independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > The €4,600 Billion Fiasco - Germany's Energy Transition
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 2 12>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 12/31/19 12:32am

TweetyV6

avatar

The €4,600 Billion Fiasco - Germany's Energy Transition

As Germany, in a emotional reflex to the Fukushima accident and the CO2 religion, decided to 'lead the world' to a greener future, it has decided to become CO2 free by 2030.

Now a report by the Union of German Academies of Sciences (Scientists!!) causes some headaches and questionmarks here and there about the feasability of the energy transition.

This is an interresting article by Prof. Dr. Fritz Varenholt (a scientist) about this report.

To nip the Lame Lefties Reflex (LLR™) in the bud:

Prof. Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt received his doctorate in chemistry and is an honorary professor at the University of Hamburg. As a representative of the SPD (Germany's equivalent to the US democrats, but then a bit more to the left), he was an environmental senator in Hamburg (1991 to 1997). Under Chancellor Gerhard Schröder (SPD), he also worked as a consultant on energy issues at the federal level.



The 4600 billion fiasco

A top-class and politically unsuspicious study exposes the sweet dream of the energy transition as an economic and ecological nightmare. But what cannot be, cannot be.




Here some interresting quotes:

One could ask in advance why the technical expertise gathered at our German academies essentially wants to base the future of our energy supply solely on two technologies (wind power and photovoltaics). Apparently, the mainstream prohibits even thinking about alternatives



A sevenfold increase in wind energy would radically change the German landscape even if the capacity of the individual generators doubled. Distributed in a network all over the country, there would be a 200 meter (600ft.) high windmill every 1.5 kilometers (1 mile). One should imagine this vividly.




And the brave new world of Greta, Annalena and Robert is unfortunately not available for free. Here you can get really dizzy looking into the abyss. The authors assume a 60 percent CO2 reduction, which is to be achieved by 2030 (page 116 of the study, chart 35). The current energy supply system costs 250 billion euros a year. If you want to reach the intermediate CO2 target in the next ten years, this will cost an additional 1500 billion. With an increase to 75 percent CO2 reduction, the authors expect another 800 billion, with such an increase to 85 percent another 1000 billion. A further 1300 billion would be due for the increase from 85 to 90 percent CO2 reduction by 2050. All in all, this would result in the pretty sum of 4600 billion euros.




German households would have to spend 4,600 billion euros to avoid 800 million tons of CO2. This is the amount of CO2 that China emits every year. So that the parents of the striking children of “Fridays for Future” understand the 4600 billion correctly: That is 320 euros for every German household every month for thirty years - additionally, notabene. And if it were up to Greta and her followers, who demand 100 percent renewables within fifteen years, that would be 640 euros per month - provided that the German energy supply and therefore the economy do not collapse beforehand. Reminder: If you deduct this 640 euros from average German earnings (1890 euros net per month), many Germans would have to live below or near the poverty line (60 percent of the average net income).

It's simply not feasible if other technologies (e.g. nuclear fission or fusion) are not considdered.

My educated guess would be that there will be civil uprise against these plans.
Enery poverty (when energy bills cannot be payed anymore) already is a big issue in Germany


I do expect a civil war within 2 generations if the pan european political landscape does not change drastically.

.

[Edited 12/31/19 4:49am]

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 12/31/19 2:38am

trickster

Average income per household in Germany is more than 3400 € ....
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 12/31/19 4:11am

TweetyV6

avatar

trickster said:

Average income per household in Germany is more than 3400 € ....


That is right for 2 full time working people, not married, without kids.
Not the avarage household, I guess.

The article mentions average earnings (= wage, what you get payed from your employer) which is much different then household income

In 2018 the median net WAGE is €24.095 /yr (divide by 13, because in Germany you get 11 months 1/13th and one month 2/13th) which is..... €1854/month in 11 months and 1 month double that.


Having said that...

There are not many households who can afford paying €640/month additional taxes for... wel virtually nothing except a 'clean' consiousness.

And I bet there are even less households who want to pay €640/month additional taxes for, again, virtually nothing.

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 12/31/19 4:28am

maplenpg

avatar

TweetyV6 said:

As Germany, in a emotional reflex to the Fukushima accident and the CO2 religion, decided to 'lead the world' to a greener future, it has decided to become CO2 free by 2030.

Can you provide a link to the C02 free by 2030 target? I've done a quick Google and can only find 65% renewables target by 2030.

Plus a quick Google on your Professor brings up interesting results.

#JusticeForShukri http://chng.it/B5mNKrDrzK
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 12/31/19 4:33am

TweetyV6

avatar

maplenpg said:

Plus a quick Google on your Professor brings up interesting results.


Ah, come on, confused I hope you don't have the Lame Lefties Reflex (LLR™).



I have higer regards for you then that.


.

[Edited 12/31/19 4:45am]

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 12/31/19 4:43am

TweetyV6

avatar

maplenpg said:

TweetyV6 said:

As Germany, in a emotional reflex to the Fukushima accident and the CO2 religion, decided to 'lead the world' to a greener future, it has decided to become CO2 free by 2030.

Can you provide a link to the C02 free by 2030 target? I've done a quick Google and can only find 65% renewables target by 2030.


You're right. My bad. The programme is called: Klimaschutzprogramm 2030
The target is to be CO2 neutral in 2050.

