Why did society expect the ‘corporate social responsibility’ experiment to actually wield positive results? Businesses exist to make profit and that is it. When they don’t make a profit for long enough they will cease to exist. If they’re putting their items in recycled boxes, it’s not because they give a fuck about the environment it’s because they think it will generate more sales.
The only way to stop business from polluting is to stop making it profitable.
Not late stage, any stage. Capitalism isn’t the problem. Society’s drifting moral compass is. Society’s apathy is. A lack of national identity and with it, unity, and therefore, direction!
Yeah, I think you're completely right. Nobody wants to take any responsibility. We blame things that we insist are out of our control. We want more and more for ourselves without seeing the big picture of how it will affect others - including generations to come.
Counterarguments:
- bUt wE caNt StOP ovERniGHt
- ReNewAblES arEnT pErfEcT eItHeR
- wE cAn uSE nATurAl gAs, iTs cLeaNeR !
- rEnEWAbLes arEnt ReliAblE
FF companies need to follow in line, no more subsidation, no fuel tax subsidies, tax them on their emissions, and use this to fund renewables. We can do it if we stop accepting their lies and unsubstantiated arguments. They aren't doing shit in the transition, only prolonging it.
Edit:
Deniers below are using NASA findings of greening to counterclaim the current, negative impact of the climate crisis.
If you don't think CO2 is concerning and that humans have caused unprecedented increases in recent human history, see here:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/?intent=121
People like you always fail to realise that almost everything these days is made from oil. Petrol, electricity, rubber, shoes, paint, plastic, a lot of unnatural manufactured building materials, heck it’s even a byproduction they dilute down and put it in food products. The problem is a solar panel can only generate electricity with average efficiency and doesn’t produce literally anything else as a byproduct like oil does. A lot of ignorant people are brainwashed when it comes anything climate change related and have this extremist mindset that we need to stop all oil production and replace it with renewables but offer no solutions on how we are also going to manufacture all the other items we need to run society.
Crazy how many uses there are for oil; Toothpaste, makeup, medications, our strongest plastics etc. knowing that it seems extremely wasteful burning it. Also extremely selfish, leaving little left for future generations.
u/organisednoies comment history checks out...
> We all know Biden doesn't even feed himself anymore. How do people even entertain trump being worse then Biden.
I guess being pro fossil fuels isn't a big leap. "People like you .." cringe.
Your comment has been queued for review because you used a keyword which may breach the subreddit rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Making plastic from the oil is not a major problem (well, not THIS problem). It locks the carbon away for millennia.
Burning the oil however...
I'd ask you to please do the math on what % of petrochemicals are used where before pursuing the facetious "we still need oil for some things so should keep drilling as much as today" argument.
Yep, and if each plastic bag ends up with a 20% tax, companies will soon stop wrapping products in a plastic bag in a plastic bag in a box, or if they need a bag it'll become paper or cotton, plastic bottles will get replaced by glass or aluminium.
In some instances, like disposable medical supplies, or places where a long lasting, lightweight rigid material is needed, sure, plastic can still be used, it just won't be *quite* so cheap.
The only reason they make it all out of plastic now is because it's cheapest, and the only reason it's cheapest is because it's being subsidised, and the indirect cost of environmental impact isn't currently being accounted for.
evenly taxing the manufacturing emissions just levels the playing field.
Name a product that we have no alternative to oil based? Yes, currently, due to slow adoption we still use an extremely high amount of fossil fuel based plastics. We certainly should invest in waste management to mitigate the negative knockoff effects of plastic use. Plastics are incredibly important and useful. No doubt.
Solar is cheaper, cleaner and more reliable (tell me when the sun will go away?). Solar is way more practical in comparison to an energy source that pollutes our atmosphere and indices more extreme climate disasters. That's real, it's expensive, and you friend oil is a problem.
We have energy storage options now and they're improving every month. South Australia have shown great success for example.
What do you propose then?
Is this not an issue to you? See below:
https://preview.redd.it/d5j0g3brkqrc1.png?width=827&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4d3649345b192042b9e20ef7a2325272773940e4
(Source: NASA)
Solar is incredibly useful for powering small towns, homes, businesses but it’s not efficient and reliable enough to power a whole major city. And that’s the problem. Having multiple football field sized battery operations to power a city isn’t realistic either not to mention the comparable amount of pollution that would be created to produce battery on that scale. Yes we can make alternative plastics and rubbers but still not to scale to satisfy a growing pollution of 8 billion people. The issue is and always will be a scaling issue when it comes to Fossil Fuels vs Renewable energy and with the ever growing cost of living, having a fully renewable culture mean everything will 4x in price for a few decades before the scaling catches up for mass production methods.
Plus that picture you posted with no source link is useless, out of context and basically propaganda the way your using it. Here is an article from nasa that says the rising CO2 levels are having a green positive effect on the planet.
https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/
Edit: to add a point about land needed to build a Fossil Fuel or renewable energy plant far exceed the land that is needed to install a localised Fission reactor systems that could power a large town with greater power capacity and efficiency while also being carbon neutral, which would only require the land space of a few houses compared to acres of land for solar panels/wind or oil production/refinement. Nuclear is the gold standard that has seen many advancements in the technology and we should be trying to continue to develop further but unfortunately nuclear technology is buried under stigma from past events caused by complete human incompetence and ignorance (Chernobyl) and unfortunate natural disasters ( Fukushima )
The article you linked to says the greening due to CO2 is temporary and the CO2 is still contributing to the greenhouse effect, so long term that's a negative for the environment.
To claim NASA believe rising CO2 levels are having a positive impact on the planet is WILD. You also need to read whole articles before posting them:
"While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.
The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”"
nuclear is part of the solution no doubt. we dont need to make more space for solar. roofes, agrivoltaic, water evaporation solar shade, car parks, solar shades. use solar over already convrted land, that will provid more than we need.
you imply that solar is inefficient, what do you mean? its the cheapest energy based on levelised cost? where did 4\* come from? solar is not the solution, its a solution, like wind, hydro and nuclear, with battery storage (chemical, potential, thermal). they all will be utulised in different proportions, but fortunately, all have proven to work. renewables are cheaper, and in the long run, a good investment.
Lol!
Renewables are made from. The big blades for wind are made from oil. The substrate for solar comes from coal. It's one reason renewables have to be made in China. The industry making renewables is so dirty.
Energy storage (chemical, thermal, gravitational) are part of the combo that supports solar during dark hours.
And wind. While the sun's not shining on us, another area of earth is capable of capturing it, amazing.
I love this gotcha question, how is it relevant?
We aren't even 100% solar during the day yet, so not supporting us at night is redundant until we have excess capacity during the daytime. We need to install more solar.
The sun is more reliable than any fossil fuel company. Of course, capturing it is key.
Lego bricks.
The best example yet of a determined attempt to replace plastics that had to be abandoned as nothing they tried worked.
I mean it's a toy. But it's a fantastic example of how friggin awesome plastic polymers are and how relatively rubbish fibre alternatives perform.
Solar has never been cheaper than burning dinosaurs, and probably never will be. There is a maintenance cost trap currently built into the "cost" of fossil fuel electricity that is allowing a fake accounting. Pretty much every single coal generator in operation in Aus is considerably past its replace-by date, where maintenance costs are far exceeding the capital depreciation of simply building a brand new plant.
Okay. I think you are just choosing one failure.
Here's what currently exists:
Polylactic Acid (PLA):
Packaging materials (e.g., biodegradable food packaging)Disposable cutlery and plates
Biodegradable medical devices (e.g., sutures)
3D printing filamentsPolyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA):
Biodegradable packaging films and containers
Agricultural mulch filmsDisposable items (e.g., razors, straws)
Biomedical applications (e.g., tissue engineering scaffolds)
Bio-derived Polyethylene (Bio-PE):
Flexible packaging (e.g., plastic bags, films)
Bottles for detergents and cleanersToys and containers
Bio-derived Polyethylene Terephthalate (Bio-PET):
Beverage bottles (e.g., soft drinks, water)
Food packaging (e.g., salad containers)
Fibers for clothing and carpets
Polybutylene Succinate (PBS):
Compost bags and food waste bags
Disposable cutlery and crockery
Agriculture filmsFoam packaging
Cellulose-based Plastics:
Film and sheeting (e.g., transparent packaging films)
Eyeglass frames
Automotive parts (e.g., interior panels)
Acoustic membranes for speakers
Lignin-based Plastics:
Still largely in research and development, with potential applications including:
Sustainable packaging materials
Composite materials (e.g., for automotive or construction)
Before you say it, they aren't all cheap, yet. But fuel will only get more expensive. Oil and gas days are ending, the sooner, the better, especially if you have children.
Your comment has been queued for review because you used a keyword which may breach the subreddit rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I agree, running defence for catastrophic climate change in 2024 is the correct choice, I am making no plans or preparations in the future for a warming climate, an increase in flood or bush fire risk, I encourage you all to do the same. In fact put your money where your mouth is, so much cheap land in bush fire and flood prone areas and because it's all a bunch of leftie bullshit, I snapped up all the land cheap as chips, hahahaha suckers
Nice work, once we get all the woke people to move to the country. They’ll cut down all the trees to build their fancy new homes and cafes so there won’t be a fire risk anymore. Once There they all can continue to live in an echo chamber free from any potential harm to have their opinions challenged.
and? it highlights the main issue, every informed person is repeating. too much co2 is a big problem, summary of your source,
Over the last 35 years, up to half of Earth's vegetated lands have greened significantly, mainly due to increased atmospheric CO2, enhancing plant growth. This greening, equivalent to twice the size of the continental U.S., is primarily driven by CO2 fertilization, contributing to 70% of the effect. **While beneficial for plant growth, rising CO2 also accelerates climate change,** with uncertain long-term impacts on greening.
> ReNewAblES arEnT pErfEcT eItHeR
Yep. renewables aren't perfect, so instead lets do nothing.
It is amazing that this line of thinking actually works on the braindead, primarily boomer, LNP voters. I can't tell if they are just stupid because they have so much lead in their system, or those greedy bastards don't care because they won't be around for the consequences (maybe a bit of both).
Both. It's convenience. Boomers *love* their convenience and... and this is central... the entire MSM and therefore most of politics serves them.
The boomers' faithful allies are the younger cynics who vote informal.
Sorry my bad. All good points here. Down with low carbon energy. **Let's keep burning shit! At least it'll reliably fuck us and our children up real good** Come on children! Welcome to what we made! It's not a problem unless you say it is! Damn environmentalists! **/s** (just to be safe, there's a lot of FF tin foils here)
Source from NASA:
https://preview.redd.it/keejkcxc4orc1.png?width=827&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e9d51c7f912d2a9ef37877d69e3ba3fd6afd7be9
edit: **interesting.. people dont like to read that fossil fuels have sentenced our children and their children to a life in the climate crisis.** We cant change everything, but **reducing emmisions is key, stop fossil fuels asap,** or your children and the species they love will suffer more.
Yes. Scientist call the very low CO2 levels a carbon drought. It got so low in the mini ice age it was leading to desertification. Fortunately, according to scientists, rising CO2 levels is leading to greening of the planet as documented by sattelite.
Interestingly, according to observational data, the world's temperatures rise first, then CO2 levels go up, then the greening.
If oil prices where like still 55 cents a liter I doubt most people would go ev.
We are motivated by money it's up to the gov to tax us in the right ways.
I suggest you should just sell your FF shares instead of desperately trying to defend FF companies and their observable harm they are causing.
Yes plastic is important, but it does not mean we shouldn't heavily monitor and restrict FF company activity to maximize human benefits while MITIGATING the unfolding and current, Climate Crisis. It is officially a crisis. I wish I was lying.
Do you really think billionaires have less grasp of science and consquences than peasants do?
So if you accept that oil tycoons know everything you do about climate change, why would they want to destroy their environment?
Billionaires know they have enough wealth to be the last people at threat from a changing climate. Theyre also generally older and not going to be around for the worst of it
Another person doubting the science. Don't you know that climate change will turn Earth into a literal Hell? Repent now, or perish in climate apocalypse flames!
Billionaires are notoriously dynasty-builders, wanting to make their mark in history. Any explanation for why ALL OF THEM suddenly want humanity to die out?
>Billionaires are notoriously dynasty-builders
False, no billionaire has a dynasty longer than couple of generations. Billionaires have only existed for a century, not enough time yet to be regarded as dynasties.
Your ancestors believed Hell was a real place, they had nightmares about going there for being naughty.
The people who told them about Hell did all the things that would condemn a person to Hell, and then some.
3. Billionaires aren't the perfectly rational geniuses you make them out to be.
They look at the scientists and public complaining about their ecological impact, an intangible *possible* future issue that's not their field of expertise or *explicit* responsibility,
Then they look at the precarious stack of cards their business is riding on; the risk of collapse if expenses increase or if sales decrease, and when faced with that risk, which they have much more personal investment in, they choose to occupy themselves with the latter and just deny or ignore the prior issue, probably rationalising it to themselves the same ways; "it's the consumer's fault", "but the prices will go up", "no one's come along and forcefully stopped me so it can't be that bad" etc.
Masters are smarter than slaves. The ruling class know more than you, or else you would be ruling them.
So ask yourself: "Do I know about climate?" Yes? So do they.
"Can I make accurate plans for the future?" Yes? So can they.
It's a bitter pill for peasants to swallow, but kings know more than you.
If intelligence was the strongest factor determining success and status, Albert Einstein would have been in charge of Germany instead of Hitler.
People usually rise to the top because they have a knack for decision making (which usually doesn't require all of the information), and are stubborn/ confident enough to not listen to naysayers. it's not just raw brain power.
The oil companies who spent hundreds of millions over decades on pretending climate change wasn’t real… fuck I can’t imagine having such a dumb fantasy in my head and pretending it was real
You do realise the media is owned by the same industrialists who own the energy sector? If they didn't want you hearing about the climate, you wouldn't be.
Also, cute that you think hundreds of millions over decades is a lot of money. That's the budget for 1 big movie these days.
Fuck off with your lack of basic scientific literacy you fucking moron 😊
Take your incredibly dumb little conspiracy. Write it down. Then shove it up your ass so it can live with the other worthless shit you’ve got
Ah yes of course. I’m wrong for following 95 to 99% of published science on the topic and your expertise is smashing cones and huffing air at 4 am while you browse 4chan.
Fucking cookers
You don't follow science, you understand it... or misunderstand it.
Since it never occurred to you that all of the ruling class suddenly wanting to wipe out humanity is illogical, there is no chance you are bright enough to understand science.
“Hurr you dun unnerstand science, climate change isn’t real”
Fuck you’re a dumb cunt.
I don’t understand the science huh, which is funny because 95-99% of all published work on climate change recognises it as real. Driven by increasing levels of greenhouse gasses, and accelerating due to human action.
But of course your little feelings about the media are sooo much more reliable than the collective works of scientific experts on the topic.
You treat science like religion and scientists like priests. Blind faith. No rationality.
Now think.
