world

Australian PM denies climate link as smoke chokes Sydney

19 Comments
By PETER PARKS

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2019 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.


19 Comments
Login to comment

"The suggestion that any way shape or form that Australia -- accounting for 1.3 percent of the world's emissions... are impacting directly on specific fire events, whether it is here or anywhere else in the world, that doesn't bear up to credible scientific evidence," he told ABC radio.

How much coal, gas and uranium does Australia export to the world again..?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The Muppet show.....

5 ( +7 / -2 )

going to need those huge carbon dioxide capture fans that could also filter out the soot. Kinda like huge 15 storey / 30m fume hoods

For such low emissions, Australia is going to take the brunt of the world's results .... by doing nothing.

Alrightie then. Enjoy the BBQ

Or y'know, you could fight back

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Climate change has nothing to do with these bush fires, the climate change cult are jumping on anything to get their deluded fantasies happening. Bush fires happen every year, no these aren't the worst in history there worse ones 10yrs ago, both state and federal politicians have allowed "fuel" to build up on the ground for years because they haven't kept up with regular fuel burn offs that used to happen annually. A number of people have been arrested for deliberately lighting fires in these areas, it doesn't matter how much climate change cultists jump up and down throwing their tantrums Arsonists have nothing to do with climate change.

AgentXToday 02:09 pm JST

How much coal, gas and uranium does Australia export to the world again..?

Regardless, gas burns clean, uranium burns clean but is higher risk and leaves waste, as for coal it burns of carbon that plants breath with the modern low emission coal fired plants are a brilliant replacement for the older plants that need modernisation Japan has them with out a single problem.

You have to remember carbon makes up no more than 400 parts per 1 million, there's no way that's gonna cause a problem.

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

As Mr Morison is a fully fledged evangelical I'm sure in his mind this whole mess is the fault of unbelievers and has absolutely nothing at all to do with his and his friends lust for cash at any price....praise the lord.

Burn that bush, it might talk Gods word, burn enough one of them will speak.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

the climate change cult are jumping on anything to get their deluded fantasies happening

Sigh. Sometimes it's almost like we're proud to be the architects of mankind's demise.

More and more fires around the world, more of the polar caps melting, more of the seas rising, extreme weather situations, more wildlife extinctions and yet it's all fine. Nothing to see.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

OK then, Heretic. Tell me this: how big should the polar caps be? What is the best level for the seas to be? Until you can answer these questions, the rest is irrelevant.

As for the fires, the worst on record was more than 150 years ago. Climate change responsible for that one too?

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

You have to remember carbon makes up no more than 400 parts per 1 million, there's no way that's gonna cause a problem.

That is incorrect.

Remember, ozone makes up no more than 0.3 parts per million - and it can very much cause huge problems.

Remember, it's not the concentration that matters - it's what they do.

For example, if you're fed certain molecules that just make up 400 parts per million in your body could still kill ya.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

 What is the best level for the seas to be? Until you can answer these questions, the rest is irrelevant.

You'll have to ask National Geographic, NASA, and scientist like David Attenborough. Until you do, your question is misleading and a bit complacent.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

From the National Geographic

*The most recent special report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says we can expect the oceans to rise between 10 and 30 inches (26 to 77 centimeters) by 2100 with temperatures warming 1.5 °C. That’s enough to seriously affect many of the cities along the U.S. East Coast. Another analysis based on NASA and European data skewed toward the higher end of that range, predicting a rise of 26 inches (65 centimeters) by the end of this century if the current trajectory continues.*

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Scott Morrison, same guy who defended the use of coal in the parliament. Australia is the biggest exporter of coal and is used to generate 67% of domestic electricity. Australian coal produces about 15-20% of the total CO2.

I think he also denied that the sugar cane farming on the gold coast is helping to destroy the great reefs.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Morrison is correct in that his policies are not responsible for the current drought and bush fires, as he has not been in power long enough to be the cause. However his policies will do nothing to counter the damage being done daily, by burning coal and gas for power, and for the massive exports of coal and gas to others to burn for energy creation.

Like those before him, Morrison is bereft of ideas and live's in denial about mankind's influence in global warming. The political donations that parties get from companies directs many of their strategies and policies.

Sadly the planet and all life on it pays the price for our greed and convenience. Politicians need to grow the stones to make the right call against the wishes of their financial benefactors. Introduce the right laws and life will go on in a better way that is sustainable. It may take some adjustment in the short term, but it is better than the alternative.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

AgentX:

How much coal, gas and uranium does Australia export to the world again..?

I don´t know, but I assume a lot. So what do you expect Australia to do? Stop all coal, gas, and uranium exports? And if it does, what exactly is that going to achieve besides Australia going bankrupt and worldwide prices for coal, gas, and uranium going up?

And what exactly would both these things change in regard to a) climate change and b) Australien bush fires?

Can you explain your argument, if there is one?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

All countries need to end the use of coal. Australis has other options for power production. The country has mined uranium for decades but never built any nuclear power plants.

Australia mines 403 million tons of coal every year. 371 million tons are exported. 32 million tons for domestic use.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Zichi:

All countries need to end the use of coal. Australis has other options for power production.

Nice dogmatic statement. However, the question remains: Other than destroying Australias economy and driving up prices, what exactly would Australia achieve by stopping all exports?

Seems to me that dogmatic slogans are not an alternative to a rational discussion.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Seems to me that dogmatic slogans are not an alternative to a rational discussion.

Phasing out the use of fossil fuels and investing in cleaner sources is very rational.

The irrationality kicks in when rightists/conspiracy theorists base their ideas on dogmatic political ideology/crackpot theories rather than looking at what the consensus of experts say.

This dogmatism/crackpottery is the real problem.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Other than destroying Australias economy and driving up prices, what exactly would Australia achieve by stopping all exports?

Prolonging the livability of the planet we all live on and share.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

The coal used to generate 67% of its power should be reduced and other cleaner fuels used. Under Trump. America has shut 50 coal fired plants. Britain uses almost zero coal for power.

Australia exports 391 million tons of thermal coal for power generations. Has countries turn away from coal the demand will decease.

200 million tons of coke for steel production are exported.

The Great Barrier Reef according to experts is being bleached by warming seas. Also the water run off from the sugar cane farms.

A reduction of worldwide CO2 are required and Australia will also have to be a part of that.

When Japan was whaling in the Antarctic Australia protested about that even bringing an International Court case which it won.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Australia has committed to globally agreed climate targets to help limit warming, but its emissions continue to rise and targets are only being met with the use of some creative carbon accounting -- using credits gained in past decades.

"Creative carbon accounting"? Carbon credits have always been a fraud, a joke, a scam, something created by the cunning to fleece the gullible. You don't have to actually reduce your carbon footprint, you only have to pay someone else for a few climate indulgences, and you're good to go.

It's also important for every global warming, CO2-is-evil, zealot to blame every climate/weather event on man-made global warming. And to insult anyone who dares to question such brilliant ideas as carbon indulgences.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites