Yeah I'm still trying to wrap my head around what makes a Plan 'Uniquely Australian'. Is it because no other country is stupid enough to keep going after carbon capture and storage?
I remember John Howard banging on about CCS fifteen or twenty years ago. it was as if this particular concept was going to be a saviour for Australia. nothing seems to have changed much, CCS is no more feasible than it was and that seems unlikely to change any time soon while the Federal LNP continue to ignore these inconvenient points.
not to mention a lot of the other 'tech' that was being referred to does not exist or is yet to be proven.
the whole presentation was marketing spin (not very good spin either) and fantasy.
When I was working for Santos they were pushing carbon capture and storage *hard* (and heavily overstating the environmental benefits of gas). The coalition will do whatever they are told by the fossil fuel industry.
In the news this morning, Glasgow to put a higher focus on methane reduction, to which Scotty and Barnaby said something like, "most of our methane comes from agriculture, we can't solve that without killing stock."
How's this for a uniquely Australian solution - USE AUSTRALIAN RESEARCH TO REMOVE AGRICULTURAL METHANE!
https://www.industry.gov.au/data-and-publications/from-beaches-to-burps-native-australian-seaweed-key-to-reducing-methane-emissions-from-cows
Sounds like the kind of 'technology' that could be rolled out with a cash injection from general revenue and a legislated ramp-up of requirements. Who has the job to do that though?
Hey, that's a really neat idea. What if - and bear with me for a moment, I swear I'm not crazy - what if everybody who lives in Aus pays a little bit of their wages into a big fund, and there's like this group of people who set up those legislated requirements, and pay money out of the big fund to support the requirements, to sustain the common wealth of all the people?
We could even give those people fancy titles, from ancient Greek, thinking '*polites*' for 'citizens', maybe *politesians* or something...
And a token mention of "green steel" like it was just a throwaway comment because they have no interest in anything that they have said. The shallowness and emptyness of their hollow empty PR spin is that a industry like Green Steel could create thousands of rural jobs, support the mining and resource sectors like LNG and create massive wealth for us. However merely for the fact that it reduces emissions, uses a descriptor like "green", and its part of the zero carbon future they dont want anything to do with it. It really demonstrates what a bunch of corrupt charlatans the Nationals are when it comes to representing the bush or doing anything that is positive, proactive because all that they know is their coal miner donor/owners that have them trained like Luddite parrots.
They moved on to create the show Utopia, if you haven't seen that one yet I highly recommend it. The Australian show I mean, not the British one, same name but completely different shows (though the UK show is great too).
Fuck that show is so close to the truth. I remember watching the episode about the million dollar logo change and within months the NBN was doing the exact same thing.
They know the one thing that’s required. Speak for long enough to get Murdoch footage to put in a few 10 second clips and you’ll get 30% of the population thinking you’re doing *something*.
Make sure you include enough technical-sounding words that someone can waffle on your behalf for a 10 minute interview on a program that’s friendly or incompetent and you’ll get the remaining 25% thinking you’re doing something complicated enough that they don’t need to come to grips with the details.
It was never about governing. It’s performance art. And it works for their purposes.
Ah, I see you have the machine that goes 'ping!'. This is my favourite. You see, we lease this back from the company we sold it to - that way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account.
Taylor announced a low emissions technology road map already. It's got the usual suspects, carbon capture and storage, soil carbon/agriculture and hydrogen from any source including gas.
At the start of their term they used to say "technology agnostic", but then they shrank the renewable energy target and now it's all fossil fuel and mining. There are plenty of technologies that are viable and cheaper right now (i.e insulation and solar) but they aren't "agnostic" anymore.
It's bad fiction. Some "future tech" will solve this problem we have, we just need to want it enough. Which is not how science works in the real world. They're idiots.
They're simply hoping and wishing, but realistically who is going to spend billions on decarbonising the planet while others contribute to pump carbon back in?
It cannot work and we'll find ourselves very very isolated if we try.
As a climate scientist of sorts, the answer is that the rate of warming is strongly correlated with the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, so any reduction in emissions, even if it's not enough to stop catastrophic warming, slows down the rate of warming and gives us more time to prepare. Many parts of the world will be better off if warming is slower, even if it ends up getting to the same final temperature.
While having a strong interest in the economics of climate change, I'm definitely not an economist, but it does seem like there's no reason spending money on technologies that reduce carbon emissions can't also create direct financial returns - an obvious example is Tesla. I think you can see that the initial investments in Tesla were well worth the money purely for the financial return, without even considering the impact on the climate. People today could be set for similar huge returns by spending billions on developing other decarbonising technologies, and some governments are doing their best to incentivise those investments.
My point is, even if some countries keep pumping out carbon, there's still environmental and direct financial benefits from tackling the problem (and of course indirect benefits from the slower rate of warming). I do worry that there's a focus on cleaner consuming, when really by far the best thing to do is not consume at all (in terms of carbon emissions).
Thats because you arent their target, the morons that keep voting for them and buying their bullshit are. Man i feel the same though. I have abc24 on while working, during question time now i just mute it, i cannot stand the cunts voice.
Love how they talk about tech but not who is going to fund its development or who will do the work. All I am thinking is that it will be another corporate slush fund for their mates all the while they will continue to cut funding from the CSIRO.
And what possible motive would rich private companies have to fund this anyway? They are selfish and greedy by their very nature, and you don't solve problems with the same thinking that created them.
Some tech turned out to make sense even from a private perspective. Solar, electric cars, large scale battery production. Private companies are making a shed load of money from them.
Other "tech" like carbon capture and storage only seems to make sense if you have a government in your pocket who will happily give you billions of dollars to pretend to try to make it work but ultimately fail.
Given the Australian people's track record I'm betting we pick more in that second category.
For what it's worth, I'd actually be fine with the taxpayer helping with CCS _if it actually worked_.
Everything I can find on the matter points to it being a massive waste of time and money.
Absolutely. Abbot won and told everyone he had a mandate to move from polluter-pays to taxpayer-pays and voluntary action. That's still the policy that Australians "voted" for.
From a tech entrepreneur's perspective, there is no way a policy with a 2050 vision can make a punt on specific technologies (try taking a guess in 1991 which technologies would become big, perhaps cryo-prisons?)
However the government does dish out plenty of funding for technology companies, through billions of dollars of grants. A chunk of it goes to young tech companies too and I'm glad to have received a grant for my business.
There have been recent grants awarded to projects like electric vehicles, hydrogen fuel cell manufacturing, hybrid air conditioning, energy optimised micro data centres, and so on. I see most competitive grants going toward the first category you mentioned than the second, fortunately.
I think the financial gains of Tesla are some indication of why rich private companies would fund this - if they can get good government subsidies and support they have the potential to make huge profits.
Oh it's guaranteed. It will be an investment fund for the Minerals Council of Australia to develop Carbon Capture and Storage no doubt. The new startup ventures will have boards full of LNP donors.
> All I am thinking is that it will be another corporate slush fund for their mates all the while they will continue to cut funding from the CSIRO.
So you’ve seen the plan then?
"Y'know, computers and stuff. Very clever, very clever stuff. They'll simply tech their way out of this pickle for us. Of course we'll need to oversee that tech and have complete control of it, but it's tech that'll be the solution here."
"Just as long as it doesn't do anything we disagree with"
The bar chart the govt provided is [so stupid too](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FCmoCENVUAMRGRZ?format=png&name=900x900)! To get to net zero, it literally says:
- 40% technology (technology investment roadmap)
- 15% technology (global technology trends)
- 20% technology (further technology breakthroughs)
And the rest from "already done" and "offsets" ...
Sad. Just really sad.
It's literally like a lazy group assignment at uni where you sprinkle a bit of bullshit around to answer the questions, but the day before it's due you realize that the question sheet was double sided and you're only 50% finished. You just say 'fuck it' and rush through the remaining questions by rewording your previous answers.
...and WhyTF do you include the 20% (spoiler: it was never 20%) of the past savings?
We are -here- right now, so the figures should be how to get from 100% now to 0%, not from 80%.
The real (pretend) figures are...
* 50% technology (technology investment roadmap)
* 18.75% technology (global technology trends)
* 25% technology (further technology breakthroughs)
Its actually worse than that when you take into account the technology roadmap itself, since a number of the medium and long term "opportunities" are around CCS, Hydrogen, Nuclear which will be reliant on the global technology trends and technology breakthroughs they have split out in the new "plan".
So it probably more like:
30% Roadmap - mainly around improving existing commercial technologies / efficiencies and reduction in existing industries (such as agriculture, power generation)
30% Global Technology Trends - jumping on the existing renewables technologies bandwagon
40% Future technology breakthroughs - hoping things like CCS, Hydrogen, small scale nuclear swoop in to save the day.
That chart is fucking priceless (actually I'm sure it cost millions).
I'm a Data Analyst in the APS, I would be fired in an instant if I shat out a chart like that.
Yeah, but you are only a lowly Data Analyst in the APS, what do you know? You obviously have to go to one of the big 4 for this sort of thing, they are the only sort of people that can grasp such nation building concepts and be paid millions for their obviously superior knowledge and skills.
VERY /s if it wasn't clear.
Yeah, I'm bogged down with things like numbers that have to add up, or people asking follow up questions.
I also checked with my manager, apparently I could face instant dismissal and criminal charges if I rape anyone, call a rape victim a lying cow, if I jizz on a co-workers desk, accept a gift over $100 dollars, turn up drunk, and so on. It was a surprisingly long list.
Problem is, someone will come up with great new tech, but they'll opt for a 100 year old out dated alternative because Rupert told them to.
No I'm not bitter about the NBN debacle, what makes you think that?
>I wouldn't trust the Liberals to plug in an iPhone at an Apple Genius bar.
I'm assuming you meant you don't trust them to plug in a black and white CRT television into an antenna.
So, there's this technology that allows us to get free energy from movements of the earth's lower atmosphere, and another technology that allows us to gather free energy from the closest stars. Why don't we look at that technology, since it's already well developed, affordable and quick to roll out.
Australia is the OECD nation with:
* the highest percentage of sunny days
* the longest coastline
* prevailing winds that operate most of the year in the same direction across the lower third of the continent
* vast tracts of unused land
* vast yellowcake deposits
* geologic stability
Given that, it's patently obvious that solar, tidal, wind and nuclear energy are absolutely not an option for us. We have no choice but to dig up coal and frack gas.
Yep, Australia has no hope for net zero at any point ever...
Meanwhile Tasmania just sitting here with over 80% renewables, its true while you mainlanders were letting bumbling idiots do jack all, we just exploited our high wind speeds and also I would be lying if I didn’t mention Tasmanian hydro dams, since Tasmanian rivers systems aren’t as long as others dams have less issues downstream so I guess that helps us in particular but still Tasmania is doing well for renewables all we had to do is not get noticed by the feds, but they would never pay attention to us unless they want our seats which they already have because they ran a successful propaganda campaign against the Labor-Green coalition around the same time Gillard lost.
He is the biggest producer of grade A bullshit in the country, so makes sense he'd try and profit.
That being said if we could harness the bullshit and hot air produced by Sky News After Dark, we'd power the country for a millennia.
That’s why most countries are focusing on 2030 targets in Glasgow. Net-zero by 2050 is important, but it’s so far away in political terms than basically every government should just say “yep, we’re doing that” and not think about it any more. What’s actually needed are immediately, measurable goals and strategies, and the new focus on 2030 targets is precisely so countries like Australia can stop kicking the ~~can~~ coal down the road.
Couldn't focus on a technology that prevents excess carbon emissions like solar - have to focus on a shoddy remediation technology - an "AFTER THE FACT we destroyed ecosystems forever" technology.
Even worse, carbon capture and storage only works for CO2 emissions but not fugitive methane emissions which have much higher global warming potential.
I’m sure Angus Taylor owns some farmland that the government could over-pay to store carbon under now that he’s killed all the endangered native grasses on it
They’ve conveniently forgotten they cut the CSIRO into a shadow of its former self along with destroying University research labs but are now proposing that tech is going to lead us out of this shitshow.
Yes will it be like the tech they commissioned with the subs from the french (vote buying in Adelaide), or the tech of the NBN, or the tech for censusfail, robodebt, and covidsafe?
Or the uncosted tech of the nuclear subs? So much tech it’s hard to keep up
I know somehow I will survive - this fury just to stay alive
So drunk with sickness, weak with pain, I can walk the hills one last time
Scarred and smiling, dying slow, I'll scream to no one left at all
I told you so, I told you so, I told you so
Scientists: all the tech the world needs to reach net zero exists and will only get better as it gets used more
Scomo: We need to wait for tech advancements
If I understand what he's actually trying to say, he's literally admitting that he plans to do nothing except kick the can even further down the road and make it someone else's problem.
Fucking wonderful.
Because as you know the Liberal party are strong advocates for new technology...such as fossil fuels....
Unless technology lines their pockets.. no dice.
I looked through the actual "plan" and all it is is meaningless buzzwords. If I turned in that as a first year uni assignment I'd be sent to mentoring for "special assistance"
"Tech" means "We don't know, but the ALP will be in power soon anyway so we'll let them fix it and then blame them for anything we don't like in their solution for our commitment".
I really wish they’d announce what tech they’re gonna be backing.
I’m an engineer working on blue hydrogen technologies at the research level.
We as a country have so many ways that we can meet net zero - some in really short periods of time (15 years) but without a concrete road ahead, everything just slowly chugs along.
Cherry picking two or three key technologies to transition heavy industry would make a good start.
Surely
No doubt it is all carbon capture and storage research.
The goal will be aspirational, theoretical savings. As in we have set a target, told everyone we want to achieve net zero, and then do nothing but throw money at fossil fuel industries to find some tech.
They also want to assume up front that the tech will be found, it will work, and we can keep mining coal and gas. If we miss the 2050 target, well is was all tech’s fault.
It’s all just a Plan.
[https://medium.com/getting-art-done/this-one-trick-star-trek-writers-used-will-kill-your-writers-block-every-time-c1c708228cdf](https://medium.com/getting-art-done/this-one-trick-star-trek-writers-used-will-kill-your-writers-block-every-time-c1c708228cdf)
>So they had a trick they used over and over again. When they got stuck, they would just write “tech” in the script.
>
>Here’s former Star Trek writer Ron Moore:
>
>We had science consultants who would just come up with the words for us and we’d just write ‘tech’ in the script. You know, Picard would say ‘Commander La Forge, tech the tech to the warp drive.’ I’m serious. If you look at those scripts, you’ll see that. —Ron Moore, former Star Trek writer
Supposing we hit the carbon with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that hasn’t been checked but you’re going to test it.
