What the people need to know about emissions and unreliable energy

The climate wars go on but they do not engage the median voter who has work to do, family responsibilities and the usual range of social and sporting interests.

The median voter just needs to know two things.

1. We could cut our emissions to zip without making a scrap of difference to the weather.
2. Increasing the capacity of Wind & Other will inevitably increase the cost of power and reduce the reliability of supply.

There is no need to convince 100% of the electorate or even 51%. There is no need to convert or convince people who are rusted onto one side or the other of the debate or people who are rusted onto their political preference.

To avert the risk of a CFMEU/Green government we just need to convert 3% of the people who are likely to carelessly vote Green or ALP (not rusted on) but are not fully aware of the two key things.

Some people and groups are especially vulnerable to rising power costs – all the big and small operators who run ovens and freezers, low wage earners, pensioners and the self-funded retirees.

What is to be done to get to these people with a simple and clear message, leaving aside the froth and bubble about the science of warming and saving the planet?

People who are not well informed and can be kept interested for more than three minutes may be interested to learn a few more things in addition to the big two points. Like the way the big CO2 producers have a licence to do what they like for years to come (incidentally burning our coal), there are hundreds of coal-fired power stations in the pipeline worldwide and virtually no nations have got near their Paris promises.

Wind and Other doing 5.5% of demand at 8.30 in NSW. The Data Dashboard appears to be on Queensland time.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy, Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to What the people need to know about emissions and unreliable energy

  1. stackja

    People are not well informed by MSM.

  2. NuThink

    virtually no nations have got near their Paris promises.

    But they would have promised to meet again regularly in some fancy place and not some god forsaken place like Mogadishu or Vladivostok or Venezuela, funny about that.

  3. John Bayley

    To avert the risk of a CFMEU/Green government we just need to convert 3% of the people who are likely to carelessly vote Green or ALP…

    …or the Liberals…

    Because they are just as dedicated to Gaia on this as the other two.

  4. I actually believe that most people are aware of this, but they consider it just one aspect of things in life that concern them. So they voted on a number of issues that politicians promise, rather than just climate issues (other than the Greens and their acolytes).

    Eventually the true import of renewables, aka unaffordable and unreliable power, will hit home, but at the moment for most it’s something a little bit on the intangible side.

    All that I can wish for is that when the lights do go out, it’s the MSM that’s hit the hardest (they can’t send out, we can’t hear them).

  5. John Constantine

    Their General Assembly of Tyrants are progressing regime change in Australia, not climate change.

    Deindustrialise the economy, unemploy and impoverish the proles and mass import millions of voters.

    Australia is the next Zimbabwe, broken, then recolonised by the most powerful Tyrant.

    Comrades.

  6. Rafe Champion

    I am punting on the belief that very few people understand the key points, the MSM is not telling them and neither are the Liberals. Somebody else has to tell them and I want to know that happens when they find out:)

  7. RobK

    If I am hearing the Prime Minister correctly, he is not going to increase the RET but let it run its course. There maybe a large penalty for abandoning it, I’m not familar enough with the details. If this is so, it should be highlighted as the price of the con that we cant avoid. Presented well, many will accept that as the inevitable outcome and the least disruptive course. Baseload will need some mind of guaranteed access to market to be viable and low cost. If this is how it is to be then the rort is stemmed but not eliminated. Not ideal, but better than what we have under full Paris mayhem. Im not sure if I have this right.

  8. RobK

    I sort of get the feeling ScoMo is waiting for the Wentworth election to pass before landing some home truths. I hope that’s what it is.

  9. Andreas

    Very simple message: Renewables will ALWAYS be more expensive because you have to pay TWICE: once for the renewables and again for a backup system when there’s no sun or wind. You’re paying for TWO power systems instead of one.

  10. Roger

    I sort of get the feeling ScoMo is waiting for the Wentworth election to pass before landing some home truths. I hope that’s what it is.

    He’ll lurch even further leftwards after losing it, in a bid to “reclaim the centre”.

    Didn’t know whether to laugh or cry last night when he told Peta Credlin that nuclear didn’t stack up because it was uneconomical without subsidies. He simply regurgitates what his public service advisers tell him.

    (I’ll be more than happy to be proven wrong. Let’s see what happens Saturday.)

  11. .

    Didn’t know whether to laugh or cry last night when he told Peta Credlin that nuclear didn’t stack up because it was uneconomical without subsidies. He simply regurgitates what his public service advisers tell him.

