Climate change??? The greatest buzz word of the decade. A huge great tax on civilisation with power prices
So much of it is bullshit science, as many scientists will agree with.
BUT we should be limiting what we put into the air, worse rivers and aquifers. But that can be done without killing civilisation with taxes.
At Xmas lunch this came up with some telling me that I should have solar panels and a battery. What they cannot understand is the only reason all of this is viable because the lack of cheap baseload power has made electricity so bloody expensive and the adhoc ugly roof generation is heavily subsidised by us without ugly rooves.
Ugly rooves and ugly skylines [windmills] will not 'save' the planet. Just make it a LOT harder to afford to live.
This last few weeks here in Oz we have all the climate change numpties waffling about climate change causing fires.
Most of the fires are caused by arsonists, or mechanical or human error. More than one fire has been started by failing windmills, more than one by electricity substations failing and a LOT though lack of maintenance around power lines. Including this weeks Adelaide Hills fires. Yet again!!
And over the years lightning has caused more fires than all humans! Fact!
IF potential fire areas were cleared properly, undergrowth burnt off regularly. Like the Aboriginals did for thousands of years before white civilisation. That is where too many fires take massive hold, year in year out for the last 4 or 5 decades. Limit fuel mean limiting fires. Quite simple, but the greenie idiots are very simple.
Bushfires produce a LOT of greenhouse gases, limit the fires = less gases. A bigger problem than efficient coal generation of electricity.
Volcanoes too ofcourse figure greatly in those stats as does methane from bovines,, both with 2 and 4 legs!! Destroy all cattle which will in turn naturally destroy so many humans will save the planet too.
And our self appointed climate expert that 10 years ago was waffling that sea levels would rise metres and the Murray would never flow again. As he is now living in an expensive beach front home and the Murray has flooded yet again as it does nearly every decade. And ofcourse IF the take from the Murray was not huge that would mean more floods but so much is used for irrigation and water for all the towns as well as Adelaide and Melbourne.
Though even those figures are being skewed as currently our in SA liquid electricity [desal] plant is being run flat out subsidise water use from NSW. VERY expensive water.
And metro temp readings,, the higher the volume per acre of humans and buildings the hotter those cities are getting. But gee the 'experts' do not think of that!
In Australia it is not alternative energy sources that is driving up power prices, it is the privatisation of the power industry and the system of power pricing they use which is the culprit. Above all else a private company must make a profit or it is unviable. The usual modus operandi is to cut expenditure on maintenance, running the infrastructure into the ground, so the CEO's can take home their big fat paychecks at your expense. Then when the power stations have been run into the ground they can't afford to replace them so they look for a cheaper alternative which most likely will be renewable.
Whether you believe climate change is driving bushfires or not, the trend in recent years in places like California and Australia is for more fires, more intense fires and longer bushfire seasons. This is not something just "greenie idiots" are saying but the firefighters themselves. South-west Tasmania now receives dry lightning storms, something which scientists say has never happened before. At this stage I think most people will agree it's only going to get worse in these places in coming years and a rational and most likely very expensive plan needs to be implemented to deal with the problem. To suggest reducing the fuel load will fix the problem is simplistic in the extreme. People seem to be under the misapprehension that aborigines burnt the entire bush from one end of the country to the other which is quite simply not true. They burnt sections between bushland to encourage regrowth for animals to feed on so they could hunt them. They didn't generally burn the forests as there was no point in doing so other than keeping their "roads" clear.
If we were simply to pollute less and we were able to fix the problem, wouldn't that be a sensible thing to do? Even if it didn't fix the problem, wouldn't we all be better off for doing so?