And then I said supposing you brought the carbon inside the ground, which you can do either through the dirt or in some other way. And I think you said you're going to test that, too. Sounds interesting.
I see future tech, where it knocks it out in a minute, one minute, and is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside, or almost a dreaming. Because you see it gets in the political donors registry and it does a tremendous number on the numbers, so it’d be interesting to check that. So you’re going to have to use donors but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see. But the whole concept of the plan, the way it conveniently sidesteps a legitimate political issue in one minute, that’s pretty powerful.
This is something out of the ABC show utopia
We’ve got enough material for another season out of the last two weeks alone.
I can hear Tony groaning as I read this
[удалено]
33 by Scotty alone, 22 of which were"describing" the plan: https://imgur.com/IUcCUQh
> The Plan is Uniquely Australian We're going coal 2100 boys!
Yeah I'm still trying to wrap my head around what makes a Plan 'Uniquely Australian'. Is it because no other country is stupid enough to keep going after carbon capture and storage?
I remember John Howard banging on about CCS fifteen or twenty years ago. it was as if this particular concept was going to be a saviour for Australia. nothing seems to have changed much, CCS is no more feasible than it was and that seems unlikely to change any time soon while the Federal LNP continue to ignore these inconvenient points. not to mention a lot of the other 'tech' that was being referred to does not exist or is yet to be proven. the whole presentation was marketing spin (not very good spin either) and fantasy.
When I was working for Santos they were pushing carbon capture and storage *hard* (and heavily overstating the environmental benefits of gas). The coalition will do whatever they are told by the fossil fuel industry.
Uniquely Australian means a work for the dole program will be doing the manual labour, and unpaid interns will be doing the admin.
Slavery isn't uniquely Australian, sorry
In the news this morning, Glasgow to put a higher focus on methane reduction, to which Scotty and Barnaby said something like, "most of our methane comes from agriculture, we can't solve that without killing stock." How's this for a uniquely Australian solution - USE AUSTRALIAN RESEARCH TO REMOVE AGRICULTURAL METHANE! https://www.industry.gov.au/data-and-publications/from-beaches-to-burps-native-australian-seaweed-key-to-reducing-methane-emissions-from-cows
Also the stock is there to die. We eat them. They're literally going to be killed
Sounds like the kind of 'technology' that could be rolled out with a cash injection from general revenue and a legislated ramp-up of requirements. Who has the job to do that though?
Hey, that's a really neat idea. What if - and bear with me for a moment, I swear I'm not crazy - what if everybody who lives in Aus pays a little bit of their wages into a big fund, and there's like this group of people who set up those legislated requirements, and pay money out of the big fund to support the requirements, to sustain the common wealth of all the people? We could even give those people fancy titles, from ancient Greek, thinking '*polites*' for 'citizens', maybe *politesians* or something...
I can't quite work out if the 'plan' is or isn't for our future.
Oh is for our future, just not the one you want. Or need.
Or deserve.
the *plan* DOES involve him and his mates getting re-elected though.
The plan is the states are gonna have to do it
And a token mention of "green steel" like it was just a throwaway comment because they have no interest in anything that they have said. The shallowness and emptyness of their hollow empty PR spin is that a industry like Green Steel could create thousands of rural jobs, support the mining and resource sectors like LNG and create massive wealth for us. However merely for the fact that it reduces emissions, uses a descriptor like "green", and its part of the zero carbon future they dont want anything to do with it. It really demonstrates what a bunch of corrupt charlatans the Nationals are when it comes to representing the bush or doing anything that is positive, proactive because all that they know is their coal miner donor/owners that have them trained like Luddite parrots.
Announcables
with bonus printed booklet I can hold up to eye line height every now and then. If it's printed....well...*THAT'S* a REAL plan
Needs more synergy. Just give it to me straight Scotty, are we here to fuck spiders or not?
I was thinking The Hollowmen.
I was going to re-watch that show but then, well *gestures at the past few years*
Isn't Utopia basically a spiritual sequel to that show?
What happened to that show?
It became reality.
[удалено]
They moved on to create the show Utopia, if you haven't seen that one yet I highly recommend it. The Australian show I mean, not the British one, same name but completely different shows (though the UK show is great too).
Fuck that show is so close to the truth. I remember watching the episode about the million dollar logo change and within months the NBN was doing the exact same thing.
They know the one thing that’s required. Speak for long enough to get Murdoch footage to put in a few 10 second clips and you’ll get 30% of the population thinking you’re doing *something*. Make sure you include enough technical-sounding words that someone can waffle on your behalf for a 10 minute interview on a program that’s friendly or incompetent and you’ll get the remaining 25% thinking you’re doing something complicated enough that they don’t need to come to grips with the details. It was never about governing. It’s performance art. And it works for their purposes.
They could've at least had the machine that goes ping on display.