    Uneconomical because it is banned and stupidity and fear would regulate the billy-o out of it.

    On a global level, nuclear and coal are competitive with each other. Nuclear is cheaper in Britain and South Korea.

    Coal might beat nuclear in Australia but ultimately it comes down to scale.

    http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx

  12. Rockdoctor

    Rafe Champion
    #2841539, posted on October 17, 2018 at 9:35 am

    Am sorta busy at moment in NSW, so forgive me if I don’t engage any further today. A lot of well meaning people believe the MSM talking points, I have tried to counter with facts. It goes nowhere & they continue on the way with whatever someone put up on facebook or what some lefty talking head on TV says. I don’t know to get round this, I will continue to try and correct the books but with the shallow standard of discourse and cherry picking of facts I am at a loss on what else to do… A lot have made up their minds that we have to do something & that renewables like solar are viable.

    I can’t see anything else other than the Government running out of money being forced to wind back subsidies or collapse of the electrical system (upsized prolonged SA style) that will wake people up…

  13. Natural Instinct

    To complete the picture for item (1).
    What proportion of total CO2e emissions are done by humans?
    Because I know Australia is 1-2% of man made emissions but I need another factoid to prove item (1) is really really really important. And the proportion is not very often reported – mainly because the zealots don’t want us to know.

  14. Whichever party is in power when all this renewable energy fluff turns to crap will be forever remembered as the party that turned off the lights in Australia. The opposition party will have a field day whether they were complicit or not. The Greens will become a footnote in our political history books (suitably amended to reflect what should have happened rather than what actually happened).

  15. Rafe Champion

    I take Rockdoctor’s point, I think we are tempted to provide too many facts, the key is the concession by Finkel that what we do makes no difference. The other is that nobody wants to pay more for electricity and Andreas has the simplest case there – we are committed to two power schemes until the indefinite future when we can store power effectively.

    The other thing is to make one point at a time and leave it at that, pushing harder is likely to be counterproductive. In the end people have to change their own minds.

    People will pay more attention if there is a major hiccup in supply and that is on the cards for Victoria come summer. Likewise as power prices rise but that might be too late for the next election.

    Wentworth could break either way for Morrison, if he wins he might stay on course (stupidly) or he might get bold (thinking he is on a roll) and move in the appropriate direction.

    If he loses he might go to water and (uselessly) try to “regain the middle ground” or he might realise the situation is so desperate that only a really bold move in the right direction will give him any chance.

    He is a Turnbull clone so I would back him to go to water either way.

    To be fair, Wentworth is probably the last place on earth to go bold on this issue:)

  16. Rafe Champion

    Natural Instinct, try 4 or 5% but check somewhere!

  17. Davefromweewaa

    Rafe the other most important thing is that it enriches parasites like Turnbull’s, Photios’ and merchant banks.
    Dave

  18. Harken Now

    Hark! Rafe: you say

    the key is the concession by Finkel that what we do makes no difference.

    As I said in earlier comment – whoever thought that a Tragedy of the Commons is solved by one player flagging first “I will never stop until you all do first”?

    This is so obvious to the Angels that we find it hard to credit that this position could make sense to anyone.

    Let’s get this straight – if you are trying to play the game of “well, even if hypothetically AGW is true and there is a global problem addressed by stopping burning carbon which, if it weren’t for AGW, everyone would love to keep doing” the next sentence “but we are so small we refuse to do anything” makes no moral or even economic theory sense at all, given the very nature of the problem.

  19. RobK

    Hark,
    The nature of the problem, for you, is that there is no problem. The IPCC was formed on a political premise. It relies on a special kind of science that was settled, much like the inquisition. There are many examples in human history of such mind sets. You represent just one more. You represent what could be the end of modern civilization. You likely do so in pure ignorance.

  20. .

    There is no tragedy of the commons.

    The longest unadjusted datasets show no warming, even cooling.

    If there is warming, it is not significant enough to cause net costs.

    Even if we assume net costs, it still does not pass a CBA to mitigate.

    Every ETS/tax has been so inefficient and costly if applied globally to totally mitigate emissions, we’d see global GDP drop drastically to subsistence wages.

    Go away Karked it. You’ve been trolling libertarian blogs for over a decade and a half with stupid nom de plumes and unearnt arrogance. Remember the time you pretended to be a Christian fundamentalist and rambled on about the need for canoes?

    Please shut up and go away, you are frightfully uninformed and innumerate.

  21. Rafe

    The tragedy is that CO2 is way below the optimum for plant growth.
    Not a key point but a good one for people who know about biology.

  22. faceache

    Apart from anything else, THE BLOODY HORSE HAS FRIGGIN BOLTED.

  23. Dr Fred Lenin

    It looks like the u.n.communist soros globalist gang have Australia lined up to be looted, the uniparty National Gangrene Union Mafia Lieboral Party has the Paris rip off running well .we will need a bloody revolution to defeat their evil ,heads will need to roll and gulags built to hold the . One generation should eliminate their shit from the earth. We have had four alp PMs and one DLP one since Howard selfishly tried to hang on to power instead of an orderly fashion . Trump ie the start .
    How is that soros mongrel financing getup to hire a diesel spewing truck to try to h[get shortarse into power .soros should be destroyed ,fascist pig .

  24. Bootstrapper

    More people = more demand for power. Cut (or stop) immigration.

  25. Bruce of Newcastle

    given the very nature of the problem.

    Which isn’t a problem.
    That is why China and India are tripling their CO2 emissions by 2030.
    They have scientists who are actual scientists.
    At a real world 2XCO2 of below 1 C/doubling, CO2 is quite harmless.

  26. Leo G

    …we are committed to two power schemes until the indefinite future when we can store power effectively.

    I expect you mean when we can store energy generated from an ideologically-preferred, highly variable source and reliably supply to a distributed power market on demand.
    The better way to achieve that end is to change the ideology to accomodate reality rather than the converse.

  27. Robber Baron

    Rafe, I’m scared witless. Here in the City of Darebin we are having a “climate emergency” according to the Mayor. I don’t know what that looks like, but it scares the hell out of me. I’m waiting for all parties to provide their policies about this so-called climate emergency before I draw a hairy penis on my HoR ballot.

    According to the latest Darebin Community Newsletter, the key concerns of the rate-payers are:
    Climate Change
    Diversity
    Art
    Promoting gender equality in sport
    Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander recognition
    Women and non-binary health issues

    The focus groups consulted were: “young people” “business community” “same-sex-attracted and gender diverse people” “Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders” “people from diverse cultures” and “Sporting groups.” Not one “normal rate-payer.” Not. One!

  28. Confused Old Misfit

    I’m liking the idea of a 1-1.5* temperature rise and about 1200ppm CO2. Would make the planet nice and comfy and up plant growth and food production.
    Time to get out the old SUV and rock those roads!

  29. Natural Instinct

    I asked the question on jonovas blog. There was a recent paper published which definitely put mans contribution to CO2 levels at 3 to 3.5%.

    So 3.5% of a delta of 0.0n %, which means SFA,

  30. jupes

    A lot of well meaning people believe the MSM talking points

    Even when SloMo is on Sky, no one counters his lie that “leaving Paris won’t effect electricity prices”.

    Disgraceful.

  31. Natural Instinct

    Rafe says human 3 to 5% but check
    Incoherent Ramble says 3.0 to 3.5% humans (not sure total or flow)
    … Thus 0.02 x 3.5 = 0.07%,
    … or 7 in 10,000 due to Oztralia.
    SO any politician who want to transfers billions of dollars to owners of bird choppers should explain that first.
    What effect does a 30% reduction in emission (from 7 in 10,000 achieve compared to 5 in 10,000) achieve for the global climate

  32. Delingpole

    Is there a single person, anywhere in Britain, outside the government, the Civil Service, the renewables industry, Greenpeace, academe, or the BBC who actually believes this utter nonsense?

    People in Britain don’t want their lovely countryside carpeted with more bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco crucifixes; they don’t want Drax burning woodchips imported from the U.S.; they don’t want more expensive electricity; they don’t want toffs being subsidised to plonk vast solar arrays in the field where they used to enjoy walking the dog; they don’t want hectoring loons like the BBC resident climate activist Roger Harrabin burbling on about bollocks IPCC reports which they know are just made up drivel; they resent subsidising rich, virtue-signalling twonks to recharge their Teslas for free; they want real jobs not the Potemkin jobs in fake green industries which only exist because of taxpayer subsidy.

  33. Rohan

    I think with the facts, you have to keep it simple.