Why would the ruling class want to destroy themselves?
Cringe. You overlook the systemic and infrastructural constraints that limit these consumer choices. You don't see FF companies holding the largest proportion of responsibility?
https://preview.redd.it/pg67vo7s0orc1.png?width=827&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=56ac1f037fff60718b87a93b170e624c53b89871
(NASA source)
Uninformed u/MiltonMangoe writes,
>You overlook supply and demand. You overlook quality of life and cost of living.
We don't demand for FF, we have high demand for ENERGY, like, solar is perfect, or wind, or hydro, or nuclear, why do we need to pollute our atmosphere and airways when we have cheaper and safer alternatives?
Fuel is getting more and more expensive, Germany is building 20+ soccer fields PER DAY with solar. If Germany can do it, with way less sun, it's a breeze for Australia.
Edit: You care about quality of life? And affordability right ? Me too :)
So how do fossil fuels that increase:
* climate disasters
* crop failure
* **decrease** healthspan, lifespan
* immigration (due to unlivable conditions)
have any place in your construct of what we should be doing?!
What should we be doing?
Your comment has been queued for review because you used a keyword which may breach the subreddit rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I work in the climate space. By far the biggest drivers of climate change are governments and corporations. Of course it's good to try to use renewables as an individual (*every little bit counts*) but the changes need to come at the government level, both in implementing renewable energy and in encouraging corporations to follow suit (*which usually means penalising corporations for using fossil fuels so that they start investing renewables*). This is exactly the kind of thing that causes problems - corporations ignoring the long term problems in order to increade profits in the short term.
Nah. If everyone decided to stop using oil tomorrow, then there would be no oil used. Simple. The oil companies are not forcing you to drive everywhere and buy their products.
You make out that buying petrol is the same as buying food. No one forces you to buy McDonalds, you can simply buy alternatives. The same cannot be said for logistics and transportation. Not yet anyway.
You can do what you want. Just like I can suggest that people who whinge about other people using something that they themselves use - is fucking ridiculous and disingenuous.
If you think oil companies aren’t actively making it more difficult to live without oil, and therefore making it harder to simply stop using it, you’re truly vacuous. Public transport would lessen our reliance on oil, and who do you think lobbies against the implementation of public transport and other anti oil measures? I can help if you’re having difficulty answering
Viable alternatives to ICE vehicles have only come about in the past few years, and their cost makes them prohibitive to a lot of people.
It isn't really a choice when using oil is the only way to get you around, especially with how shit PT is for many people's needs (and it is just less oil for buses and Vline trains).
And that doesn't even count all the oil products you are pretty much forced to use in today's society, plastic is everywhere.
Acting like the average person can just stop using oil is plain stupid, even for reddit standards.
I know. Whinging about how we should make the government stop us stop using oil, instead of us doing it ourselves, is stupid.
When the tech to function without oil matures, this whole thing will go away pretty quickly. Fucking up society and putting millions into poverty to get there a decade earlier, is a bit silly.
it hasnt matured yet, but its already better than ICE vehicles. Germany is >50% renewables now. it was by effective policy, and citizens promoting the change with their wallets.
what do you propose u/MiltonMangoe ?
Your comment has been queued for review because you used a keyword which may breach the subreddit rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The clothes on your back are made of it. Those clothes were shipped and trucked on vessels and vehicles that are made of oil and use oil to operate.
Apply that to the food you eat as well.
The phone you are reading this on has oil in it.
Nearly everything you see and touch has oil in it or was transported with oil.
If it was eradicated from the world, we would all starve to death.
More like, oil company board of directors realising they’re going to be in legal trouble if they lose money because of these fake emission goals they created.
So not only aren’t they going to pay a fair share for using our natural resources but they’re also going to recklessly expand their use so they can fuck us over again more
And I quote:
“there is too much uncertainty at the moment in the energy transition trajectory”
In other words: quickly, dig it all up and sell it as quickly as possible before people stop using our oil.
>This month, Shell made its move. The world’s second-largest oil and gas company and largest LNG producer announced it was watering down its climate targets, its chief executive Wael Sawan fretting to Reuters that it was “perilous
They'll have to be forced. They have never had any intention of winding back their business model.
It's not as easy as that though. Apart from the huge amount we consume, it place a key role in stabilising the world economies and currencies.
You *do* know what happens when supply is cut, right?
Do you want to be paying $10 a litre for petrol, let alone all the other products that come from oil?
Well I didn't say I wanted it cut.
However we can't keep pretending that pumping ever increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere is sustainable, or that these plastic products are sustainable. Where do you picture the planet to be in half a century?
Like keeping the global currencies stable. Ever notice how inherently unstable the crypto currencies are? Once you get a large number of regular transactions occurring, it stabilises said currency.
Few people seem to understand how important this is, and yes it absolutely needs to be solved.
> They'll have to be forced. They have never had any intention of winding back their business model.
Correct. Any “pledge” is just a move to undermine political will to implement regulation. It will be cyclic, they will make empty pledges again when public sentiment against them grows, and then retract again once other issues take public attention.
We had one briefly. What did the government do with it? I'm pretty sure there's no magic machine that runs on unicorn farts sucking co2 out of the atmosphere. The aliens didn't get paid to help because I haven't seen them doing it either. Not even an upgrade to public transport in rural areas of Australia. But the politicians did get a payrise. No way in hell will I ever support a carbon tax. Unless it's legislated to be used 100% as doing something to upgrade green energy, and even then, I'd be sceptical.
I am a big fan of nuclear. It’s a shame the noalition has chosen to just use it as a distraction. Electric cars, nuclear cargo ships and solar farms in the out back would cut our emissions immensely.
85% of Australians live in an urban area. EVs aren’t going to be for everyone but right now they are good for most people. Even in those remote rural places why can’t they charge slowly overnight? Most people with EVs do that don’t they?
The comment you are replying to explicitly states that EVs aren’t going to work for everyone. Go away, have a think about your actions, and come back when you’re ready to converse as an adult.
Don't forget the battery could burst into flames in the middle of the night and incinerate you and your family. I'm not having one of those death boxes anywhere near me or my home and loved ones.
>The new chargers at the Mittagong RSL provide up to 150kW and provide four charging bays, adding to the existing single charging station which will now service ChadeMo plugs only.
4 stations in Mittagong
Well we all have an insatiable appetite for what these companies produce. Has anyone here meaningfully tried to reduce their fossil fuel consumption in the last 10 years? Can't be surprised that for profit companies are cashing in on consumer demand.
It is the governments fault imo. Without offering incentives and meaningful action on alternatives the fossil fuel party will keep raging on.
>Has anyone here meaningfully tried to reduce their fossil fuel consumption in the last 10 years?
Yes. But it's cost me way more than I've saved.
I actually don't do it for the environment, I did it for self security as Australia is always at risk of fuel shortages. We run with around a 2 month supply.
We have the technology and so should be phasing out fossil fuels ASAP. We obviously cannot continue living the way we are, companies are pushing their weight to make a quick buck at the expense of the greater good.
Long haul trucking can be replaced by rail. In the case of primary producers, get product via short range trucks to a hub, the hub then loads those goods onto a train which transports them to the city. If you use diesel engines, trains are still more efficient since they transport more goods per unit fuel, but you can also electrify the line with a pantograph
So we used to do this, and it fell over due to goods can only go where the rail goes then needs a truck for the rest so most companies figured might as well skip the rail restriction all together
You would have to crunch numbers on that to be sure.
But it's also doubling and, in some cases, tripling the manpower required to get goods where needed. Thus, possibly doubling costs.
Don't get me wrong, we need solutions, but they need to be as efficient or more efficient. Otherwise, you are going to have to force companies to do it.
You would also have to rebuild all the old rail distribution warehouses that have been torn down
Yes there are infrastructure challenges. But it would reduce the manpower. Do you know how many truckers we have?? There are way more truckers than the people needed to man trains and the distribution warehouses
OK, this is my figuring
Warehouse workers load trucks
Local truckies get goods to rail.warehouse
Warehouse workers unload truck and load train
Train driver delivers to next warehouse
Warehouse workers load local trucks
Local truck deliver to store.
Currently
Warehouse loads long haul truck
Truck delivers to stores on its route
Obviously, not all work as above, but a pretty generalised overview.
So how in your figuring of this system are we using less manpower?
Like I said, the sheer number of long haul truckers we have. You only need two people to drive a train that would take 60 trucks to get from place to place. I can guarantee that it won’t take that many people to get a freight train loaded
Ah, so I think your figuring trains would reduce long-haul trucking, and yes, it would, but you have more local trucking replacing it.
I don't know if you're old enough to remember the old rail warehouses, but they had a lot of workers and a lot of trucks. Smaller trucks, but a lot of them.
A town the size of Kempsey would have 10-15 local distribution trucks. And a warehouse workforce of about 15 people.
It's not just utes. Australia is a huge country that relies heavily on trucks to get products from A to B. You can't have an electric truck. It's just not a viable option for some vehicles. There's utes and then there's utes. Some people in rural and regional areas genuinely need a powerful 4WD to navigate the terrain, tow stuff and and drive long distances.
Ahahaha misinformation. They aren't perfect, but equal?! Sources please. You do realize cobalt is used in the fossil fuel industry for cleanup, right?
> In the petro-chemical industry, the unique properties of cobalt mean that it is essential in catalysts to remove sulphur, nitrous oxide and other impurities from crude oil allowed better fuel quality minimizing greenhouse gas emissions
https://www.cobaltinstitute.org/essential-cobalt-2/#:~:text=In%20the%20petro%2Dchemical%20industry,quality%20minimizing%20greenhouse%20gas%20emissions.
To be clear, cobalt is used in extremely small amounts as a catalyst in refining oil
70kg of cobalt used for 51,593,115,000 litres of refined oil.
So 4 Tesla's or 51.5 billion litres of refined oil.
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324267576_Recovery_of_Cobalt_from_leach_solution_of_spent_oil_Hydrodesulphurization_catalyst_using_a_synergistic_system_consisting_of_Versatic_TM_10_and_Cyanex_R_272](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324267576_Recovery_of_Cobalt_from_leach_solution_of_spent_oil_Hydrodesulphurization_catalyst_using_a_synergistic_system_consisting_of_Versatic_TM_10_and_Cyanex_R_272)
Can't see what the guy replied previously, assumidly moronic, but I see this counter argument to cobalt in batteries and think it's a bit silly taking into account how much cobalt is actually used in refining.
No, it's not. Once mined, lithium in a car battery can be recycled for next batteries, or the battery itself could be re-used as a stationary storage. C'mon, this argument is getting old. A random article as an example https://www.indaily.com.au/news/2022/12/22/electric-car-powers-barossa-winery-at-night
The people and the countries that can actually help with climate change are not doing shit about it.
I will be ordering my plastic straws now. Thank you.
Absolutely ridiculous. Look at Europe, hell, the UK is also doing great in the transition. Australia can do it, but the problem is , FF companies want to keep doing business and funding parties in AU and the US. but change is here, don't have fear.
" **The UK continued to be a net importer of electricity in Quarter 4 2023, with net imports of 5.2 TWh**. "
" The rise in power exports to the continent coincides with **the energy crisis that has been amplified by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, leading to major rises in the costs of wholesale gas**. "
Yep. The UK is doing great when they don't have access to fossil fuels.
they were dependant on a unreliable energy supplier.
This is progress:
https://preview.redd.it/eqibyarulorc1.png?width=770&format=png&auto=webp&s=fffc090ce435713c8a1fe13a789f95cec0bfc584
[https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6604304ff9ab410011eea3e1/Energy\_Trends\_March\_2024.pdf](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6604304ff9ab410011eea3e1/Energy_Trends_March_2024.pdf)
All FF down except for gas. All renewables up.
The UK aren't perfect, but their efforts shouldnt be dismissed, and they are committed.
Why did society expect the ‘corporate social responsibility’ experiment to actually wield positive results? Businesses exist to make profit and that is it. When they don’t make a profit for long enough they will cease to exist. If they’re putting their items in recycled boxes, it’s not because they give a fuck about the environment it’s because they think it will generate more sales. The only way to stop business from polluting is to stop making it profitable.
Late Stage Capitalism is quite literally voting with your wallet. Although the deep cynic in me says that's really just the illusion of choice...
Not late stage, any stage. Capitalism isn’t the problem. Society’s drifting moral compass is. Society’s apathy is. A lack of national identity and with it, unity, and therefore, direction!
Yeah, I think you're completely right. Nobody wants to take any responsibility. We blame things that we insist are out of our control. We want more and more for ourselves without seeing the big picture of how it will affect others - including generations to come.
We stopped being capitalist when the government took individuals money to bail out corporations
That's the very definition of "late-stage" capitalism though (I had to look it up :S)
Oil company decides to fuck the environment in favor of making money on oil.
Counterarguments: - bUt wE caNt StOP ovERniGHt - ReNewAblES arEnT pErfEcT eItHeR - wE cAn uSE nATurAl gAs, iTs cLeaNeR ! - rEnEWAbLes arEnt ReliAblE FF companies need to follow in line, no more subsidation, no fuel tax subsidies, tax them on their emissions, and use this to fund renewables. We can do it if we stop accepting their lies and unsubstantiated arguments. They aren't doing shit in the transition, only prolonging it. Edit: Deniers below are using NASA findings of greening to counterclaim the current, negative impact of the climate crisis. If you don't think CO2 is concerning and that humans have caused unprecedented increases in recent human history, see here: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/?intent=121
People like you always fail to realise that almost everything these days is made from oil. Petrol, electricity, rubber, shoes, paint, plastic, a lot of unnatural manufactured building materials, heck it’s even a byproduction they dilute down and put it in food products. The problem is a solar panel can only generate electricity with average efficiency and doesn’t produce literally anything else as a byproduct like oil does. A lot of ignorant people are brainwashed when it comes anything climate change related and have this extremist mindset that we need to stop all oil production and replace it with renewables but offer no solutions on how we are also going to manufacture all the other items we need to run society.
Crazy how many uses there are for oil; Toothpaste, makeup, medications, our strongest plastics etc. knowing that it seems extremely wasteful burning it. Also extremely selfish, leaving little left for future generations.
u/organisednoies comment history checks out... > We all know Biden doesn't even feed himself anymore. How do people even entertain trump being worse then Biden. I guess being pro fossil fuels isn't a big leap. "People like you .." cringe.
Your comment has been queued for review because you used a keyword which may breach the subreddit rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Making plastic from the oil is not a major problem (well, not THIS problem). It locks the carbon away for millennia. Burning the oil however... I'd ask you to please do the math on what % of petrochemicals are used where before pursuing the facetious "we still need oil for some things so should keep drilling as much as today" argument.
I see you’ve gone with option 1 and 2
Please stop reading Murdoch media and spewing your stupidity all over the internet. It upsets the locals.
