Ban on fossil fuel advertising 'just the first step' for the ACT

“The same people who are fanatical about the climate change narrative are exactly the ones who support every other highly destructive leftist cause.”

Climate change is not a left v right issue. It’s a reality that we must deal with.

Every major scientific body is in the world is not wrong on climate change.

“Climate change is not a left v right issue. It’s a reality that we must deal with.”

Don’t you believe it

“Every major scientific body is in the world is not wrong on climate change.”

The consensus fantasy

Now, as I said: “unapologetically (and perhaps irremediably) insane”

Well you are right on one thing Vasily. You definitely understand the concept of insanity, given it shines through in every single comment you make.

What utter claptrap, nonsense, drool, drivel – insert whatever word, and they all apply to the utter tripe you post. The hate you show for other human beings is just, well frankly sad.

It’s no more a left v right issue than if a meteor were about to hit the planet.

“The consensus fantasy”
Show me a major scientific body that rejects the reality of climate change.

‘Now, as I said: “unapologetically (and perhaps irremediably) insane”’
What’s insane is rejecting provable reality because it does suit your personal politics.

In another thread here recently, Vasily M implied he was a creationist. Feed that precept through the rest of his thought processes, then go do something more interesting or useful.

hatred by telling people the truth they need but are unable to hear?
Not once has anyone ever called me out on an actual contradiction in my thought processes, and only childish name calling ever ensues, in an attempt that it might pass for a substitute for logic, like now when you call me a hater.
Only in your upside world could what I do ever be interpreted the way you’ve interpreted it. At worst, my tone is a little gruff, but since when do well formed adults tone police anyone? Go and comment on other people’s messages; the ones I write clearly are not for you. That you don’t know it says everything about what you don’t have – and the others who are exactly like you

“It’s no more a left v right issue than if a meteor were about to hit the planet”

it is a left wing politics and nothing but.

“Show me a major scientific body that rejects the reality of climate change.”

Explain to me why it has to be major.
(and here’s a word for the wise: you will fail in your attempt)

Vasily one of the hallmarks of climate ideology is that you accept it all, hook, line and sinker. If temperatures are rising then the seas are rising, hurricanes are increasing. And the only solution is renewables. Nothing else matters. Damn the costs, stuff our standards of living, scare the kiddies “we’re all doomed”. Nothing else matters.

It stopped being about science years ago. It’s now just a religion. And religions have zealots. They have names. We see them here. Like zombies heading to the apocalypse. It’s hilarious to behold.

Biased claims without evidence do not overturn the facts, much as you might prefer they did.

well said penfold

“it is a left wing politics and nothing but.”

Climate change is a demonstrably, provable fact, crowing that it’s just lefties is puerile nonsense, time to grow up champ.
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/

BTW the Pentagon accepts the reality of climate change (no a noted lefty institute) and have planned accordingly.

“Explain to me why it has to be major.”

I didn’t say it had to be major, nice attempt at a misdirection though. But I did point out that none of the major scientific bodies are saying climate change is not real.

I’ll entertain any minor institute you wish to name if they have irrefutable evidence that climate change is not happening. So please point them out …

But…”and here’s a word for the wise: you will fail in your attempt”….

Absolute drivel Penfold, misstates the issue, the risk and solution. Cooker level conspiratorial nonsense.

Based on that last comment I feel comfortable in dismissing and ignoring your unsophisticated, attention seeking attempts to dumb down serious issues.

@Penfold
“… one of the hallmarks of climate ideology is that you accept it all, hook, line and sinker …”
No. One of the hallmarks, of those who accept the issues of anthropogenic climate change, is that the majority of experts in the field, are able to provide scientific proof to support their conclusions.

The issue with climate change denialists, like you, Vasily and the rest of your ill-informed cohort, is, like the members of the flat earth society, you continue to promote your fantasies, without any supporting scientific evidence whatsoever. I had a good laugh at Vasily’s nonsensical “consensus fantasy”.

So you are right – “It stopped being about the science years ago”, because the significant majority of Australians have accepted the science. Unfortunately years of political denial and inaction, have put even more pressure on the need to pursue the solution.

