Date: 11/04/2019 11:30:53
From: PermeateFree
ID: 1373697
Subject: What Australia does matters

Even the polluters are waking up.

>>Below is a thought provoking article about climate change, written by former coal boss Ian Dunlop. It was published in The Sydney Morning Herald on 14 March 2019 – I hope you enjoy it.

“As an ex-coal boss, I’m telling politicians: wake up to climate threat”
Human-induced climate change is happening faster than officially acknowledged. Extreme events intensify, particularly in Australia, Asia and the Pacific. Victoria and Tasmania are ablaze again. Queensland needs a decade to recover from recent floods. Much of south-east Australia has become a frying pan, curtailing human activity.

The economic and social cost is massive – as Reserve Bank Deputy Governor Guy Debelle warned us this week – but too many of our leaders refuse absolutely to acknowledge climate change as the cause.

Given the overwhelming evidence and repeated warnings of the dangers we face, even as a former oil, gas and coal industry executive I find it incomprehensible that proposals for new fossil fuel projects proliferate, encouraged by government and opposition alike: Adani’s Carmichael, Glencore’s Wandoan, Kepco’s Bylong, Whitehaven’s Maules Creek, Shenhua’s Watermark, along with 20 other NSW coal projects, Shell’s CSG and LNG expansion, Northern Territory and West Australian fracking, Statoil in the Great Australian Bight, HELE coal-fired power stations … the list goes on.

These projects are crimes against humanity. Fossil fuel investment must stop, now. As the cost of three decades of climate denial mount, the incumbency becomes evermore hysterical, lying and dissembling to avoid accountability – “we will meet our climate obligations at a canter”.

The government’s 26 – 28 per cent emission reduction by 2030 is laughable in the context of the real obligations of climate policy, which Australia signed up to in 1992 with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, namely: “stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.”

We have failed totally to meet those obligations. Dangerous climate change is occurring with the 1 degree warming already experienced. The lower 1.5 degree limit of the Paris Agreement will be here this decade. The upper 2 degree limit is now the boundary of extremely dangerous climate change. On our current emissions trajectory, warming will be 3 degrees to 4 degrees long before 2100. This is a world incompatible with maintaining civilised society.

Natural ecosystems can no longer adapt to climate change, as accelerating species extinction and collapse of the Great Barrier Reef demonstrate. Food production is under threat. Sustainable development is impossible within the current economic paradigm.

The task now is to avoid triggering irreversible, non-linear tipping points, where climatic changes spiral rapidly beyond our sphere of influence, with the potential to eradicate humanity. This is an immediate existential threat, with little time to act.

The West Antarctic ice sheet has passed its tipping point, quite possibly locking in a metre of sea level rise by 2100. The Arctic permafrost, East Antarctic ice sheet and Amazon rainforest are close behind. Yet we continue to increase emissions with abandon, even though the dire implications have long been known.

The current climate and energy debate is irrelevant. Our emissions must be cut by 50 per cent by 2030 and 100 per cent by 2050. This requires emergency action, akin to wartime: the suspension of political and corporate “business as usual”, to do whatever it takes to resolve the climate crisis.

Other countries must do more, but rhetoric that our domestic emissions of 1.3 per cent of the global total make us an insignificant player in the emission stakes is utter nonsense. As LNG exports increase, Australia will shortly become the world’s fourth largest carbon polluter when exports are included, as they must be, given that climate change is a global problem. What Australia does matters.

We face massive societal and cultural change, but Australia has far greater potential to prosper in the low-carbon future than in the high-carbon past. Realising that potential requires an all-encompassing commitment to emergency action. Certainly there will be costs, but we have solutions and the cost of ignoring climate change will be far greater.

This requires leadership prepared to honestly articulate these risks, and the real way forward, particularly the need for a fair transition for those adversely affected. At present Australia is totally unprepared for what is about to happen. Politicians must bury their differences and co-operate for the common good.

Business, investors and lobbyists must stop immoral, predatory delay. They must stop publicly advocating urgent climate action while privately maximising returns from unsustainable practices before the shutters finally come down on fossil fuels.

To halt our suicidal rush to oblivion, the community must ensure no leader is elected or appointed in this country unless they are committed to emergency action.