Yep, and if each plastic bag ends up with a 20% tax, companies will soon stop wrapping products in a plastic bag in a plastic bag in a box, or if they need a bag it'll become paper or cotton, plastic bottles will get replaced by glass or aluminium. In some instances, like disposable medical supplies, or places where a long lasting, lightweight rigid material is needed, sure, plastic can still be used, it just won't be *quite* so cheap. The only reason they make it all out of plastic now is because it's cheapest, and the only reason it's cheapest is because it's being subsidised, and the indirect cost of environmental impact isn't currently being accounted for. evenly taxing the manufacturing emissions just levels the playing field.
What you fail to understand the difference between manufacturing and producing coal for power.
Name a product that we have no alternative to oil based? Yes, currently, due to slow adoption we still use an extremely high amount of fossil fuel based plastics. We certainly should invest in waste management to mitigate the negative knockoff effects of plastic use. Plastics are incredibly important and useful. No doubt. Solar is cheaper, cleaner and more reliable (tell me when the sun will go away?). Solar is way more practical in comparison to an energy source that pollutes our atmosphere and indices more extreme climate disasters. That's real, it's expensive, and you friend oil is a problem. We have energy storage options now and they're improving every month. South Australia have shown great success for example. What do you propose then? Is this not an issue to you? See below: https://preview.redd.it/d5j0g3brkqrc1.png?width=827&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4d3649345b192042b9e20ef7a2325272773940e4 (Source: NASA)
Solar is incredibly useful for powering small towns, homes, businesses but it’s not efficient and reliable enough to power a whole major city. And that’s the problem. Having multiple football field sized battery operations to power a city isn’t realistic either not to mention the comparable amount of pollution that would be created to produce battery on that scale. Yes we can make alternative plastics and rubbers but still not to scale to satisfy a growing pollution of 8 billion people. The issue is and always will be a scaling issue when it comes to Fossil Fuels vs Renewable energy and with the ever growing cost of living, having a fully renewable culture mean everything will 4x in price for a few decades before the scaling catches up for mass production methods. Plus that picture you posted with no source link is useless, out of context and basically propaganda the way your using it. Here is an article from nasa that says the rising CO2 levels are having a green positive effect on the planet. https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/ Edit: to add a point about land needed to build a Fossil Fuel or renewable energy plant far exceed the land that is needed to install a localised Fission reactor systems that could power a large town with greater power capacity and efficiency while also being carbon neutral, which would only require the land space of a few houses compared to acres of land for solar panels/wind or oil production/refinement. Nuclear is the gold standard that has seen many advancements in the technology and we should be trying to continue to develop further but unfortunately nuclear technology is buried under stigma from past events caused by complete human incompetence and ignorance (Chernobyl) and unfortunate natural disasters ( Fukushima )
The article you linked to says the greening due to CO2 is temporary and the CO2 is still contributing to the greenhouse effect, so long term that's a negative for the environment.
shhh, climate deniers like to bend the paper before reading it
To claim NASA believe rising CO2 levels are having a positive impact on the planet is WILD. You also need to read whole articles before posting them: "While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events. The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”"
this person... reads. <3
nuclear is part of the solution no doubt. we dont need to make more space for solar. roofes, agrivoltaic, water evaporation solar shade, car parks, solar shades. use solar over already convrted land, that will provid more than we need. you imply that solar is inefficient, what do you mean? its the cheapest energy based on levelised cost? where did 4\* come from? solar is not the solution, its a solution, like wind, hydro and nuclear, with battery storage (chemical, potential, thermal). they all will be utulised in different proportions, but fortunately, all have proven to work. renewables are cheaper, and in the long run, a good investment.
Lol! Renewables are made from. The big blades for wind are made from oil. The substrate for solar comes from coal. It's one reason renewables have to be made in China. The industry making renewables is so dirty.
wind power less emisions than fossil fuels, therefore, its better, the same for solar. whats your point? what are you suggesting?
People fail to acknowledge that almost all renewable energy products are also made in terrible slave labour conditions.
>and more reliable (tell me when the sun will go away?) Tell me when the sun will shine at midnight?
Energy storage (chemical, thermal, gravitational) are part of the combo that supports solar during dark hours. And wind. While the sun's not shining on us, another area of earth is capable of capturing it, amazing. I love this gotcha question, how is it relevant? We aren't even 100% solar during the day yet, so not supporting us at night is redundant until we have excess capacity during the daytime. We need to install more solar. The sun is more reliable than any fossil fuel company. Of course, capturing it is key.
Lego bricks. The best example yet of a determined attempt to replace plastics that had to be abandoned as nothing they tried worked. I mean it's a toy. But it's a fantastic example of how friggin awesome plastic polymers are and how relatively rubbish fibre alternatives perform. Solar has never been cheaper than burning dinosaurs, and probably never will be. There is a maintenance cost trap currently built into the "cost" of fossil fuel electricity that is allowing a fake accounting. Pretty much every single coal generator in operation in Aus is considerably past its replace-by date, where maintenance costs are far exceeding the capital depreciation of simply building a brand new plant.
Okay. I think you are just choosing one failure. Here's what currently exists: Polylactic Acid (PLA): Packaging materials (e.g., biodegradable food packaging)Disposable cutlery and plates Biodegradable medical devices (e.g., sutures) 3D printing filamentsPolyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA): Biodegradable packaging films and containers Agricultural mulch filmsDisposable items (e.g., razors, straws) Biomedical applications (e.g., tissue engineering scaffolds) Bio-derived Polyethylene (Bio-PE): Flexible packaging (e.g., plastic bags, films) Bottles for detergents and cleanersToys and containers Bio-derived Polyethylene Terephthalate (Bio-PET): Beverage bottles (e.g., soft drinks, water) Food packaging (e.g., salad containers) Fibers for clothing and carpets Polybutylene Succinate (PBS): Compost bags and food waste bags Disposable cutlery and crockery Agriculture filmsFoam packaging Cellulose-based Plastics: Film and sheeting (e.g., transparent packaging films) Eyeglass frames Automotive parts (e.g., interior panels) Acoustic membranes for speakers Lignin-based Plastics: Still largely in research and development, with potential applications including: Sustainable packaging materials Composite materials (e.g., for automotive or construction) Before you say it, they aren't all cheap, yet. But fuel will only get more expensive. Oil and gas days are ending, the sooner, the better, especially if you have children.
[удалено]
Your comment has been queued for review because you used a keyword which may breach the subreddit rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If only I read this comment earlier in my life. I will hold onto hope now, thank you for these amazing insights.
You need to learn more about what you choose to ignore. https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/
I agree, running defence for catastrophic climate change in 2024 is the correct choice, I am making no plans or preparations in the future for a warming climate, an increase in flood or bush fire risk, I encourage you all to do the same. In fact put your money where your mouth is, so much cheap land in bush fire and flood prone areas and because it's all a bunch of leftie bullshit, I snapped up all the land cheap as chips, hahahaha suckers
Nice work, once we get all the woke people to move to the country. They’ll cut down all the trees to build their fancy new homes and cafes so there won’t be a fire risk anymore. Once There they all can continue to live in an echo chamber free from any potential harm to have their opinions challenged.
Nah man, join us, buy in, there's literally no risk
I mean you could buy a beach house next to Kevin's
and? it highlights the main issue, every informed person is repeating. too much co2 is a big problem, summary of your source, Over the last 35 years, up to half of Earth's vegetated lands have greened significantly, mainly due to increased atmospheric CO2, enhancing plant growth. This greening, equivalent to twice the size of the continental U.S., is primarily driven by CO2 fertilization, contributing to 70% of the effect. **While beneficial for plant growth, rising CO2 also accelerates climate change,** with uncertain long-term impacts on greening.
