryl Mather

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Robert McDougall

      Capitalist democracy has lifted more people from poverty than any other force in history.

      Do you disagree?

      report
    8. Doug Hutcheson

      Poet

      In reply to Daryl Mather

      "naked women washing clothes ..." Daryl, if you can't spot the logical error of that statement, what hope do we have that you can understand anything more complex? Eveyone is entitled to an opinion, but not their own laws of physics.

      report
    1. Daryl Mather

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      Fortunately our government will not be foolish enough to embrace any form of societal suicide like that suggested by hard line The Age.

      Fortunately the adults are back in charge and the extremists are back to screaming at shadows on the sidelines.

      report
    2. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Daryl Mather

      You sound a bit hysterical Daryl. I can appreciate that it has been a difficult few weeks for an Abbott supporter, what with "Wikipedia" Hunt and Abbott's Bolt interview which reinforced the view that Tony is entirely clueless on matters science. That interview may have gone down well with Bolt's Orc army but the majority of Australia are capable of intelligent thought.

      report
    3. Daryl Mather

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      The majority do know what is good for them, this is why the majority overwhelmingly threw out the worst government we have had since federation. I am prouder than I have been since 2007 and hate filled progressives are back to throwing insults on socialist rags like this one.

      report
    4. Robert McDougall

      Small Business Owner

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      The thing being missed is that 5% less than 2000 by 2020 is 5%plus all the exponential increases in consumption and emmissions for those extra 20 years, perhaps making quite a substantial difference to actual emmissions by 2020. awfully hard to mine and sell all that fossil fuel in that scenario.

      Why do they love pollution? Who can say. Maybe momma needs a new bucket of sand to put her head in?

      report
    5. Robert McDougall

      Small Business Owner

      In reply to Daryl Mather

      methinks your perception of the impact of the carbon tax is out of proportion with reality.

      Your second line indicates an on message astroturfer and thank god for backlit keyboards.

      report
    6. Robert McDougall

      Small Business Owner

      In reply to Daryl Mather

      So, seeing you seem to hate "progressives", does that infer you are opposed to them? Would that then entail the label "regressive"?

      report
    7. Daryl Mather

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Robert McDougall

      Robert I don't hate anybody at all. Hate and hysteria is the politics of the left. Just have a look at the responses to any posts carrying dissenting ideas to the groupthink here.

      But I do see opposition to the politics of modern progressives is a national responsibility. I see their thinking and policies as being misinformed, dangerous in results, and contrary to the historically liberal nature of Australian society.

      report
    8. Daryl Mather

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Robert McDougall

      And such as democracy...

      report
    9. Daryl Mather

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Robert McDougall

      Dead right. Those in the last parliament who tried to censor the media, restrict freedom of speech and the massive wealth redistribution efforts need to be opposed at every turn.

      report
    10. Robert McDougall

      Small Business Owner

      In reply to Robert McDougall

      btw. there comes a time when people evolve beyond seeing the world in the "black or white" paradigm.
      but don't fret pet, you'll get there eventually.

      report
    11. Daryl Mather

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Robert McDougall

      Check the thread. I am the only one offering a dissenting view. And for some reason this sets you off into insults and patronising statements.

      report
    12. Robert McDougall

      Small Business Owner

      In reply to Daryl Mather

      Yes, and you have been particularly aggressive and one eyed about it.

      Never mind though, you are as free to ignore as many things as much as you want.

      report
    13. Daryl Mather

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Robert McDougall

      No. I am pointing out that the climate change argument is filled with holes, radicalised supporters, and is the spine of a global doomsday cult. The ignoring is happening by people who do not wish to acknowledge that. Fingers int eh ears type stuff. Funny, but also frightening.

      report
    14. Robert McDougall

      Small Business Owner

      In reply to Daryl Mather

      yes, truly frightening, the lengths people go to avoid acknowledging that climate change is supported by enough science by actual scientists to sink a small pacific nation.

      better then to trust blindly an ideologically driven crusade to protect our comforts.

      report
    15. Daryl Mather

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Robert McDougall

      Wow, the ignorance is blinding. Hmm, what other science has had consnsus support throughotu history. .Lets check.

      Flat earth.. check.
      Eugenics - Check
      Y2K - Check

      Precopernican ignorance. I think our conversation is ended. Enjoy the hate and bile of your life.

      report
    16. Robert McDougall

      Small Business Owner

      In reply to Daryl Mather

      however, the rational thinking person changes his position when presented with evidence that disputes the prior position.