But there are organisations pushing for 2030. (e.g. Extincion Rebellion and Fridays for Future [the organisation behind Greta Thunberg])

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 12/31/19 5:06am

maplenpg

avatar

TweetyV6 said:

maplenpg said:

Plus a quick Google on your Professor brings up interesting results.


Ah, come on, confused I hope you don't have the Lame Lefties Reflex (LLR™).



I have higer regards for you then that.


.

[Edited 12/31/19 4:45am]

I'm not sure Googling someones name has a political slant. But, yes, if you want to label me a lame leftie for pointing out that the Google results are interesting then go ahead.

#JusticeForShukri http://chng.it/B5mNKrDrzK
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 12/31/19 5:12am

maplenpg

avatar

TweetyV6 said:

maplenpg said:

Can you provide a link to the C02 free by 2030 target? I've done a quick Google and can only find 65% renewables target by 2030.


You're right. My bad. The programme is called: Klimaschutzprogramm 2030
The target is to be CO2 neutral in 2050.

But there are organisations pushing for 2030. (e.g. Extincion Rebellion and Fridays for Future [the organisation behind Greta Thunberg])

Thank you.

#JusticeForShukri http://chng.it/B5mNKrDrzK
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 12/31/19 7:03am

trickster

what is actually your motivation to post such tendentious articles. Not to mention that the construction of this questionable gentleman is pure lobby work (RWE). even if what is written here becomes a reality, what it will not do, what reactions do you wish for your posting? That mankind says: climate protection is too expensive for me, so will I leave it alone? People who object to our environment being protected are suspect to me. or is it only important to you that so-called leftists are not right? Although environmentalists and leftists are not the same. Nationalists should also be interested in keeping their nation intact ...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 12/31/19 7:39am

13cjk13

avatar

trickster said:

what is actually your motivation to post such tendentious articles. Not to mention that the construction of this questionable gentleman is pure lobby work (RWE). even if what is written here becomes a reality, what it will not do, what reactions do you wish for your posting? That mankind says: climate protection is too expensive for me, so will I leave it alone? People who object to our environment being protected are suspect to me. or is it only important to you that so-called leftists are not right? Although environmentalists and leftists are not the same. Nationalists should also be interested in keeping their nation intact ...

Triggered Angry White Male Syndrome ( TAWMS )

[Edited 12/31/19 7:39am]

"hey if you found out someone gave you a fake $20 would you be mad?"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 01/01/20 10:57pm

TweetyV6

avatar

trickster said:

what is actually your motivation to post such tendentious articles. Not to mention that the construction of this questionable gentleman is pure lobby work (RWE).


Ah, there you have it (again) the Lame Lefties Reflex (LLR™) and it is strong with you.
Do not read, just try to damage the writer.

The article is based on a report from the Union of German Academies of Sciences (Scientists!!)

What the fuck does that have to do with RWE?!?!

even if what is written here becomes a reality, what it will not do, what reactions do you wish for your posting? That mankind says: climate protection is too expensive for me, so will I leave it alone? People who object to our environment being protected are suspect to me. or is it only important to you that so-called leftists are not right? Although environmentalists and leftists are not the same. Nationalists should also be interested in keeping their nation intact ...


You completely missed the point.
It has nothing to do with wheter people want it or not (wee will be forced to) but it will not be feasible AND it will drive people into poverty and/or government dependency.

It is neo-marxism in a green disguise.

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 01/03/20 1:56am

jaawwnn

avatar

LOL when the neoliberal economic powerhouse of Europe is being called marxist. Sure thing, and the Nazis were socialists because of their name.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 01/03/20 4:32am

TweetyV6

avatar

jaawwnn said:

LOL when the neoliberal economic powerhouse of Europe is being called marxist. Sure thing, and the Nazis were socialists because of their name.


LOL.
When uneducated people have no other comment then making a Godwin.

Ever heard of "Ökosozialismuss"; eco-socialism?

https://en.wikipedia.org/...-socialism -> NEOMARXISM in a green dress.

A world wide movement founded by several communist-like organisations and very present in the German political green party "Bündniss '90/Die Grünen"

https://de.wikipedia.org/...ozialismus describing the influence of the eco socialists in B'90/Grüne


http://ecosocialistnetwork.org/

Ecosocialist Manifesto: https://web.archive.org/w...esto.shtml


The Dutch green political party "GroenLinks" is a fusion of 3 smaal parties: PSP, PPR and CPN.
The latter being the Communist Party of the Netherlands.


So take your lame comment and shove it somewhere the sun doesn't shine.

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 01/03/20 6:17am

jaawwnn

avatar

Nope, never heard of them, and neither has anyone who isn't an insane conspiracy theorist who thinks "neo-marxism" is a slur and not a term so vague and so wide-ranging as to be close to meaningless.

[Edited 1/3/20 6:18am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 01/04/20 4:55am

TweetyV6

avatar

jaawwnn said:

Nope, never heard of them, and neither has anyone who isn't an insane conspiracy theorist who thinks "neo-marxism" is a slur and not a term so vague and so wide-ranging as to be close to meaningless.

[Edited 1/3/20 6:18am]

There's nothing 'conspiracy theorist' about pointing out that infuential political parties have people in their leadership who embrace eco-socialism.

B'90/Grüne are the 3rd biggest party in Germany and will be 2nd biggest or even biggest after next elections

GroenLinks is the 4th biggest party in the Netherlands and have massive influence since they help the current government to a majority in the senate. (which is essential when passing new or revised legislation)

So no conspiracy but REALITY.