Ian Dunlop is a former international oil, gas and coal industry executive, chair of the Australian Coal Association and CEO of the Australian Institute of Company Directors. He is co-author of What Lies Beneath: the understatement of existential climate risk, and of the Club of Rome’s Climate Emergency Plan.<<

Reply Quote

Date: 11/04/2019 15:38:22
From: transition
ID: 1373784
Subject: re: What Australia does matters

>The current climate and energy debate is irrelevant. Our emissions must be cut by 50 per cent by 2030 and 100 per cent by 2050. This requires emergency action, akin to wartime: the suspension of political and corporate “business as usual”, to do whatever it takes to resolve the climate crisis”

too many humans, mate, try saying it.

Reply Quote

Date: 11/04/2019 15:39:46
From: Tamb
ID: 1373785
Subject: re: What Australia does matters

transition said:


>The current climate and energy debate is irrelevant. Our emissions must be cut by 50 per cent by 2030 and 100 per cent by 2050. This requires emergency action, akin to wartime: the suspension of political and corporate “business as usual”, to do whatever it takes to resolve the climate crisis”

too many humans, mate, try saying it.


Why must our emissions be cut by 2050?

Reply Quote

Date: 11/04/2019 15:42:38
From: Witty Rejoinder
ID: 1373786
Subject: re: What Australia does matters

Tamb said:


transition said:

>The current climate and energy debate is irrelevant. Our emissions must be cut by 50 per cent by 2030 and 100 per cent by 2050. This requires emergency action, akin to wartime: the suspension of political and corporate “business as usual”, to do whatever it takes to resolve the climate crisis”

too many humans, mate, try saying it.


Why must our emissions be cut by 2050?

To limit global warming to 2 degrees I think.

Reply Quote

Date: 11/04/2019 15:44:11
From: Tamb
ID: 1373787
Subject: re: What Australia does matters

Witty Rejoinder said:


Tamb said:

transition said:

>The current climate and energy debate is irrelevant. Our emissions must be cut by 50 per cent by 2030 and 100 per cent by 2050. This requires emergency action, akin to wartime: the suspension of political and corporate “business as usual”, to do whatever it takes to resolve the climate crisis”

too many humans, mate, try saying it.


Why must our emissions be cut by 2050?

To limit global warming to 2 degrees I think.

Just Oz or worldwide? I’m not up to date on emission politics.

Reply Quote

Date: 11/04/2019 15:48:36
From: Witty Rejoinder
ID: 1373790
Subject: re: What Australia does matters

Tamb said:


Witty Rejoinder said:

Tamb said:

Why must our emissions be cut by 2050?

To limit global warming to 2 degrees I think.

Just Oz or worldwide? I’m not up to date on emission politics.

Worldwide. The Paris Agreement is supposed to be the mechanism that aims to reduce CO2 growth to allow for only a 2 degree increase in temps. Obviously other countries have to meet their goals with the big emitters like China, India and the US having to pull their weight.

Reply Quote

Date: 11/04/2019 15:49:19
From: captain_spalding
ID: 1373791
Subject: re: What Australia does matters

Tamb said:


transition said:

>The current climate and energy debate is irrelevant. Our emissions must be cut by 50 per cent by 2030 and 100 per cent by 2050. This requires emergency action, akin to wartime: the suspension of political and corporate “business as usual”, to do whatever it takes to resolve the climate crisis”

too many humans, mate, try saying it.


Why must our emissions be cut by 2050?

Because you’re never going to get China, India, and the US to cut theirs.

Reply Quote

Date: 11/04/2019 15:53:57
From: Tamb
ID: 1373795
Subject: re: What Australia does matters

Witty Rejoinder said:


Tamb said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

To limit global warming to 2 degrees I think.

Just Oz or worldwide? I’m not up to date on emission politics.

Worldwide. The Paris Agreement is supposed to be the mechanism that aims to reduce CO2 growth to allow for only a 2 degree increase in temps. Obviously other countries have to meet their goals with the big emitters like China, India and the US having to pull their weight.

Like someone said. Too many people. Until population growth is curbed we are all fruitlessly chasing our tails.

Reply Quote

Date: 11/04/2019 15:54:24
From: transition
ID: 1373797
Subject: re: What Australia does matters

shower time

Reply Quote

Date: 11/04/2019 15:57:47
From: party_pants
ID: 1373798
Subject: re: What Australia does matters

Tamb said:


transition said:

>The current climate and energy debate is irrelevant. Our emissions must be cut by 50 per cent by 2030 and 100 per cent by 2050. This requires emergency action, akin to wartime: the suspension of political and corporate “business as usual”, to do whatever it takes to resolve the climate crisis”

too many humans, mate, try saying it.