    I can’t remember who did the 1km representation of the atmosphere (Ian Plimmer?), but its great in that it allows the average person to visualise ppm in their head. So 405 mm (average 2017 concentration according to NASA) of that 1km representation is CO2. Of that, man is responsible for something like 3-4% depending on what source you believe but lets take the higher IPCC AR 5 limit of 3.7 and round it upto 4%. That’s 16 mm being man made.

    From here on in I’m going to round stuff down as I go along. I’m not worried about 2nd or 3rd places.

    Australia is 1.3 of man’s emissions, so that’s about 0.2 mm and if we reduce emissions by KRudd’s 5%, that’s .001 mm of your 1km representation of the atmoshpere.

    Water makes up ~9000 mm of our 1km representation of the atmosphere. That’s 22.5 times the concentration and is 7.6 times stronger a greenhouse gas than CO2 according to the Kyoto Protocol. So why are we worried about an increase in CO2 since the end of the second world war of about 40 mm CO2?

  34. Confused Old Misfit

    So why are we worried about an increase in CO2…

    Because we think by getting you worried about it we can TAX the C part!
    Demonize carbon!
    Scare you!
    Take your money to fix the non-existent problem.
    Buy yacht and fast looking Italian car!

  35. Rafe Champion

    Rohan, that picture does it all, so much more effective than talking numbers.

    The CO2 is practically invisible at the bottom (or top) of the column and inside that the human component vanishes.

    The other thing is to get clear on the dwell time of CO2 in the atmosphere, alarmists like to talk decades, as though it is collecting in a bath with a tiny drainpipe but the real story is different, much quicker turnover. Someone might like to check. Not that it matters in light of the above picture.

  36. Chris

    Rafe there is one danger with this kind of voter.
    I think here of the cultlike aspect of the global warming scam.
    If people are scared that the hypothetical benefits of their false belief are threatened they act to protect those purported benefits.
    Cialdini (Influence: Science and Practice) (I think) describes going to TM information evening. He heard the acolytes promising all kinds of exactly contradictory benefits to different people with different problems. So he stood up and pointed out the contradictions. He was astonished, and the acolytes were especially astonished, when after the Q&A the entire group of prospects queued up to hand over the dosh for a TM course.
    Hypothesised reason: the benefits promised are pie in the sky, and fervently hoped for. Hearing someone make sound rational challenges to the logic threatened loss of the feeling of hope. So they all signed up, when normally only a few in a group do that.
    So the danger is that the warm, smug feeling will vanish when the music stops – I am pretty sure that’s why the scam has not collapsed already. The benefits are as much in prestige as in money!

  37. gbees

    I have come to the conclusion that there are a lot of useful idiots out there. The majority being on the left.

  38. gbees

    I’m wondering if ScoMo is going to let loose after Wentworth bi-election? I’d prefer he does it now, but if I have to wait a few more days then so be it. But after Saturday I expect him to tell Australia that climate change (man-made kind) is crap, that immigration numbers will be reduced and that the bank tax and super taxes will be removed. If he doesn’t do this then he will not attract LNP voters back to the fold and he may as well pull up stumps.

  39. Norman Church

    Another good way to represent the increase in carbon dioxide from 300 to 400 ppm is to speak of increases in the number of people sitting in a 100,000 seat stadium.

  40. mn

    Average intelligence is now below 100 so the KISS principle applies ,unfortunately
    most do not change until they suffer consequences.

  41. .

    Here in the City of Darebin we are having a “climate emergency” according to the Mayor.

    He needs a clip over the ears. Rates, roads and rubbish.

  42. Dr Fred Lenin

    Any “extreme”right wing party ,( that means a non communist u.n, global capitalist group),with Alf a brain could destroy the communist left y nstillkng fear in the voters ,fear of astronomical power prices to feed the left capitalist rent seekers ,fear of islamofascist terrorism from welfare migrants , fear of African crime gangs who are not deported,fear of continually rising prices and falling value of wages . All if these things are TRUE , and happeninh[g daily in front of their eyes . Hand out how to vote cards saying . We will
    Reverse power prices , cut Islamic and African immigration ,cut spending and give tax cuts to workers . Easy peasey ,they would walk it in ,sweep the left rubbish into the gutter where they belong . Do it guys !
    Make Australia Great Again Malloy with the USA and Brexit UK The English speaking world .

