Hosted by Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.
778 messages in 15 discussions
Latest 8:23 AM by ElDotardo
5049 messages in 116 discussions
Latest 4/29/21 by Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Latest May-26 by ElDotardo
Latest May-21 by NISSY (NISSY2)
Australia's renewable energy capacity is set to exceed a target the Federal Government said was impossible to reach by 2020, according to new research from Green Energy Markets.
In its quarterly Renewable Energy Index, GEM said the amount of renewable energy generated in 2020 was set to exceed the original 41,000 Gigawatt hour (GWh) Renewable Energy Target (RET) that was in place before being scrapped in 2015 by the federal government led by then prime minister Tony Abbott.
The original RET was put in place to help Australia meet its 2030 climate change commitment to cut emissions by 26 to 28 per cent from 2005 levels.
It was replaced by a less ambitious target of 33,000 GWh after the Abbott government characterised the original RET as impossible to achieve, while arguing there was already too much generating capacity.
The GEM study — funded by activist group GetUp — found estimated eligible generation would hit 41,381 GWh by 2020, not only exceeding the current RET, but the original RET as well.
"The Coalition's argument that we can't go any further than the target they've proposed without imposing some kind of huge economic shock and threat to reliability is obviously not true because we're pretty much already there," Green Energy Markets director Tristan Edis said.
"[Energy and Environment minister] Josh Frydenberg himself is saying that all the extra renewable energy that is about to enter the system will substantially push down power prices."
I'm not an on-line gamer, but I know that a lot of people are. Sounds as if you'll have your hands full for a time!
Hang in there - - we should still be around when you can re-surface.
This never makes UK news.
I thought BBC news was one of the best out there!
Please tell me you can at least explain Brexit!
The BBC is the most biased impartial organisation on this planet - make sense of that!
Like the majority of mainstream media they are coached and advised on what is news and what isn't.
Never believe all you hear on mainstream news!!
As for Brexit - I voted to remain in Europe. We lost our friends when we needed them most - and the British voter voted for it. Beggars belief. BUT, that was the majority vote so we have to carry it out. Think how messy divorce is then times that by a 1000. It aint pretty.
Billionaire former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg says he will write a $US4.5 million ($5.9 million) cheque to cover the United States' financial commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement for this year.
President Donald Trump last year pulled the US out of the pact, making the country the only one opposed to it.
In a CBS interview, Mr Bloomberg said he hoped Mr Trump would have changed his mind by next year.
Mr Bloomberg would continue to provide money for the pact if the United States did not re-join the agreement, according to a news release from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charity he founded.
"The US pledged to work with the rest of the world to fight climate change under the Paris Agreement, and that includes providing our fair share of the funding to help countries reach their goals," said a statement from Mr Bloomberg, who is also the United Nations Secretary-General's Special Envoy for Climate Action.
"Our foundation will uphold our promise to cover any cuts to UN climate funding by the Federal Government — and the American people will uphold our end of the Paris Agreement, with or without Washington."
Mr Bloomberg's contribution provides the UN Climate Change Secretariat with 60 per cent of the anticipated US Government support this year.
Mr Trump staunchly opposes the agreement and his administration has rolled back a number of environmental regulations.
Although Mr Trump officially told the UN that the US intended to withdraw from the climate agreement last year, the earliest date the US can completely withdraw is November 2020, the time of the next US presidential election and four years after the agreement came into effect.
Well, at least Mr. Bloomburg is willing to put his money where his beliefs are. Too few people willing to do that, these days.
Personally, after having studied the Agreement (or Accord) in detail, I think it's merely yet another scam. The USA at least is doing at least as much, proportionate to our population numbers and overall activities, as are other "first-world" countries to reduce our emission of pollutants, while retaining our own sovereignty.
Some people don't place much importance on sovereignty as we do, oh well.
And we're doing our pollution reduction because it makes good sense to so care for our world, plus in many cases we can make money by doing so.
I've been called that for my political leanings plus because I do competitive target shooting with a rifle. The term, when applied by our Democrats, seems to be a badge on honor where I live.
I have been a hunter all my life but cannot understand the policy(politics) of having military armament in civilian hands