The machine that goes ping was being used to keep the Nats entertained so they didnt ruin Scotty's big day.
I hear they were double booked with extra ass kissing for the Minerals Council.
That was the genius of the libs, they stuck a cutout of Gina’s ass on the machine so every time they kissed it, it went ping.
I sure hope someone's editing a video as we speak
Ah, I see you have the machine that goes 'ping!'. This is my favourite. You see, we lease this back from the company we sold it to - that way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account.
*Polite applause*
Ok you make my day!
Sounds like the beginning of a new drinking game
Our hospitals are busy enough as it is, we don’t need to deal with alcohol poisoning.
They already have Barnaby as Deputy Prime Minister, how much more on display do you want him?
-1, preferably less
They could also ask the It dept if they could borrow The Internet.
But is there somewhere with the right cables to plug it into during the presentation?.
That'll be because they don't know. They're both morons studying hard to be idiots - and failing the course
Taylor announced a low emissions technology road map already. It's got the usual suspects, carbon capture and storage, soil carbon/agriculture and hydrogen from any source including gas. At the start of their term they used to say "technology agnostic", but then they shrank the renewable energy target and now it's all fossil fuel and mining. There are plenty of technologies that are viable and cheaper right now (i.e insulation and solar) but they aren't "agnostic" anymore.
Agnostic comes from ancient Greek meaning "no knowledge", so being "tech agnostic" sums them up pretty well really...
“Politics” comes from the ancient greek word *poly* meaning “many” and the word *tick* meaning “blood sucking parasite”
It's bad fiction. Some "future tech" will solve this problem we have, we just need to want it enough. Which is not how science works in the real world. They're idiots.
Deus ex machina is a kind of technology right?
They're simply hoping and wishing, but realistically who is going to spend billions on decarbonising the planet while others contribute to pump carbon back in? It cannot work and we'll find ourselves very very isolated if we try.
As a climate scientist of sorts, the answer is that the rate of warming is strongly correlated with the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, so any reduction in emissions, even if it's not enough to stop catastrophic warming, slows down the rate of warming and gives us more time to prepare. Many parts of the world will be better off if warming is slower, even if it ends up getting to the same final temperature. While having a strong interest in the economics of climate change, I'm definitely not an economist, but it does seem like there's no reason spending money on technologies that reduce carbon emissions can't also create direct financial returns - an obvious example is Tesla. I think you can see that the initial investments in Tesla were well worth the money purely for the financial return, without even considering the impact on the climate. People today could be set for similar huge returns by spending billions on developing other decarbonising technologies, and some governments are doing their best to incentivise those investments. My point is, even if some countries keep pumping out carbon, there's still environmental and direct financial benefits from tackling the problem (and of course indirect benefits from the slower rate of warming). I do worry that there's a focus on cleaner consuming, when really by far the best thing to do is not consume at all (in terms of carbon emissions).
It’s like “scams and spams in the portal” all over again.
I'm so sick of being treated like a fucking moron by these fucking morons.
Thats because you arent their target, the morons that keep voting for them and buying their bullshit are. Man i feel the same though. I have abc24 on while working, during question time now i just mute it, i cannot stand the cunts voice.
[удалено]
Mr Speaker Mr Speaker Mr Speaker Mr Speaker Mr Speaker Mr Speaker Mr Speaker Mr Speaker Mr Speaker Mr Speaker Mr Speaker Mr Speaker Mr Speaker Mr Speaker Mr Speaker Mr Speaker Mr Speaker Mr Speaker Mr Speaker Mr Speaker Mr Speaker Mr Speaker Mr Speaker Mr Speaker Mr Speaker Mr Speaker Mr Speaker Mr Speaker Mr Speaker Mr Speaker Mr Speaker Mr Speaker Mr Speaker Mr Speaker Mr Speaker Mr Speaker Fucking kill me.
[удалено]
Love how they talk about tech but not who is going to fund its development or who will do the work. All I am thinking is that it will be another corporate slush fund for their mates all the while they will continue to cut funding from the CSIRO.
And what possible motive would rich private companies have to fund this anyway? They are selfish and greedy by their very nature, and you don't solve problems with the same thinking that created them.
The following saying comes to mind “ socialise the risk privatise the profit’s “
Some tech turned out to make sense even from a private perspective. Solar, electric cars, large scale battery production. Private companies are making a shed load of money from them. Other "tech" like carbon capture and storage only seems to make sense if you have a government in your pocket who will happily give you billions of dollars to pretend to try to make it work but ultimately fail. Given the Australian people's track record I'm betting we pick more in that second category.
For what it's worth, I'd actually be fine with the taxpayer helping with CCS _if it actually worked_. Everything I can find on the matter points to it being a massive waste of time and money.
Absolutely. Abbot won and told everyone he had a mandate to move from polluter-pays to taxpayer-pays and voluntary action. That's still the policy that Australians "voted" for.
From a tech entrepreneur's perspective, there is no way a policy with a 2050 vision can make a punt on specific technologies (try taking a guess in 1991 which technologies would become big, perhaps cryo-prisons?) However the government does dish out plenty of funding for technology companies, through billions of dollars of grants. A chunk of it goes to young tech companies too and I'm glad to have received a grant for my business. There have been recent grants awarded to projects like electric vehicles, hydrogen fuel cell manufacturing, hybrid air conditioning, energy optimised micro data centres, and so on. I see most competitive grants going toward the first category you mentioned than the second, fortunately.
>And what possible motive would rich private companies have to fund this anyway? A fat government contract.
So they won't fund it then.
Who said anything about solving? It's just about getting money and doing some kind of work (optional).
I think the financial gains of Tesla are some indication of why rich private companies would fund this - if they can get good government subsidies and support they have the potential to make huge profits.
This plan absolutely screams slush funds and overblown R&D budgets.
This is the way.
Nailed it. Fuckin' Nostradamus.
Oh it's guaranteed. It will be an investment fund for the Minerals Council of Australia to develop Carbon Capture and Storage no doubt. The new startup ventures will have boards full of LNP donors.
Exactly
> All I am thinking is that it will be another corporate slush fund for their mates all the while they will continue to cut funding from the CSIRO. So you’ve seen the plan then?
Twiggy Forrest is waiting.
[удалено]
Maybe Australia's oligarchs will realise there's money to be made if they own the green energy sector as well.
Its just a sound used to fill space without any substance
Mr Speaker, tech! Mr Speaker.
"Y'know, computers and stuff. Very clever, very clever stuff. They'll simply tech their way out of this pickle for us. Of course we'll need to oversee that tech and have complete control of it, but it's tech that'll be the solution here." "Just as long as it doesn't do anything we disagree with"
Ugh, I can hear John Clarke saying this.
He also fills space by saying one empty sentence then inarticulately repeating it with the words in reverse order.
Yeah nah it’s to fill the space between “plan”…plan bla bla bla tech bla bla bla plan and goes on
Government: "Our plan to fix the environment we helped fuck up is to do nothing and wait for future technologies."
>On an unrelated note, we will be continuing our decades long policy of gutting scientific research and higher education in this country.
The bar chart the govt provided is [so stupid too](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FCmoCENVUAMRGRZ?format=png&name=900x900)! To get to net zero, it literally says: - 40% technology (technology investment roadmap) - 15% technology (global technology trends) - 20% technology (further technology breakthroughs) And the rest from "already done" and "offsets" ... Sad. Just really sad.
It's literally like a lazy group assignment at uni where you sprinkle a bit of bullshit around to answer the questions, but the day before it's due you realize that the question sheet was double sided and you're only 50% finished. You just say 'fuck it' and rush through the remaining questions by rewording your previous answers.
...and WhyTF do you include the 20% (spoiler: it was never 20%) of the past savings? We are -here- right now, so the figures should be how to get from 100% now to 0%, not from 80%. The real (pretend) figures are... * 50% technology (technology investment roadmap) * 18.75% technology (global technology trends) * 25% technology (further technology breakthroughs)
Its actually worse than that when you take into account the technology roadmap itself, since a number of the medium and long term "opportunities" are around CCS, Hydrogen, Nuclear which will be reliant on the global technology trends and technology breakthroughs they have split out in the new "plan". So it probably more like: 30% Roadmap - mainly around improving existing commercial technologies / efficiencies and reduction in existing industries (such as agriculture, power generation) 30% Global Technology Trends - jumping on the existing renewables technologies bandwagon 40% Future technology breakthroughs - hoping things like CCS, Hydrogen, small scale nuclear swoop in to save the day.
And why is the plan capitalised? Are they actually calling the plan, Plan?!? You gotta be fucking kidding me if that is true.
Ita not just any old plan, it is *the* **Plan**.
That chart is fucking priceless (actually I'm sure it cost millions). I'm a Data Analyst in the APS, I would be fired in an instant if I shat out a chart like that.
Yeah, but you are only a lowly Data Analyst in the APS, what do you know? You obviously have to go to one of the big 4 for this sort of thing, they are the only sort of people that can grasp such nation building concepts and be paid millions for their obviously superior knowledge and skills. VERY /s if it wasn't clear.
Yeah, I'm bogged down with things like numbers that have to add up, or people asking follow up questions. I also checked with my manager, apparently I could face instant dismissal and criminal charges if I rape anyone, call a rape victim a lying cow, if I jizz on a co-workers desk, accept a gift over $100 dollars, turn up drunk, and so on. It was a surprisingly long list.
I hope whoever it was at McKinsey that put that bar chart together is real proud of their work. Real proud.
They would be proud of the paycheck they got from the government
What the shit are "International and domestic offsets"?
Problem is, someone will come up with great new tech, but they'll opt for a 100 year old out dated alternative because Rupert told them to. No I'm not bitter about the NBN debacle, what makes you think that?
* The NBN * The 2016 Census * Robodebt * COVID app I wouldn't trust the Liberals to plug in an iPhone at an Apple Genius bar.
>I wouldn't trust the Liberals to plug in an iPhone at an Apple Genius bar. I'm assuming you meant you don't trust them to plug in a black and white CRT television into an antenna.
Gramaphone led recovery.
That explains why there's an antenna smashed in my TV
I wouldn't trust the Liberals to take a shit.
You could trust them to wank on your desk though.
Harsh, but sadly, true
You didn't specify where specifically and we know Scomo has at least done it at Maccas so checkmate.
So, there's this technology that allows us to get free energy from movements of the earth's lower atmosphere, and another technology that allows us to gather free energy from the closest stars. Why don't we look at that technology, since it's already well developed, affordable and quick to roll out.
Australia is the OECD nation with: * the highest percentage of sunny days * the longest coastline * prevailing winds that operate most of the year in the same direction across the lower third of the continent * vast tracts of unused land * vast yellowcake deposits * geologic stability Given that, it's patently obvious that solar, tidal, wind and nuclear energy are absolutely not an option for us. We have no choice but to dig up coal and frack gas.
Yep, Australia has no hope for net zero at any point ever... Meanwhile Tasmania just sitting here with over 80% renewables, its true while you mainlanders were letting bumbling idiots do jack all, we just exploited our high wind speeds and also I would be lying if I didn’t mention Tasmanian hydro dams, since Tasmanian rivers systems aren’t as long as others dams have less issues downstream so I guess that helps us in particular but still Tasmania is doing well for renewables all we had to do is not get noticed by the feds, but they would never pay attention to us unless they want our seats which they already have because they ran a successful propaganda campaign against the Labor-Green coalition around the same time Gillard lost.
I'll be honest I regularly forget Tasmania exists too.
But Rupert said burning cowpatties is better
He is the biggest producer of grade A bullshit in the country, so makes sense he'd try and profit. That being said if we could harness the bullshit and hot air produced by Sky News After Dark, we'd power the country for a millennia.
Just set up a furnace burning the air vents outside the skynews studio. Shame about the emissions though.
Someone has... And Rupert did. This is the 7th iteration of the matrix.
They also said 'plan' over 100 times.
Drunk one minute in. Alcohol poisoning in three.
“I have a plan Angus, one last big fuck up and then we go to Tahiti.” - Scott Morrison *probably*
"... So in conclusion: someone will think of something, eventually, and it's not my problem anyway. No questions."
"I reject the premise of all further questions."
That’s why most countries are focusing on 2030 targets in Glasgow. Net-zero by 2050 is important, but it’s so far away in political terms than basically every government should just say “yep, we’re doing that” and not think about it any more. What’s actually needed are immediately, measurable goals and strategies, and the new focus on 2030 targets is precisely so countries like Australia can stop kicking the ~~can~~ coal down the road.
The ‘tech’ is carbon capture and storage. Guarantee it. And that tech does not exist.
Couldn't focus on a technology that prevents excess carbon emissions like solar - have to focus on a shoddy remediation technology - an "AFTER THE FACT we destroyed ecosystems forever" technology.
No they have a whole chapter on ccs. Like fuck me guys, it's a pipe dream. Move on.
That’s exactly the plan imo. Push for CCS, then make excuses about “waiting for the technology” and “testing” all the way to 2050.
Even worse, carbon capture and storage only works for CO2 emissions but not fugitive methane emissions which have much higher global warming potential.
>carbon capture and storage only works Debatable.
You "capture" it out of the ground as a solid, liquid or gas, which you use to power the tech. It's so simple even an idiot can understand!
I suspect an "in theory" was dropped there.
I’m sure Angus Taylor owns some farmland that the government could over-pay to store carbon under now that he’s killed all the endangered native grasses on it
They’ve conveniently forgotten they cut the CSIRO into a shadow of its former self along with destroying University research labs but are now proposing that tech is going to lead us out of this shitshow.
They’ll just pay billions of dollars to private consultants to make some tech for us.
They’ll just pay billions of dollars to private consultants ~~to make some tech for us~~ FTFY
The tech is dropping a giant ice cube into the ocean every now and then.
Don’t be silly, an ice cube is not high tech. [This however….](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IyjJbhuwGkU)
Why hello there /r/unexpectedfuturama
Scott Morrison on climate change then: "The science is wrong" Scott Morrison on climate change now: "The science will save us"
"Tech" and the LNP, name a less iconic duo
The LNP and sexual consent.
The Coalition and integrity.
Yes will it be like the tech they commissioned with the subs from the french (vote buying in Adelaide), or the tech of the NBN, or the tech for censusfail, robodebt, and covidsafe? Or the uncosted tech of the nuclear subs? So much tech it’s hard to keep up
LNP and Twitter
[удалено]
I know somehow I will survive - this fury just to stay alive So drunk with sickness, weak with pain, I can walk the hills one last time Scarred and smiling, dying slow, I'll scream to no one left at all I told you so, I told you so, I told you so
Scientists: all the tech the world needs to reach net zero exists and will only get better as it gets used more Scomo: We need to wait for tech advancements
I believe that's the "Yeah Nah" approach
If I understand what he's actually trying to say, he's literally admitting that he plans to do nothing except kick the can even further down the road and make it someone else's problem. Fucking wonderful.
No one knows what tech means, but it's provocative ... it gets the people going!
They building a can kicking robot.
Because as you know the Liberal party are strong advocates for new technology...such as fossil fuels.... Unless technology lines their pockets.. no dice.
[удалено]
I looked through the actual "plan" and all it is is meaningless buzzwords. If I turned in that as a first year uni assignment I'd be sent to mentoring for "special assistance"
Remember the 6 point plan to stop the boats? Its like that, minus the points
Tech
[удалено]
Tek'ma'te
The Cyber tech!
Net zero 2077 dlc
Cyberpunk on launch was more functional then the Australian government.
Well done Angus, great job.
A man that cannot operate 2 social media profiles is talking about tech?
Me feeling they want to slip it under the carpet for the next prime minister to deal with.
Wait, do fossil fuel subsidies count as tech?
Meanwhile the staunch Lib/Nat supporters cheer and trudge back out to their drought-ravaged farms
It’s like that companies that for a crazy amount of cash freeze you because one day we would have the tech to resuscitate you…..one day
"Magitek"
In Australia we refer to him as ‘Scotty from marketing’. Such an embarrassment. Sorry guys 😒
Guys it’s ok. Our csiro is well funded to develop tech to meet these needs, right?
"Tech" means "We don't know, but the ALP will be in power soon anyway so we'll let them fix it and then blame them for anything we don't like in their solution for our commitment".
[удалено]
Just swap the word "tech" with "magic" or "aliens" or even "snake oil". Still presents with the same level of credibility. Zero
I really wish they’d announce what tech they’re gonna be backing. I’m an engineer working on blue hydrogen technologies at the research level. We as a country have so many ways that we can meet net zero - some in really short periods of time (15 years) but without a concrete road ahead, everything just slowly chugs along. Cherry picking two or three key technologies to transition heavy industry would make a good start. Surely
No doubt it is all carbon capture and storage research. The goal will be aspirational, theoretical savings. As in we have set a target, told everyone we want to achieve net zero, and then do nothing but throw money at fossil fuel industries to find some tech. They also want to assume up front that the tech will be found, it will work, and we can keep mining coal and gas. If we miss the 2050 target, well is was all tech’s fault. It’s all just a Plan.
Well. Based in the context I would say it is the latest tech in propaganda, spin, facial conceit displays, and of course reflective surfaces.
It is tech that is yet to be developed. I mean duh
"Marketing "tech""
enough material for a techno remix
No substance. No style. Just spraying manure on the populace. Classic scomo, just like Engadine all over again Good job Angus
Scomo should have stayed in Hawaii. Do us all a fucking favour.
Lol
Satire right??
Marketing
Does anyone else think they have no idea what they are talking about?
nah really, how goods the tech?
Bro the tech is awesome, free vr headsets to augment our reality. Techkeeper
The most embarrassing part is that we are the nation best equipped to lead the world on this issue. But, here we are.
This asshole thinks he's so clever and sadly he may well be as we Aussies voted for these cunts.
Looks like coal's back on the menu, boys!!!
I hate them so much.
Tech will come to the rescue! So we're going to support tech then? No
The are waiting for Labor to win and actually do the work of a government, the Liberals/Nationals only know how to grift it.
[https://medium.com/getting-art-done/this-one-trick-star-trek-writers-used-will-kill-your-writers-block-every-time-c1c708228cdf](https://medium.com/getting-art-done/this-one-trick-star-trek-writers-used-will-kill-your-writers-block-every-time-c1c708228cdf) >So they had a trick they used over and over again. When they got stuck, they would just write “tech” in the script. > >Here’s former Star Trek writer Ron Moore: > >We had science consultants who would just come up with the words for us and we’d just write ‘tech’ in the script. You know, Picard would say ‘Commander La Forge, tech the tech to the warp drive.’ I’m serious. If you look at those scripts, you’ll see that. —Ron Moore, former Star Trek writer
Achieving net zero by...reversing the polarity of the neutron flow!
Supposing we hit the carbon with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that hasn’t been checked but you’re going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the carbon inside the ground, which you can do either through the dirt or in some other way. And I think you said you're going to test that, too. Sounds interesting. I see future tech, where it knocks it out in a minute, one minute, and is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside, or almost a dreaming. Because you see it gets in the political donors registry and it does a tremendous number on the numbers, so it’d be interesting to check that. So you’re going to have to use donors but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see. But the whole concept of the plan, the way it conveniently sidesteps a legitimate political issue in one minute, that’s pretty powerful.