And as for ‘scare the kiddies’ … well they have a right to be scared, because it’s their planet that will wear the brunt of the consequences of our generation’s inaction, at a time, when you and I have long departed. Actions (and inactions) have consequences, but selfishness rarely delivers a good outcome.

JS – could you please point me to the proven scientific relationship between CO2 and global temperatures ?

Peer reviewed would be great but I’m not that fussy.

In other words, surely science can tell us how much additional CO2 (currently around 427 ppm) is going to impact temperatures. The IPCC sure can’t, they have to throw in multiple “scenarios” in their assessment reports.

Thanks, am happy to wait.

@Penfold
Happy to assist you in your education, Penfold.

I found this article quite enlightening (https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/), but I specifically found the embedded video “Greenhouse effect (in a bottle) explained”, demonstrated the impact of higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere and the resultant increase in temperature.

Thank you for waiting for this post to be cleared by the moderator and your welcome.

Nice find CR, interesting article. But i’m not what a sensible person would call a climate change denier. Happily accept that the planet is warming and that CO2, as a greenhouse gas, is a warming agent. My question is about how much.

For example if we go from 427 ppm to say 450 ppm, how much will the planet warm ? This is important because the IPCC, UN and other zealots keep talking about 1.5 degrees, 2 degrees. How do they know ? They can model the trajectory of CO2 emissions but they can’t tell us with any confidence how that will impact temperatures.

But based on their inability to provide a degree of certainty, they’re still happy to tell us that if we don’t spend gazillions and smash our economies and standards of living then the oceans will rise up and swallow whole countries. They’ve been telling us this since June 29 1989. The first countries were disappearing by 2000.

https://tallahasseereports.com/2019/03/09/a-1989-ap-report-nations-wiped-off-face-of-the-earth-by-2000/

Well some of us are familiar with the boy-who-cried-wolf story and throw in Flannery, Gore, Greta and none of this is eventuating. Islands are growing, Fort Denison sea levels haven’t changed.

So sure, let’s find cleaner energy sources. Let’s plan and roll out in a sensible manner. Let’s discuss nuclear, surely the only clean and reliable – baseload – source known to man right now. Anyone rallying against nuclear is just nuts. You can argue costs but you can’t argue performance.

Until the ALP drop their ideology, we’ll never stop the energy wars. Have a real conversation, and that means no Bowen or Albo. The 82% 2030 RET is a joke, but climate ideology means nobody can admit that. For we mug consumers all it means is 50% higher energy costs in just three years.

@Penfold
OK, I think I get it – I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong.

Your an absolutist. You accept that too many straws will break a camel’s back, but you want to know exactly how many straws it will take, rather than accepting that a good strategy is to err on the side of caution and just put half the load.

Climate change science is not exact, it is rather a well-established scientific consensus based on extensive evidence and research. It uses predictive analytics to determine outcomes, which are then used to inform strategies encompassing both mitigation (reducing greenhouse gas emissions) and adaptation (adjusting to unavoidable impacts).

So, no, I don’t know, or even care how many ppm of CO2 it takes to achieve a level of average global temperature increase below 2°C above pre-industrial levels. What I care about is that the science shows that, whle the Earth’s temperature has risen by an average of 0.06C per decade since 1850, the rate of warming since 1982 is more than three times as fast at 0.20C per decade. Small numbers I know, but we are already seeing the impact of those increases in the regularity of severe weather occurrences and the like in the last decade or so.

I realise this comment will just be background noise to you, as you clearly have no desire to think outside of you own world and recognise the need for real action – not the inaction of the previous government or the faux action of the present government. So continuing the discussion with someone who wants to cherry pick the odd ‘failed prediction here and there’, and obviously doesn’t care about what kind of world the ‘scared kiddies’ will be left with, is a waste of time.

Sorry I meant nice find JS. It sounds like you’re happy to accept what the IPCC and UN push out as fact. I’m not. If we’re going to spend gazillions and spend our economy then we might want a bit more info.

The world has gone through many heating and cooling cycles, how do we know we’re not in one now ?

A few years back the BOM “homogenised” our historic temperature records, adjusting them down. Guess what ? Ot means they now claim increased temperature readings, 1.5 degrees or whatever. It was then the whole thing sounded like a scam. Nothing has changed since.

“A few years back the BOM “homogenised” our historic temperature records, adjusting them down. Guess what ? Ot means they now claim increased temperature readings, 1.5 degrees or whatever. It was then the whole thing sounded like a scam.”

Yes, well if you believe that anything like that actually happened, it seems you have very good experience with being scammed.

@Penfold
I certainly use IPCC, UN and NASA as my starting points for info.

Then I google to see if there are other credible reports/studies, specifically looking for different conclusions – which I just don’t find. Instead I found articles like the one we both found enlightening.

Yes, the “world has gone through many heating and cooling cycles” – a fact the denialists like to regurgitate at every opportunity. The issue with anthropogenic climate change is the speed with which that heating cycle is taking place.

Mother Nature does a great job of looking after herself and her regeneration … man not so much.

Playing the man and not the ball again chewy. How dreary.

Denialists, you guys do love your petty labels.

Hey remember how global warming was going to wipe out food sources. Someone forgot that CO2 is the building block of life, and

““A few years back the BOM “homogenised” our historic temperature records, adjusting them down. Guess what ? Ot means they now claim increased temperature readings, 1.5 degrees or whatever. It was then the whole thing sounded like a scam.””

I made a mistake of initially pegging you as a right wing punter concerned about energy, which even if badly misinformed is not an unreasonable position.

But it’s comments such as the one above that have belled the cat and have made me realise my mistake Penfold. The comment above is that of a conspiracy theorist crank, who presents no evidence for ludicrous claims and as such can be dismissed without evidence and is really best ignored.

Ahh chewy, such selective amnesia. The BOM certainly did homogenise temperatures. They even admit it. Every homogenisation was downwards, who would have thought.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/acorn-sat/#:~:text=Homogenisation%20is%20the%20method%20of,relocations%20and%20upgrades%20to%20equipment

There you go, learn something new every day !

“The Bureau’s methods have been extensively peer-reviewed and found to be among the best in the world. This is crucial, as it means the community can have confidence the Bureau is providing an accurate estimate of Australia’s true temperature trend.”

Sometimes you need to read the whole article before posting the cut an paste from the meme on Telegram.

Seano your apology for yet another false claim (3:03) is accepted.

What apology, your claim that was some untoward manipulation of data is patently false, your attempt to claim a win from another loss on the facts is puerile.

@Penfold
It’s not my label (petty or otherwise) it’s the Oxford languages definition:
“denialist, noun: a person who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence.”

… I will concede I was a tad generalist, I should have been more specific, again from the Oxford languages definition:
“climate denialist, noun: a person who rejects the proposition that climate change caused by human activity is occurring.”

… and again, cherry picking (failed) generalist predictions made decades ago – which I grant exagerated, possibly by design, to attract people’s attention. That does not negate the reality, that globally, anthropogenic climate change is impacting weather patterns with increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, rising temperatures, and changes in rainfall patterns.

Lol, you don’t even need to open the article to discover the BOM have adjusted the data, it’s right there in the URL ! “homogenisation” (do you need an explanation of what a URL is ?)

“There you go, learn something new every day !”

For some people maybe, but clearly not you.

JS – as i said to you earlier, i’m happy to accept that warming is happening and humans contribute to it. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Said so at 6:43 yesterday. So thank you, by your definition i’m no “denier”. Can we move on ?

You need to read the article to understand what it means though, unless your intent is to spread misinformation and conspiracy…oh right.

@Penfold
Actually, perhaps you should have read my post before taking umbrage – and I quote: “… a fact the denialists like to regurgitate …”. Note, I didn’t say “you denialists” but rather was referring to denialists in general.

Now that’s been cleared up, I am very happy to move on.

JS – you’re sounding like Chris Bowen, backpedalling faster than you can say “275 dollar saving”.

Did you see his performance at the NPC yesterday ? How does someone that incompetent end up as our energy minister.

@Penfold
backpedalling?

Hmmm, I checked my Oxford languages dictionary and didn’t see backpedalling defined as “pointing out to someone how foolish they look, because of their inability to comprehend the written word”

Nevertheless, I am definitely moving on from this fatuous discourse.

No that’s not what he’s saying. “Limiting fossil fuel ads”….it’s in the article.

Sean, during your frantic rush to constantly correct everyone’s thinking, you missed this part of the article “After that, the next step should be to ban fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship of events in the ACT in its entirety.”

