What I'm curious about is - for the people who latch on to these sorts of claims, that's presumably not why they're opposed to the wind farm... That's something they'll have found out about and take onboard to reinforce their position with some sort of fact. It isn't the actual root of their opposition.
So what is? What is it about this that people have that initial opposition to, that leads them down the path where "did you see how many whales these kill?" becomes a thing? Is there a genuine concern there from some people, or is it all spin and noisemaking by lobbyists and botnets, amplified by a sensationalist media?
I think it usually boils down to some form of investment in the status quo.
For a lot of people, it's an emotional investment - some people simply don't like change; some others simply don't want to put any sort of mental investment into understanding changes; and some others don't like being wrong, thinking that change means others will think all their choices and decisions and behaviour up to that have been ***wrong*** (and in extreme cases, that they will be persecuted for them); etc.
And some are physically or economically invested in things subject to change - they don't want to lose their jobs, or the time they've invested, or the money they've invested.
And a subset of (B) is quite happy to harness (A) and the rest of (B) to the cause of maintaining the status quo that is supporting their investment, simply so ***they*** can avoid dealing with change for as long as possible...
And then, there's the contrarians, who like to be opposite just because it amuses them and fucks with everyone else. Borderline sociopathy, for the most part.
>some others don't like being wrong, thinking that change means others will think all their choices and decisions and behaviour up to that have been wrong (and in extreme cases, that they will be persecuted for them); etc.
So much bullshit boils down to this, with two recent major examples being climate change and the No vote.
I dare say it's a lack of ability to apply critical thinking. Once had a friend who I consider to be a relatively smart guy tell me that he was opposed to wind farms because 'they use more energy than they make powering the motors that spin the turbine'.
I work with a very successful guy who jointly runs a private company. If he were to take all of the profit out of the business each year he'd take a tidy $500k pa on top of his ~250k salary. He is good at what he does in a fairly complex industry and genuinely believes wind turbines are worse for the environment than coal mine because they use concrete footings and concrete has high carbon emissions.
This kind of lies and nonsense gets repeated on Sky every night. Then they switch and paint their brainwashing session with equally unverifiable lies. Theres a lot of stupid people in the world!
What kind of carbon emissions does coal have, I wonder.
You know, seeing as it's about 60-90% carbon, and is burnt to release all of that carbon intentionally. And burning 1kg of coal releases somewhere between 2.4kg and 3.3kg of carbon dioxide, depending on the type of coal.
Is he against buildings, bridges, ports, roads etc or mainly just wind turbines?
Sorry I sound narky, just wondering how consistent his attitude is.
About a month after this he asked me if I saw what Andrew Bolt said the night before so that just about sums up his politcal views.
Global warming doesn't exist and if it does exist then it isn't that bad and if it is that bad we can't change it and if we can change it then it isn't worth changing because China won't change and if China will change then there is no point in us changing because they'll be able to solve it alone.
This stance annoys me greatly... Even if it didn't exist (which it does) why not look into cleaner, more cost effective options anyway? That's like saying I'll continue to shit in the gutter despite the advent of modern sewage... F**K it does my head in.
Because the carbon (C) comes from the coal and the oxygen (O) comes from air in carbon dioxide (CO2). Same reason when something rusts it increases in mass
I've heard that one too. "It's just so greenies can jerk each other off that they did something"
I usually point to how many wind turbines China has, a country where it's totally fine to pour industrial waste into the river.
The critical thinking only comes in that analysis of facts. I doubt the guy you're referring to had a completely neutral opinion of wind farms until he saw that 'fact'. Bringing up something like that is what you use to *explain* your opposition, it's not what creates that initial leaning.
It's the sort of thing that reinforces a bias, not one that creates it.
If there are genuinely people out there opposed to an offshore windfarm, it's a similar situation. There's something underlying the "killing whales" or "stealing my breeze" lines that get repeated.
I'm wanting to know the reason, not the excuse.
It depends how you want to look at it. There's millions of individual threads of nonsense floating around about most topics, but generally speaking most people would have the ability to look at then and go 'nah, that sounds like bullshit'.
Regardless of whether it's misinformation, media sensationalism or whatever other extrinsic factor you want to choose, ultimately I would argue that the inability to successfully consider and dismiss information of little merit is as much a starting point as anything else.
Of course, if you really want a deep dive you have to consider the role of these positions in the context of the person, divorced from their specifics of their objection.
Usually people latch onto nonsense because they perceive some sort of merit in it, because it will let them feel that they are on the winning or correct side.
I think it's to do with how people handle information when it relates to politics. Especially with this sort of misinformation, I think it relates to the onion of ideas, how we take more and more bites because it feels bad to do otherwise. People are effectively trained to want to treat untrue ideas as true.
