Of Eugenicists, Oligarchs and Psychopaths (part 6)

Continued from: Of Eugenicists, Oligarchs and Psychopaths (part 5)By Outsider David Rockefeller, Sr.,…

ROC keeps bleeding money at taxpayers’ expense –…

More than a year after being rebuffed in the Federal Court, then…

Comparisons aren't always valid

By 2353NM  In September 2018, soon after the overthrow of Malcolm Turnbull, Scott…

Cultivated Lunacy, Nuclear Deterrence and Banning the Nuke

Is international relations a field for cautious minds, marked by permanent setbacks,…

On Empathy, Sympathy and our Pets

In these days of the news of so much brutality in many…

Truth can be a potent weapon when used…

Let me explain my headline. The words in quotations - unless stipulated…

Impunity and Carefree Violence: Australia’s Special Forces in…

In 2016, Australian Major General Jeff Sengelman approached the then chief of…

How do we restore democracy?

Democracy has been destroyed by globalisation!The massive growth in size and power…

«
»
Facebook

Tag Archives: wind farms

Adults in charge or a dolt in charge?

Interviewer: Good afternoon, today we have a Liberal Party spokesperson, Noah Dear, because none of the Parliamentary party were prepared to be interviewed…

Mr Dear: Excuse me, but that’s not correct, they were all prepared to be interviewed, it was just considered that it would be best if they weren’t available.

Interviewer: And why weren’t they available?

Mr Dear: They were all involved in an “operational matter”. I can’t say any more, but these are dangerous times, as I’m sure you’ll appreciate.

Interviewer: What’s so dangerous about them?

Mr Dear: Well, everywhere you have people taking things that government members have said and twisting them so that the context is lost.

Interviewer: Which brings me to my first question, is it true that we are paying people smugglers to return asylum seekers to Indonesia?

Mr Dear: I’m sorry, but that’s not right.

Interviewer: So we’re not paying people smugglers?

Mr Dear: No, that wasn’t your first question, you’ve already several.

Interviewer: Notwithstanding the number of questions I’ve asked, is it true?

Mr Dear: Look it’s been a long-standing policy of this government that we don’t comment on things like that.

Interviewer: You mean operational matters?

Mr Dear: No, I mean anything that the Opposition can use to make us look ridiculous.

Interviewer: Such as anything Joe Hockey says, or most photos of Christopher Pyne?

Mr Dear: Let’s just say that I don’t want to confirm or deny the story. You can put me down as a definite: “No comment”!

Interviewer: But if we’re paying people smugglers doesn’t that seem a little contradictory to the government’s policy.

Mr Dear: Look, Mr Abbott has made it clear that he’s prepared to do whatever it takes to stop the vile trade of people smugglers…

Interviewer: Including paying the very people that we’re meant to be at war with?

Mr Dear: What do you mean “at war”?

Interviewer: In 2014, Mr Abbott himself said: “We are in a fierce contest with these people smugglers, And if we were at war, we wouldn’t be giving out information that is of use to the enemy just because we might have an idle curiosity about it ourselves.”

Mr Dear: So?

Interviewer: Well, if we’re at war with these people smugglers, doesn’t it seem a little odd to be giving them money?

Mr Dear: Look, if we were at war with people smugglers – and I’m not confirming that one way or the other, because it’s an operational matter and it’s our government’s policy not to comment on operational matters – then we’d be using whatever means we could to break their business model.

Interviewer: Including improving it by enabling them to be paid by both the asylum seekers and the government? Paying them twice doesn’t seem like a good way to break their resolve.

Mr Dear: That assumes that we’re paying them.

Interviewer: Well, are we?

Mr Dear: Maybe. But possibly not. However, if we are, then it would be a good idea. And, if we’re not, that’s because we don’t think it’s likely to work.

Interviewer: If I could just move on to another matter…

Mr Dear: Look, Mr Hockey is simply stating the truth, what bank is going to lend…

Interviewer: I was going to ask about the government’s determination to get rid of red tape and needless delays.