Why must our emissions be cut by 2050?

It depends on how much sea level rise you want.

Reply Quote

Date: 11/04/2019 15:59:30
From: party_pants
ID: 1373800
Subject: re: What Australia does matters

captain_spalding said:


Tamb said:

transition said:

>The current climate and energy debate is irrelevant. Our emissions must be cut by 50 per cent by 2030 and 100 per cent by 2050. This requires emergency action, akin to wartime: the suspension of political and corporate “business as usual”, to do whatever it takes to resolve the climate crisis”

too many humans, mate, try saying it.


Why must our emissions be cut by 2050?

Because you’re never going to get China, India, and the US to cut theirs.

They are probably going to be the last on board. It might take separation of global economies and tariff wars before they reluctantly agree.

Reply Quote

Date: 11/04/2019 16:01:58
From: Tamb
ID: 1373801
Subject: re: What Australia does matters

party_pants said:


captain_spalding said:

Tamb said:

Why must our emissions be cut by 2050?

Because you’re never going to get China, India, and the US to cut theirs.

They are probably going to be the last on board. It might take separation of global economies and tariff wars before they reluctantly agree.

If China, India & the US form an economic bloc they will be self sufficient & the rest of can drown.
Thinks. Maybe what Trump wants the Wall. Not to keep out Mexicans but as a dyke.

Reply Quote

Date: 11/04/2019 16:09:31
From: party_pants
ID: 1373805
Subject: re: What Australia does matters

Tamb said:


party_pants said:

captain_spalding said:

Because you’re never going to get China, India, and the US to cut theirs.

They are probably going to be the last on board. It might take separation of global economies and tariff wars before they reluctantly agree.

If China, India & the US form an economic bloc they will be self sufficient & the rest of can drown.
Thinks. Maybe what Trump wants the Wall. Not to keep out Mexicans but as a dyke.

Depends upon what are the key resources in a future world, and what neither of them have in abundance. This bit I can’t predict with any certainty.

Reply Quote

Date: 11/04/2019 16:11:46
From: poikilotherm
ID: 1373806
Subject: re: What Australia does matters

Tamb said:


party_pants said:

captain_spalding said:

Because you’re never going to get China, India, and the US to cut theirs.

They are probably going to be the last on board. It might take separation of global economies and tariff wars before they reluctantly agree.

If China, India & the US form an economic bloc they will be self sufficient & the rest of can drown.
Thinks. Maybe what Trump wants the Wall. Not to keep out Mexicans but as a dyke.

China can’t feed themselves.

Reply Quote

Date: 11/04/2019 16:12:58
From: Tamb
ID: 1373808
Subject: re: What Australia does matters

party_pants said:


Tamb said:

party_pants said:

They are probably going to be the last on board. It might take separation of global economies and tariff wars before they reluctantly agree.

If China, India & the US form an economic bloc they will be self sufficient & the rest of can drown.
Thinks. Maybe what Trump wants the Wall. Not to keep out Mexicans but as a dyke.

Depends upon what are the key resources in a future world, and what neither of them have in abundance. This bit I can’t predict with any certainty.

IMO if that bloc is formed the rest of the world will be beggars at the gate, grateful foe any scraps.

Reply Quote

Date: 11/04/2019 16:14:15
From: Tamb
ID: 1373809
Subject: re: What Australia does matters

poikilotherm said:


Tamb said:

party_pants said:

They are probably going to be the last on board. It might take separation of global economies and tariff wars before they reluctantly agree.

If China, India & the US form an economic bloc they will be self sufficient & the rest of can drown.
Thinks. Maybe what Trump wants the Wall. Not to keep out Mexicans but as a dyke.

China can’t feed themselves.

What do they import foodwise?

Reply Quote

Date: 11/04/2019 16:15:41
From: party_pants
ID: 1373810
Subject: re: What Australia does matters

Tamb said:


party_pants said:

Tamb said:

If China, India & the US form an economic bloc they will be self sufficient & the rest of can drown.
Thinks. Maybe what Trump wants the Wall. Not to keep out Mexicans but as a dyke.

Depends upon what are the key resources in a future world, and what neither of them have in abundance. This bit I can’t predict with any certainty.

IMO if that bloc is formed the rest of the world will be beggars at the gate, grateful foe any scraps.

Right now it is unlikely to see any of those three coming together to form a bloc. They all seem to distrust and dislike each other. They might just end up being three lonesome hold-outs.