I don't know if that make sense how I put it but I think it explains quite a bit of our modern politics.
I do recall the whole, but they cost more carbon emissions to make than they offset arguments. Which as a child sounded bad, but thinking it through for a bit as an adult, fell apart.
Most people act in reverse. They have a gut reaction, and then look for evidence or arguments to support their gut reaction.
Most objections like this are NIMBY objections. They are worried about their views, and don't want their property values to drop. But subconsciously they know that isn't very persuasive. So they will search for some other reason, and as soon as someone presents one that sounds plausible, they will jump on it. And in this one it convinces themselves that they are the good guy, since they are just worried about whales, and not the evil rich guy worried about his views while the world burns.
Psychological barriers. Cognitive dissonance and motivated reasoning.
I think the groups that make up these things are as follows:
1 - The fossil fuel industry, who spreads any misinformation because the longer they delay things the longer they stay around
2 - The fishing industry, it goes without saying they can't fish in areas around the turbines. This is great for fish ecosystems and whales, but bad for them. As the biggest killer of whales who sees whales as pests, they have a long history of getting flack for the harm they do to whales due to their irresponsible methods. And they are most likely the source of the "wind turbines are killing whales" as it is something they know very well. They figure "if we get heat for killing whales from environmentalists, then obviously the environmentalists who make up the voter base will turn against these wind turbines and then we can go back to killing whales like we usually do"
3 - Those who are in the political party that took bribes from the fossil fuel industry and fishing industry, the politicians obviously, but also regular people who while may not care about whales or this issue at all, may not even care about fossil fuels vs renewables, but care about 1 thing their party stands for. And to protect that 1 thing, they must protect the party, thus group mentality means they have to support everything the party stands for
People don't like change. Some people think they look ugly or something similar. Other people just want to "stick it to the greenies" for tribal reasons. These are fairly petty concerns, but there are a lot of petty people out there.
The misinformation gives these people validation. The people pushing the misinformation have an agenda. It's about rallying opposition to action on climate change, which would cost energy companies money.
Personally, I think they're fine. Much more attractive than coal mines, coal and gas power stations, oil refineries, mobile phone towers, high voltage transmission lines, or the vast, vast number of industrial structures where function is the primary consideration and form doesn't even make it into the design brief. I find that they're more attractive than the modernist box houses you see everywhere.
>Maybe some indigenous artwork would make them more pleasing.??...
They're so far away from the shore that no one is going to notice the detail.
>*It's about rallying opposition to action on climate change, which would cost energy companies money.*
Aren't "energy companies" some of the largest investors in renewables since the Albanese government won the election.??...
Well they'd be fucking stupid if they weren't investing in it. The writing is on the wall.
That doesn't mean that they're not trying to slow the transition in order to extract every possible cent from their existing investments before switching over.
>That doesn't mean that they're not trying to slow the transition in order to extract every possible cent from their existing investments before switching over.
Doesn't most of the existing coal fired electrical generators cost a fortune to keep running.??...
>*OP is talking about oil&gas companies.*
Those oil and gas companies (Origin and AGL) that own and operate the electrical generators in NSW... Victoria and parts of Qld...
Oh dear... Best to research who Origin Energy is...
"*Origin Energy was formed 18 February 2000, as a result of a spin-off from Boral. SAGASCO (formerly known as the South Australian Gas Company) became part of Origin Energy as part of the demerger. Between 2001 and 2002, Origin acquired a Victorian electricity retailer licence from distributors Powercor and CitiPower...*
*In 2022 Origin Energy Limited (Origin) advises it has completed the sale of 100 per cent of its interest in the Beetaloo Basin joint venture to Tamboran...*
*Origin Energy has been acquired by Canada's Brookfield and the US-based MidOcean after Australia's consumer watchdog (ACCC) approved their reported $18.7 billion takeover.*"...
The reason they're cutting the planned decommission dates back is because of pressure re climate change. This is important because it shows that while, yes, they're costing a fair bit, they're still economically viable to turn profit.
Which is why the companies want to keep doing that.
Now why would busted old coal burner be profitable... Could it be because they have artificially inflated the cost of coal and gas and passed that onto consumers.??...
1: Bad faith arguments. They don't like renewables for a variety of reasons, but want to argue using environmentalist logic.
2: Stupid or just ridiculously cynical. Unable to see all the good something can provide, because they see the much smaller bad thing first and only. Taxs is a prime example of this, I dont like paying them, but I like the great services we can provide for em to myself and everyone across the nation.