  43. Herodotus

    Rafe, there’s a new meme emerging to try and counter the small contribution Australia makes to da emissions.
    It goes like this:
    Yes, Australia might only emit 1.5% or thereabouts, but when you add up all the similarly small emitters they total 30%. (they are not identified, so who knows?)
    Ipso facto they, and Aus, as a group, could make a significant contribution.
    But: who are these nations? Are they going to make a contribution, or are they just in the line with their hand out for money while they actually increase their emissions to catch up?

  44. BoyfromTottenham

    Rafe, I understand your concern about how to cut through to the ‘average’ voter (note: the word ‘median’ is stats jargon, which the ‘average’ voter does not understand).
    I would focus on the economics and jobs impact – how much will it cost the federal budget (and therefore taxpayers) to implement this crazy IPCC crap (don’t worry about a bit of exaggeration- the other side does it all the time, in spades), how many jobs will be lost if there is no baseload power to support existing heavy industries like metal refining, brickmaking, etc. note:There is a list of 200 or so ‘exempt’ industries in the LRET legislation that are all high energy users that are currently shielded from the full impact of the RET, but how many of them can actually operate without stable baseload power – 50%?
    The ‘we have to pay twice for renewable energy’ argument is a good one, too. Then we get to the $billions in renewable subsidies ensconced (aka hidden) in both parts of the RET. Then there is the other hidden subsidy via the CEFC, etc.
    Then there is the balance of payments issue – wind generators and solar panels are almost 100% imported. If we expand this and then shut down local heavy industries (see above) then the BoP will be in serious deficit and down goes the A$, so say goodbye to cheap o/s holiday trips.
    I could go on, but I’m sure you get my drift.
    In short – forget about the science, focus on the hip pocket nerve. No amount of MSM bullsh!t will cover up the reality of the economics, if you focus on the stuff.

  45. Rafe Champion

    Yes the people we are trying to reach don’t want to be bothered with the science, it is the financial hit, most obviously the quarterly bill.
    A simple table adding up the other costs is a great idea, likewise jobs to be lost in power intensive industries. The BOP may be a bit much, but good for people who are interested in that kind of thing.
    All good stuff to take on board!

  46. John Constantine

    The point of deindustrialisation through destroying an economy’s ability to make electricity is to create an angry, bitter unemployed and impoverished underclass that will willingly vote to take everything off the wealthy, for fairness.

    Prosecution of regime change is their lefts intention, creating a vast movement of cannon fodder class revolutionaries.

  47. BoyfromTottenham

    Rafe, thanks for the reply. Re the BoP thing, just skip the explanation and just them that their Bali holidays will cost more.

  48. Jim H

    The Australian electricity grid manager (AEMO) maintains the statistics for the generation and distribution of energy and the price of power in each member state. AEMO time is the same as Qld time and so is unaffected by the daylight saving times which are implemented for various parts of each year elsewhere in Australia. This saves a lot of confusion.

  49. Peter Campion

    Apologies for the lateness of this comment.

    The point of my Relaxivism project, now in its seventh year, is to trigger cognitive dissonance in punters as often as possible, one subject, one short letter-to-the-editor or text-the-editor at a time.

    A mate sometimes repeats these on electronic media, which I don’t have time for, to increase their audience.

    The theory is that cognitive dissonance causes mild mental irritation which can, over time, lead to internal questioning of established views. It did in my own transition from brainwashed zombie to realist.

    I consciously employ Alinsky’s rules 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 13. Why not? They use the full set.

    The MSM, particularly the ABC, is utterly focused on maintaining a constant stream of agitprop.

    One counter to that is to use every opportunity to deliver short, sharp messages, harsh messages where necessary, to point out the contradictions and ridiculous notions in the greenies agitprop.

    Newspapers, particularly the free regional weeklies, tend to linger on lunch room tables in workplaces everywhere. Spectacular slapdowns of greentards in letters columns get read and remembered.

    Cognitive dissonance can be slow to work – but it does work, I’ve done the experiments.

  50. Nob

    Herodotus
    #2842058, posted on October 17, 2018 at 5:19 pm
    Rafe, there’s a new meme emerging to try and counter the small contribution Australia makes to da emissions.
    It goes like this:
    Yes, Australia might only emit 1.5% or thereabouts, but when you add up all the similarly small emitters they total 30%. (they are not identified, so who knows?)

    Just like they had the “it’s not the renewables, it’s privatisation etc” response ready in time for last year’s blackouts, and will be doubly prepared when, not if, it happens again.

    Illogical, innumerate, counterfactual – but the media ran with it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.