Mr Dear: Oh excellent, we’re doing all we can to remove red tape so that business doesn’t face unnecessary delays…

Interviewer: Yes, I understand. My question was: Given your dislike of regulation, why are certain Liberals like Chris Back and Matthew Canavan calling for increased regulation and restrictions on wind farms, and suggesting that there needs to be an inquiry.

Mr Dear: Well, obviously there are potential adverse health effects from living near a wind farm.

Interviewer: Do you have any scientific evidence to back this up?

Mr Dear: There have been a number of studies that people living near a wind farm may be subject ot all sorts of things because of the noise so I think that jury is still out on wind farms and while the jury is out, we shouldn’t be trying to judge.

Interviewer: But isn’t that the PM did the other day when he said that there might be adverse health effects?

Mr Dear: MIGHT BE! He only said there might be.

Interviewer: Like we “might be” paying those vile people smugglers…

Mr Dear: Exactly but until we know one way or another we should give the government the benefit of the doubt.

Interviewer: So when exactly will we know. One way or the other?

Mr Dear: About the people smugglers or the wind farms?

Interviewer: About either. About anything.

Mr Dear: When the minister decideds it’s appropriate for you to know. We are at war you know.

Interviewer: With whom? The people smugglers or the wind farms.

Mr Dear: I’m sorry but that’s an operational matter.

Interviewer: Unfortunately, you’re out of time.

Mr Dear: Not yet, it’s still months till Abbott calls the surprise election.

Interviewer: I meant for the interview.

Mr Dear: Oh. Well, I’ll just say good-night then.

Interviewer: But it’s still the afternoon.

Mr Dear: I’m sorry but I can’t confirm that.

Interviewer: It wasn’t a question. Until next time.

Mr Dear: It’s been a pleasure.

 

Are wind farms noisy?

Are wind farms noisy? Tony Abbott thinks they are. And if Tony Abbott thinks they’re noisy then I imagine that every right-winger in the country will be using Abbott’s opinion as scientific evidence that your eardrums will be blown out if you dare to venture within two postcodes of the ‘awful’ things.

Mr Abbott forgets that timber mills are noisy, as are roads, which he came to office vowing to build more of.

But back to wind farms . . . was Mr Abbott telling the truth? Are they really noisy?

Instead of sitting here and spending all day summarising studies into the issue, I could best be more effective if I implore you watch this very short video which gives us the answer.

And for those who don’t wish to watch the video I will give you the findings: they are not noisy. Tony Abbott is. He’s making a noise about nothing.

Would it be too much to ask him to remain silent on any issue he knows nothing about? Can we hope that in future he refrains from telling untruths in order to promote government policy and his own personal prejudices?

I think he’s just too noisy.

 

 

Renewable Energy Makes Tony sick.

pollution

Since the introduction of the carbon price in July 2012, emissions from the National Electricity Market serving eastern Australia have fallen about 8.9 per cent, in part due to less demand from a shrinking manufacturing sector.  By 2020, under current projections, wind, hydro and other renewable sources will supply more than 20 per cent , perhaps as high as 27 per cent, of our electricity needs.

So we appear to be on track.  But, in what appears to be an increasingly common loathing for anything to do with tracks or Labor or anything green (unless it’s a paper abolishing regulations), Tony looks set to derail us again.

He has announced he will head an energy policy task force that will be “looking at new options to reduce the costs of energy.”  He has also renamed the Australian Cleantech Competition – it will now be known as the Australian Technologies Competition.

“We have to accept that in the changed circumstances of today, the renewable energy target is causing pretty significant price pressure in the system and we ought to be an affordable energy superpower … cheap energy ought to be one of our comparative advantages … what we will be looking at is what we need to do to get power prices down significantly,” the prime minister said.

