LNP 2050 Net Zero agenda

[Trevor]

Listen Phil, I can give a 'smite' right now if you want? 

[Bloopy]

I don't think the sizing rule is needed any more given oversized images don't stretch any words off the side of the screen now. If you want everyone to see an image and you post a stupidly huge one, you're mostly just depriving yourself of what you want. Eg. if it's 3000 pixels wide then people on mobile will only be able to see about 20% of it at once.

Plus, people watch videos on their phones these days and can probably handle the data usage. We haven't even gone off topic because internet usage contributes to climate change...

[Ospif1]

Can't say I'm surprised that the government isn't actually taking this seriously or willing to put in genuine effort, but still sad.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/oct/30/australias-2050-net-zero-emissions-plan-relies-on-gross-manipulation-of-data-experts-say

The Morrison government’s 2050 net zero emissions plan relies on a “gross manipulation” of data that suggests trees and soil can absorb far more carbon dioxide than is actually possible, according to experts in the field.

The government’s long term emissions reduction strategy, released ahead of a major climate summit in Glasgow starting on Sunday, was criticised for not including new policies and relying on new technology to make deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions in the 2030s and 2040s.

It assumed 10-20% of the emissions cut needed by 2050 would come from paying for international and domestic offsets, including planting trees and other vegetation on marginal agricultural land and techniques to improve the health of soil. This would allow some fossil fuel industries to operate beyond 2050 by effectively cancelling out their emissions by drawing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Future generations really are in for a hell of a ride.

[Trevor]

Nothing surprises me from the Masters of Spin

All smoke and mirrors

[mikeamerica84]

I have a feeling we (the world) are fighting a losing battle

Not just Russia and China, but India, America, Africa - what are they REALLY doing?  Lip service me thinks

+1

[Bloopy]

Man announces he will quit drinking by 2050

A Sydney man has set an ambitious target to phase out his alcohol consumption within the next 29 years, as part of an impressive plan to improve his health. 

The program will see Greg Taylor, 73, continue to drink as normal for the foreseeable future, before reducing consumption in 2049 when he turns 101. He has assured friends it will not affect his drinking plans in the short or medium term.

 

[Trevor]

 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[coyote302]

Nothing surprises me from the Masters of Spin

All smoke and mirrors

Smoke and mirrors like this? How many "climate Alarmists" claims have been proved wrong?

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/flannery-denies-what-he-actually-said/news-story/8f9ac2ed71c5b01470299510ce0de7f2

[AlbertM]

I would have used some one else other than Andrew Bolt. The conservative right have run out of fingers and toes to count how many times he got it wrong.

[Ospif1]

Nothing surprises me from the Masters of Spin

All smoke and mirrors

Smoke and mirrors like this? How many "climate Alarmists" claims have been proved wrong?

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/flannery-denies-what-he-actually-said/news-story/8f9ac2ed71c5b01470299510ce0de7f2

It depends if you base your opinion of climate change on politicians or the scientists who are the experts in the field, I guess.

[stevo qld]

One problem, as I see it, is the number of "scientists" with different scientific qualifications, such as Flannery has self admitted.

It would be difficult for anyone scientist or politician to prophecy what will happen in 2050.

There will be so many different "expert" and "political" theories that there is a random chance some will be right.

With computer modeling, one decides the outcome required and then writes the program guesstimate parameters to, miracle of miracles, come up with exactly the desired result.

I recall, about 40 years ago that "scientists" claimed that the Great Barrier Reef would be dead by the turn of the Century. It wasn't.

On the LNP plan for Net Zero, there is an often criticized element of technology "not yet developed". perhaps the critics believe there will be no new technology. Look at the last 29 years where there has been many advancements.

Anyway, even if the plan is flawed, it is better than no plan except being popular now with extravagant claims that will be the next generations achievement problem.

If one takes the life expectancy of 80 years (approx), then any scientist or politician over 50 may not be alive, let alone active in achieving the goal/target/aspriation/whatever.