And in your frantic rush to post while uninformed you missed the key words “fossil fuel”. AGL are not just a fossil fuel company, he doesn’t mention banning companies he mentions “fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship”.

So?

The issue isn’t that we use energy. It’s that some of our energy sources are polluting and that pollution is causing significant harm when we have other cleaner (and cheaper) energy sources.

Well given ACT is powered by 100 renewable energy I’m guessing that.

But how does the source of the energy in any way change the need to do something about the harm caused by emissions? That would be like saying there’s no point not eating junk food because you still have to eat.

You’re funny Seano. The ACT is certainly not powered by 100% renewables. We produce 100% renewable power (given we don’t have a coal or gas plant). But we consume electricity from the national grid.

Nothing I said was incorrect Penfold.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/the-act-is-now-running-on-100-renewable-electricity/lorljlav8

The fact that you don’t understand how our energy market works doesn’t change that 100% of our contribution to the energy pool is renewable.

It would be idiotic to suggest that we should be monitoring individual electrons.

Man you’re in it deep aren’t you. How do you think you watch TV at night in Canberra – using solar energy ?

Our grid is 40% renewable energy. If what you’re suggesting is true Penfold we’d have constant, mass outages.

Of course it’s not and you likely know that, but seem to think these sort of trolling comments win the debate (they don’t).

Our demand management grid is a pool which includes 40% renewable energy but the ACT’s contribution to that pool is a 100% coming from renewable sources.

So please remember when you post this glib nonsense you’re helping to pay for energy companies to build GWs of wind, solar, hydro, other types of renewables and batteries.

It’s a really simple question Seano – if you think the ACT is 100% renewable, and you watch TV at night, how does that work ?

This is another sharp knives and drawers issue.

Think of our grid as a pool, the ACT contributes 100% clean energy to that pool, where individual electrons come from is no more significant than where individual drops of water come from in a reservoir.

To claim otherwise would truly be an idiotic contention.

So you’d agree that claiming the ACT uses 100% renewable power is a complete lie.

No I wouldn’t because only an idiot who thinks tracing individual electrons is meaningful would say that. The ACT is powered by 100% renewables because that’s what we contribute to the pool. Time to grow up mate.

So?

@Penfold
Two things to note about your “inconvenient truth”:
1. “energy consumption” is not just electricity (currently, renewables are supplying approx. 39% into the grid and it’s continuing to rise), but also includes transport (oil is clearly dominant), industrial (many manufacturing processes still use gas) and residential uses (such gas heating and cooking); and
2. The column “10 year average annual growth (per cent)” of the table in your link is very relevant – with the leader being Renewables (5.2%), compared to Gas (1.0%), Oil (0%) and Coal (-2.3%).

Incorrect claim about Canberra, Penfold.

Have you seen any coal-using blast furnaces around here? Did you know only 40% of gas is used for power generation and otherwise mostly for industry? Canberra principally uses electricity for business, offices and homes with some gas and petrol or diesel especially for vehicles. This takes a huge chunk off the fossil side of consumption here.

The item “Electricity generation” in the same link immediately above the item you chose, “Energy consumption”, shows fossil fuels accounting for only 65% a couple of years ago for Australia, falling since. Canberra’s electricity contracts are exclusively with suppliers of renewable energy.

Still, it is well recognised that you do not understand bases or patterns of production and consumption.

JS – yes, all simple facts. Good on you for reading the link.

Axon – yes, 65% of electricity is still fossil fuels. And to think you renewable dreamers want to turn that off. The Europeans are turning it back on as reality bites.

They are turning it back on because another non-renewable source of fuel – gas, has been in sustained short supply, and gas is a massive source of heating in multiple european countries, thereby creating a shortage of its availability for electricity production.

But don’t let facts get in the way of your latest drivel.

65% was two years ago Penfold. Before that the fossil proportion was higher, now it is lower and continues to decline. Penfold admits that the world is changing. Unlike his mind, it will continue to do so.

Penfold, It’s 40% renewable, no one has called for fossil fuels to be turned off, but they will be phased out by the cleaner, cheaper, faster to build dispatchable renewables with firming technology, and you need to stop posting nonsense you’ve read from memes….as ever when you post none of that is true.

