Coal mining, the coal miners argue, cannot be tied to greenhouse gas or climate change - their hands are clean! It's only when the stuff is burned, silly, that it becomes a problem. Blame the users of the coal, not the miners.
I suppose the cooks in a 'P' lab could argue the same thing. They're only cooking, it's the users that are doing the crime - close the door on your way out, Mr Drug-squad man!
Sir Geoffrey Palmer's not fooled by the Solid Energy rhetoric though, and is arguing in the Environment Court that the claims by the coal mining fraternity are a con - that it's inevitable that coal mined will be burned and will end up in the atmosphere, endangering us all. The bottom line, it seems to me, is will they or won't they get permission to do just that, endanger us all. Solid Energy, and Buller Coal, the two companies engaged in this particular battle with the environmentalists, seek to win the argument and go ahead with their plans that will inevitably result in adding to the greenhouse gas load. Beneath all the clever explaining and rationalising by the coal industry (and the National Government) must be a belief that AGM is a myth. No rational thinker would go ahead believing that an action would imperil the future of humanity, which surely covers their own and their children's futures, would they?
Stark choice.
I'm with Sir Geoffrey.
And the other clear thinkers.
15 comments:
I guess the argument goes that this particular type of coal is used in making carbon steel, not burned for power generation.
On a local level Coal mining will ultimately destroy the West Coast, it is a boom and bust industry and it is not something you can pin the long term regional economy too.
Seems like too many people have dollar signs stuck in their eyes at present, the time to plan for post coal is now!.
Sadly, the West Coast is in the grips of another mineral slash milk rush and the environment is getting a hammering.
At least Paul Holmes isn't tagging along behind like an organ grinder's monkey, as he did back when funky old Geoffrey let rip with his cornet from the roof of the beehive.
“CO2 is not a pollutant. Life on earth flourished for hundreds of millions of years at much higher CO2 levels than we see today. Increasing CO2 levels will be a net benefit because cultivated plants grow better and are more resistant to drought at higher CO2 levels, and because warming and other supposedly harmful effects of CO2 have been greatly exaggerated. Nations with affordable energy from fossil fuels are more prosperous and healthy than those without.” – (Princeton physicist William Happper).
He argues that Computer models vastly exaggerate the effects of carbon dioxide on climate and CO2 may in fact be beneficial.
Palmer and Solid Energy are at the very least deceptive with their absurd, but highly dangerous talk!
Shunda - Solid Energy are using the very same argument for the proposed lignite mining in Mataura. They essentially reject the climate change model and embrace the economic growth model in it's place.
Your observations about dairying (it's WHITE GOLD Brothers!) is sobering. Have you read about the River patrols? Interesting - go the ordinary man!
JoeW - Holme's'll be scampering around there somewhere, looking to insert his proboscis. We all pray Geoffrey leaves the cornet in his back pocket but I'm thinking he's good at putting a case and he has more credibility with the reactive-right than Lucy Lawless.
Sally - your 'CO2 is not a pollutant' argument is very lame. No one credible is saying that it is. Your strawman argument is a waste of time. Water is vita for our survival, yet it's a killer - hundreds of humans drown every year - ban water! - that argument is as silly as the 'pollutant' one.
Again with the,
"Nations with affordable energy from fossil fuels are more prosperous and healthy than those without."
Of course they are! What a pointless truism. However, the missing component is that those nations, by burning up their fossil fuels for largely non-essential things, imperil all other nations. That 'taking responsibility for the effects of their actions' is the point you and dear William '3'p' Happer, along with OhLordy Monckton, so obviously are blind to. Not meaning to belittle you, Sally, but the argument you seem to be promoting is very lame.
The outstanding Nobel prize-winning physicist, the late Richard Feynman’s description of how science works?
"In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience; compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong."
The Delinquent Teenager: an IPCC Expose by Donna Laframboise, is a must read for all. Her investigative journalism exposes the many unscientific exaggerated claims of the IPCC.
Sally - you reject the AGW model and I accept it. You'll not convince me otherwise, nor I you and trying would be a vain pursuit. However there are aspects of the situation we could debate to the benefit of both of us, such as the reality of claims by Solid Energy around the repatriation of farmland, the reality of employment opportunities for mataura people, the actual effects of the mining on neighbouring landowners, the real quality of the briquettes, the effects on the aquifers and rivers around the Gore area and so on. There's much that has been promised and much that has been kept quiet around those issues. let's leave the global arming question alone, as we'll not become allies over that :-)
Any videos I have viewed of Lord Moncktons debates, have seen him demolish his opponents in a good humoured way.
Hopefully one can be arranged between him and Robert .
He's good at that, Colin. Not so flash at dealing with written challenges that need to be addressed in a seriously researched and verifiable manner. he falls down when he can't employ his 'good humour' before an audience.
I'd have a go though, as that style suits me too :-)
Better start cramming then Robert.
I'm off to the TAB!
It's not facts I need, Colin, it's nimbleness of mind.
(Put all of your savings on the greeny)
"It's not facts I need,...."
Now I know why you became a councillor and why you are not brave enough to read Donna's excellent book.
Indeed, Sally. Councillors can do without being confused by the facts. In fact, I was referring to AGW, about which I have amassed more than enough facts to anchor my case. From this point on I want to be active in preventing it, not forever squabbling over it's validity. There comes a point when...
Robert, it really is not a good idea to have a closed mind - especially for a Councillor.
Post a Comment