[Ospif1]

One problem, as I see it, is the number of "scientists" with different scientific qualifications, such as Flannery has self admitted.

It would be difficult for anyone scientist or politician to prophecy what will happen in 2050.

There will be so many different "expert" and "political" theories that there is a random chance some will be right.

With computer modeling, one decides the outcome required and then writes the program guesstimate parameters to, miracle of miracles, come up with exactly the desired result.

I recall, about 40 years ago that "scientists" claimed that the Great Barrier Reef would be dead by the turn of the Century. It wasn't.

On the LNP plan for Net Zero, there is an often criticized element of technology "not yet developed". perhaps the critics believe there will be no new technology. Look at the last 29 years where there has been many advancements.

Anyway, even if the plan is flawed, it is better than no plan except being popular now with extravagant claims that will be the next generations achievement problem.

If one takes the life expectancy of 80 years (approx), then any scientist or politician over 50 may not be alive, let alone active in achieving the goal/target/aspriation/whatever.

The issue with using the great barrier reef as an example is you're comparing models from 40 years ago to those we can produce today.  Think about how computing has changed in 40 years?  It's not even relevant to bring up in conversation.  We now have endless amounts of data collected from around the globe tracking temperatures, pressures, levels, ecosystems and so on and thus are able to predict with far more accuracy what the future holds.  It's no longer opinion in the scientific community, it's facts driven by real data which shows very real changes over the recent past.

[Bloopy]

I'd take scientists' predictions to mean there's a notable chance of said things happening, not necessarily that they absolutely will happen. But they're not the sort of things to go gambling on. I don't think many places will be in climate strife in 2050 regardless of what we do or don't do. Ultimately it's more about preventing the worst of what could happen from 2100 onwards.

I heard the recent news that the Great Barrier Reef is recovering somewhat. So perhaps it's a distraction to focus on tiny living things that may adapt more readily than us.

[stevo qld]

One problem, as I see it, is the number of "scientists" with different scientific qualifications, such as Flannery has self admitted.

It would be difficult for anyone scientist or politician to prophecy what will happen in 2050.

There will be so many different "expert" and "political" theories that there is a random chance some will be right.

With computer modeling, one decides the outcome required and then writes the program guesstimate parameters to, miracle of miracles, come up with exactly the desired result.

I recall, about 40 years ago that "scientists" claimed that the Great Barrier Reef would be dead by the turn of the Century. It wasn't.

On the LNP plan for Net Zero, there is an often criticized element of technology "not yet developed". perhaps the critics believe there will be no new technology. Look at the last 29 years where there has been many advancements.

Anyway, even if the plan is flawed, it is better than no plan except being popular now with extravagant claims that will be the next generations achievement problem.

If one takes the life expectancy of 80 years (approx), then any scientist or politician over 50 may not be alive, let alone active in achieving the goal/target/aspriation/whatever.

The issue with using the great barrier reef as an example is you're comparing models from 40 years ago to those we can produce today.  Think about how computing has changed in 40 years?  It's not even relevant to bring up in conversation.  We now have endless amounts of data collected from around the globe tracking temperatures, pressures, levels, ecosystems and so on and thus are able to predict with far more accuracy what the future holds.  It's no longer opinion in the scientific community, it's facts driven by real data which shows very real changes over the recent past.

I believe it is relevant. The targets are 29 years in the FUTURE, so why is it not relevant to compare the last 29 years. OK. I pushed a bit past 29. I am not aware of any GBReef modeling back then anyway. It was just the opinion of experts and those experts have been proven wrong.

As I stated, they make the modeling parameters to obtain a predetermined outcome. Alternatively other modeling is pure guesswork.

Technology has moved on and will move on again, and you clearly agree with me. (Think about how computing has changed in 40 years?)

The context is that the LNP is partly relying on technology "not yet created", and is lambasted for it by certain people with their own unknown agenda.

To misquote a pampered, opinionated child, "How dare they"!