Axon – as you say 2/3rds of electricity remains fossil fuel sourced. You may as well have stopped there. It will reduce over time but how good is the 82% 2030 renewable energy target looking ?

Do you reckon 2/3rds will become 1/6th in 5 years time ?

Why would I try to predict that, Penfold? I am not an energy supplier. However, I am sure you are keen to practise your maths so extrapolate this:
2020 = 24% renewables
2024 Dec qtr = 40% renewables, 45-50% expected in 2025
2030 = ?

After that gain in 4 years, what do you think will be the gain in the next 6, Penfold? Do you wish to answer zero, and look like one? Even if somersault man were to be elected, industry will keep investing in renewables because for electricity in Australia coal has no future and nuclear no point.

“Axon – as you say 2/3rds of electricity remains fossil fuel sourced. “

Is it any surprise the percentage king thinks 60% is 2/3rds, hilarious stuff.

The pipeline of investment is only going in one direction, it isn’t a matter of if renewables will dominate the grid, its when. 5 years or 10, it doesn’t really matter.

Chewy – maths is such a great discipline isn’t it. You’ve just jumped into the conversation but 65% isn’t “60%”. It’s basically 2/3rds. Investment in renewables is tanking. And the reason is, they’re a really bad investment.

“Investment in new large-scale renewable energy capacity fell by almost 80 per cent last year as grid bottlenecks, slow planning and environmental approvals, higher costs and tight labour markets took a heavy toll on Australia’s chances of reaching 2030 climate targets.”

https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/investment-in-renewable-energy-slumps-80pc-as-2030-target-fades-20240312-p5fbu9#:~:text=Investment%20in%20new%20large%2Dscale,of%20reaching%202030%20climate%20targets.

But you’re right on one aspect, it’s only going in one direction.

LOL Penfold once again just ignores the previous evidence showing the errors in his comments to post the exact same discredited information.

It’s truly ridiculous now.

“You’ve just jumped into the conversation but 65% isn’t “60%””

Yes, i agree it isn’t, the problem being the actual proportion of electricity provided by renewables today is 40%. As usual, you’re living in the past using 2023 numbers, the increase in renewables since then, just further evidence of your wrongness.

By the by, 65% isn’t 2/3rds either, lessons on converting fractions to percentages might also help you in your studies.

And it makes sense you don’t understand the issue, with your goldfish memory linking articles I’ve already updated you on with current figures.

Your link based on 2023 numbers, updated 2024 numbers:

“Australia has seen its best year for large-scale renewable energy investment since 2018, finishing the year strong in 2024 with $9 billion in total capital investment”

https://cleanenergycouncil.org.au/news-resources/back-on-track-aussie-clean-energy-investment-reaches-new-highs-in-2024#:~:text=Australia%20has%20seen%20its%20best,the%20Clean%20Energy%20Council%20today.

https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/9b-rebound-in-renewables-projects-keeps-2030-in-sight-20250212-p5lbke

“But you’re right on one aspect, it’s only going in one direction.”

Yes, yes it is.

Penfold posting everywhere but seems to have forgotten this……..

How is that his job? Geez you post some bizarre stuff Capital.

Haven’t you heard CR, money grows on the trees at the bottom of the greens gardens.

Well if we apply your reasoning Seano, what are you doing commenting on almost everything you nothing about?

I suspect we are both too old to believe in fairy tales, Penfold. ha ha.

@Capital Retro
Yet you persist in posting fairy tales in your comments, CR, as if they are factual reality. 🤣

A simple answer is to use public transport, bikes, scooters or walk to save petrol as well as to tax massive fuel guzzling SUVs and trucks at higher rates to cover their destruction of our roads and air. You’d be amazed at how much money you’d save. However, we’d need our government to improve public transport without wasting masses on high cost inflexible outdated private profit fueled tram systems.

Complete drivel. Why not try actually engage with the topic? Or are you stuck without a coalition talking point or telegram meme to copy?

So you’re good with smoking and alcohol advertising coming back despite the significant fall in harms those products cause when advertising restrictions came in?

This is about protecting the young and the gullible from misleading information.

What about protecting everyone from hidden agenda’s

The hidden agenda’s … what?
The suspense is killing me.