      I am yet to see any valid evidence that refutes the science of climate change, perhaps some elements from some models, but not the actual science itself.

      Flat Earth - Church based dogma

      Eugenics - Superiority complex

      Y2k - who knows, maybe used as a bear repellent (see, there are no bears so it must work)

      Thanks for wishing for me to enjoy hate and bile, reciprocation. :)

      report
    17. Doug Hutcheson

      Poet

      In reply to Daryl Mather

      "Hmm, what other science has had consnsus support throughotu history. .Lets check.
      ...
      Y2K - Check"

      Daryl, if you think the Y2K problem was imaginary and over-hyped, you obviously were not involved in the huge mobilisation of analysis and programming required to avert the worst of the potential problems As an analyst involved at the time, I can vouch for the fact that failure to act would have had nasty consequences in all sorts of fields of endeavour.

      As you are wrong on this point, it is safe to assume you may be wrong with your other assertions. Nice try, though. Keep up the hate and hysteria: it at least causes amusement.

      report
    18. Daryl Mather

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Doug Hutcheson

      Amazing isn't it. I was also there for Y2K in teh IT Industry, and I find it amazing that every time I mention it some propellar head sticks his hand up to say "it was real and it only did't happen because I saved you all".

      Doug, mate, if you really did work through this then you either a) know it was overstated and overhyped for the benefit of IT firms and your not being entirely truthful, or b) you believe your hype in which case I have no doubt you think the climate cult will end the world.

      report
    19. Daryl Mather

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Ian Alexander

      Defamation is not an argument. It is just defamation.

      The hate and hysteria of the left is really well at home here.

      report
  1. Colin Beattie

    Ph.D. Candidate "Decarbonising Cities and Regions" at Curtin University

    This really does put into perspective the impact of our hugely profitable resources industry on our emissions profile with not a lot of accountability it seems...

    I have a comment/question on accountability with respect to our Kyoto commitments. What happens if we don't meet our current commitments? I honestly don't know what kind of penalty Australia will be liable for in this instance and more to the point how will any kind of penalty that we are liable for be enforced?
    I'm not a lawyer but I think the normal approach under a legal agreement involves liability for costs and damages...?

    report
  2. Stephen Ralph

    carer at n/a

    I don't think there's much enthusiasm for REAL progress in terms of emissions from this current government.

    TA & Co. are "faffing" around the edges and really trying to look impressive with Direct Action. But it's like the duck looking calm on the surface, but paddling like hell under water - with the LNP it's calm on the surface, but even calmer below the water.

    Mr A is proving to be a lame duck PM also.

    report
  3. Craig Somerton

    IT Professional

    Direct Action isn't going to have any impact on emissions whatsoever. The amount of money these corporations can make from extracting these fuels dwarfs the payments on offer from the government.

    DA doesn't exactly look like an incentive not to pollute, therefore one would have to question its aim - well, apart from wastefully spending taxpayers money.

    report
    1. Doug Hutcheson

      Poet

      In reply to Craig Somerton

      "DA doesn't exactly look like an incentive not to pollute, therefore one would have to question its aim" Craig, its aim was to give the Libs a fig-leaf to cover the nakedness of their climate policy. They know it won't work, but they never intended it to: they just needed to tick the climate box in the lead up to the election.

      Now the election is over, they will do nothing if they can avoid it, as proved by the hard limit they have placed on the cost of climate policies: if they can't achieve their putative 5% reduction with the bucket of money already allocated, then that will just be tough bikkies for the climate.

      report
  4. Kym Afford

    Population activist

    The real "whackos" are the current government abetted by Bolt, Jones, and Murdoch, I am waiting for the young to get their heads out of their tablets and realise their future is in the hands of idiots!

    report
    1. Daryl Mather

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Kym Afford

      Yes. Not at all biased. But at least its out there in the open.

      report
  5. Mike Jubow

    forestry nurseryman

    "In Australia, we have perfected the art of the faff".
    Jemma, I absolutely disagree with this statement, We are not only masters of Faff, but now that Abbott is in charge, we have also achieved a high standing in Fiffing in tune with the Faffing. The anti-science/fossil fuel lobby has won this round. I wonder what they are going to tell their grandchildren about how they delayed taking action when it not only could have been taken, but should have been.

    These are our modern day environmental vandals of the first order. No one in history past or future, will be able to lay claim to doing so much damage in a generation as this mob.

    report
    1. Robert McDougall

      Small Business Owner

      In reply to Mike Jubow

      They will just re-write what happened just like the liberal party presidents speech the other week.

      report
  6. Paul Felix

    Builder

    Anyone who knows me knows my contempt for the Tories in general and Abbott in particular.
    But we must stop blaming him for what we are doing.
    Abbott reflects very accurately the nature and aspirations of the majority of Australians, from denial of science, demonizing refugees, demanding one standard from others compared to ourselves - name something that we teach children is undesirable and we live it.
    We want higher emissions, because we want more things, bigger houses, to fly everywhere, more…

    Read more
    1. Kym Afford

      Population activist

      In reply to Paul Felix

      I was in the supermarket the other day and a comely woman with overflowing trolley asked of her two daughters who were plugged into mobile phones, "Is there anything else we need, do you have body wash?
      What happened to soap?
      And I hear Abbott is on a poll roll this morning - labor is set to cave in to him and abolish the Carbon Tax in the face of unpopularity.
      You have said it all - I despair, Paul!

      report
    2. Chris Harries

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Paul Felix

      Good Paul,

      One blind spot amongst climate activists is to presume that the community is ahead of government. It is anything but.

      Every consumer decision we make that impinges on climate needs to be pitted against political decisions that do the very same thing. A private decision to go out an buy a big inefficient family car (or to extend a house that doesn't need extending; or to fly to the other side of the world for a 2 week holiday) can be considered as the equivalent of a government decision…

      Read more
    3. Kym Afford

      Population activist

      In reply to Robert McDougall

      Sadly no, every time I stick my head up in support of curbing emissions or to suggest we have too many people there is someone who says there was more CO2 around in x millions years ago, and there is plenty to go around.
      What is continually overlooked is that in 1930 at 2 billion people we were living ( more or less) in symbiosis with the planet, CO2 out C02 reabsorbed.
      You only have to fly over Australia and look down at the farmland and see where once trees grew, now there are fields - that…

      Read more
    4. Daryl Mather

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Paul Felix

      This is just defamatory garbage. Not unexpected from commies but really... The sketch the left has been creating is just not true, like Richo says. If you don't like TA then best you don't meet him.

      We aren't sheep, e ask questions, we protect our borders, and we do have the leadership we want and deserve. 90 seats to 55. Aussies can again feel proud after the debacle of the last regime.

      report
    5. Daryl Mather

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Ian Alexander

      Election denier Ian?

      report
    6. Ian Alexander

      Reader

      In reply to Daryl Mather

      Yeah I forgot Daryl. Climate science is a government conspiracy in your mind. Obviously the world will start cooling now the LNP are in power.

      report
    7. Daryl Mather

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Ian Alexander

      You're lying Ian. Does your family know you lie regularly?

      report
  7. Jeff Haddrick

    field manager

    "The ability of a country to make its mind up says a lot about how prepared it is for the future"
    I think one of the biggest causes of waste and shooting ourselves in the foot is that the country can change it's mind about who it wants in government even when it hasn't changed it's mind about existing policies.

    lol crying- another big cause is what goes into making up its mind.

    report
  8. Chris Harries

    logged in via Facebook

    In many respects the debate about our national emissions are overshadowed by our carbon exports. I believe that stands at 12:1 (for every tonne of carbon consumed internally we export a dozen, that being not subject to carbon abatement). Though we may be reducing coal fired power output, we are exporting more coal, and there are moves afoot to do much more of that.

    Even where LNG is exported, and thus not part of our national greenhouse pollution inventory, that's not the case for fugitive emissions, those are ours and have to be counted.

    Thanks for the good story, Jemma. We need the whole carbon story, not just the select bits that get dished up.

    report
  9. Daryl Mather

    logged in via LinkedIn

    Why is it that when the government decides to bankroll something like this (The Conversation) it immediately attracts young inexperienced radicals and extreme progressives?

    And these people are always the first to line up to whine and complain about the companies and tax generating industries that pay for the handouts they enjoy.

    Fortunately there are those of us who do not apologise for creating wealth in the nation and for

    Get off your moral high horse. Even if Australia was to sink under the ocean there change to global climate would be negligible. YOur efforts are misdirected.

    Instead of trying to push us all back to the dark ages why don't you look at the suffering that climate change cultists regularly steal funds from.

    THis stopped being a science years ago and is now a religious belief. The sooner you all realise that the IPCC has continually been wrong and will continue to be wrong then the sooner we can get back to real issues not extremist hype and hysteria.

    report
    1. Daryl Mather

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      As usual the cult members don't even understand the arguments against their religion. And throw insults at any who dare to comment in disagreement.

      report
    2. Michael Shand

      Software Tester

      In reply to Daryl Mather

      Daryl you can't go around calling people cult members just for accepting the science

      It's not on, it's dishonest and un-constructive

      report
    3. Peter Banks

      retired Civil Engineer

      In reply to Daryl Mather

      Some interesting ideas you tout Daryl.

      You effectively say that "young inexperienced radicals and extreme progressives" only post in these conversations because the government is providing some financial backing.

      But then the idea that "these people are always the first to line up to whine and complain about the companies and tax generating industries that pay for the handouts they enjoy" does suggest that the government by bankrolling this thing feels there is something to complain about…

      Read more
    4. Daryl Mather

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Michael Shand

      Accepting which science? Only the bits that agree with your theology right? Totally dismissive of anything that disagrees and totally against anybody who offers a dissenting opinion.

      Lets check this historically...

      The world is about to end...
      If you don't agree with us then you are to be denounced as an unbeliever )denier?)
      Anybody who doesn't agree with us is to be outed and torn down

      Doomsday cult clear and simple.

      report
    5. Daryl Mather

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Peter Banks

      a) Extreme progressive views seem to come mainly from government funded media outlets such as ABC and the conversation. Why? Because people would not pay for such garbage if it had to make its way commercially.

      It is a small cabal of extremists talking amongst themselves.

      b) The dark ages before electricity, global travel and the modern economic miracle.

      c) Stealing funds from the starving, those 500 000 in Dabbab for over a decade, those suffering extreme poverty.. yet the cultists continue to spend money on this farce.

      d) And yes, the IPPC is not regularly wrong it has been consistently wrong since inception. Yet it is still held up and never challenged by those claiming to be on the side of "science."

      Unfortunately for you Peter the capitalist economy has lifted more people from the suffering of poverty than any other force in the history of man.

      Sorry to see it hasn't quite lived up to your expectations.

      report
    6. Doug Hutcheson

      Poet

      In reply to Daryl Mather

      "capitalist economy has lifted more people from the suffering of poverty than any other force in the history of man" and is set fair to result in far worse suffering in coming years than any other force in the history of humanity. A 2° warmer world will not be a good place for your much-vaunted capitalism, or any other -ism for that matter. A 4° warmer world would be calamitous for human society in general. Let's hope we have the sense to avoid it.

      report
    7. Paul Felix

      Builder

      In reply to Daryl Mather

      Unsure if Abbott funds The Conversation, but that aside the comment is bizarre.
      I am a self employed builder, I have had 3 weekends off in the past 12 months, I raised two children, I am 67 - does that make me an extreme progressive?
      But when did being a progressive become so undesirable?
      When the people demanded democracy in France and England many hundreds of years ago, when people were executed for saying the world was round not flat, when the American colonies fought for their independence…

      Read more
    8. Daryl Mather

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Doug Hutcheson

      It isn't going to happen due to mankind, and if it does in the general swing of things we will learn to live with it. We are the most elastic species on the planet. At least thus far.

      How many people die each year due to the cold?

      report
    9. Daryl Mather

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Paul Felix

      Don't confuse democratic freedom for what passes for modern progressivism Paul. The two are nowhere near the same...

      report
    10. Peter Banks

      retired Civil Engineer

      In reply to Daryl Mather

      a) So you agree that progressive views, and hence progress, are to be found on in media outlets with government financial support. And imply that if it were left to purely commercial interests there would be no talk of progress.

      I take it you, since you are quite vociferous on such outlets, are one of the extremists, if not perhaps part of a cabal.

      b) So you mean before late 18th century in urban areas, or mid 19th century in rural areas.

      c) I am still at a loss over the stealing funds thing…

      Read more
    11. Paul Felix

      Builder

      In reply to Daryl Mather

      Those who were killed fighting for democracy were extreme progressives and would you have stood with them such is your passion? More likely, such is your anger, you would have condemned them in the same way that you hate progressives today.
      Democracy aside, people were killed for saying the earth was round, they were extreme progressives, who believed in science, who wanted a better and more educated world.
      How extreme are you? What do you think should be done to us?

      report
    12. Daryl Mather

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Peter Banks

      Peter, you seem to think that "progressives and progress atre the same thing. They are no where neat the same thing.

      The last government were filled with progressives. And this government massively expanded toe public sector, massively expanded the welfare state, re-introduced unions to politics the like of which we have not seen for thirty years, and re-introduced industrial restrictions from the Whitlam era.

      These "progressives" took us back to the seventies, not forward to the future…

      Read more
    13. Daryl Mather

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Paul Felix

      Those who fought for democracy Paul were not progressives as they are currently defined. I understand the confusion, but progressives is the term for the left that is widely used.

      It DOES NOT actually mean progress in the general sense. Nor is it to be equated with freedom as progressives are continually out to restrict freedom of the press and of the media.

      I tried to point out the difference in an above post.

      report
  10. Daryl Mather

    logged in via LinkedIn

    Anybody here calling out the high priestess Milne on all of her outright lies and misinformed statements while speaking on the ABC climate cult platform?

    Cricket, cricket... thought so. Religion not science.

    report
    1. William Raper

      Retired

      In reply to Daryl Mather

      Darryl,

      Is your background training and experience in Law, Politics, Theology or Research and Development?

      report
    2. Daryl Mather

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to William Raper

      William, my background is as a citizen of Australia. I have a right to express my views and I will not be silenced by the hate politics of the left.

      report
    3. Ian Alexander

      Reader

      In reply to Daryl Mather

      No one is trying to silence you Daryl. Everyone is having a great laugh at your expense. Keep up the good work!

      Your posts are a wonderful case study in ignorance and denial.

      report
    4. Daryl Mather

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Ian Alexander

      Defamation isn't an argument. It is just the tools of trade of the hate ridden left.

      Anytime you want to talk facts then go for it, otherwise it is just juvenile garbage.

      report
    5. Daryl Mather

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Ian Alexander

      You have to love the sniggering nature of the juveniles on the left.

      And they want to be taken seriously.

      report
    6. Ian Alexander

      Reader

      In reply to Daryl Mather

      Not one of your better jokes Daryl.

      Tell me again how Bob Carter is a credible scientist. That was a beauty. Laughed for ages.

      report
    7. Daryl Mather

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to Ian Alexander

      When did I say that exactly?

      Not lying are you Ian?

      report
  11. John Newton

    Author Journalist

    There is only one solution. Leave the coal in the ground. When people wake up to the reality of the futility of wreaking havoc on the environment and the world's atmosphere by burning coal to enrich a handful of billionaires and foreign corporations, they will embrace the only possible course. Build a renewable energy future.

    Unfortunately, since the election of this wicked government, the sky is full of winged porkers

    report
  12. Thomas Wiedmann

    Associate Professor at UNSW Australia

    Well said, Jemma. And good that you mention the indirect emissions of producing fossil fuels as this is indeed not negligible.
    On Germany, yes, some good policies, but when it comes to reducing CO2 emissions from cars Germany is the blocker in the EU (no speed limit is still sacrosanct...).

    report
    1. Paul Felix

      Builder

      In reply to Thomas Wiedmann

      To be accurate there are speed limits but as in the NT until recently some roads had none.

      report
  13. David Doe

    Videogame Producer

    Thank you for the article, Jemma.

    A shame that the comments, with somewhat alarming regularity on the Conversation, have become the cause du jour among our those trying to disseminate fear, uncertainty, and doubt. But this is the first time I've seen someone with such obvious vested interests lobbing into the fray : http://www.reliabilitysuccess.com/about-us/

    Tell me, dear editors of the Conversation, what are your thoughts on the LA Times and the SMH's recent stance on the printing of letters to the editor that include non-factual information relating to climate change? Does the comments section of a website represent the letters to the editor page of a print publication?

    report
    1. Daryl Mather

      logged in via LinkedIn

      In reply to David Doe

      So I am a vested interest because I work with utilities and resource industry companies on asset reliability? I work with grain companies also, as well as alternative energy companies. Does that make me a vested interest there?

      Also is the hate and hysteria aimed at me just because I had the courage to use my own name and identity? or just because you try to attack anybody who disagrees?

      report
    2. Doug Hutcheson

      Poet

      In reply to Daryl Mather

      "Also is the hate and hysteria aimed at me just because I had the courage to use my own name and identity?" No, Daryl, the restrained and mature admonitions aimed at you result from your uninformed attacks on the science of global warming. It has nothing to do with using your name: many of us do the same, without thinking it particularly brave at all.

      report