Comments on: Wong’s cynical renewable energy play

By: MichaelJChristie

MichaelJChristie — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:04:02 +0000

Climate change is the most complex issue the human species has faced. Executing change in regards to climate change is about knowing the detail about climate change economics, CC society and psychology, renewable energy and energy efficiency, CC ecology, CC meteorology, CC building and design, CC urban design, CC transport etc.
It may seem our Australian Senators are not up to the mark. While Rome (Canberra) burns below are examples of the level of detail in CC change other locations are doing this week on CC implementation.
UK Government
http://www.energyefficiencynews.com/i/2163/
http://www.energyefficiencynews.com/i/2188/
Wales
http://www.energyefficiencynews.com/i/2178/
USA
http://www.energyefficiencynews.com/i/2185/
Queensland
http://www.cleanenergy.qld.gov.au/zone_files/Renewable_Energy/oce_rep_11_web_final.pdf
The Devil being in the detail!!!

By: MichaelJChristie

MichaelJChristie — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 04:17:02 +0000

For more information visit http://www.theclimategroup.org/indicator
Victoria
This week’s (12 June – 18 June) Victoria Indicator is 2.257 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, the breakdown is as follows:
In tonnes:
Electricity from coal: 1.304 million; 58.0%
Natural gas: 0.431 million; 19.0%
Petroleum: 0.523 million; 23.0%
Victoria’s emissions from energy grew by 3.1% or 69,000 tonnes this week to the highest level since August 2008.
Emissions from coal-fired generators, which accounted for 97% of Victoria’s generation, were 5.1% or 64,000 tonnes higher.
Electricity demand grew by 3.5%.
Emissions from gas rose by 0.8% or 3,000 tonnes to the highest level since August 2008, largely due to continuing demand for heating.
Emissions from petroleum grew by 0.3% or 2,000 tonnes.
This week’s Indicator is 7.0% higher than the same week in 2008 and total emissions to this stage of 2009 are 0.9% higher than the similar stage last year.
This week’s Indicator is 47% above the average equivalent 1990 weekly emissions and 18% above the equivalent 2000 weekly average.
New South Wales
This week’s (12 June – 18 June) NSW Indicator is 1.940 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, the breakdown is as follows:
In tonnes:
Electricity from coal: 1.254 million; 64.7%
Natural gas-fired electricity: 0.027 million; 1.4%
Petroleum: 0.659 million; 33.9%
NSW’s emissions from energy grew by 5.9% or 108,000 tonnes this week to the highest level since February, due to a rise in demand and a lack of electricity available for import from other states.
Emissions from coal-fired electricity, which accounted for 90% of electricity generation in NSW this week, grew by 8.7% or 101,000 tonnes to the highest level since February.
Electricity demand rose by 6.6%.
Emissions from gas-fired generators rose by 38% or 8,000 tonnes.
Emissions from petroleum products remained the same.
This week’s Indicator is 0.6% lower than the same week in 2008 and total emissions to this stage of 2009 are 2.5% lower than the similar stage last year.
This week’s Indicator is 33% above the average equivalent 1990 weekly emissions and 28% above the equivalent 2000 weekly average.
Queensland
This week’s (12 June – 18 June) Queensland Indicator is 1.406 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, the breakdown is as follows:
In tonnes:
Electricity from coal: 0.796 million; 56.6%
Natural gas-fired electricity: 0.053 million; 3.8%
Petroleum: 0.557 million; 39.6%
This week Queensland’s energy emissions fell by 0.8% or 11,000 tonnes.
Weekly Greenhouse Indicator (12 June to 18 June)
Emissions from coal-fired electricity, which accounted for 88% of Queensland’s generation, fell by 1.6% or 13,000 tonnes.
Electricity demand grew by 2.3%.
Emissions from gas-fired generators rose by 4.6% or 2,000 tonnes back to a very high level.
Emissions from petroleum products fell by 0.1% or 1,000 tonnes down from the high level of last week.
This week’s Indicator is 0.3% higher than the same week in 2008 and total emissions to this stage of 2009 are 2.6% lower than the similar stage last year.
This week’s Indicator is 111% above the average equivalent 1990 weekly emissions and 31% above the equivalent 2000 weekly average.
Please note: All figures to the nearest thousand.
Luke Muir
THE˚CLIMATE GROUP

By: MichaelJChristie

MichaelJChristie — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 00:39:21 +0000

Where did Steve Fielding earn his engineering qualifications? I am sure is a question the Australian taxpayers would like to know.

By: MichaelJChristie

MichaelJChristie — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 23:56:36 +0000

If his trip was not taxpayer funded who pays his salary and the tax deductions for his travel related expenses? As a an Australian Senator who is representing this country why did he only seek out in the USA only one point of view? Seems his visit to the White House he completely missed the point!! How qualified is this person? What engineering projects has he worked on? What type of qualifications does he have in engineering? Please keep up you comments on Steve Fielding I am sure you doing his cause a lot of good.

