It's shady that twice now the Feds have announced WA's zero cases before McGowan has to diminish his moment in the spotlight
-
LIVE: Geelong v Brisbane Lions - 7:30PM Sat
Squiggle tips Cats at 54% chance -- What's your tip? -- Teams on Thurs »
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Prelim Finals
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round SF Winner: And_ROOS
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 3 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Opinion Politics (warning, may contain political views you disagree with)
- Thread starter Cesoir
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
I think your pretty decent poster postman and fairly switched on (obviously RW)but I always remember you stating you d happily vote for trump (in last election) if you were US citizen.... be interested to know if you still hold that view now?
You mean like our own liberal party/system where josh fraudenberg couldn’t do with regards to acknowledging libs stimulus during Covid lockdown was fundamentally no different to labour’s stimulus package given out during GFC which the pontificating neo political Libs ragged on relentlessly snd still did right up till .. u guessed it they realised they had to introduce their own “social “ stimulus ??
Interview with Leigh Sales, 7.30, ABC | Treasury Ministers
LEIGH SALES: Treasurer, thank you very much for racing up from the House. JOSH FRYDENBERG: Nice to be with you Leigh. LEIGH SALES:
Taylor
Community Leader
- Moderator
- #2,104
If ever there was a time for people to realise that politicians are servants, not leaders - it's now.You mean like our own liberal party/system where josh fraudenberg couldn’t do with regards to acknowledging libs stimulus during Covid lockdown was fundamentally no different to labour’s stimulus package given out during GFC which the pontificating neo political Libs ragged on relentlessly snd still did right up till .. u guessed it they realised they had to introduce their own “social “ stimulus ??
Interview with Leigh Sales, 7.30, ABC | Treasury Ministers
LEIGH SALES: Treasurer, thank you very much for racing up from the House. JOSH FRYDENBERG: Nice to be with you Leigh. LEIGH SALES:ministers.treasury.gov.au
Except it's not highly speculative therapeutics as Prof Clancy's summary shows. IVM, Zn and antibiotics are available in Australia and not in short supply and anyone who is diagnosed can receive them from a Dr. You're making an incorrect assumption that IVM, which was originally researched and recommended by an Australian as you should know, is not recommended by the vast majority of medical professionals.
From the recent US congressional hearing convened by Rep Johnson, there was evidence given of 50 studies, including 35 peer reviewed and RCTs of over 80 - 100% effectiveness of IVM +Zn+antibiotics in treating COVID, reducing hospitalisations and death
They are also available in other countries over the counter and India produce and sell COVID combined packets of IVM, Zn and antibiotic for $2.64. HCQ was controversially banned in Qland and Vic, relying on discredited or retracted studies and Prof Clancy covers peer reviewed studies that proved it's safety and effectiveness.
Prof Clancy pointed out many problems with the three current vaccines in circulation, highlighting their own data (from the paucity that's been published) shows limited effectiveness and possible serious adverse effects that haven't been properly tested for. His whole conclusion is based on the premise that vaccines will not be the way forward out of COVID lockdowns, boarder closures and travel restrictions because of this, but will be an adjunct to widely available, safe and effective therapeutics.
Thank you - kind of - I have been fairly consistent in being all over the center politically for at least the last decade. I don't know how anything in this debate (COVID) would or should have anything to do with Right/C/Left.
I am not sure if I said I would happily vote for Trump. If you can find the quote then I will willingly reply to that. Perhaps I did but my stance was and is the following: (perhaps previously I didn't communicate it well? Who knows)
I would have voted for Obama in 08' (I was actually in the states and was very excited by his then unifying approach, which changed dramatically leading up to 12). By 12 I wouldn't have voted for either party. 16 I would have voted for Trump. 2020 democrats are so extreme left that I couldn't vote for them, nor would I now. Biden is not strong enough, nor in my opinion (which doesn't mean much) is he durable enough to hold off the power base of the party which more and more seems to be AOC and others. Does that make me RW? My thoughts are that the Dems, led by Obama went way left and left me behind. I had never previously or since been as encouraged as I was when Obama was elected.
If my vote was purely about personalities, while I think that both Biden and trump are rubbish and have a lot of major issues, I would not have voted. I fear (I hope wrongly, so no point going at me for this one as if you are correct I will be very happy) that there will be a stronger push left and Socialism has and will never work. It is a scourge on every system that has implemented it and has had devastating results. So I would vote against that again even if the option was someone as bad as Trump.
My question for you: Why is a discussion about COVID where I state that it shouldn't be partisan as it is a flu/pandemic/emergency is if I said I would or wouldn't vote for Trump important?
Given the way, the media operate - sensationalist around their opposition (Fox - against Dems, CNN, MSNBC, ABC against GOP) I find it far more useful to discuss policy rather than personality. I read a fair bit of Substack these days.
For example - People here have made claims about Scomo that are deplorable based on a handshake without ever knowing the guy because... he is a Liberal. I am sure people think the same of McGowen or have done the same for Rudd etc. I don't think any of it is helpful. For example the comments here about the bloke (Zac?) wearing the mask with the tips for exercise etc. It didn't affect me much at all, but the strength of some comments make little sense to me outside of partisanship. I have met Mark M three times. The first time as a student and then two more times since. Two of the times he was a nice guy and the third he came across as a jerk. Does that mean he is a jerk or there is an underlying nefarious or sinister reason behind his rudeness? I don't think so. He was probably very busy or under stress or may have just been having a rotten day. At the end of the day, he was still nice 2/3 occasions. Does that make him a saint? No, he is a professional who I am sure feels he is doing his best to serve people. I will endeavour to assesss his policy and comments based on their substance rather than a tribal need to win. After all - if he turns into the greatest premier in WA's history it will be good for us all... even then your definition of what is great may differ to mine... But I hope I am being clear?
I would rather discuss what they are or are not doing. Some of it will matter far less to me than you or vice versa. That is fine. It should be ok for me to care less about something than you without it being a stain against my character and vice versa. Most of all on here and in my personal life I advocate robust discussion that should lead to strong probing and uncomfortable questions. those conversations cannot happen if the most important thing about the person you are talking too is a label surrounding a political leaning/ideology. I would rather the conversation happen on its merits. That type of conversation is only possible if we think well of the other participant. Which is impossible if we label them a Bigot, racist, (insert desired) phobe etc with no proof other than a feeling of their sinister intent based upon our interpretation of their political ideology.
I don't think any of that makes me RW. It may - personally I have met some amazing people who deeply care about their community on both the right and left.
I am sure there are some here who will not read all I just wrote but who instead will come at me regarding the above voting point where I hope I am clear in saying I think voting is less about the person at the top and more about the party and policies down the ticket. There is some evidence that was representative of people who voted in the 20 election. As it seems many voted Biden top of ticket and GOP down the ballot.
Anyway - back to COVID and for me personally back to looking after the wife and baby.
Snuffaluphagus
Brownlow Medallist
- Sep 10, 2015
- 24,285
- 83,914
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Thank you everyone for discussing calmly and with civility despite the fact there are clearly very different views on here.
If you think 2020 Democrats are extreme left wing, that is because of where you are standing. From the viewpoint of the extreme right, everyone appears to be left wing. The RW media has painted the “Squad” and Bernie Sanders (a minority of the party) as socialists when they are advocating for conditions that Australians already have - universal Health care and an acceptable minium wage. They are also advocating for a Green new deal, which is a way of reducing carbon emissions without having a collapsing economy. Unless you are a climate change denier, you would understand that we need to reduce coal, oil and gas emissions. If you are a climate change denier, you should find another planet and duck off to that one.
If you think Trump’s presidency was anything but a total disaster to the world and to his nation, you have been damaged in the the way you view the world.
Anyone who excuses the racist, bigoted, dishonest and dangerous actions of the Trump era has jumped on board with his ideology - not as much as the QAnon and Proud Boys, but they are on the same bandwagon. I could never understand how the fascists came into power in Europe in the thirties. It’s pretty clear from Trump’s time that people know that a leader is lying (and reject what they feel too uncomfortable with), but accept a lot of the stuff that they should feel uncomfortable with. And as a result the unacceptable becomes acceptable. And the fascist ideology becomes more extreme.
Apologies for the length of reply - I am slightly surprised that we are stuck in the RW/LW stuff as it isn't important to the lockdown debate. If you want to skip to the bottom I will ask all the same pertinent questions that seem to be ignored in favor of partisan garbage.
_____________________________________________________________________________
So if I disagree with the Green New Deal I am a denier and shouldn't live on earth? I strongly disagree with the Green New Deal or at least many aspects of it. It may have been updated recently but the original version I read on AOC's site was radical and would have terrible effects on people. Do I agree that climate change needs to be taken seriously? yes. Do I think there are better solutions than the Green New Deal? yes. How is that radical or bad? How does that qualify me as a horrible person? Happy for you to link to the updated version so I can take a look. I think there are amazing new companies that are starting to answer some problems that will help us with climate change. I also think that not every suggestion made is good. For example, I love Tesla. I have driven them for long periods and love them. Do I think that going all electric solves problems? Potentially. I say that because the way we produce electricity is not great for the environment. Do I think if we can solve production through avenues, not coal that going electric will be better than what we have now - probably.
If you have two doctors that agree with a diagnosis but not a treatment plan, does that make one doctor not worthy of living? We both agree that climate change is a problem. We disagree with the treatment plan. Why can we not have that discussion without the personal attacks?
I am involved in a software development company - the best dev teams have robust in depth discussions about the best way to solve a problem regularly. Does it make one guy evil if he is passionate about python and another a saint or morally right if she prefers C#?
______________________________________________________________________________
Instead of calling me extreme RW how about, we look at the policies:
Do you think the policies are the same or have gone further left since Obama?
AOC and Bernie have proudly said they are Socialist. Are they incorrect in labels they have given themselves?
They are not only for universal health care and minimum wage. What else are they for? Unlimited immigration, the abolition of immigration enforcement. Free health care for all even illegal immigrants. More government control and regulation. They have seriously discussed abolishing private health care. I am not sure if Biden agrees with that, his answers that I heard were not very clear on the matter. Bernie and others definitely want to abolish private insurance.
From my memory and I may be wrong Clem - when asked at the Dems debates - all candidates raised their hands and said they backed all these policies. Or maybe there was one of the 16 (was it 16 - there were a lot) that didn't step forward or raise their hands.
In 08 Obama didn't back all of these policies. He backed increased legal immigration, a position I agree with. He proposed Obama Care and said everyone would keep their doctor - remember that? He didn't say free health care for all. Which we don't have. We have levels here. Which mean that if you don't have health insurance you are on massive wait lists. It is eventual free but people are in pain for years waiting for certain procedures. Many don't live to get them. I am dealing with this at the moment. So saying they are advocating for what we have here is not quite correct. They want what we have and more.
Re: Trump presidency being a total disaster - Here are a few things surely everyone can agree were good even if you hate the guy. No new wars. First president in decades not to start a new war. End of critical race theory being taught - massive positive. The peace deals in the middle east. I am not sure what about those things could be horrible or a total disaster for the world or the US.
I won't talk about Trump anymore because he should now be irrelevant... and he has nothing to do with the lockdown in WA now. Some questions for you Clem:
Do you think that every conservative is a damaged person?
Do you think that any person who sees themselves as a libertarian but not Left is damaged?
________________
COVID chat as was the original purpose:
My previous questions still apply - how is Trump important or L/C/R in the discussion on COVID. Surely we have to be able to admit that as no one is perfect no political wing or party will be perfect. Therefore how they deal with something shouldn't be viewed through a partisan lens but on a case by case basis?
I think asking questions about what the plan is for the next 2-3 years are relevant. Do we keep locking down?
What happens to people who lose businesses and can't pay their mortgage due to a Gov enforced lockdown? Does the Gov pay the mortgage? How are they cared for or are they collateral damage?
Most indigenous programs - the best ones out in rural communities have shut down completely or partially for 12 months (almost). At what point is the cost to those communities, especially the children more than the potential damage the virus can cause? I am not making statements here so please don't come at me but at the question.
Health care - elective surgery - health checks (breast screening, skin cancer etc all reduced during this time) - at what point are we causing more harm through lock downs? Is there a plan for the most vulnerable in society during lockdowns?
Management at scale is bloody hard. I think asking these questions should not be seen as an attack on any side of politics but as essential to the community long term.
As mentioned WHO came out in October (I think?) and said that lockdowns were not sustainable do to broader health and social impact - they didn't rule them our completely however. So surely it should be discussed robustly without the partisan BS and personal attacks?
Anyway - I won't be around here for a while as we are hosting a family who lost their home as of tonight. Wish us luck!
Hoping to enjoy Freo smash the eagles this week - or next or sometime soon!
No I didn’t say that. Nor did I mean it. Stop getting offended by things that weren’t said. If you continue to deny climate change with the overwhelming evidence of its existence and cause, then you can flick off to another planet, as far as I’m concerned. From what you said subsequently, this does not apply to you. The Green New Deal has aspects that Biden has already indicated he is willing to implement. If you disagree with the method that’s fine. I’m pretty sure not all aspects of the GND will be implemented and I wouldn’t want them to, either.
I now realise AOC has on occasion described herself as a democratic socialist. This doesn’t mean she is like an East German. Her policies align more with Scandinavian countries. As I said, many of the policies she has promoted would be looked at as sensible by Australians
- Medicare for all - replacing employer medical benefits which mean many Americans are uninsured and don’t receive medical care. The private health system is not comparable to the Australian one.
- Ending privatisation of prisons
- Guaranteed family leave
- Renewable energy sources (open on nuclear power)
- Reverse tax cuts for billionaires
- Gun control
I don’t see that these policies are particularly left leaning. I would call them middle of the road.
No new wars? Did you see what happened on Jan 6?
End of critical race theory being taught is a great achievement? really?
Peace deals in Middle East are limited but encouraging.
Rise of white supremacy movements and extremist terrorist groups
Increase of overt racism and violent events
Hundreds of thousands dying from CoVid-19 as a direct result of Trumpian denial and mismanagement.
Disintegration of American political system
Increased disparity between rich and poor
Reduced protection of environment including abolishing protections that have stood for 60 years or more.
Separation of families and incarceration of children without trial.
Record numbers of school shootings
Record levels of corruption
Abandonment of science and truth
Attempted disenfranchisement of millions of Americans.
Claiming that Trump did some good things as a way of avoiding the fact that he did so many bad things is appalling. It’s like saying that Mussolini was a good leader because he got the trains running on time, while ignoring the murders and genocide.
Trump is definitively the worst president in the history of the United States. To have voted for him is an indictment on anyone. So yes, conservatives have diminished themselves by doing so, in the same way that Southern Democrats diminished themselves during after the Civil War.
The discussion of L/C/R is fine as long as you don’t accuse parties of being too left wing - bit hypocritical to complain when I suggest that it’s more a case of where you are standing.
There will be a programme of immunisations against CoVid-19 in the next few months. That will make things different.
Short, sharp lockdowns lasting for a week are much more preferable than the alternative, which would involve terrible health consequences and a lack of economic activity.
I’m happy with the proposed new restrictions post Friday night other than the mask wearing which is still too strong but I also think the authority’s will be a bit more relaxed with their policing. Crowded areas like shops and shopping centres and public transport is understandable but out in the open air is just bullshit.
I hate working from home so will be looking forward heading back Monday. We're a small office though so I doubt anyone will bother with wearing a mask in the office.
It’s gone from a hard lock down to a lock down well done Sneakers.
- Jul 20, 2014
- 8,194
- 18,415
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Oh good, another poster that thinks there's no alternate options and if we don't lock down each time there's a single case we'll have health and economic catastrophe. You lot have multiplied faster than the virus.
The problem may be he has backed himself so far into one corner with his rhetoric, he can't back down now and we are all going to suffer the consequences. Our only hope seems to be a combination of his inevitable re-election and the arrival of the vaccine will somehow allow him the wriggle room to change course, he must know this idiocy can't continue, he's a smart guy
- Jul 20, 2014
- 8,194
- 18,415
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
If you don't have to wear a mask for vigorous outdoor exercise, I assume we can start full unrestricted training again?
I am talking specifically corona virus with spike proteins. My point was makes it easier to understand when applied to mRNA vaccines that are modeled on the spike protein. A different strain may not have the same spike protein and not produce antibodies at all if injected into a human, where if it was only a different variant the vaccine would have the same protective effect. How is that hard to understand when we're talking about corona virus?
The analysis of deaths from COVID was looking at the geographic pattern of cases and deaths and comparing them to previous severe flus or other corona virus or MERS. It suggested other reasons based on this analysis why there has been a spike in deaths since last December. There is no evidence that it's 70% more infectious and relying on a single study from Imperial College who are the laughing stock of the scientific world saying it has an R value of between 0.4 and 0.7.
It doesn't match the observational data in Perth when the guard did not infect any of his three housemates or 150 close contact or 30000+ people in the same areas.
The variant — officially known at VUI-202012/01 or lineage B117 — is not thought to be more deadly or cause more severe illness.
But over time, a variant that infects more people will inevitably drive up rates of infection, hospitalisations and death, potentially posing a significant threat to countries already struggling to contain COVID-19.
it's very difficult to work out exactly how much more contagious the new variant is, said medical microbiologist and genomics specialist Norelle Sherry.
"The problem with trying to estimate the transmission value is that we can't do controlled lab studies to work out how much the increase in transmission is due to the virus, versus how much it's due to social factors … things like the mobility of people, how well they're adhering to lockdowns, whether schools are open," said Dr Sherry from The Doherty Institute.
"We have to rely on our observations of what's happening in the UK."
A single study in pre print from researchers at Imperial College London found the new variant increased the virus's reproduction or R number — the average number of people an infected person infects — by between 0.4 and 0.7, said Professor Holmes. https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/...issible-is-new-uk-covid-variant-b117/13053548
You talked about herd immunity only coming from contracting SARS CoV 2, but that is incorrect. Research shows cross immunity from specific T cells responses from the four common coronavirus colds (OC43, HKU1, 229E and NL63), SARS CoV 1 and MERS, all from the same Coronaviridae know to infect humans.
Professor Clancy has no political affiliations and doesn't know Craig Kelly. In his interview with Liam Bartlett this morning says IVM and HCQ are of significant benefit in treating COVID, with an 80% reduction in serious effect or deaths when used early. He says anyone that anyone that doesn't accept that either doesn't know the data or doesn't understand it.
It seems you've let your political views prevent you from accepting safe and effective therapeutics in treating and preventing COVID deaths.
Last edited:
Still have to wear a mask in gyms or treadmill, and while community sport is restricted to 150 players spectators and officials, can't see anything on training numbers.
Schools have mandatory mask rule applying to all school staff and secondary students.
- Dec 26, 2010
- 5,647
- 7,461
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Matildas
I am talking specifically corona virus with spike proteins. My point was makes it easier to understand when applied to mRNA vaccines that are modeled on the spike protein. A different strain may not have the same spike protein and not produce antibodies at all if injected into a human, where if it was only a different variant the vaccine would have the same protective effect. How is that hard to understand when we're talking about corona virus?
The analysis of deaths from COVID was looking at the geographic pattern of cases and deaths and comparing them to previous severe flus or other corona virus or MERS. It suggested other reasons based on this analysis why there has been a spike in deaths since last December. There is no evidence that it's 70% more infectious and relying on a single study from Imperial College who are the laughing stock of the scientific world saying it has an R value of between 0.4 and 0.7.
It doesn't match the observational data in Perth when the guard did not infect any of his three housemates or 150 close contact or 30000+ people in the same areas.
The variant — officially known at VUI-202012/01 or lineage B117 — is not thought to be more deadly or cause more severe illness.
But over time, a variant that infects more people will inevitably drive up rates of infection, hospitalisations and death, potentially posing a significant threat to countries already struggling to contain COVID-19.
it's very difficult to work out exactly how much more contagious the new variant is, said medical microbiologist and genomics specialist Norelle Sherry.
"The problem with trying to estimate the transmission value is that we can't do controlled lab studies to work out how much the increase in transmission is due to the virus, versus how much it's due to social factors … things like the mobility of people, how well they're adhering to lockdowns, whether schools are open," said Dr Sherry from The Doherty Institute.
"We have to rely on our observations of what's happening in the UK."
A single study in pre print from researchers at Imperial College London found the new variant increased the virus's reproduction or R number — the average number of people an infected person infects — by between 0.4 and 0.7, said Professor Holmes. https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/...issible-is-new-uk-covid-variant-b117/13053548
You talked about herd immunity only coming from contracting SARS CoV 2, but that is incorrect. Research shows cross immunity from specific T cells responses from the four common coronavirus colds (OC43, HKU1, 229E and NL63), SARS CoV 1 and MERS, all from the same Coronaviridae know to infect humans.