It depends on what the new future source of energy is.

Reply Quote

Date: 11/04/2019 16:16:51
From: poikilotherm
ID: 1373812
Subject: re: What Australia does matters

Tamb said:


poikilotherm said:

Tamb said:

If China, India & the US form an economic bloc they will be self sufficient & the rest of can drown.
Thinks. Maybe what Trump wants the Wall. Not to keep out Mexicans but as a dyke.

China can’t feed themselves.

What do they import foodwise?

Lots.

Reply Quote

Date: 11/04/2019 16:18:04
From: roughbarked
ID: 1373813
Subject: re: What Australia does matters

poikilotherm said:


Tamb said:

poikilotherm said:

China can’t feed themselves.

What do they import foodwise?

Lots.

They buy a fair bit of Australian produce.

Reply Quote

Date: 11/04/2019 16:39:30
From: JudgeMental
ID: 1373817
Subject: re: What Australia does matters

poikilotherm said:


Tamb said:

party_pants said:

They are probably going to be the last on board. It might take separation of global economies and tariff wars before they reluctantly agree.

If China, India & the US form an economic bloc they will be self sufficient & the rest of can drown.
Thinks. Maybe what Trump wants the Wall. Not to keep out Mexicans but as a dyke.

China can’t feed themselves.

i blame those stupid chopsticks.

Reply Quote

Date: 11/04/2019 17:31:27
From: roughbarked
ID: 1373820
Subject: re: What Australia does matters

JudgeMental said:


poikilotherm said:

Tamb said:

If China, India & the US form an economic bloc they will be self sufficient & the rest of can drown.
Thinks. Maybe what Trump wants the Wall. Not to keep out Mexicans but as a dyke.

China can’t feed themselves.

i blame those stupid chopsticks.

They are a bit fiddly.

Reply Quote

Date: 11/04/2019 17:43:02
From: party_pants
ID: 1373822
Subject: re: What Australia does matters

party_pants said:


Tamb said:

party_pants said:

Depends upon what are the key resources in a future world, and what neither of them have in abundance. This bit I can’t predict with any certainty.

IMO if that bloc is formed the rest of the world will be beggars at the gate, grateful foe any scraps.

Right now it is unlikely to see any of those three coming together to form a bloc. They all seem to distrust and dislike each other. They might just end up being three lonesome hold-outs.

It depends on what the new future source of energy is.

What I have been thinking is that energy storage for renewables is the key thing. We must develop some sort of transportable energy delivery system. Something that can be transported by ship or train in bulk quantities.

Then some kind of international cooperative to be formed to farm this energy. Leave out the multinationals. nation-states to fund and build a huge network of presumably solar power collectors feeding this energy storage technology. Operating as a cooperative, the dividend for each investing nation should be an allocation of energy according to the proportion of their investment.

Ideally this would be enough to run the basics of their economy, and they could restrict the importation or use of fossil fuels. How they distribute or sell their energy within their own country is up to them, but the allocation is to the country, not to companies.

Presumably this could be set up on a rather large chunk of desert or semi-arid land, not heavily populated nor used for agriculture and food production. Each participating nation would have to sign a non-aggression pact toward every other participating country, and perhaps even contribute towards the military defense of the zone from hostile external powers, with transgressors forfeiting their allocation. You could also have some kind of human rights charter they must all sign on similar terms.

Reply Quote

Date: 11/04/2019 18:02:47
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 1373823
Subject: re: What Australia does matters

party_pants said:


party_pants said:

Tamb said:

IMO if that bloc is formed the rest of the world will be beggars at the gate, grateful foe any scraps.

Right now it is unlikely to see any of those three coming together to form a bloc. They all seem to distrust and dislike each other. They might just end up being three lonesome hold-outs.

It depends on what the new future source of energy is.

What I have been thinking is that energy storage for renewables is the key thing. We must develop some sort of transportable energy delivery system. Something that can be transported by ship or train in bulk quantities.

Then some kind of international cooperative to be formed to farm this energy. Leave out the multinationals. nation-states to fund and build a huge network of presumably solar power collectors feeding this energy storage technology. Operating as a cooperative, the dividend for each investing nation should be an allocation of energy according to the proportion of their investment.

Ideally this would be enough to run the basics of their economy, and they could restrict the importation or use of fossil fuels. How they distribute or sell their energy within their own country is up to them, but the allocation is to the country, not to companies.

