Sunday 15 March 2009
AUSSIE TV FAILS TO DELIVER FULL FACTS ON ETS
This article in the Australian suggests that the ABC, like the BBC in the UK does not deliver a balanced programme when dealing with global warming issues. By error and omission it becomes part of the propaganda in favour of the man-made global warming argument. In doing so it fails in its duty to the people it is supposed to serve.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Sure, not everything the ABC does covers every angle, but it did air the 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' mid-2007:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.csiro.au/news/Refuting-The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle-television-program.html
And discussed it:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/globalwarmingswindle/
Orchison's suggested improvement contains a glaring omission itself: resource constraints and the consequences of ignoring them. Burning through our natural capital at full speed is hardly intelligent.
Nuclear must be the answer - surely?
ReplyDeleteI don't think it is. It is heavily subsidised by fossil fuels, and would be infeasible and dangerous without them. We don't have the electric systems in place to supplant all the internal combustion engines necessary to sustain it yet - a huge task. The developing financial, economic and political disruption will make building and running nuclear plants incredibly risky or simply impossible. Building more of them is suicidal. Existing plants should be cleaned up and mothballed.
ReplyDeleteIt is not even commercially viable without tax payer subsidy. I'm not sure why you think it's better than wind power, it seems like a double standard.
Wind simply cannot supply the massive base load required by industry. Modern fast breeder reactors are much more efficient.
ReplyDeleteWhile I totally agree that we are some time away from replacing petrol cars, I still think that electric cars are the most likely next generation, when petroleum becomes too expensive - which is still at least 20 years away, maybe more.
My point was not to suggest that wind power can "supply the massive base load required by industry". On that I agree, without accepting your premise that nuclear can either, in the long run. My point is that nuclear can't stand on its own feet. You rally against costs imposed by government, and yet you advocate an industry that has a long history of depending on it.
ReplyDeleteA conversion to electric is unlikely to happen at any meaningful scale. We have an enormous surplus of ICE based vehicles and industrial capacity to produce them. The fuel for them has become cheap while financial stress means people are increasingly unwilling to purchase new vehicles. The business case to replace them is weak. By the time fuel is expensive again due to depletion, the economic collapse will be well underway, scuttling any fantasies of an electric economy.
Nuclear is not subsidised as much as wind, so itis not a level playing field
ReplyDeleteThat's rubbish [1,2], and it's still missing my point. Nuclear power can only survive by taxing the population through the government! You've got double standards, and you are unwittingly covering the costs and liability of the nuclear industry yourself.
ReplyDelete[1] Apparently, nuclear power can only be competitive if the cost of the risks involved are paid by someone else. http://timeforchange.org/cost-advantage-of-nuclear-energy-pros-cons.
[2] From 1948 to today, [tax breaks for] nuclear energy R&D exceeded $70 billion, whereas R&D for renewables was about $10 billion. http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/9/12502/69812.
Are you saying that wind energy is not susidised by tax payers? Perhaps you should read this article from the Times.
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm not saying that at all. Read it again.
ReplyDelete