The Angertainer Steps Down: Rupert Murdoch’s Non-Retirement

One particularly bad habit the news is afflicted by is a tendency…

The ALP is best prepared to take us…

There's a myth created by the Coalition as far back as I…

On the day of Murdoch's retirement...

By Anthony Haritos Yes, we were cheap. And we were very nasty. Yes,…

We have failed the First Nations people

These words by Scott Bennett in his book White Politics and Black Australians…

Fighting the Diaspora: India’s Campaign Against Khalistan

Diaspora politics can often be testy. While the mother country maintains its…

The sad truth

Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price's comment that: ... she did not believe there are…

A tax incentive to accelerate diversity in Australia's…

Science & Technology Australia Media Release A new tax incentive to drive diversity…

It was all a con

By Andrew Klein I remember that as a teenager we had to…


You have to adapt

By 2353NM

Next time your mobile phone takes a photo of the now ubiquitous QR check in image, think of this. In 1888, the Kodak camera was first sold in the USA with the motto “You press the button, we do the rest.” People did ‘press the button’ and return the cheap camera box to Kodak for processing – at additional cost. Kodak later sold their ‘Box Brownie’ camera for $1 by supplying film at a cost that included processing as well as some of the manufacturing costs of the camera, creating a profitable ecosystem. Kodachrome’ colour film was first sold in 1935, the ‘Instamatic’ camera was first sold in 1963 and the first photo of the earth from the moon in 1966 was taken on Kodak film.

A Kodak engineer created the first digital camera in 1975. Admittedly, the image sensor was 0.1 megapixels and it took 23 seconds to capture a single black and while image on a cassette tape, but it was a start. Kodak invented the colour image sensor not long after and in 1991 developed the first digital SLR camera.

Kodak, over the entirety of its operations, made most of its money from film rolls and felt that it needed to continue and preserve the sales of its film rolls. So even when digital cameras – that Kodak helped invent – gained popularity, Kodak was still focussing on promoting its analogue products such as film rolls.

While Kodak had a great run so far, things started going downhill during the 2000s. In 2004, Kodak saw its profits dip even though its sales were at an all-time high. By the time Kodak started focusing on digital products – which it did by releasing a slew of digital cameras and printers print the images taken from the digital cameras – it was already too late to capture users who had moved on to other brands.

In 2012, Kodak filed for bankruptcy and while the company survived, it is no longer the ‘go to’ company for general photographic equipment or products.

Recently a study from University College London determined that 95% of the currently known reserves of coal in Australia must stay in the ground to ensure there is a ghost of a chance of the planet’s warming being limited to 1.5 degrees. On top of that, we need to keep a significant quantity of gas and oil reserves where they are. Of course, the usual suspects rallied around the ‘climate change is crap’ flag, vowing and declaring that the Australian economy is reliant on coal and gas exports so we can maintain our current lifestyle, and it will always be so.

From the nation’s reliance on coal fired power to Prime Minster Morrison claiming that any transition to less climate intensive energy production will reduce jobs, effectively the strategy seems to be to dig up as much as possible and either use it or flog it off overseas while the world will still buy it.

Sounds like Kodak’s business plan, doesn’t it? The Coalition Government’s assumption seems to be if Australia is the only stable and developed country in the world with coal for sale in the future, we’ll make a killing. Instead of riding on the sheep’s back, we’ll be theoretically driving those enormous dump trucks that take the coal from the mine to the processing area, paying minimal tax and living high on the (state sponsored) hog.


Earlier this year a report revealed Australia is the only OECD country to propose new coal mines on a scale so large that it will effectively double our emissions output.

Global Energy Monitor’s report found if the coal mines are built, it will be more than four times the compliant pathway needed to reach the Paris climate agreement.