Professor Clancy has no political affiliations and doesn't know Craig Kelly. In his interview with Liam Bartlett this morning says IVM and HCQ are of significant benefit in treating COVID, with an 80% reduction in serious effect or deaths when used early. He says anyone that anyone that doesn't accept that either doesn't know the data or doesn't understand it.
It seems you've let your political views prevent you from accepting safe and effective therapeutics in treating and preventing COVID deaths.
The interviewer doesn't ask Professor Clancy whether he's actually treated anyone with COVID with hydroxychloroquine. He just cites studies from other countries where they have been using it - and for other diseases.
In the interview he gave with Quadrant magazine, he quite clearly stated that he thought the two drugs he's talking about were effective only with a vaccine. Kelly has been spruiking hydroxychloroquine before there was a vaccine.
The other thing that bothers me (apart from the right-wing reputation of Quadrant magazine) is he says he's someone who says he wants to keep out of politics but twice in that interview without being prompted by interviewer in a question he makes reference to wanting the state borders opened.
Anyway, Newcastle University has found the need to release a media statement about the Professor here:
In response to debate around COVID-19 treatment / Featured news / Newsroom / The University of Newcastle, Australia
Last edited:
Taylor
Community Leader
- Moderator
- #2,121
The climate debate is an interesting one.
It's currently at the point where it's used as a political tool in truest sense of the word, action is promised at election time and it's either implemented or it isn't but there isn't actually a goal of resolving the issue - since the action is never sold as a solution, always as a measure for more time, so it can be used at the next election and the one after and the one after.
But I think the governments are actually getting scared with how much traction it's getting in the general public, how much desire for action is simmering away that might require them to make tough choices that still won't resolve the issue but will cause serious harm to their nation's economies - which the opposition that currently says enough isn't being done will then blame the government of the time for.
The dialogue around it is always "more needs to be done", "we aren't doing enough", "better to do anything than nothing" and the like.
Eventually someone will say; "give us the solution, put the plan that will fix this forever on the table and lets do that"
Which leads to the most awkward point of the entire debate that neither side wants to fall into, can anything be done to fix it? Because if that isn't achievable at all then we shouldn't be wasting energy (pun!) on token gestures to buy votes, we need to start heavily investing in enclosed vertical farming etc. Let's assume there is a solution and it can be fixed with a change of lifestyle, that also needs to be quantified and the costs attached to it for us to make that decision. The pandemic reduced emissions by 17%.
The current plan is to maintain a 1.5 degree increase by having no net emissions by 2050. The cynic in me feels like that is a very convenient point as there are not going to be many people currently in politics still working in 30 years, they can push the issue back and point at their commitment to end the discussion and debate, cutting the knees out from the opposition seeking to use it as a political tool. But does it achieve anything other than winning votes?
My solution? I think we need to build a production line that farms bulk seaweed, or otherwise fast growing CO2 consuming organic matter, then throw that into solar powered pyrolysis reactors which will strip away the carbon and stabalise it into charcoal, then we bury it. If we need it to be more efficient then the off gassing from the pyrolysis process can be captured.
I've also been reading some interesting journals on the water/nutrient retaining properties of charcoal in soil, which could mean Australia can enrich the possible farming lands.
Given how many nations are signing up to have net zero emissions by 2050, and there being over 40,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions a year - then we might be able to make quite an industry from offsetting the entire planet's emissions at their expense. Carbon taxes across the planet are about $100 per tonne. So that industry could be worth $4,000,000,000,000 a year to us. Approximately twice the current total value of our entire economy.
Now the ugly numbers. Carbon capture through pyrolysis yields conservatively 25% stabilised carbon. We need to push 160 billion tonnes of material into the reactors every year to secure the carbon from them to match the emissions. That's 438 million tonnes a day - 18.25 million tonnes per hour.
This log weighs 15.5t
We would need to feed almost 1.2 million of these into the reactors every hour all day, every day.
I do believe the solution is technological, but clearly we aren't there yet.