Presumably this could be set up on a rather large chunk of desert or semi-arid land, not heavily populated nor used for agriculture and food production. Each participating nation would have to sign a non-aggression pact toward every other participating country, and perhaps even contribute towards the military defense of the zone from hostile external powers, with transgressors forfeiting their allocation. You could also have some kind of human rights charter they must all sign on similar terms.

Alternatively you could just stick with the open market system that has been found to work better than systems under centralised controlover the past few centuries.

Reply Quote

Date: 11/04/2019 19:01:26
From: party_pants
ID: 1373846
Subject: re: What Australia does matters

The Rev Dodgson said:


party_pants said:

party_pants said:

Right now it is unlikely to see any of those three coming together to form a bloc. They all seem to distrust and dislike each other. They might just end up being three lonesome hold-outs.

It depends on what the new future source of energy is.

What I have been thinking is that energy storage for renewables is the key thing. We must develop some sort of transportable energy delivery system. Something that can be transported by ship or train in bulk quantities.

Then some kind of international cooperative to be formed to farm this energy. Leave out the multinationals. nation-states to fund and build a huge network of presumably solar power collectors feeding this energy storage technology. Operating as a cooperative, the dividend for each investing nation should be an allocation of energy according to the proportion of their investment.

Ideally this would be enough to run the basics of their economy, and they could restrict the importation or use of fossil fuels. How they distribute or sell their energy within their own country is up to them, but the allocation is to the country, not to companies.

Presumably this could be set up on a rather large chunk of desert or semi-arid land, not heavily populated nor used for agriculture and food production. Each participating nation would have to sign a non-aggression pact toward every other participating country, and perhaps even contribute towards the military defense of the zone from hostile external powers, with transgressors forfeiting their allocation. You could also have some kind of human rights charter they must all sign on similar terms.

Alternatively you could just stick with the open market system that has been found to work better than systems under centralised controlover the past few centuries.

my plan gets it done quicker, and promotes world peace by locking in a system which includes real penalties for rogue nations.

Reply Quote

Date: 11/04/2019 19:11:01
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 1373863
Subject: re: What Australia does matters

party_pants said:


The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

What I have been thinking is that energy storage for renewables is the key thing. We must develop some sort of transportable energy delivery system. Something that can be transported by ship or train in bulk quantities.

Then some kind of international cooperative to be formed to farm this energy. Leave out the multinationals. nation-states to fund and build a huge network of presumably solar power collectors feeding this energy storage technology. Operating as a cooperative, the dividend for each investing nation should be an allocation of energy according to the proportion of their investment.

Ideally this would be enough to run the basics of their economy, and they could restrict the importation or use of fossil fuels. How they distribute or sell their energy within their own country is up to them, but the allocation is to the country, not to companies.

Presumably this could be set up on a rather large chunk of desert or semi-arid land, not heavily populated nor used for agriculture and food production. Each participating nation would have to sign a non-aggression pact toward every other participating country, and perhaps even contribute towards the military defense of the zone from hostile external powers, with transgressors forfeiting their allocation. You could also have some kind of human rights charter they must all sign on similar terms.

Alternatively you could just stick with the open market system that has been found to work better than systems under centralised controlover the past few centuries.

my plan gets it done quicker, and promotes world peace by locking in a system which includes real penalties for rogue nations.

I suspect that the reverse is true on both conjectures, but we can’t prove it either way.

Reply Quote

Date: 11/04/2019 19:12:37
From: party_pants
ID: 1373865
Subject: re: What Australia does matters

The Rev Dodgson said:


party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Alternatively you could just stick with the open market system that has been found to work better than systems under centralised controlover the past few centuries.

my plan gets it done quicker, and promotes world peace by locking in a system which includes real penalties for rogue nations.

I suspect that the reverse is true on both conjectures, but we can’t prove it either way.

Well, the technology does not exist yet to store and export solar energy.

Reply Quote

Date: 11/04/2019 19:13:53
From: dv
ID: 1373867
Subject: re: What Australia does matters

party_pants said:


The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

What I have been thinking is that energy storage for renewables is the key thing. We must develop some sort of transportable energy delivery system. Something that can be transported by ship or train in bulk quantities.

Then some kind of international cooperative to be formed to farm this energy. Leave out the multinationals. nation-states to fund and build a huge network of presumably solar power collectors feeding this energy storage technology. Operating as a cooperative, the dividend for each investing nation should be an allocation of energy according to the proportion of their investment.

Ideally this would be enough to run the basics of their economy, and they could restrict the importation or use of fossil fuels. How they distribute or sell their energy within their own country is up to them, but the allocation is to the country, not to companies.

Presumably this could be set up on a rather large chunk of desert or semi-arid land, not heavily populated nor used for agriculture and food production. Each participating nation would have to sign a non-aggression pact toward every other participating country, and perhaps even contribute towards the military defense of the zone from hostile external powers, with transgressors forfeiting their allocation. You could also have some kind of human rights charter they must all sign on similar terms.

Alternatively you could just stick with the open market system that has been found to work better than systems under centralised controlover the past few centuries.

my plan gets it done quicker, and promotes world peace by locking in a system which includes real penalties for rogue nations.

But would there be any fallout for the ghost protocol?

Reply Quote

Date: 11/04/2019 19:14:14
From: roughbarked
ID: 1373869
Subject: re: What Australia does matters

party_pants said:


The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

my plan gets it done quicker, and promotes world peace by locking in a system which includes real penalties for rogue nations.

I suspect that the reverse is true on both conjectures, but we can’t prove it either way.

Well, the technology does not exist yet to store and export solar energy.

Other than the sun, no.

Reply Quote

Date: 11/04/2019 19:14:41
From: dv
ID: 1373870
Subject: re: What Australia does matters

party_pants said:


The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

my plan gets it done quicker, and promotes world peace by locking in a system which includes real penalties for rogue nations.

I suspect that the reverse is true on both conjectures, but we can’t prove it either way.

Well, the technology does not exist yet to store and export solar energy.

I wouldn’t put it like that

Reply Quote

Date: 11/04/2019 19:20:30
From: party_pants
ID: 1373875
Subject: re: What Australia does matters

dv said:


party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I suspect that the reverse is true on both conjectures, but we can’t prove it either way.

Well, the technology does not exist yet to store and export solar energy.

I wouldn’t put it like that

If you want a more long-winded and technically correct way of putting it, make up your own.

Reply Quote

Date: 11/04/2019 19:21:16
From: Divine Angel
ID: 1373876
Subject: re: What Australia does matters

party_pants said:


dv said:

party_pants said:

Well, the technology does not exist yet to store and export solar energy.

I wouldn’t put it like that

If you want a more long-winded and technically correct way of putting it, make up your own.

Don’t expect too much, he just lost a bishop.

Reply Quote

Date: 11/04/2019 19:21:48
From: dv
ID: 1373877
Subject: re: What Australia does matters

party_pants said:


dv said:

party_pants said:

Well, the technology does not exist yet to store and export solar energy.

I wouldn’t put it like that

If you want a more long-winded and technically correct way of putting it, make up your own.

I’d put is “there are many ways to store and export solar energy”

Reply Quote

Date: 11/04/2019 19:24:34
From: Witty Rejoinder
ID: 1373880
Subject: re: What Australia does matters

roughbarked said:


JudgeMental said:

poikilotherm said:

China can’t feed themselves.

i blame those stupid chopsticks.

They are a bit fiddly.

Too right… have you ever tried to turn a sod of earth with chop-sticks? They really need to get with the program.

Reply Quote

Date: 11/04/2019 19:26:01
From: JudgeMental
ID: 1373883
Subject: re: What Australia does matters

Divine Angel said:


party_pants said:

dv said:

I wouldn’t put it like that

If you want a more long-winded and technically correct way of putting it, make up your own.

Don’t expect too much, he just lost a bishop.

so has the pope.

Reply Quote

Date: 11/04/2019 20:22:45
From: roughbarked
ID: 1373904
Subject: re: What Australia does matters

JudgeMental said:


Divine Angel said:

party_pants said:

If you want a more long-winded and technically correct way of putting it, make up your own.

Don’t expect too much, he just lost a bishop.

so has the pope.

That was a cardinal.

Reply Quote

Date: 11/04/2019 22:23:46
From: PermeateFree
ID: 1373988
Subject: re: What Australia does matters

captain_spalding said:


Tamb said:

transition said:

>The current climate and energy debate is irrelevant. Our emissions must be cut by 50 per cent by 2030 and 100 per cent by 2050. This requires emergency action, akin to wartime: the suspension of political and corporate “business as usual”, to do whatever it takes to resolve the climate crisis”

too many humans, mate, try saying it.


Why must our emissions be cut by 2050?

Because you’re never going to get China, India, and the US to cut theirs.

I think you should read what is going on in those countries before making such judgement.

Reply Quote