The coal exporting monopoly will probably never happen. Any basic marketing or economics course will tell you that if the supply of a commodity is reduced, the price of that commodity will increase. As the cost of a product increases, alternatives are found. Morrison’s claim of a technology-based solution to Australia’s emission problems may come true – but it could also be a technological solution that means Australian coal exports are nowhere near as attractive to others as they are at the moment. Australia wouldn’t be the first to assume that the world will beat a path to its door to purchase a commodity that no one else can supply and find the reality is somewhat different.

Kodak demonstrates that not adapting to your market has consequences. Australia does have options other than digging up as much coal and gas as possible and selling it as fast as we can. Not exploring and developing alternative options is in essence a failure to future-proof our economy and dereliction of our political leaders’ duty. We don’t have a good history on innovation, as this ABC report on Australia’s participation in the solar panel manufacturing industry discusses.

As recently discussed in The Conversation, Australia can choose to capitalise on our natural advantages of plenty of land and sunshine which could generate and export renewable power and hydrogen as well as develop industries such as ‘green steel’. We even have the iron ore!

Flogging off what we have flogged off for decades and pretending there is no alternative isn’t a clever or sustainable long-term business practice. Adaption means that we take risks, but it is better than bankruptcy. Just ask Kodak.

What do you think?


This article was originally published on The Political Sword

For Facebook users, The Political Sword has a Facebook page:
Putting politicians and commentators to the verbal sword

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button


Login here Register here
  1. leefe

    I was so ahead of the game by using Fuji film rather than Kodak …

    The technological fixes are, so far, so much airy-fairy wishful thinking. Carbon Capture and Storage has not been made to work. Carbon Capture, Use and Storage is an even bigger screw-up and even more environmentally and financially unsound. Green Hydrogen? Excuse me if my cynicism about any project involving Twiggy means I can’t see how it would be any better.

    What’s the betting that once they accept coal is doomed that they start pushing for nuclear? After all, it still means mining and we have heaps of the stuff.

  2. Kate Ahearne

    Thanks, 2353NM,

    Love the info about Kodak. As for our government’s attitude about coal, let’s just vote them the hell out!

  3. BB

    Adaptation for Australia’s future’s going well, thanks to the L/NP.

  4. Michael Taylor

    Hi, Kate.

    I love the way 2353 draws comparisons from the past with politics of today.

  5. Harry Lime

    To repeat ad nauseum,nothing’s going to change until the Liar and his clutch of criminally stupid effwits are voted into oblivion.Given the farce that’s currently playing out with the numbskull Nationals, it could be sooner rather than later,and it should be terminal.That’s step one,step ICAC with a full set of dentures and retrospectivity.

  6. 2353NM

    @Michael Taylor – thanks for the compliment. There is a lot of truth to the saying ‘those that forget history are bound to repeat it’.

    @leefe – I’ve go to confess I used to prefer Fujifilm as well. And you can still buy it!

  7. Andrew J. Smith

    The avoidance of climate science, mitigation responses etc., for want of a better expression, create ‘opportunity costs’ by precluding good applied science, changes to the society and the economy through innovation.

    This is due to platforming any opposition to following the science of climate as just another ‘belief system’ like religion as Joyce often reminds us; both a rhetorical and ‘Orwellian’ PR trick of false equivalence that dismisses science while promoting non scientific views….

  8. B Sullivan

    leefe: “Green Hydrogen? Excuse me if my cynicism about any project involving Twiggy means I can’t see how it would be any better.”

    Green Hydrogen is produced by taking water (H2O) and separating the hydrogen from the oxygen by electrolysis using electricity generated by solar, wind or other renewable energy. That makes it better than hydrogen produced using electricity generated by fossil fuels. The sun shines and the hydrogen grows, just as if it were a crop that can be harvested each day. And no one ever argues that crops aren’t worth it because they only grow when the sun shines.

    Hydrogen is the simplest, cleanest energy source in the Universe. It reacts with oxygen to produce heat, i.e. energy, and turns back into water. Its simplicity makes it the choice of a true cynic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 2 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Return to home page
%d bloggers like this: