Is Australia on a Highway to Climate Hell? | Joelle Gergis & Polly Hemming
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 чер 2024
- Australia is in peril. Do we truly grasp the impact of a warming planet - in particular, what it will mean for our sunburnt country?
Polly Hemming speaks to Dr Joëlle Gergis about her new Quarterly Essay, 'Highway to Hell', which unpacks the Australian government’s climate policy inertia and visualises the impact of a changing climate on our cities and coastlines.
Register Now to join Australia's Biggest Book Club with Dr Joëlle Gergis on 28 June:
australiainstitute.org.au/eve...
The Australia Institute is proud to have hosted Dr Joëlle Gergis as its Writer in Residence for 2024.
Sign up to get our latest analysis sent to you via our fortnightly newsletter!
📧 theaus.in/newsletter
Help us make more videos like this by becoming a supporter:
❤️ theaus.in/donateYT
Why is there no expectation that the private sector take an ethical stance and take action on climate change. They are citizens and should not be regarded as somehow absolved from responsibility because they have some supposed objective commercial behaviour that they have to follow. The politicians are under the control of these private interests.
Stop voting LP & LNP they both proved they don’t care about us Aussies, we need to vote Greens or Independents that believe in the science that climate change does exit - end of story.
Don't vote Green either...they support mass migration making Australian emissions much worse. Independents are the only solution now.
An Australian government once tried to introduce a carbon tax, they were voted out.
And that was a long time ago in a different world. It is time to try again.
Noting of course it wasn't actually a "carbon tax" at all, as admitted later by those who politically benefited from that particular lie.
@@richardwhitfield7766 The reality is that the voters care more about the economy than the environment.
They were voted out because economic mismanagement created a gold-plated electricity grid that resulted in skyrocketing power prices and a lying politician blamed the increase on the carbon tax. It would never have happened if we'd had truth in political advertising.
Murdoch's and the l.n.p.
Realistically i just don't see it happening i think we're going to do geoengineering and other bullshit i hope im wrong and have voted to support climate action but the last 40 years has shown vested interests and money has much more sway unfortunately.
Carbon Capture and Storage is geo-engineering. Geo-engineering doesn't work. That was the first point addressed in the video. There is a fundamental flaw associated with geo-engineering - Once you start you cannot stop. Another problem with geo-engineering is it has to be done on a planetary scale which would mean more gargantuan level energy consumption. Heat is the by-product of any energy source even renewables) which means it will add to the heating of the planet. The third problem you might have guessed by now - Who's gonna fund it? Geo-engineering expenses will account for a significant portion of our country's GDP.
@@rickozzy6898 I mean more radical geoengineering - solar radiation management injecting aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight and using salt water to increase cloud cover over the oceans I'm not advocating for it but I think it's what will happen instead of meaningful action.
Thank god the last Labour budget addressed all of this 😑
The question is how our representatives leaders will communicate this information which is vital to the long term well being of the nation. They need to step up we all do.
Australians and particulary Australian elites will notice this when insurance disappears from their assets. Something already starting in the US e.g. Florida.
Berkley Earth already confirmed 2023 was above 1.5 degrees.
For a growing number of Australians hell is already here. The increasing numbers of homeless people will begin to succumb to the rising harshness of being exposed to the elements as the average temperature of our atmosphere increases. Next time you claim your negative gearing for that residential investment property you deliberately established as insolvent investment to specifically profit from claiming your loses against our tax revenue, effectively helping the financial markets transfer public wealth to the private sector, just remember your lack of enmpathy and narcissistic greed is killing vulnerable people. We are not a Christian country, we are a country dominated by Christ killers that put personal greed above all else, just like those money merchants that had Christ murdered because of their selfish greed some 2000 years ago. Why is it that many politicians have been allowed to profit from negative gearing when they control the legislation, it appears that conflicts of interest are irrelevant for our corrupt politicians, but not their empathyless avarice for profit, they couldn't care less if people suffer for their greed.
i used to make fun of doomsday preppers.... now im breeding heat resistant vegetable varieties... funny world
Cut the fossil fuel subsidies, use that money to put rooftop solar & batteries (not necessarily lithium) on every house & block of flats. Mandate 98 octane & higher for petrol. License drilling tech from Quaise Energy to tap geothermal for base load power. Rewild land where ever possible and grow seaweed plantations directly over the reef. And yes tax carbon, charge the fossil fuel & mining companies proper taxes & resource rent & nationalise anyone who tries to avoid paying their share.
A Labor mainland and the fossil industry still controls the state of play.
Come on guys, don't ya know that ya can't have Global Warming on a flat Earth?
Fossil Fuel $$$ wickedness
There's a scientific consensus that has existed for some years now that one of the leading causes of climate breakdown is the production of meat and dairy. The science recommends that we urgently need to transition to plant-based eating otherwise our future food security is under serious threat. It's scary that politicians and the media never talk about this and all of the focus around the climate is on fossil fuels. And Australians seem apathetic about stopping their funding of the meat and dairy corporations. Scary times ahead due to this ignorance.
So many of our decision makers live on the eastern seaboard and the reality of low rainfall and aridity are not in their immediate experience
This video opened with a advertisment from the Minerals council. go figure.
Nobody is taking Climate Change seriously.
and for good reason.
Massive Propganda campaings convincing chavs its not really happening, Ironically them and thier families will pay the highest price.
Propganda by vested interests as usual
They just want to subdue and control people. The climate the people are in doesnt matter as long as they can be controlled.
@@innocentbystander2673 Yeah, the "Monkey Trap"
how much of the atmosphere is C02 ? 421 millionths, ie 999,559 millionths is all the other gases. How much has C02 increased in the last 100 yrs ? 130 millionths .... what is the most abundant greenhouse gas ? water vapour ..... it varies by 20,000 to 40,000 millionths on a daily basis ....
Every body knows..
First Principle reiteration is how the universe functions, emulate, do or die.
Excellent discussions! Let’s charge the fossil fuel companies now for the true cost of carbon … the last flood in WA in Fitzroy cost the WA tax payer $900m , let’s start with that !
Australian carbon emissions over the last 2 years have increased at the same time we're told everything that can be done is taking place. That being the case, adding we produce only 1% of global emissions, the only actionable solution for believers becomes obvious.
I have been thinking and saying for a while that across a wide range of issues, we have come to or gone past critical tipping points. In health, housing, education and climate change to name but four, we are at the point where we are seeing looming or more likely actual crises that are, wholly or partly the result of decades of no or appalling government policy (e.g., increasing the CGT discount to 50% without any thought to what that might do to incentivise residential property investors) and a refusal of "us" in the broader sense, to change our behaviours. Needless to say, I thus am very much drawn to the comment that we have entered the "age of consequences", because it aligns very well with my "tipping point" observation. I fear that since the typical Australian is now living in a house much, much bigger than their parents lived in and driving vehicles that are in many cases double the mass of the cars our parents drove and there's no sign of that lust for visible affluence moderating, our energy usage is going to continue unabated. As the Jevons Paradox (1865) suggests, as long as energy, however produced, is abundant and affordable, we'll continue to find new ways to use more of it. "We" are in a position where, for example, if you asked 100 people, most would accept climate change is a thing, but out of that 100 people, a large number would still go and and buy a new dual cab or SUV. How do we actually reach an accord where what we say we should do and what we actually do are more aligned (especially our governments)? Until governments can be persuaded to stop acting in the interests of the fossil fuel industry (e.g. stopping extolling CCS and nuclear as our saviour) we can't seriously expect emission reductions of the magnitude needed to step back from a climate change abyss.
The big question for me as person who takes the consequences of Climate Change very seriously, I want to know who to vote for at the next election, as you both insist that it's a pivotal moment? The Liberal Party wants to accelerate fossil fuel extraction and Labor isn't far behind, as can be seen by the continued expansion and subsidising of the fossil fuel industry. I know that corruption is rife in the political class but perhaps some of them are untouched and might be joined by others of a similar ilk?
Talk to your independent candidates and figure out which one is best. The major parties are all anti environment, even the Greens who are basically a socialist ultraleft with environmental pretense.
There is no way to stop it now. We have to find ways to deal with it. Vested interests saw to it that we did not act soon enough and now following generations will have to deal with the consequences.
Stop what? Are you talking about stopping fossil fueled climate change? Or are you talking about stopping the consumption of fossil fuels? We have triggered an angry beast that is far bigger than us, but if we keep burning fossil fuels the problem only gets WORSE. There would be less and less capacity to cope with the damage already done. It's up to US, NOW, do STOP subsidizing fossil fuels. STOP it!
This isn't strictly true. We can cap change at 1.5˚C still, provided the political will. Manufacturing that is the task
We have precipitated climate change by consuming fossil fuels. The more we consume fossil fuels the greater is the damage done and the greater is the risk of catastrophe. We deal with it first of all by cutting our consumption of fossil fuels to zero in as short a time as we can manage - preferably yesterday.
The technology for Transition is not going to just suddenly appear out of thin air. The Global Transition will require massive amounts of commodities / materials / technology, which have to be explored for, proven up, mined, processed, transported, refined, manufactured and constructed/ installed. Realistically, you cannot achieve this in near term by cutting all fossil fuel use etc.. If we are prepared to utilise nuclear energy (4th Generation designed power plants), then that may help a little bit, and would buy us some time to transition. Otherwise, nothing short of massive depopulation and reduction in economic demand / activity, is going to be able to get us out of the situation we have gotten ourselves into. The Transition should have begun at least three decades ago. There will be no easy solution I'm afraid. Renewables alone, cannot provide the solution the world is looking for. Maybe just having an all out WWIII might do the trick, and buy us some time!