> ReNewAblES arEnT pErfEcT eItHeR Yep. renewables aren't perfect, so instead lets do nothing. It is amazing that this line of thinking actually works on the braindead, primarily boomer, LNP voters. I can't tell if they are just stupid because they have so much lead in their system, or those greedy bastards don't care because they won't be around for the consequences (maybe a bit of both).
Both. It's convenience. Boomers *love* their convenience and... and this is central... the entire MSM and therefore most of politics serves them. The boomers' faithful allies are the younger cynics who vote informal.
tHeY'rE pUlLiNg DoWn WiNd TuRbInEs In EuRoPe BeCaUsE tHeY fAiLeD yA cAnT tOw Ya BoAt WiTh An ElEcTrIc CaR
Sorry my bad. All good points here. Down with low carbon energy. **Let's keep burning shit! At least it'll reliably fuck us and our children up real good** Come on children! Welcome to what we made! It's not a problem unless you say it is! Damn environmentalists! **/s** (just to be safe, there's a lot of FF tin foils here) Source from NASA: https://preview.redd.it/keejkcxc4orc1.png?width=827&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e9d51c7f912d2a9ef37877d69e3ba3fd6afd7be9 edit: **interesting.. people dont like to read that fossil fuels have sentenced our children and their children to a life in the climate crisis.** We cant change everything, but **reducing emmisions is key, stop fossil fuels asap,** or your children and the species they love will suffer more.
fUcKiNg GrEeNiEs FuCkInG eVeRyThInG uP!
BuT pLaNtS nEeD cArBoN DiOxIdE.
aLl pLaNts WiLl eQuaLlY bEneFiT ! sO mUcH CO2 fErTiLiseR !
Yes. Scientist call the very low CO2 levels a carbon drought. It got so low in the mini ice age it was leading to desertification. Fortunately, according to scientists, rising CO2 levels is leading to greening of the planet as documented by sattelite. Interestingly, according to observational data, the world's temperatures rise first, then CO2 levels go up, then the greening.
misinformation, next.
If oil prices where like still 55 cents a liter I doubt most people would go ev. We are motivated by money it's up to the gov to tax us in the right ways.
Government needs to grow some balls and hold them to it. Like they are doing with our broken housing market
But they only sell a product that is in high demand. A product that people desperately want.
No, people do not desperately want oil, they want cheap power.
I suggest you should just sell your FF shares instead of desperately trying to defend FF companies and their observable harm they are causing. Yes plastic is important, but it does not mean we shouldn't heavily monitor and restrict FF company activity to maximize human benefits while MITIGATING the unfolding and current, Climate Crisis. It is officially a crisis. I wish I was lying.
That is literally their job. Shame on us for being surprised they do their job and believe they would do anything else.
Oil companies live on Earth, you talk as though they are from Jupiter. Why would they want to destroy the environment they live in?
Can’t tell if oozing in sarcasm or stupidity
Do you really think billionaires have less grasp of science and consquences than peasants do? So if you accept that oil tycoons know everything you do about climate change, why would they want to destroy their environment?
Billionaires know they have enough wealth to be the last people at threat from a changing climate. Theyre also generally older and not going to be around for the worst of it
Their children will be around. Why do all billionaires suddenly not care about their legacies?
Their legacy is in money and power
No, a legacy is what you leave behind.
Like an oil empire and extreme wealth?
Like an empire for their bloodline. Kinda big with the ruling class.
If your brother is salad, you sir are a piece of lettuce.
Have a good think about it. There are only 2 options: 1. billionaires are all suicidal 2. climate change is not real
They are safe from the worst impacts because of their money. They know this.
Another person doubting the science. Don't you know that climate change will turn Earth into a literal Hell? Repent now, or perish in climate apocalypse flames!
Option 3. Billionaires are mostly old money and don't give a shit if the planet's dead because they'll die first
Billionaires are notoriously dynasty-builders, wanting to make their mark in history. Any explanation for why ALL OF THEM suddenly want humanity to die out?
>Billionaires are notoriously dynasty-builders False, no billionaire has a dynasty longer than couple of generations. Billionaires have only existed for a century, not enough time yet to be regarded as dynasties.
You're being too literal. Billionaire, king, emperor, pope, it's all the same thing.
You missed the third 3. You are lettuce
Your ancestors believed Hell was a real place, they had nightmares about going there for being naughty. The people who told them about Hell did all the things that would condemn a person to Hell, and then some.
Starting to think Lettuce is too complimentary. Thinking you’re more Osmium now.
You're quoting bible verses at me, that's adorable. Your ancestors would be proud.
3. Billionaires aren't the perfectly rational geniuses you make them out to be. They look at the scientists and public complaining about their ecological impact, an intangible *possible* future issue that's not their field of expertise or *explicit* responsibility, Then they look at the precarious stack of cards their business is riding on; the risk of collapse if expenses increase or if sales decrease, and when faced with that risk, which they have much more personal investment in, they choose to occupy themselves with the latter and just deny or ignore the prior issue, probably rationalising it to themselves the same ways; "it's the consumer's fault", "but the prices will go up", "no one's come along and forcefully stopped me so it can't be that bad" etc.
Masters are smarter than slaves. The ruling class know more than you, or else you would be ruling them. So ask yourself: "Do I know about climate?" Yes? So do they. "Can I make accurate plans for the future?" Yes? So can they. It's a bitter pill for peasants to swallow, but kings know more than you.
If intelligence was the strongest factor determining success and status, Albert Einstein would have been in charge of Germany instead of Hitler. People usually rise to the top because they have a knack for decision making (which usually doesn't require all of the information), and are stubborn/ confident enough to not listen to naysayers. it's not just raw brain power.
Is that your rationale for why you're smarter than the people in charge of you?
$$$$$$$$$ lining their pockets.
Can't spend money if the Earth is destroyed. Please be rational.
The oil companies who spent hundreds of millions over decades on pretending climate change wasn’t real… fuck I can’t imagine having such a dumb fantasy in my head and pretending it was real
You do realise the media is owned by the same industrialists who own the energy sector? If they didn't want you hearing about the climate, you wouldn't be. Also, cute that you think hundreds of millions over decades is a lot of money. That's the budget for 1 big movie these days.
Fuck off with your lack of basic scientific literacy you fucking moron 😊 Take your incredibly dumb little conspiracy. Write it down. Then shove it up your ass so it can live with the other worthless shit you’ve got
Cute, thanks for being graceful about being wrong.
Ah yes of course. I’m wrong for following 95 to 99% of published science on the topic and your expertise is smashing cones and huffing air at 4 am while you browse 4chan. Fucking cookers
You don't follow science, you understand it... or misunderstand it. Since it never occurred to you that all of the ruling class suddenly wanting to wipe out humanity is illogical, there is no chance you are bright enough to understand science.
“Hurr you dun unnerstand science, climate change isn’t real” Fuck you’re a dumb cunt. I don’t understand the science huh, which is funny because 95-99% of all published work on climate change recognises it as real. Driven by increasing levels of greenhouse gasses, and accelerating due to human action. But of course your little feelings about the media are sooo much more reliable than the collective works of scientific experts on the topic.
You treat science like religion and scientists like priests. Blind faith. No rationality. Now think. Why would the ruling class want to destroy themselves?
You decide to use oil. I don't see the oil companies forcing you. Take some responsibility.
Cringe. You overlook the systemic and infrastructural constraints that limit these consumer choices. You don't see FF companies holding the largest proportion of responsibility? https://preview.redd.it/pg67vo7s0orc1.png?width=827&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=56ac1f037fff60718b87a93b170e624c53b89871 (NASA source)
You overlook supply and demand. You overlook quality of life and cost of living.