The Australian Energy Market Commission says the renewable energy target (RET) comprises less than 1 percent of the average household electricity bill.  The Queensland Competition Authority notes in its latest finding that the large-scale renewable target (the apparent subject of the new government’s attacks) will cost Queensland households $26 a year, or about 1.3% of their bills — about half the rise in retail bills caused by soaring gas prices.

Climate Institute chief executive Erwin Jackson said

“For a cost of 80 cents a week for the average household, the RET has attracted billions of dollars in investment and cut millions of tons of emissions. That’s a pretty good investment.”

Kane Thornton, deputy chief executive of the Clean Energy Council agrees saying

“Any substantial change to the Renewable Energy Target would obviously have a big impact on the future of the solar industry.  The goal makes up a very small proportion of power bills while creating thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in investment, much of which flows into regional areas.”

The solar PV industry employed about 13,600 as of late 2013.  Research by industry group SolarBusinessServices suggested that would dive immediately by 2000 if the government were to end support for the industry by scrapping the RET, with the total number of jobs lost or foregone swelling to 6750 by 2018.  A reduction on the goal that resulted in the halving of the price of small-scale renewable energy certificates would lead to about 600 solar jobs going.

With no policy change, 8000 jobs will be generated between 2014-18, assuming a floating carbon price – something the Abbott government has vowed to scrap – and electricity and PV prices would continue to fall, the report said.

Solar panels generated more than 25 per cent of South Australia’s electricity on January 4, 19 and 25 and supplied significant amounts during the state’s recent heatwaves, according to a new service supported by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency that tracks PV’s contribution to power supply.

In yet another waste of time and money, the Abbott Government has also announced yet another pointless inquiry into the health impacts of windfarms even though the overwhelming scientific consensus is that wind turbines have no health effects on the surrounding populations.  Could it be because Tony’s adviser on all things, Maurice Newman, doesn’t want them near his property?

“Even before they threatened my property, I was opposed to wind farms.”

The Abbott government have also cut $435 million funding to the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) and deferred $370 million funding announced by Labor in the 2013 budget to the agency, until the next decade.

Australian Conservation Foundation campaigner Tony Mohr said:

“The axing of $435 million from ARENA will starve research and development of clean energy in Australia, moving us to the back of the global race for clean tech.”

Australian Solar Council chief John Grimes called on the Parliament to block any attempt to gut the agency.

“The work that ARENA does is an excellent example of direct action,” he said. “This independent agency, with its annual funding prescribed in legislation, back practical programs. This is about real action in the real world.”

In another incomprehensible move, the government has decided to scrap the Clean Energy Finance Corporation which was set to invest $10 billion in low-carbon technologies, while achieving up to half the government’s emissions reduction target, and return a profit to the budget.

“The strong positive response from the market has enabled the CEFC to successfully build a total loan portfolio of $536 million funding projects with a value of over $2.2 billion.

Our portfolio represents a diverse mix across the economy, with projects comprising 56 per cent of renewables, 30 per cent in energy efficiency and 14 per cent in low emissions technologies. We have financed projects involving wind, solar, and bioenergy across Australia (both on grid and off grid), as well as energy efficiency and low emissions technology projects in manufacturing, buildings and local government.

The CEFC portfolio of contracted investments is presently expected to earn an average return of approximately 7 per cent, around 4 per cent above our benchmark return of the Government five-year bond rate.

Co-financing is integral to our strategy. Through matched private sector funds of $2.90 for each $1 of CEFC investment, the CEFC has been able to catalyse over $1.55 billion in non-CEFC private capital investment in projects and programs to deploy renewables and to improve energy efficiency.

The response that we have received from the market has remained extremely encouraging and we currently have 179 project proponents in our pipeline for projects to the estimated value of $14.9 billion.”

The march towards renewable energy is inevitable yet we are being held back by Tony’s ties to the fossil fuel industry which is determined to place every impediment in the way to prolong their profit-making at the expense of our jobs, our health and our home.

Scroll Up