Climate Change

[Hacky McAxe]

Exactly and our politicians fly around on private jets and are rarely in the country

That's politics unfortunately. You want any business or political deal done, it has to be face to face. And the travel of politicians is a drop in the ocean compared to corporations. But it would he good if the politicians just took a public flight.

 

[Natboy]

That's politics unfortunately. You want any business or political deal done, it has to be face to face. And the travel of politicians is a drop in the ocean compared to corporations. But it would he good if the politicians just took a public flight.

True but the extra hypocrisy lies in politicians using private jets to attend sporting events & concerts whilst lecturing us on climate change whilst our power bills are ridiculously high

 

[Kaz]

I am more worried about the Y2K bug that is bound to happen.

Have been prepared since the end of 1999.

 

[Kaz]

You want any business or political deal done, it has to be face to face.

Use zoom etc

 

[Hacky McAxe]

True but the extra hypocrisy lies in politicians using private jets to attend sporting events & concerts whilst lecturing us on climate change whilst our power bills are ridiculously high

Yep. Completely agree with that.

 

[Philistine]

I read that over 70,000 people attended COP28 in Dubai. I wonder how many of them forked out their own money for their travel and accommodation, and how many were there courtesy of the money tree, aka taxpayers? If I had to guess, I would suggest numbers like zero and 70,000, respectively.

 

[Doogie]

Yep. Completely agree with that.

Well, our power bills have a lot to do with the Ukraine war - so not sure what pollies can do about that except interfere with unregulated markets.

and in Sept 2023 were at US$443/MT.

Network costs make up about 30-40% of your bill and part of that cost can be attributed to the switch to renewables. The poor planning thats gone on for 30 years in the switch to renewable space as well as peaks/troughs management during extreme weather events. Liddell PS closure also had an effect but thats because the electricity supplier market panicked and locked in high future commodities contracts in 21/22 in prep for it and those contracts hit in 2023 when Liddell shut. So a hedging issue for maintaining private company profits rather than a capacity issue.

No matter where you look, IPART or AER, the first thing listed for explaining price increases is Ukraine. And thats not ending anytime soon. And building greater dependency on coal when blind freddy will tell you that Russia is not selling energy to the West anytime soon (which would lower coal) is just plain stupid.

 

[Bad Billy]

The thing that shocks me most is that China has more renewable energy per capita than most other countries. They're leading the world in renewables. And per capita, them and India don't use much. Australia smashes them in emissions per capita.

You should know this though. As you always seem to know more than the doctors, and the climate scientists, and all experts. Honestly, they should just give you the Nobel prize for arguing against the experts on everything.

When it comes to climate, emissions per capita is a pointless statistic. It’s used as a tool to guilt people into action, because big countries won’t do anything if their smaller competitors don’t have to.
all that matters is total emissions. That’s a fact that can’t be ignored.
maybe the problem isn’t carbon emissions, it’s gigantic, hyper productive populations.

 

[Doogie]

When it comes to climate, emissions per capita is a pointless statistic. It’s used as a tool to guilt people into action, because big countries won’t do anything if their smaller competitors don’t have to.
all that matters is total emissions. That’s a fact that can’t be ignored.
maybe the problem isn’t carbon emissions, it’s gigantic, hyper productive populations.

Its not a pointless statistic because it shows how you contribute with your lifestyle. But yes - total emissions is the ultimate end game.

As for populations, be careful mate - last time @Hacky McAxe and I went there - we're still hearing about it 3 years later. But you are right and the problem gets worse as you become more industrialised.

 

[Bad Billy]

Its not a pointless statistic because it shows how you contribute with your lifestyle. But yes - total emissions is the ultimate end game.

As for populations, be careful mate - last time @Hacky McAxe and I went there - we're still hearing about it 3 years later. But you are right and the problem gets worse as you become more industrialised. Its why

Absolutely.
you can’t consume your way out of this mess.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Well, our power bills have a lot to do with the Ukraine war - so not sure what pollies can do about that except interfere with unregulated markets.

View attachment 99513
and in Sept 2023 were at US$443/MT.