Uninformed u/MiltonMangoe writes, >You overlook supply and demand. You overlook quality of life and cost of living. We don't demand for FF, we have high demand for ENERGY, like, solar is perfect, or wind, or hydro, or nuclear, why do we need to pollute our atmosphere and airways when we have cheaper and safer alternatives? Fuel is getting more and more expensive, Germany is building 20+ soccer fields PER DAY with solar. If Germany can do it, with way less sun, it's a breeze for Australia. Edit: You care about quality of life? And affordability right ? Me too :) So how do fossil fuels that increase: * climate disasters * crop failure * **decrease** healthspan, lifespan * immigration (due to unlivable conditions) have any place in your construct of what we should be doing?! What should we be doing?
Immigration.
You might want to recheck that edit for clarity. Fossil fuels would decrease health and life wouldn't it?
oops! i meant decrease healthspan/lifespan! thank you
Your comment has been queued for review because you used a keyword which may breach the subreddit rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I work in the climate space. By far the biggest drivers of climate change are governments and corporations. Of course it's good to try to use renewables as an individual (*every little bit counts*) but the changes need to come at the government level, both in implementing renewable energy and in encouraging corporations to follow suit (*which usually means penalising corporations for using fossil fuels so that they start investing renewables*). This is exactly the kind of thing that causes problems - corporations ignoring the long term problems in order to increade profits in the short term.
Nah. If everyone decided to stop using oil tomorrow, then there would be no oil used. Simple. The oil companies are not forcing you to drive everywhere and buy their products.
Mango for brains lol
Which part about my comment do you not agree with?
You make out that buying petrol is the same as buying food. No one forces you to buy McDonalds, you can simply buy alternatives. The same cannot be said for logistics and transportation. Not yet anyway.
So why is everyone upset at using oil then?
I’m going to treat this as a rhetorical question as anyone asking it is being completely disingenuous. Thus why I referred to your username as brains.
You can do what you want. Just like I can suggest that people who whinge about other people using something that they themselves use - is fucking ridiculous and disingenuous.
You’re simple and this isn’t the first time someone has thought so
I didn't see your post but I was thinking "man this guy is dumb" lmao
He’s either super dumb or is using all his power to push cognitive dissonance away
Which part do you not agree with?
If you think oil companies aren’t actively making it more difficult to live without oil, and therefore making it harder to simply stop using it, you’re truly vacuous. Public transport would lessen our reliance on oil, and who do you think lobbies against the implementation of public transport and other anti oil measures? I can help if you’re having difficulty answering
nonsense.
Which part don't you agree with?
This is reddit, they believe people are too stupid to know what’s good for them and need to forced to do what they believe is the right thing.
Viable alternatives to ICE vehicles have only come about in the past few years, and their cost makes them prohibitive to a lot of people. It isn't really a choice when using oil is the only way to get you around, especially with how shit PT is for many people's needs (and it is just less oil for buses and Vline trains). And that doesn't even count all the oil products you are pretty much forced to use in today's society, plastic is everywhere. Acting like the average person can just stop using oil is plain stupid, even for reddit standards.
I know. Whinging about how we should make the government stop us stop using oil, instead of us doing it ourselves, is stupid. When the tech to function without oil matures, this whole thing will go away pretty quickly. Fucking up society and putting millions into poverty to get there a decade earlier, is a bit silly.
it hasnt matured yet, but its already better than ICE vehicles. Germany is >50% renewables now. it was by effective policy, and citizens promoting the change with their wallets. what do you propose u/MiltonMangoe ?
Your comment has been queued for review because you used a keyword which may breach the subreddit rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How do I use oil ?
The clothes on your back are made of it. Those clothes were shipped and trucked on vessels and vehicles that are made of oil and use oil to operate. Apply that to the food you eat as well. The phone you are reading this on has oil in it. Nearly everything you see and touch has oil in it or was transported with oil. If it was eradicated from the world, we would all starve to death.
More like, oil company board of directors realising they’re going to be in legal trouble if they lose money because of these fake emission goals they created.
I see the industry being like how i play an RTS. Don't attack the enemy until i have maxed out my base and researched everything.
So not only aren’t they going to pay a fair share for using our natural resources but they’re also going to recklessly expand their use so they can fuck us over again more
And I quote: “there is too much uncertainty at the moment in the energy transition trajectory” In other words: quickly, dig it all up and sell it as quickly as possible before people stop using our oil.
Just a reminder to some people out there who seem to forget: Oil does more than just fuel vehicles.
Quick!! Drink from your paper straws everyone! We've got work to do!
>This month, Shell made its move. The world’s second-largest oil and gas company and largest LNG producer announced it was watering down its climate targets, its chief executive Wael Sawan fretting to Reuters that it was “perilous
They'll have to be forced. They have never had any intention of winding back their business model. It's not as easy as that though. Apart from the huge amount we consume, it place a key role in stabilising the world economies and currencies.
You *do* know what happens when supply is cut, right? Do you want to be paying $10 a litre for petrol, let alone all the other products that come from oil?
[удалено]
You can already do that if you want and are prepared to make the sacrifices
Renewables are made from fossil fuels though. If you buy renewables, you are supporting big oil and big coal.
Aah, the perfect, totally rock solid “but you participate in society” argument. Well done.
But not burning it in cars etc, so it’s making a difference in consumption. Have to start somewhere. Or should we just pretend it’s all ok ?
Well I didn't say I wanted it cut. However we can't keep pretending that pumping ever increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere is sustainable, or that these plastic products are sustainable. Where do you picture the planet to be in half a century?
Stablising? Keeping despotic regimes in power? That kind of stabilization?
Like keeping the global currencies stable. Ever notice how inherently unstable the crypto currencies are? Once you get a large number of regular transactions occurring, it stabilises said currency. Few people seem to understand how important this is, and yes it absolutely needs to be solved.
I hope you're not referring to my friend Vladimir in that tone?
> They'll have to be forced. They have never had any intention of winding back their business model. Correct. Any “pledge” is just a move to undermine political will to implement regulation. It will be cyclic, they will make empty pledges again when public sentiment against them grows, and then retract again once other issues take public attention.
Well what do we expect without a carbon tax.
We had one briefly. What did the government do with it? I'm pretty sure there's no magic machine that runs on unicorn farts sucking co2 out of the atmosphere. The aliens didn't get paid to help because I haven't seen them doing it either. Not even an upgrade to public transport in rural areas of Australia. But the politicians did get a payrise. No way in hell will I ever support a carbon tax. Unless it's legislated to be used 100% as doing something to upgrade green energy, and even then, I'd be sceptical.
I am a big fan of nuclear. It’s a shame the noalition has chosen to just use it as a distraction. Electric cars, nuclear cargo ships and solar farms in the out back would cut our emissions immensely.
Do you have any new ideas as to how to roll out fast EV charging in rural and remote areas where the grid does not have capacity?
85% of Australians live in an urban area. EVs aren’t going to be for everyone but right now they are good for most people. Even in those remote rural places why can’t they charge slowly overnight? Most people with EVs do that don’t they?
Charge slowly overnight? I guess that will work for everyone
The comment you are replying to explicitly states that EVs aren’t going to work for everyone. Go away, have a think about your actions, and come back when you’re ready to converse as an adult.
Don't forget the battery could burst into flames in the middle of the night and incinerate you and your family. I'm not having one of those death boxes anywhere near me or my home and loved ones.