By: MichaelJChristie

MichaelJChristie — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 23:43:49 +0000

As he states he is a qualified engineer maybe he does not need to be spoon feed on the evidence. Why has he not read the Palaeontology evidence and the amount of GHG we are emitting on this planet. Go figure!!!!

By: Heathdon McGregor

Heathdon McGregor — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 23:26:22 +0000

Re: Mr Fielding, Has anybody actually answered his query relating to the rise of carbons levels against the lowering of temperature? I see everybody attack who he spoke to, who paid but I must have missed where somebody just answers his question? I am no climate change denier or true believer, I dont know. I am too ignorant of all of the debate to pick a side.

By: Venise Alstergren

Venise Alstergren — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 02:10:42 +0000

Michael, I thought your points were excellent. In the case of Senator Fielding paying for his own trip I tend to think the more he told us that, the more we were entitled to be suspicious. Has the fifty six thousand+ Senator presented receipts and proof that he paid for his trip? Sadly, I find that by believing the opposite to what politicians are saying, informs me a lot better and a lot quicker than accepting their lies.

PS I lied when I said I would vote for the Opposition.

By: Evan Beaver

Evan Beaver — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 01:44:50 +0000

Michael, your comment is not 100% correct. But that doesn’t mean I don’t agree.

Fielding’s trip was paid for out of his own pocket.

By: jreimer

jreimer — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:40:05 +0000

MichaelJChristie, get your facts right before you start attacking people.

Firstly, Steve Fielding’s trip to America was not taxpayer funded, there has been extensive coverage in the media of how in fact he self funded the trip in order to gain more information about the issue.

Secondly, I don’t believe the Senator believes in a “climate change conspiracy” as you put it. I understand him to be saying that he is simply trying to get all the facts before he makes a decision which could impact the livelihoods of thousands of Australians - good idea, no?

I think his open minded attitude to the whole issue - one way or another - is quite clear. See http://stevefielding.com.au/blog/comments/fielding_talks_to_wong_on_climate_change/ . It will be interesting to see what kind of answers he receives from Senator Wong.

By: MichaelJChristie

MichaelJChristie — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:17:22 +0000

Dear Senator Fielding
Your actions this week to vote down by deferring the Renewable Energy Target (RET) legislation has placed the Australian solar industry into a dramatic decline. You have left Australians with little support for solar power installations. Affecting both its reputation to its suppliers, bankers and customers. The new legislation you deferred would have taken away from households installing solar PV additional financial support.
Can you please answer the following questions?
1. Why as a politician do you believe the evidence for climate change is a conspiracy? That the evidence provided by the Australian Chief Scientist is not factual? What criteria have you based your decision on regarding climate change?
2. While you were in the USA on your taxpayer funded trip recently. What US Government Agencies and Universities did you visit on climate change and renewable energy? Was the Senator aware that the US Pentagon of any government agency in the world spends the most on renewable energy and energy efficiency?
3. What is the current value is the Australian solar PV industry in employment and sales?
4. In the next three months what is the anticipated number of jobs and have been lost due to your decision of deference to this industry?
5. How many families have you affected by not being able to access this program?

By: Julian Watson

Julian Watson — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 08:34:05 +0000

You’re on here Joel B1. Guess that makes you a lefty then!

By: Joel B1

Joel B1 — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 08:14:37 +0000

Secondly, BK you just lost me $20.

The main running bet in our family was that you would always have a paragraph “But the Coalition are far worse yada yada…”

The minor wager was on the positioning of stated paragraph. I always maintained it would be the 13th para, other household bets were first Daughter 10th, Wife 12th.

Thankfully, that wager is forfeit.

By: Joel B1

Joel B1 — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 08:09:47 +0000

The lack of comment shows how far left Crikey has drifted/been kicked/staggered drunkenly.

By: meski

meski — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 06:16:49 +0000

Wouldn’t reading from a recipe book breach copyright, being a public performance? :^)

By: Venise Alstergren

Venise Alstergren — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 06:08:27 +0000

Am I the only person in Oz who bitterly resents the huge amount of our money being spent on every bl-ody Bill and sons of Bill and grandsons of Bill: not to mention the punishing legal costs incurred as a result of the Opposition constantly knocking every Bill on the head? Only to go through the same blo-dy farce, and fresh committees, and fresh sub committees and fresh sub-sub committees all over again. All to support a legal company and it’s over-fed, over-corpulent and over-greedy partners, just so Messers Raped Stoned and Willing Pty Ltd can earn millions in fees? Just look at the on-going costs of the Telstra fiasco. I am so fed up by this squandering of our money I feel like slitting someones wrists.
Is there anyone out there in the blogosphere who can tell me whether or not this is just an extension of the Howard government’s thinking-except they had the power in both the houses, or has it taken the Rudd government to make an art-form out of pis-ing money into the wind?
If I ever vote Labor again in my life I will cheerfully admit to a sanity test. Yes the Howard government was despicable, rotten, criminal-every adjective in the book-but we were left with something. It it wasn’t for the presence of Christopher Pyne and Tony Abbott in the Opposition ranks I might give them my vote now.