The technology is the easy bit. It's the politics that provides the blockages.
Unfortunately, the green transition is actually a trip to an economic precipice. The globe is more than a tad cooler than it needs to be to be, if it is to be truly hospitable to plants. All life depends on plants. The optimum temperature for photosynthesis is 25-35 degrees C. In June 2024 across the bulk of the Australian continent where most people live, it's decidedly too cool.
Most ignorant comment I have ever read.
@@keepitreal2902 What's the bet that it's a bot .....?
polluter-pays could cause an inflation loop
Yes the technologies exist to reduce emissions 50-80%. But they are expensive, and increasing energy prices is not good for human prosperity, especially in the developing world.
Fossil fuel inputs for power generation are costly. The energy inputs for solar and wind are free. Electricity generation from solar and wind is cheaper than electricity generation from fossil fueled power stations. The technical issues with the new way of generating power will be solved. And climate change is expensive too, something that fossil fuel interests never ever seem to be interested in discussing. They've lost that argument completely.
@@johnmckeon9794 the cost of electricity has very little to do with input costs. Capital for infrastructure and distribution, amortised over the plant life, and capacity factor (cost to meet demand) primarily make up the systems cost. The overall system cost of solar and wind is way more expensive than fossil fuels, and also nuclear. Climate change will be expensive too, so the aim is to optimise via net cost/benefit analysis. In the end it will be a mix of solar, wind, hydro, nuclear and gas which will result in the optimum outcome.
@@jinnantonix4570 Gas will be replaced by battery storage and overall system design features. Australia does not need nuclear, the most expensive and problematic of systems. Sun and wind are free energy sources. Do not confuse capital costs with fuel costs. The whole earth system is well beyond your narrow perspectives based on cost/benefit analysis.
@@johnmckeon9794 gas will not be replaced by batteries, they are far too expensive- none are being built for energy storage at the moment which is why the ALP have a gas, gas, gas, policy. Firming WILL be done by gas and/or nuclear. Fuel cost is only a small part, total systems cost determines the price of electricity to consumers, and solar and wind is expensive when you add storage and distribution. We don't need nuclear technically, but modelling by uni of Qld shows with 50% nuclear in the mix, it will halve the price of zero emissions electricity, hence the LNP policy. The only scenario cheaper is when gas is used for firming, but then it is not zero emissions. By far the most expensive is solar+wind+batteries, but the Greens and the Teals don't care about the modelling, they are driven be ideology.
@@jinnantonix4570 You are using this comments section as a platform for your disinformation crap.
So if you were to take a 1 meter ruler to represent all the atmospheric gases, and stand it up right the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere could be represented by a playing card placed flat on its face at the base. Of that, 4% is considered anthropological ie man made. Of that just over 1% is from Australia. The thought that any changes Australia makes - at billions if not trillions of dollars, while killing domestic industry and manufacturing and sending cost of living through the room via escalated power bills - will make one iota of difference to climate change is utterly ridiculous and laughable. If one wants to make any difference at all both VChina and India need to be incentivized to reduce emissions. China's year on year increase in CO2 emissions replaces Australia's entire annual emissions twice over.
Must be nice thinking that someone else has to do work so you can keep on doing something you know is bad.
I'll stop smoking the car when my kids start driving!
The most common gases in the atmosphere (Nitrogen ~78%, Oxygen ~21% both approximate figures) do not exert a greenhouse effect. Yet Carbon Dioxide at ~0.04% does exert a greenhouse effect. If there were no greenhouse effect the earth's average surface temperature would be about -18 degrees centigrade. Every bit of Carbon Dioxide matters very much. The normal healthy level would be ~0.03% as it was before the industrial revolution of the last 200 years. The more carbon dioxide we force into the atmosphere by consuming fossil fuels, the greater the accumulated heat at the earth's surface through the greenhouse effect. It matters. Get your facts straight.
I don't see where you get the 4% from. The atmosphere has more than a third more carbon dioxide in it now compared to before the industrial revolution. As for the only 1% argument, I must say that is an oft repeated talking point that expresses the most depraved moral and political cowardice and hypocrisy, given the circumstances. Australia emits much more than most other nations, and furthermore we are the equivalent of a petrostate supplying fossil fuels so that it makes it just that much more difficult for the world to make the transition away from fossil fuels. And that makes us effectively a much bigger emitter of carbon dioxide, even if someone else consumes our carbon fuels.
🤣🤣🐑🐑🐑🐑
You said 2023 was hottest temperature on record. Show your data, proof
Earth’s average surface temperature in 2023 was the warmest on record since recordkeeping began in 1880 (source: NASA/GISS).
If all of the data could be loaded into your digital devices or as paper on your lap, it would not make the slightest difference to your attitude. It is obvious that you are not sincere.