Network costs make up about 30-40% of your bill and part of that cost can be attributed to the switch to renewables. The poor planning thats gone on for 30 years in the switch to renewable space as well as peaks/troughs management during extreme weather events. Liddell PS closure also had an effect but thats because the electricity supplier market panicked and locked in high future commodities contracts in 21/22 in prep for it and those contracts hit in 2023 when Liddell shut. So a hedging issue for maintaining private company profits rather than a capacity issue.

No matter where you look, IPART or AER, the first thing listed for explaining price increases is Ukraine. And thats not ending anytime soon. And building greater dependency on coal when blind freddy will tell you that Russia is not selling energy to the West anytime soon (which would lower coal) is just plain stupid.

Yeah, I wasn't really talking about the power bills part (phased that out). More talking about the fact that politicians take private flights to watch sporting matches.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I read that over 70,000 people attended COP28 in Dubai. I wonder how many of them forked out their own money for their travel and accommodation, and how many were there courtesy of the money tree, aka taxpayers? If I had to guess, I would suggest numbers like zero and 70,000, respectively.

If your company asked you to travel over seas for business, would you say, "sure I'll pay for it myself"?

People representing countries don't usually pay their own way. They're acting as official representatives of the country.

Apparently around 23,500 were government representatives, paid for by tax payers. The rest were a mix of policy analysts (paid for by think thanks/private doners), private entities looking to get involved in negotiations, media, etc.

 

[Philistine]

If your company asked you to travel over seas for business, would you say, "sure I'll pay for it myself"?

People representing countries don't usually pay their own way. They're acting as official representatives of the country.

Apparently around 23,500 were government representatives, paid for by tax payers. The rest were a mix of policy analysts (paid for by think thanks/private doners), private entities looking to get involved in negotiations, media, etc.

Do you seriously consider the COP junket as "business"?

I have traveled overseas on business on numerous occasions, and you are correct, I didn't pay for myself. Sometimes it was just me, demonstrating a product or conducting a field trial. I would be doing business with 2 or 3, maybe 5 people from one other company, and I had to return home with something tangible, like an order or contract, in order to justify the trip. One or twice, I was part of a small group, taking part in a negotiation with another small group, or problem solving. Whenever I was sent overseas, there were always objectives to be met, and there was always follow-up to make sure they had been met. Can you say the same about COP?

And 70,000 people. What could I (or anyone else) possibly hope to achieve trying to negotiate with 70,000 people? There were probably no more than 200 genuine decision makers at COP, and 69,800 there for a holiday at someone else's expense.

 

[Flanagun]

I am alot more worried about China bombing us than climate change.

Figures

 

[Flanagun]

Well, our power bills have a lot to do with the Ukraine war - so not sure what pollies can do about that except interfere with unregulated markets.

View attachment 99513
and in Sept 2023 were at US$443/MT.

Network costs make up about 30-40% of your bill and part of that cost can be attributed to the switch to renewables. The poor planning thats gone on for 30 years in the switch to renewable space as well as peaks/troughs management during extreme weather events. Liddell PS closure also had an effect but thats because the electricity supplier market panicked and locked in high future commodities contracts in 21/22 in prep for it and those contracts hit in 2023 when Liddell shut. So a hedging issue for maintaining private company profits rather than a capacity issue.

No matter where you look, IPART or AER, the first thing listed for explaining price increases is Ukraine. And thats not ending anytime soon. And building greater dependency on coal when blind freddy will tell you that Russia is not selling energy to the West anytime soon (which would lower coal) is just plain stupid.

Still, I can see why the optics of pillows taking private flights to do their weekly shopping are not good.

 

[Doogie]

Do you seriously consider the COP junket as "business"?

I have traveled overseas on business on numerous occasions, and you are correct, I didn't pay for myself. Sometimes it was just me, demonstrating a product or conducting a field trial. I would be doing business with 2 or 3, maybe 5 people from one other company, and I had to return home with something tangible, like an order or contract, in order to justify the trip. One or twice, I was part of a small group, taking part in a negotiation with another small group, or problem solving. Whenever I was sent overseas, there were always objectives to be met, and there was always follow-up to make sure they had been met. Can you say the same about COP?

And 70,000 people. What could I (or anyone else) possibly hope to achieve trying to negotiate with 70,000 people? There were probably no more than 200 genuine decision makers at COP, and 69,800 there for a holiday at someone else's expense.

Did you ever go overseas to negotiate with 189 other businesses with very aligning and very different objectives? With the goal of trying to get some sort of consensus with details from the other 189 businesses?

Just trying to compare like 4 like.

 

[Doogie]

If your company asked you to travel over seas for business, would you say, "sure I'll pay for it myself"?

People representing countries don't usually pay their own way. They're acting as official representatives of the country.

Apparently around 23,500 were government representatives, paid for by tax payers. The rest were a mix of policy analysts (paid for by think thanks/private doners), private entities looking to get involved in negotiations, media, etc.

Pending what it was, I might do that and throw in a holiday for kicks. Only because getting Premier approval for an o/s trip is about 7 layers of approval. I can get work to pay for the accom but I'd have to wear the flight. Couple of days work, weeks hols without the missus - its value 4 money

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Do you seriously consider the COP junket as "business"?

I have traveled overseas on business on numerous occasions, and you are correct, I didn't pay for myself. Sometimes it was just me, demonstrating a product or conducting a field trial. I would be doing business with 2 or 3, maybe 5 people from one other company, and I had to return home with something tangible, like an order or contract, in order to justify the trip. One or twice, I was part of a small group, taking part in a negotiation with another small group, or problem solving. Whenever I was sent overseas, there were always objectives to be met, and there was always follow-up to make sure they had been met. Can you say the same about COP?

And 70,000 people. What could I (or anyone else) possibly hope to achieve trying to negotiate with 70,000 people? There were probably no more than 200 genuine decision makers at COP, and 69,800 there for a holiday at someone else's expense.

Sounds like you're basing all your objections off random guesses. I would suggest you actually look into it.

Masses amounts of negotiations go on during COP. It's not just about deciding what each country will do. It's also deals with private companies, climate related trade deals between companies, etc. Masses amounts of deals that go on and they're all business deals.

Not attempting to sound crass, but if you worked in business then surely you've carried out conferences. In which case you would know that conferences aren't just discussions among a large group. There's panel talks, back room negotiations, sharing of information. We're not talking about a basic one hour thing.

 

[Philistine]

Did you ever go overseas to negotiate with 189 other businesses with very aligning and very different objectives? With the goal of trying to get some sort of consensus with details from the other 189 businesses?

Thank you for your support even if it wasn't intended.

I am aware of my limitations and I wouldn't take on an impossible task. The only way this could work is if my country gave me total freedom to go wherever the negotiations take me, and the other countries gave their representatives the same freedom. This would be a conference of 190 presidents, prime ministers and third world dictators. I doubt if even the presidents and prime ministers would have this kind of authority (ours doesn't), and the third world dictators wouldn't attend lest they be overthrown in their absence.

 

[Doogie]

Thank you for your support even if it wasn't intended.

I am aware of my limitations and I wouldn't take on an impossible task. The only way this could work is if my country gave me total freedom to go wherever the negotiations take me, and the other countries gave their representatives the same freedom. This would be a conference of 190 presidents, prime ministers and third world dictators. I doubt if even the presidents and prime ministers would have this kind of authority (ours doesn't), and the third world dictators wouldn't attend lest they be overthrown in their absence.

Not sure you should presume my intentions, especially based on the second paragraph.

My point was your objectives are to try ensure your own national interest whilst taking home a message that you contributed. This is politics at its highest or most complex form, not flogging some widgets or services to another company. Now its not my area but I would imagine point #1 for most countries and the awakening expectations for most pollies across the world to align with their own constituents is attendance. So everything after that is gravy.

My intention was to point out a 1 on 1 or 2 on 1 is one thing. Trying to advance your countries position (or flog a concept) with 189 other countries in a few days is something else entirely.

Now do I think the COPs are achieving much? No. But then I'm an idealist and I'd like to think if we really put our mind to it we can deal with our shit. The realist side of me expects to die knowing I was wrong.