It's currently at the point where it's used as a political tool in truest sense of the word, action is promised at election time and it's either implemented or it isn't but there isn't actually a goal of resolving the issue - since the action is never sold as a solution, always as a measure for more time, so it can be used at the next election and the one after and the one after.
But I think the governments are actually getting scared with how much traction it's getting in the general public, how much desire for action is simmering away that might require them to make tough choices that still won't resolve the issue but will cause serious harm to their nation's economies - which the opposition that currently says enough isn't being done will then blame the government of the time for.
The dialogue around it is always "more needs to be done", "we aren't doing enough", "better to do anything than nothing" and the like.
Eventually someone will say; "give us the solution, put the plan that will fix this forever on the table and lets do that"
Which leads to the most awkward point of the entire debate that neither side wants to fall into, can anything be done to fix it? Because if that isn't achievable at all then we shouldn't be wasting energy (pun!) on token gestures to buy votes, we need to start heavily investing in enclosed vertical farming etc. Let's assume there is a solution and it can be fixed with a change of lifestyle, that also needs to be quantified and the costs attached to it for us to make that decision. The pandemic reduced emissions by 17%.
The current plan is to maintain a 1.5 degree increase by having no net emissions by 2050. The cynic in me feels like that is a very convenient point as there are not going to be many people currently in politics still working in 30 years, they can push the issue back and point at their commitment to end the discussion and debate, cutting the knees out from the opposition seeking to use it as a political tool. But does it achieve anything other than winning votes?
My solution? I think we need to build a production line that farms bulk seaweed, or otherwise fast growing CO2 consuming organic matter, then throw that into solar powered pyrolysis reactors which will strip away the carbon and stabalise it into charcoal, then we bury it. If we need it to be more efficient then the off gassing from the pyrolysis process can be captured.
I've also been reading some interesting journals on the water/nutrient retaining properties of charcoal in soil, which could mean Australia can enrich the possible farming lands.
Given how many nations are signing up to have net zero emissions by 2050, and there being over 40,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions a year - then we might be able to make quite an industry from offsetting the entire planet's emissions at their expense. Carbon taxes across the planet are about $100 per tonne. So that industry could be worth $4,000,000,000,000 a year to us. Approximately twice the current total value of our entire economy.
Now the ugly numbers. Carbon capture through pyrolysis yields conservatively 25% stabilised carbon. We need to push 160 billion tonnes of material into the reactors every year to secure the carbon from them to match the emissions. That's 438 million tonnes a day - 18.25 million tonnes per hour.
This log weighs 15.5t
We would need to feed almost 1.2 million of these into the reactors every hour all day, every day.
I do believe the solution is technological, but clearly we aren't there yet.
Taylor
Community Leader
- Moderator
- #2,124
I think nuclear power is the best reliable and zero emission power available. Especially if it can be delivered in modular, factory built containers. The issue at the moment is that the power plants housing reactors are built insitu which takes time and costs a lot of money, so although the fuel to power cost is miles ahead of the likes of natural gas and way ahead of coal it still takes a long time for that cost to return table to flip the nuclear plant into the black.
If mass produced standardised nuclear reactors could be manufactured here then we would be able to reduce the cost, have zero emissions and maintain reliable power available for everyone without changing the way the current systems work - it would directly replace coal burning power, you could build them right next door.
There is the question of nuclear waste material which I believe for a person's entire lifetime of power is the size of a can of coke. There are areas of Australia that are away from cyclones and geologically stable enough that we could build a huge bunker and store that material away forever.
Then when fusion power, also nuclear, becomes available to similarly mass produce then we replace the fission power plants with those and there is even less waste, even more power and the fuel source is even more abundant.
I worked out the cost of using renewables with batteries to balance out the delivery, with a reasonable safety margin and purely for just Victoria's usage - it came to half a trillion dollars of infrastructure required. I believe we could replace all the power plants in Australia with nuclear for the same price. I'm not quite remembering the figures clearly but it was something in that ball park.
On occasion? It's literally on her website in the about section. Here are some of the things AOC has prepossed.
- Defunding the police
- Closing all federal prisons
- Abolishing ICE, the CBP, and the DEA
- Repealing federal laws that criminalize border entry
- Instituting reparations for “victims of mass criminalization,” including prostitution
- Abolishing gang databases
- Eliminating basic school safety measures like SROs
- Status