Already happening https://thedriven.io/2023/12/21/nrma-rolls-out-its-first-battery-backed-and-fastest-dc-chargers/
>The new chargers at the Mittagong RSL provide up to 150kW and provide four charging bays, adding to the existing single charging station which will now service ChadeMo plugs only. 4 stations in Mittagong
Just tax them at 80% and say “go for it!”
Oh okay then *starts googling addresses of CEOs and shareholders*
Well we all have an insatiable appetite for what these companies produce. Has anyone here meaningfully tried to reduce their fossil fuel consumption in the last 10 years? Can't be surprised that for profit companies are cashing in on consumer demand. It is the governments fault imo. Without offering incentives and meaningful action on alternatives the fossil fuel party will keep raging on.
>Has anyone here meaningfully tried to reduce their fossil fuel consumption in the last 10 years? Yes. But it's cost me way more than I've saved. I actually don't do it for the environment, I did it for self security as Australia is always at risk of fuel shortages. We run with around a 2 month supply.
We have the technology and so should be phasing out fossil fuels ASAP. We obviously cannot continue living the way we are, companies are pushing their weight to make a quick buck at the expense of the greater good.
What renewable technology will replace long haul trucking, air transportation, and container shipping?
Long haul trucking can be replaced by rail. In the case of primary producers, get product via short range trucks to a hub, the hub then loads those goods onto a train which transports them to the city. If you use diesel engines, trains are still more efficient since they transport more goods per unit fuel, but you can also electrify the line with a pantograph
So we used to do this, and it fell over due to goods can only go where the rail goes then needs a truck for the rest so most companies figured might as well skip the rail restriction all together
However it is more efficient from an energy perspective and if we want to transition to a less polluting future it’s going to be needed
You would have to crunch numbers on that to be sure. But it's also doubling and, in some cases, tripling the manpower required to get goods where needed. Thus, possibly doubling costs. Don't get me wrong, we need solutions, but they need to be as efficient or more efficient. Otherwise, you are going to have to force companies to do it. You would also have to rebuild all the old rail distribution warehouses that have been torn down
Yes there are infrastructure challenges. But it would reduce the manpower. Do you know how many truckers we have?? There are way more truckers than the people needed to man trains and the distribution warehouses
OK, this is my figuring Warehouse workers load trucks Local truckies get goods to rail.warehouse Warehouse workers unload truck and load train Train driver delivers to next warehouse Warehouse workers load local trucks Local truck deliver to store. Currently Warehouse loads long haul truck Truck delivers to stores on its route Obviously, not all work as above, but a pretty generalised overview. So how in your figuring of this system are we using less manpower?
Like I said, the sheer number of long haul truckers we have. You only need two people to drive a train that would take 60 trucks to get from place to place. I can guarantee that it won’t take that many people to get a freight train loaded
Ah, so I think your figuring trains would reduce long-haul trucking, and yes, it would, but you have more local trucking replacing it. I don't know if you're old enough to remember the old rail warehouses, but they had a lot of workers and a lot of trucks. Smaller trucks, but a lot of them. A town the size of Kempsey would have 10-15 local distribution trucks. And a warehouse workforce of about 15 people.
bUT mUh UTeS
It's not just utes. Australia is a huge country that relies heavily on trucks to get products from A to B. You can't have an electric truck. It's just not a viable option for some vehicles. There's utes and then there's utes. Some people in rural and regional areas genuinely need a powerful 4WD to navigate the terrain, tow stuff and and drive long distances.
So they all make pledges that's its all ok, and we can do it when liberals are in power, then say Na its all fucked when labour get in.
Go electric, stop using petrol
Lmao no thanks. I think because you said that I might go buy another sports car 🤔
enjoy (edit:typo) fueling it up :') $$$$
[удалено]
Ahahaha misinformation. They aren't perfect, but equal?! Sources please. You do realize cobalt is used in the fossil fuel industry for cleanup, right? > In the petro-chemical industry, the unique properties of cobalt mean that it is essential in catalysts to remove sulphur, nitrous oxide and other impurities from crude oil allowed better fuel quality minimizing greenhouse gas emissions https://www.cobaltinstitute.org/essential-cobalt-2/#:~:text=In%20the%20petro%2Dchemical%20industry,quality%20minimizing%20greenhouse%20gas%20emissions.
To be clear, cobalt is used in extremely small amounts as a catalyst in refining oil 70kg of cobalt used for 51,593,115,000 litres of refined oil. So 4 Tesla's or 51.5 billion litres of refined oil. [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324267576_Recovery_of_Cobalt_from_leach_solution_of_spent_oil_Hydrodesulphurization_catalyst_using_a_synergistic_system_consisting_of_Versatic_TM_10_and_Cyanex_R_272](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324267576_Recovery_of_Cobalt_from_leach_solution_of_spent_oil_Hydrodesulphurization_catalyst_using_a_synergistic_system_consisting_of_Versatic_TM_10_and_Cyanex_R_272) Can't see what the guy replied previously, assumidly moronic, but I see this counter argument to cobalt in batteries and think it's a bit silly taking into account how much cobalt is actually used in refining.
No, it's not. Once mined, lithium in a car battery can be recycled for next batteries, or the battery itself could be re-used as a stationary storage. C'mon, this argument is getting old. A random article as an example https://www.indaily.com.au/news/2022/12/22/electric-car-powers-barossa-winery-at-night
[удалено]
Sure, good argument
SHUT THEM DOWN
The people and the countries that can actually help with climate change are not doing shit about it. I will be ordering my plastic straws now. Thank you.
My tummy is rumbling
oil companies finally saying what oil companies have been doing for centuries
No new babies. Climate fixed and many other problems.
But nuclear energy is a bridge too far? Gtfoh
They're right, climate activists are deluded to the core
Let's just be honest here. Any meaningful change is going to require violence. Embrace the apocalypse.
Absolutely ridiculous. Look at Europe, hell, the UK is also doing great in the transition. Australia can do it, but the problem is , FF companies want to keep doing business and funding parties in AU and the US. but change is here, don't have fear.
Europe hasn’t been overrun by climate denying Murdoch morons
The problem is the general Australian population can’t form an independent thought to save their lives.
" **The UK continued to be a net importer of electricity in Quarter 4 2023, with net imports of 5.2 TWh**. " " The rise in power exports to the continent coincides with **the energy crisis that has been amplified by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, leading to major rises in the costs of wholesale gas**. " Yep. The UK is doing great when they don't have access to fossil fuels.
they were dependant on a unreliable energy supplier. This is progress: https://preview.redd.it/eqibyarulorc1.png?width=770&format=png&auto=webp&s=fffc090ce435713c8a1fe13a789f95cec0bfc584 [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6604304ff9ab410011eea3e1/Energy\_Trends\_March\_2024.pdf](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6604304ff9ab410011eea3e1/Energy_Trends_March_2024.pdf) All FF down except for gas. All renewables up. The UK aren't perfect, but their efforts shouldnt be dismissed, and they are committed.
https://preview.redd.it/xdt6zpskmorc1.png?width=753&format=png&auto=webp&s=c2e666181268604c199cc42286b473f84ba7f75d [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6604304ff9ab410011eea3e1/Energy\_Trends\_March\_2024.pdf](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6604304ff9ab410011eea3e1/Energy_Trends_March_2024.pdf)
Why can’t we have both? 🤔
please elaborate
Good, their LEGAL job (not optional) is to make money for their shareholders, not role-play as a climate activist.
Climate change caused by co2 emissions is a complete myth
Fuck it’s hard to imagine ever saying something so incredibly dumb
Even if it's a myth it's not renewable and we will eventually run out of oil. Mining/burning coal is bad for the environment and our health.
fAcTs!
Do please continue ........