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 01/04/20 5:40am

ThatWhiteDude

avatar

TweetyV6 said:



jaawwnn said:


Nope, never heard of them, and neither has anyone who isn't an insane conspiracy theorist who thinks "neo-marxism" is a slur and not a term so vague and so wide-ranging as to be close to meaningless.


[Edited 1/3/20 6:18am]




There's nothing 'conspiracy theorist' about pointing out that infuential political parties have people in their leadership who embrace eco-socialism.

B'90/Grüne are the 3rd biggest party in Germany and will be 2nd biggest or even biggest after next elections

GroenLinks is the 4th biggest party in the Netherlands and have massive influence since they help the current government to a majority in the senate. (which is essential when passing new or revised legislation)

So no conspiracy but REALITY.


Was machen denn die Grünen und Linken dass Du so eine Angst vor ihnen hast? lol
"Like books and BLACK LIVES, Albums still MATTER."


"Extra cheese, extra HAM, extra bullshit" -DiminutiveRocker
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 01/04/20 7:27am

TweetyV6

avatar

ThatWhiteDude said:

TweetyV6 said:

There's nothing 'conspiracy theorist' about pointing out that infuential political parties have people in their leadership who embrace eco-socialism.

B'90/Grüne are the 3rd biggest party in Germany and will be 2nd biggest or even biggest after next elections

GroenLinks is the 4th biggest party in the Netherlands and have massive influence since they help the current government to a majority in the senate. (which is essential when passing new or revised legislation)

So no conspiracy but REALITY.

Was machen denn die Grünen und Linken dass Du so eine Angst vor ihnen hast? lol


Unsere (auch deine!) Freiheiten begrenzen und massiven Einfluss (Kontrolle?) auf unsere Lebensweise ausüben.
Es werden teuere Massnahmen verpflichtet (ist in Holland schon der Fall. Alle Haushalte mit Gasanschluss MÜSSEN vom Gas, umrüsten auf Erdwärme. Kostet 20.000+ Euro pro Haushalt). Man bekommt einen CO2-Kredit der ausreicht um zu leben. Möchte man mehr (z.B. reisen, oder einen Grill anmachen) reicht der Kredit nicht und muss man neuen Kredit kaufen. Oder man muss weniger Kredit aufbrauchen als vorgesehen durch z.B. die Heizung aus zu lassen im Winter.
Du kannst aber nicht mehr machen was/wie du möchtest.

Vergleichbar mit dem Sozialkredit Sytem in China.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sozialkredit-System

Und falls du denkst das kommt nicht/dauert noch: Noch dieses Jahr kommt das Klimagesetz der EU wovon 2 Holländer die Architekten sind: Frans Timmermans und sein 'Gehilfe' der Grüne (ex-Greenpeace) politiker Diederik Samsom.

Da wird der Grundstein gelegt.

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 01/04/20 2:38pm

IanRG

TweetyV6 said:

ThatWhiteDude said:

TweetyV6 said: Was machen denn die Grünen und Linken dass Du so eine Angst vor ihnen hast? lol


Unsere (auch deine!) Freiheiten begrenzen und massiven Einfluss (Kontrolle?) auf unsere Lebensweise ausüben.
Es werden teuere Massnahmen verpflichtet (ist in Holland schon der Fall. Alle Haushalte mit Gasanschluss MÜSSEN vom Gas, umrüsten auf Erdwärme. Kostet 20.000+ Euro pro Haushalt). Man bekommt einen CO2-Kredit der ausreicht um zu leben. Möchte man mehr (z.B. reisen, oder einen Grill anmachen) reicht der Kredit nicht und muss man neuen Kredit kaufen. Oder man muss weniger Kredit aufbrauchen als vorgesehen durch z.B. die Heizung aus zu lassen im Winter.
Du kannst aber nicht mehr machen was/wie du möchtest.

Vergleichbar mit dem Sozialkredit Sytem in China.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sozialkredit-System

Und falls du denkst das kommt nicht/dauert noch: Noch dieses Jahr kommt das Klimagesetz der EU wovon 2 Holländer die Architekten sind: Frans Timmermans und sein 'Gehilfe' der Grüne (ex-Greenpeace) politiker Diederik Samsom.

Da wird der Grundstein gelegt.

.

So, if you intend to do activities that are above what is covered by your base carbon credit, you can either buy addtional carbon credits or use unconsumed amounts from your base credit. This is more like when you go on a holiday, you either prepare to spend more or you can scrimp and save for the holiday.

.

This is not the equivalent of the Chinese social credit system. The former is just an economic resourse allocation methodology. It is similar to choices that people make with a price mechanism. The latter is a method of controlling political and social behaviour.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 01/05/20 6:15am

TweetyV6

avatar

IanRG said:

TweetyV6 said:


Unsere (auch deine!) Freiheiten begrenzen und massiven Einfluss (Kontrolle?) auf unsere Lebensweise ausüben.
Es werden teuere Massnahmen verpflichtet (ist in Holland schon der Fall. Alle Haushalte mit Gasanschluss MÜSSEN vom Gas, umrüsten auf Erdwärme. Kostet 20.000+ Euro pro Haushalt). Man bekommt einen CO2-Kredit der ausreicht um zu leben. Möchte man mehr (z.B. reisen, oder einen Grill anmachen) reicht der Kredit nicht und muss man neuen Kredit kaufen. Oder man muss weniger Kredit aufbrauchen als vorgesehen durch z.B. die Heizung aus zu lassen im Winter.
Du kannst aber nicht mehr machen was/wie du möchtest.

Vergleichbar mit dem Sozialkredit Sytem in China.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sozialkredit-System

Und falls du denkst das kommt nicht/dauert noch: Noch dieses Jahr kommt das Klimagesetz der EU wovon 2 Holländer die Architekten sind: Frans Timmermans und sein 'Gehilfe' der Grüne (ex-Greenpeace) politiker Diederik Samsom.

Da wird der Grundstein gelegt.

.

So, if you intend to do activities that are above what is covered by your base carbon credit, you can either buy addtional carbon credits or use unconsumed amounts from your base credit. This is more like when you go on a holiday, you either prepare to spend more or you can scrimp and save for the holiday.

.

This is not the equivalent of the Chinese social credit system. The former is just an economic resourse allocation methodology. It is similar to choices that people make with a price mechanism. The latter is a method of controlling political and social behaviour.


Kind of.
Except the government decides how much carbon credits you have to 'pay' for what kind of travelmethod. There are no free market forces which influence the pricing

So say you live in Amsterdam and you'd like to visit Rome.
There will be a huge difference in how may cc's it wil cost whether you travel by train, car or plane.
So you can't choose the most convenient and/or monetary cheapest anymore, but you're 'forced' to take the most carbon friendly.
That is controlling behaviour in my eyes.

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 01/05/20 11:36am

IanRG

TweetyV6 said:

IanRG said:

.

So, if you intend to do activities that are above what is covered by your base carbon credit, you can either buy addtional carbon credits or use unconsumed amounts from your base credit. This is more like when you go on a holiday, you either prepare to spend more or you can scrimp and save for the holiday.

.

This is not the equivalent of the Chinese social credit system. The former is just an economic resourse allocation methodology. It is similar to choices that people make with a price mechanism. The latter is a method of controlling political and social behaviour.


Kind of.
Except the government decides how much carbon credits you have to 'pay' for what kind of travelmethod. There are no free market forces which influence the pricing

So say you live in Amsterdam and you'd like to visit Rome.
There will be a huge difference in how may cc's it wil cost whether you travel by train, car or plane.
So you can't choose the most convenient and/or monetary cheapest anymore, but you're 'forced' to take the most carbon friendly.
That is controlling behaviour in my eyes.

.

No, it is adding the cost of market failures to the price mechanism in the same way as it has for so long. You can still choose the option based on convenience and price but all prices include taxes, levies, the costs of government laws and regulations less government inducements and support. You are not 'forced' to take the most carbon friendly option: You can choose to fly or drive yourself, but the price of flying or driving will include the price impact on your carbon credit balance. This is no different to fuel levies and alike.

.

There is a difference between controlling social and political behavior and seeking to use the price mechanism to influence economic behaviour.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 01/05/20 10:20pm

TweetyV6

avatar

IanRG said:

TweetyV6 said:


Kind of.
Except the government decides how much carbon credits you have to 'pay' for what kind of travelmethod. There are no free market forces which influence the pricing

So say you live in Amsterdam and you'd like to visit Rome.
There will be a huge difference in how may cc's it wil cost whether you travel by train, car or plane.
So you can't choose the most convenient and/or monetary cheapest anymore, but you're 'forced' to take the most carbon friendly.
That is controlling behaviour in my eyes.

.

No, it is adding the cost of market failures to the price mechanism in the same way as it has for so long. You can still choose the option based on convenience and price but all prices include taxes, levies, the costs of government laws and regulations less government inducements and support. You are not 'forced' to take the most carbon friendly option: You can choose to fly or drive yourself, but the price of flying or driving will include the price impact on your carbon credit balance. This is no different to fuel levies and alike.

.

There is a difference between controlling social and political behavior and seeking to use the price mechanism to influence economic behaviour.


What I wrote before, in German:

In the Netherlands, the country with the best natural gas infrastructure, households are FORCED (by law) to disconnect from the natural gas and to make the transition to (electrical) geothermic heating and electrical cooking

This will cost each household about 20,000 - 25,000 Euro's (or more, depends on the size of your house)

If you can't afford it, the government will provide you with a loan.

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 01/05/20 11:07pm

IanRG

TweetyV6 said:

IanRG said:

.

No, it is adding the cost of market failures to the price mechanism in the same way as it has for so long. You can still choose the option based on convenience and price but all prices include taxes, levies, the costs of government laws and regulations less government inducements and support. You are not 'forced' to take the most carbon friendly option: You can choose to fly or drive yourself, but the price of flying or driving will include the price impact on your carbon credit balance. This is no different to fuel levies and alike.

.

There is a difference between controlling social and political behavior and seeking to use the price mechanism to influence economic behaviour.


What I wrote before, in German:

In the Netherlands, the country with the best natural gas infrastructure, households are FORCED (by law) to disconnect from the natural gas and to make the transition to (electrical) geothermic heating and electrical cooking

This will cost each household about 20,000 - 25,000 Euro's (or more, depends on the size of your house)

If you can't afford it, the government will provide you with a loan.

.

I understood this. However, you also spoke in German about the choice between not doing a special activity (BBQ or travel), paying for additional credits if you go over or saving enough credits on you your normal activities to do the special activities within your credits if you can. You equated this with the Chinese social credit system and it is this that I disagreed with.

.

In regards the infrastructure/technology change: That is not my preferred method of encouraging this change. I would add a levy on gas to provide some financial support for people changing over to cleaner energy sources. In Australia (the bits not destroyed by the ever increasing bush fires as predicted by climate change models), people can get subsidies to switch to a mix of self generated solar and mains power. The take up has saved us the need to build new coal fired powerstations.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 01/05/20 11:16pm

TweetyV6

avatar

IanRG said:

TweetyV6 said:


What I wrote before, in German:

In the Netherlands, the country with the best natural gas infrastructure, households are FORCED (by law) to disconnect from the natural gas and to make the transition to (electrical) geothermic heating and electrical cooking

This will cost each household about 20,000 - 25,000 Euro's (or more, depends on the size of your house)

If you can't afford it, the government will provide you with a loan.

.

I understood this. However, you also spoke in German about the choice between not doing a special activity (BBQ or travel), paying for additional credits if you go over or saving enough credits on you your normal activities to do the special activities within your credits if you can. You equated this with the Chinese social credit system and it is this that I disagreed with.


"Vergleichbar" is not equating something it means "comparable"
Which does not take away the possibility thet it eventually will be used in a similar way as the Chinese system.
Once they have the tool.....


.

In Australia (the bits not destroyed by the ever increasing bush fires as predicted by climate change models


Don't go there.
Dive into the facts first before you make such nonsense statements.

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 01/05/20 11:45pm

IanRG

TweetyV6 said:

IanRG said:


"Vergleichbar" is not equating something it means "comparable"
Which does not take away the possibility thet it eventually will be used in a similar way as the Chinese system.
Once they have the tool.....


.

In Australia (the bits not destroyed by the ever increasing bush fires as predicted by climate change models


Don't go there.
Dive into the facts first before you make such nonsense statements.

.

I will equate things that are comparable and deny the equivalence of incomparable. Placing an effective price on carbon with a credit system that can be topped up at a price is neither the equivalent of, nor comparable to the Chinese social credit system.

.

Too late, the facts have been dived into already and the nonsense from your political inspired views are now costing lives - 1 single bad fire season proves nothing - progressively worseing fire seasons that start sooner and sooner and last longer and longer properly adjusted for natural variations are another thing.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 01/06/20 2:28am

TweetyV6

avatar

IanRG said:

.

Too late, the facts have been dived into already and the nonsense from your political inspired views are now costing lives - 1 single bad fire season proves nothing - progressively worseing fire seasons that start sooner and sooner and last longer and longer properly adjusted for natural variations are another thing.


Actually its Green Policy that causes the deaths.
Same as with the fires in California in 2018

Roger Underwood lives in Perth and is an acclaimed firefighter and former director of Conservation and Land Management in the province of Western Australia.

https://www.telegraaf.nl/...oen-beleid

Expert: forests full of fuel after years of mismanagement

"Australian big blaze with green policy"

Nine lives and a thousand houses were already lost in the apocalyptic sea of ​​flames in Australia. Five million hectares of nature have been burned - larger than the surface of the Netherlands. "We are now seeing the devastating effects of the climate crisis on Australia and it is only getting worse," warns opposition leader Richard Di Natale. According to the green politician there is no doubt: the forest fires down under are the blistering proof of climate change. But is that really so?


Fire expert Roger Underwood totally disagrees with the prevailing view that the fires in Australia are due to climate change. At least twenty thousand residents of Sydney agree with him. Tired of heat, masks and burning air from the nearby fire, so many demonstrators traveled through the metropolis a week and a half ago. To protest against the, in their eyes, "weak" climate policy of the right-wing government of Scott Morrison. One of the green "solutions" for the forest fires? Closure of all coal mines immediately.


Drought is not unique
But one noise is hardly heard in media violence, Roger Underwood concludes: that of experienced forest firefighters. Underwood lives in Perth and is an acclaimed firefighter and former director of Conservation and Land Management in the province of Western Australia.


The drought is not that unique, according to Underwood. That it now ends in massive forest fires is due to the green veto on traditional fire prevention.


"Australia is simply susceptible to forest fires," Underwood explains. "We have long, dry and hot summers. And the vegetation of eucalyptus and acacia trees is extremely fire sensitive. One of the peculiar characteristics, which is always difficult to explain in Europe, is that dry leaves and branches of the eucalyptus do not perish. They don't rot, they pile up. If it dries out, as happens every summer, you have one thing left: fuel. The more, the more intense the fire. "


Flora and fauna calculated on fires
Aboriginal people were already in the habit of blinking pieces of forest in cool months. So that the amount of "fuel" remained limited and the fire did not get out of hand during dry summers. When explorer Captain Cook sailed along the east coast (where Sydney is located) in 1770, he wrote in his log: "We saw smoke by day and fire by night."

Underwood: “Between 1950 and 2000, we as park managers did exactly the same. Our flora and fauna are well prepared for regular, limited fires. "

Green thinkers
However, the helm changed from the turn of the century. Underwood sees it as the influence of "green thinkers and politicians". One example is the WWF Australia nature organization, which warned of preventative fires in 2003, because they would lead to the loss of "species, communities and ecosystems".
Underwood: "The greens have always had more influence on the management of our forest and nature areas. Many forests are now closed to the public and preventive burning has virtually stopped. With one important effect: our forests are full of highly flammable material. "
Environmental vandalismCitizens also clashed with green orthodoxy. When Liam Sheahan felled 250 trees around his home in Reedy Creek in 2004 as a precaution against fire, he was charged with environmental vandalism. Fines and fees cost Sheahan a total of around 100,000 Australian dollars.

Five years later, on "Black Saturday" (one of the toughest forest fires in Australian history, killing 180 people), Sheahan turned out to have made the right choice: his house was the only one left standing in the wider area.

Greta Thunberg
Yet a choir of politicians and activists, including Greta Thunberg, points to the climate as the spark that ignited the apocalyptic fire. How different is the record, on Wednesday December 19, of the highest average temperature on the continent of 41.9 degrees? In addition, the already low-summers in the last decades seem even drier.

Heat, drought and strong wind; that's enough for the flammable cocktail, according to the Greens. Party leader Di Natale: "We have to prepare for the fires that are coming."
Downward trendUnderwood sees it differently: "The idea that climate change is causing these fires is flawed on two points: first, it ignores accumulation

Secondly, designating climate as a cause does not offer a solution for the current threat. Underwood: "A cartoon summed it up nicely: a couple is standing outside their house, while the fire is coming. The man shouts to his wife: "Hops, quickly throw an extra solar panel on the roof."

In short: it is not about coal mines, it is about better management. Finally, the global trend - a quarter fewer forest fires since 2003, according to NASA - indicates that there is more going on in Australia.

Failing management
And so polarizes the land of the eucalyptus. Former firefighters insist on a return to traditional forest management. While green politicians actually detest those old preventive traditions and only look at the climate as the culprit.

It is possible that a balanced assessment will come out of the research that Prime Minister Morrison has promised. According to the Australian newspaper The Daily Telegraph, one of the questions for the committee of inquiry is as follows: is the exceptional firing season perhaps caused by failing vegetation management in national parks and forests?

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 01/06/20 7:54am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

The CIA and the Pentagon believe in climate change. You are to the right of the frickin CIA!

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 01/06/20 8:09am

maplenpg

avatar

TweetyV6 said:

IanRG said:

.

Too late, the facts have been dived into already and the nonsense from your political inspired views are now costing lives - 1 single bad fire season proves nothing - progressively worseing fire seasons that start sooner and sooner and last longer and longer properly adjusted for natural variations are another thing.


Actually its Green Policy that causes the deaths.
Same as with the fires in California in 2018

Roger Underwood lives in Perth and is an acclaimed firefighter and former director of Conservation and Land Management in the province of Western Australia.

https://www.telegraaf.nl/...oen-beleid

Expert: forests full of fuel after years of mismanagement

"Australian big blaze with green policy"

Nine lives and a thousand houses were already lost in the apocalyptic sea of ​​flames in Australia. Five million hectares of nature have been burned - larger than the surface of the Netherlands. "We are now seeing the devastating effects of the climate crisis on Australia and it is only getting worse," warns opposition leader Richard Di Natale. According to the green politician there is no doubt: the forest fires down under are the blistering proof of climate change. But is that really so?


Fire expert Roger Underwood totally disagrees with the prevailing view that the fires in Australia are due to climate change. At least twenty thousand residents of Sydney agree with him. Tired of heat, masks and burning air from the nearby fire, so many demonstrators traveled through the metropolis a week and a half ago. To protest against the, in their eyes, "weak" climate policy of the right-wing government of Scott Morrison. One of the green "solutions" for the forest fires? Closure of all coal mines immediately.


Drought is not unique
But one noise is hardly heard in media violence, Roger Underwood concludes: that of experienced forest firefighters. Underwood lives in Perth and is an acclaimed firefighter and former director of Conservation and Land Management in the province of Western Australia.


The drought is not that unique, according to Underwood. That it now ends in massive forest fires is due to the green veto on traditional fire prevention.


"Australia is simply susceptible to forest fires," Underwood explains. "We have long, dry and hot summers. And the vegetation of eucalyptus and acacia trees is extremely fire sensitive. One of the peculiar characteristics, which is always difficult to explain in Europe, is that dry leaves and branches of the eucalyptus do not perish. They don't rot, they pile up. If it dries out, as happens every summer, you have one thing left: fuel. The more, the more intense the fire. "


Flora and fauna calculated on fires
Aboriginal people were already in the habit of blinking pieces of forest in cool months. So that the amount of "fuel" remained limited and the fire did not get out of hand during dry summers. When explorer Captain Cook sailed along the east coast (where Sydney is located) in 1770, he wrote in his log: "We saw smoke by day and fire by night."

Underwood: “Between 1950 and 2000, we as park managers did exactly the same. Our flora and fauna are well prepared for regular, limited fires. "

Green thinkers
However, the helm changed from the turn of the century. Underwood sees it as the influence of "green thinkers and politicians". One example is the WWF Australia nature organization, which warned of preventative fires in 2003, because they would lead to the loss of "species, communities and ecosystems".
Underwood: "The greens have always had more influence on the management of our forest and nature areas. Many forests are now closed to the public and preventive burning has virtually stopped. With one important effect: our forests are full of highly flammable material. "
Environmental vandalismCitizens also clashed with green orthodoxy. When Liam Sheahan felled 250 trees around his home in Reedy Creek in 2004 as a precaution against fire, he was charged with environmental vandalism. Fines and fees cost Sheahan a total of around 100,000 Australian dollars.

Five years later, on "Black Saturday" (one of the toughest forest fires in Australian history, killing 180 people), Sheahan turned out to have made the right choice: his house was the only one left standing in the wider area.

Greta Thunberg
Yet a choir of politicians and activists, including Greta Thunberg, points to the climate as the spark that ignited the apocalyptic fire. How different is the record, on Wednesday December 19, of the highest average temperature on the continent of 41.9 degrees? In addition, the already low-summers in the last decades seem even drier.

Heat, drought and strong wind; that's enough for the flammable cocktail, according to the Greens. Party leader Di Natale: "We have to prepare for the fires that are coming."
Downward trendUnderwood sees it differently: "The idea that climate change is causing these fires is flawed on two points: first, it ignores accumulation

Secondly, designating climate as a cause does not offer a solution for the current threat. Underwood: "A cartoon summed it up nicely: a couple is standing outside their house, while the fire is coming. The man shouts to his wife: "Hops, quickly throw an extra solar panel on the roof."

In short: it is not about coal mines, it is about better management. Finally, the global trend - a quarter fewer forest fires since 2003, according to NASA - indicates that there is more going on in Australia.

Failing management
And so polarizes the land of the eucalyptus. Former firefighters insist on a return to traditional forest management. While green politicians actually detest those old preventive traditions and only look at the climate as the culprit.

It is possible that a balanced assessment will come out of the research that Prime Minister Morrison has promised. According to the Australian newspaper The Daily Telegraph, one of the questions for the committee of inquiry is as follows: is the exceptional firing season perhaps caused by failing vegetation management in national parks and forests?

Everything I've read about the Australian bush fires says there are MANY factors that have contributed, not just one. The climate council of Australia supports fuel reduction burning but states:

Fuel reduction burning is being constrained by a shortage of resources in some states and territories and by a warming and drying weather cycle, which acting in concert reduce the number of days on which fuel reduction burning can be undertaken.

Therefore it is not just the Greens that are preventing burning as your article suggests, but also the weather.

Multiple factors that contribute to the fires require a long term multi-party approach to prevent them and react to them. No need to make it party political

[Edited 1/6/20 8:36am]

#JusticeForShukri http://chng.it/B5mNKrDrzK
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 01/06/20 11:35am

IanRG

TweetyV6 said:

IanRG said:

.

Too late, the facts have been dived into already and the nonsense from your political inspired views are now costing lives - 1 single bad fire season proves nothing - progressively worseing fire seasons that start sooner and sooner and last longer and longer properly adjusted for natural variations are another thing.


Actually its Green Policy that causes the deaths.
Same as with the fires in California in 2018

Roger Underwood lives in Perth and is an acclaimed firefighter and former director of Conservation and Land Management in the province of Western Australia.

https://www.telegraaf.nl/...oen-beleid

Expert: forests full of fuel after years of mismanagement

"Australian big blaze with green policy"

Nine lives and a thousand houses were already lost in the apocalyptic sea of ​​flames in Australia. Five million hectares of nature have been burned - larger than the surface of the Netherlands. "We are now seeing the devastating effects of the climate crisis on Australia and it is only getting worse," warns opposition leader Richard Di Natale. According to the green politician there is no doubt: the forest fires down under are the blistering proof of climate change. But is that really so?


Fire expert Roger Underwood totally disagrees with the prevailing view that the fires in Australia are due to climate change. At least twenty thousand residents of Sydney agree with him. Tired of heat, masks and burning air from the nearby fire, so many demonstrators traveled through the metropolis a week and a half ago. To protest against the, in their eyes, "weak" climate policy of the right-wing government of Scott Morrison. One of the green "solutions" for the forest fires? Closure of all coal mines immediately.


Drought is not unique
But one noise is hardly heard in media violence, Roger Underwood concludes: that of experienced forest firefighters. Underwood lives in Perth and is an acclaimed firefighter and former director of Conservation and Land Management in the province of Western Australia.


The drought is not that unique, according to Underwood. That it now ends in massive forest fires is due to the green veto on traditional fire prevention.


"Australia is simply susceptible to forest fires," Underwood explains. "We have long, dry and hot summers. And the vegetation of eucalyptus and acacia trees is extremely fire sensitive. One of the peculiar characteristics, which is always difficult to explain in Europe, is that dry leaves and branches of the eucalyptus do not perish. They don't rot, they pile up. If it dries out, as happens every summer, you have one thing left: fuel. The more, the more intense the fire. "


Flora and fauna calculated on fires
Aboriginal people were already in the habit of blinking pieces of forest in cool months. So that the amount of "fuel" remained limited and the fire did not get out of hand during dry summers. When explorer Captain Cook sailed along the east coast (where Sydney is located) in 1770, he wrote in his log: "We saw smoke by day and fire by night."

Underwood: “Between 1950 and 2000, we as park managers did exactly the same. Our flora and fauna are well prepared for regular, limited fires. "

Green thinkers
However, the helm changed from the turn of the century. Underwood sees it as the influence of "green thinkers and politicians". One example is the WWF Australia nature organization, which warned of preventative fires in 2003, because they would lead to the loss of "species, communities and ecosystems".
Underwood: "The greens have always had more influence on the management of our forest and nature areas. Many forests are now closed to the public and preventive burning has virtually stopped. With one important effect: our forests are full of highly flammable material. "
Environmental vandalismCitizens also clashed with green orthodoxy. When Liam Sheahan felled 250 trees around his home in Reedy Creek in 2004 as a precaution against fire, he was charged with environmental vandalism. Fines and fees cost Sheahan a total of around 100,000 Australian dollars.

Five years later, on "Black Saturday" (one of the toughest forest fires in Australian history, killing 180 people), Sheahan turned out to have made the right choice: his house was the only one left standing in the wider area.

Greta Thunberg
Yet a choir of politicians and activists, including Greta Thunberg, points to the climate as the spark that ignited the apocalyptic fire. How different is the record, on Wednesday December 19, of the highest average temperature on the continent of 41.9 degrees? In addition, the already low-summers in the last decades seem even drier.

Heat, drought and strong wind; that's enough for the flammable cocktail, according to the Greens. Party leader Di Natale: "We have to prepare for the fires that are coming."
Downward trendUnderwood sees it differently: "The idea that climate change is causing these fires is flawed on two points: first, it ignores accumulation

Secondly, designating climate as a cause does not offer a solution for the current threat. Underwood: "A cartoon summed it up nicely: a couple is standing outside their house, while the fire is coming. The man shouts to his wife: "Hops, quickly throw an extra solar panel on the roof."

In short: it is not about coal mines, it is about better management. Finally, the global trend - a quarter fewer forest fires since 2003, according to NASA - indicates that there is more going on in Australia.

Failing management
And so polarizes the land of the eucalyptus. Former firefighters insist on a return to traditional forest management. While green politicians actually detest those old preventive traditions and only look at the climate as the culprit.

It is possible that a balanced assessment will come out of the research that Prime Minister Morrison has promised. According to the Australian newspaper The Daily Telegraph, one of the questions for the committee of inquiry is as follows: is the exceptional firing season perhaps caused by failing vegetation management in national parks and forests?

.

This is the problem with pseudoscience that is led more by politcal agenda than fact.

.

It starts with the error that Richard Di Natale is the Opposition Leader. He is not from the right House of Parliament and not from the right party to be the Oppostion Leader. He is a Senator from a minor party. He leads a party with one seat out of 150 seats in the House of Reps, the house where the Opposition Leader comes from and 9 seats out 76 in the Senate.

.

The 20,000 people that protested in Sydney where not protesting in support of Underwood's arguments at all. They were the people calling for stronger policies on climate change. They were calling for more green policies that recognise climate change as real and that we need to something about it.

.

Droughts are not unique - but they are following the climate model predicted trends of being longer and covering much wider areas. We are simply not experiencing fires at the end of a drought. The current drought has in many places being going for years and has no currently predicted end.

.

Fuel load accumulation and management is an issue - Part of the problem is that the window of opportunity to reduce fuel loads is now smaller as a result of changes in drought patterns and the earlier start to the fire season. Underwood's comments are nonsense. Just because a minor party leader from a party that has never been in government and never been the opposition party in any Federal or State government missed out saying fuel load as one of the immediate causes of fire intensity does not mean that fire services people in 2010s were not well and truly aware of the need for fuel management in the off season - with the drought and the increasingly early start to the fire season, the old methods no longer work. Also the cartoon referenced by Underwood second claimed reason is ridiculous. It reflects what he has been promoting: a binary view that we can only fix fires by either focusing on climate change or on fuel load management. We can do both and no one imagines the effectiveness of climate change management will see immediate fire reductions as he constantly claims.

.

If you are going to rely on news articles that quote the Daily Telegraph, you need to realise that that is like seeking a fair and balanced view of Trump's presidency from Sean Hannity's inept brother.

[Edited 1/6/20 11:42am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 01/06/20 10:45pm

TweetyV6

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

The CIA and the Pentagon believe in climate change. You are to the right of the frickin CIA!


Like they know....16 years ago:

Now the Pentagon tells Bu...destroy us

Some predictions:

2012: Severe drought and cold push Scandinavian populations southward, push back from EU. Flood of refugees to southeast U.S. and Mexico from Caribbean islands.

2015: Conflict within the EU over food and water supply leads to skirmishes and strained diplomatic relations 2018: Russia joins EU, providing energy resources.

2020: Migration from northern countries such as Holland and Germany toward Spain and Italy.


The latter is true. It's an annual phenomenon since... 40-50 years or so.
Usually it takes place in July and August lol lol

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 01/06/20 11:03pm

TweetyV6

avatar

IanRG said:

.

The 20,000 people that protested in Sydney where not protesting in support of Underwood's arguments at all. They were the people calling for stronger policies on climate change. They were calling for more green policies that recognise climate change as real and that we need to something about it.

Unfortunately, you can't do jack shit about it. Except try to deal with it in the best way possibe, which brings me to my following point:

.

Droughts are not unique - but they are following the climate model predicted trends of being longer and covering much wider areas. We are simply not experiencing fires at the end of a drought. The current drought has in many places being going for years and has no currently predicted end.


If the bold part is true, then these fires are pure negligence.
Authorities could have known but apparently didn't act accordingly.

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 2 12>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > The €4,600 Billion Fiasco - Germany's Energy Transition