What's New
Off Topix: Embrace the Unexpected in Every Discussion

Off Topix is a well established general discussion forum that originally opened to the public way back in 2009! We provide a laid back atmosphere and our members are down to earth. We have a ton of content and fresh stuff is constantly being added. We cover all sorts of topics, so there's bound to be something inside to pique your interest. We welcome anyone and everyone to register & become a member of our awesome community.

Australian P.M.: Coal Is Good For Humanity

Webster

Retired Snark Master
Administrator
Joined
May 11, 2013
Posts
25,631
OT Bucks
69,976
...is it just me or would Tony Abbott fit right in with the climate deniers of the Republican Party here in the 'States?
Speaking at the opening of a coal mine in Queensland on Monday, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott called for an end to the demonization of coal. “Coal is good for humanity, good for prosperity,” he said, adding that “coal is an essential part of our economic future here in Australia, and right around the world.” The new mine will produce 5.5 million tons of coal annually.

Abbott has been less than progressive on the issue of climate change, doubting the legitimacy of climate science several times, and nominating climate change deniers to key positions in his government. The Australian PM was also one of a few leaders of heavy carbon emitters who declined to attend the United Nations Climate Summit that took place in New York City in September.

“These are comments that may have been forgiven in the ’70s, before the global scientific community had learned about impact of coal on the planet,” Senior Climate Campaigner for Greenpeace Nic Clyde told Mashable. “The comments are completely out of touch with the global scientific community and Australians. There is massive support in Australia for renewable energy.”

In 2009, then-opposition leader Tony Abbott was widely criticized for saying on record that “the climate change argument is absolute crap.” His position has not evolved much since he became Prime Minister. On taking office, Abbott made the repeal of Australia’s carbon tax his “top legislative priority,” a goal which he achieved in July. Abbott has also significantly cut funding for the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, putting 190 renewable projects at risk.

Furthermore, the man Abbott chose to review Australia’s renewable energy policy, Dick Warburton, is a vehement climate change denier. Abbott’s top business adviser, Maurice Newman, is a climate conspiracy theorist. In an interview for The Australian, Newman shared his belief that the sole goal of the “the climate change establishment” is to “exploit the masses and extract more money.” He also accused the IPCC of “dishonesty and deceit.”

Abbott himself has said some pretty egregious things on the subject of climate change. In his book titled “Battlelines,” he repeatedly discredits climate science with arguments like “in Roman times, grapes were widely grown in Britain” and “in medieval times, Greenland supported agriculture.” He also wrote that cold weather in North America and Europe has made climate science “less plausible.”

“I always regarded him as sort of the resident nutter on the other side,” said former Australian PM Paul Keating in a candid interview during Abbott’s first run for the nation’s highest office. Keating went on to call Abbott an “intellectual nobody,” with “no policy ambition.”

Abbott’s denial of the reality of climate change ignores extreme climactic changes affecting Australia right now. Australia experienced its hottest year on record in 2013, with the upcoming summer set to once again break records for high temperatures. Sydney experienced its two hottest consecutive days on record three weeks ago. Australia was also victim to its worst natural disaster in history in the summer of 2009, when bushfires raged across the state of Victoria, claiming the lives of 173 people and injuring 414 others in what is now known as Black Sunday. The PM has nominated climate change deniers to key position in government and repealed Australia's carbon tax. He makes climate change deniers in the U.S. seem reasonable by comparison.(Think Progress)

...the more coal we can keep in the ground, the better off we'll all be....
 
I like this guy now if he would just restore the peoples gun rights that would even be better.

I think people just hate coal to hate coal and have no idea about the facts of todays modern coal burning plants and just how clean they are.

Today‟s coal
-
fired electricity generating plants produce more power, with less emission of criteria pollutants, than ever before. According to the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), a new pulverized coal plant (operating at lower, “subcritical” temperatures and pressures) reduces the emission of NO x by 86 percent, SO2 by 98 percent, and particulate matter (PM) by 99.8 percent, as compared with a similar plant having no pollution controls. Undoubtedly, air quality will continue to improve in the future because of improved technology.
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/media/pdf/the-facts-about-air-quality-and-coal-fired-power-plants-final.pdf
 
TRUE LIBERTY said:
I like this guy now if he would just restore the peoples gun rights that would even be better.

I think people just hate coal to hate coal and have no idea about the facts of todays modern coal burning plants and just how clean they are.

*reads first part of comment* Shame we couldn't abolish the 2nd Amendment...*mutters* ...damn gun nuts....

*reads second part of comment* I don't hate coal; I just don't believe its' worth burning nowadays...
 
DrLeftover said:
IF, and this is the qualifier: "if coal can be produced and burned reasonably cleanly"...

if that can be done, is there a more reliable and cost effective source for electricity currently available?


How would they do it cleanly? :|
 
Nebulous said:
DrLeftover said:
IF, and this is the qualifier: "if coal can be produced and burned reasonably cleanly"...

if that can be done, is there a more reliable and cost effective source for electricity currently available?


How would they do it cleanly? :|

There is no clean way to burn coal, even with technological advances in carbon sequestration/capture systems. and anyone who says there is such a thing as clean coal is either lying or is deliberately obfuscating on the topic.:|
 
Webster said:
Nebulous said:
DrLeftover said:
IF, and this is the qualifier: "if coal can be produced and burned reasonably cleanly"...

if that can be done, is there a more reliable and cost effective source for electricity currently available?


How would they do it cleanly? :|

There is no clean way to burn coal, even with technological advances in carbon sequestration/capture systems. and anyone who says there is such a thing as clean coal is either lying or is deliberately obfuscating on the topic.:|

Yes there is and whoever tells you is lying and such.

Today‟s coal
-
fired electricity generating plants produce more power, with less emission of criteria pollutants, than ever before. According to the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), a new pulverized coal plant (operating at lower, “subcritical” temperatures and pressures) reduces the emission of NO x by 86 percent, SO2 by 98 percent, and particulate matter (PM) by 99.8 percent, as compared with a similar plant having no pollution controls. Undoubtedly, air quality will continue to improve in the future because of improved technology.
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/me...-final.pdf
 
TRUE LIBERTY said:
Webster said:
Nebulous said:
DrLeftover said:
IF, and this is the qualifier: "if coal can be produced and burned reasonably cleanly"...

if that can be done, is there a more reliable and cost effective source for electricity currently available?


How would they do it cleanly? :|

There is no clean way to burn coal, even with technological advances in carbon sequestration/capture systems. and anyone who says there is such a thing as clean coal is either lying or is deliberately obfuscating on the topic.:|

Yes there is and whoever tells you is lying and such.

Today‟s coal
-
fired electricity generating plants produce more power, with less emission of criteria pollutants, than ever before. According to the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), a new pulverized coal plant (operating at lower, “subcritical” temperatures and pressures) reduces the emission of NO x by 86 percent, SO2 by 98 percent, and particulate matter (PM) by 99.8 percent, as compared with a similar plant having no pollution controls. Undoubtedly, air quality will continue to improve in the future because of improved technology.
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/me...-final.pdf

So you say, Mr. Galt.:sleep:
Still doesn't mean we should use it, though.
 
Nebulous said:
DrLeftover said:
IF, and this is the qualifier: "if coal can be produced and burned reasonably cleanly"...

if that can be done, is there a more reliable and cost effective source for electricity currently available?


How would they do it cleanly? :|

Not only do they do it cleanly with filters but more then likely your house was built with the recycled waste used in things like drywall, concrete, grout, roads and cement.
 
Obviously they're more efficient and therefore cleaner - after all, there's money in that. However cleaner isn't necessarily clean.
All technologies along the CCS chain are known. They have been in operation in various industries for decades, although in relatively small scale. However, for the sole purpose of limiting climate change, these technologies have only been put together in industrial scale (>1Mt CO2 captured and stored per year) in a small number of installations. No large-scale installations exist yet in electricity production, although two notable large-scale projects should start soon, end-2014 and early 2015 respectively.
http://www.iea.org/topics/ccs/

In any case, it's not like we can really stop using coal at the moment so the PM's quite right: coal is good for his country's economy.
 
Back
Top Bottom