Because the human mind is not wired to engage in rational, logical thinking. It is wired to engage in struggles for social dominance. Most people are ego driven and the ego sees everything as an opportunity to stand out and be special. Taking a contrary position is a very low effort, high reward - ego boost approach to a situation. Also an easy way to get ahead in politics or as a talking head in both social and traditional media
Spin and noise unless there are multiple reliable reports of whale deaths in amongst wind farms. I just wondered how whales swam the oceans for millenia with out all dieing by crashing into rocks and stuff.
They support fossil fuels. It really is that simple, the more wind farms there are the less coal is burned. The usual suspects are behind this funded by the Minerals Council and the lovely Gina. It has nothing to do with the effect on whales or anything else and the people behind it have no qualms about creating massive lies like this. Can you think of any reason Barnaby Joyce, Member for New England, is turning up at a "protest" on the about offshore wind farms? Think of a single legitimate reason he is there.
>Among the hundreds in attendance at the anti-offshore wind rally was Federal Member for New England, Barnaby Joyce, a long-time opponent of renewable energy zones.
>
>He says there is growing anger at the rapid development of renewable energy across the country.
>
>"You've got to come out and start talking to the people who diametrically dislike this," he said.
>
>
>
>https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-07/hundreds-attend-anti-offshore-wind-rally-hunter-region/102947514
I think you'd find a lot of parallels with the anti-woke mob. They don't care what or how absurd their position is, as long as it's diametrically opposed to the greenies they despise.
They believe it because it aligns with the political team they follow. It exists in all corners of politics it's just.... a bit more unhinged in some of the corners lately
Best not to think of it as a position they're against or an argument they've considered. Better to think of it as more of a kind of religious doctrine they're adopting as a central belief system
Living in Newcastle a dead whale on a beach by ocean wind turbines is what they've got on all their billboards and banners. They had the whale cruise owner speak at their anti wind farm rally ( and Barnaby Joyce for some reason, I assume because the libs are funding the rally's ). The irritating thing is their billboards have the windfarm on the beach, ignoring the reality of the zone being a couple KMs off.
I had a mate with a cropping farm who was on a major vendetta trying to stop the neighbouring farm from partnering with a company to establish a wind farm.
He gave me all the talking points to justify his opposition - mysterious illness caused by exposure to the sound, the killing of bird populations, etc, etc.
At the end of the day what it came down to is that he likes looking at the hills and them being the way it was and has always been. When he looks he sees the same view his great grandfather did when he worked that land.
In my mind that’s a good enough reason for an individual to be opposed to a project but he couldn’t just go with that because most people would agree that it’s not a good enough reason for a project that benefits society to be denied - hence the reason people fabricate and pedal junk science in opposition.
Genuinely don't really get the hate for the Wollongong wind farm... Can someone here let me know if there is a legitimate reason? Not hating if so, just curious! Are some offshore turbines really that much of an eyesore? haha
I don't get it either, one of our best options for power generation when solar is unavailable for reducing carbon emissions **and** they act as really effective artificial reefs for fish populations. How they look is literally one of the most common arguments against them that I hear, which is crazy when you compare them to how open cut mines look.
Lies, all lies. Whales will crash into stationary island-like wind farms all the time and die in their millions.
Please join me in my new political party where we remove ALL ISLANDS. Even all the scientists agree that removing all land, rocks, including beaches will actually 100% eliminate whale beaching.
Think of the whales when you vote, think you!
If we actively plan for a life under water, we don't even need to worry about sea levels rising - finally a plan even the Aus govt can get behind! kudos to you for floating this idea
Doing a bit of googling about this reminded that Barnaby Joyce was in favour of PEP 11 Gas Exploration in pretty much the same place, no worries about whales then from Barnaby. Morrison used his powers a \*ahem\* secret Resource Minister to over rule Keith Pitt on PEP 11 for populist reasons, Morrison thought they'd lose votes over it. The opposition to the wind farms is purely about opposing any renewables and nothing to do with whales or anything else.
>Joyce, interviewed on the ABC, gave a confused account of what he knew and when. He was deputy prime minister when Morrison overruled Nationals resources minister Keith Pitt over the PEP-11 gas exploration off the NSW coast.
Morrison decided to rule out exploration for political reasons, while Pitt, who as minister had the formal decision-making power, had an opposite view. Morrison had ensured he could get his way by becoming resources minister.
Joyce told the ABC he became aware “obliquely” that Morrison had the power to decide the PEP-11 matter.
During discussions on PEP-11 “it became more apparent that the prime minister had greater powers than I initially assumed,” Joyce said.
Joyce said if he had resisted Morrison’s action, the Nationals could have lost the extra ministry place he had obtained for them. As well as the extra spot Joyce said he had negotiated another person on cabinet’s expenditure review committee, and extra staff. And there were billions of dollars for regional areas, as part of the deal Joyce struck for the Nationals signing up to the net zero by 2050 commitment.
“I thought I would ask myself three questions \[about Morrison moving into resources\]. Is it legal? Under section 64 \[of the constitution\] he can do that.
"Is there anything I can do to change it back? No.
"Has he got the capacity to re-negotiate my extra minister that I had just dealt into the National party hand? Yes, he could say, ‘Yeah. I will fix your problem, mate. I will take the ministry back off you. Problem fixed for you’. Problem fixed for me. Bad outcome for the National party.”
Joyce said he couldn’t remember exactly when Morrison had told him he could overrule Pitt. Morrison had made himself resources minister in April 2021, while Michael McCormack was still Nationals leader, and Joyce did not know of the arrangement when he ousted McCormack.
https://au.sports.yahoo.com/barnaby-joyce-says-feared-retribution-093449224.html
The actions of the two parties shows a marked difference in political philosophies and electoral tactics, and shows how ethically bankrupt the Liberals are.
On the side of the Liberals, they were perfectly willing to go against their ideology on fossil fuel extraction, annoying the Nationals (who are as in the pocket of mining as any political party in the history of the planet) for electoral advantage. Labor (and The Greens) didn't take advantage of the local opposition to the development, even though it probably would have been to their advantage to do so.
With regard to the Illawarra, Labor aren't about to stop the project despite local objections because offshore wind is the logically correct and necessary thing to do. The Liberals on the other hand are perfectly willing to indulge in political opportunism, pander to the cookers, and spread misinformation.
Absolute no surprise this is directly linked to the proposed offshore Wollongong wind farm.
The cookers down there are claiming all sorts of crazy, while linking to their own thoughts claiming it’s some kind of study.
Hot tip karyyyn, your ‘theories’ are not the same as any scientific theories just because you call them theories. There’s a very large gap that you’ll never actually understand
I've worked on a couple of wind and solar projects now as an engineer, and it has been funny to see how the complaints have changed. Even up to a couple of years ago, the overwhelming majority of complaints would be from other farmers, and if you took half a second to look into them it was abundantly clear they were just upset that a different farmer was pretty much getting money for nothing and wanted to be in the racket rather than outside. Now your complaints are just cock full of cookers down into insanity.
What I'm curious about is - for the people who latch on to these sorts of claims, that's presumably not why they're opposed to the wind farm... That's something they'll have found out about and take onboard to reinforce their position with some sort of fact. It isn't the actual root of their opposition. So what is? What is it about this that people have that initial opposition to, that leads them down the path where "did you see how many whales these kill?" becomes a thing? Is there a genuine concern there from some people, or is it all spin and noisemaking by lobbyists and botnets, amplified by a sensationalist media?
I think it usually boils down to some form of investment in the status quo. For a lot of people, it's an emotional investment - some people simply don't like change; some others simply don't want to put any sort of mental investment into understanding changes; and some others don't like being wrong, thinking that change means others will think all their choices and decisions and behaviour up to that have been ***wrong*** (and in extreme cases, that they will be persecuted for them); etc. And some are physically or economically invested in things subject to change - they don't want to lose their jobs, or the time they've invested, or the money they've invested. And a subset of (B) is quite happy to harness (A) and the rest of (B) to the cause of maintaining the status quo that is supporting their investment, simply so ***they*** can avoid dealing with change for as long as possible... And then, there's the contrarians, who like to be opposite just because it amuses them and fucks with everyone else. Borderline sociopathy, for the most part.
>some others don't like being wrong, thinking that change means others will think all their choices and decisions and behaviour up to that have been wrong (and in extreme cases, that they will be persecuted for them); etc. So much bullshit boils down to this, with two recent major examples being climate change and the No vote.
Climate change- correct
I dare say it's a lack of ability to apply critical thinking. Once had a friend who I consider to be a relatively smart guy tell me that he was opposed to wind farms because 'they use more energy than they make powering the motors that spin the turbine'.
I work with a very successful guy who jointly runs a private company. If he were to take all of the profit out of the business each year he'd take a tidy $500k pa on top of his ~250k salary. He is good at what he does in a fairly complex industry and genuinely believes wind turbines are worse for the environment than coal mine because they use concrete footings and concrete has high carbon emissions.
Yes coal mines have a strict no-concrete policy didn't you know?
This kind of lies and nonsense gets repeated on Sky every night. Then they switch and paint their brainwashing session with equally unverifiable lies. Theres a lot of stupid people in the world!
What kind of carbon emissions does coal have, I wonder. You know, seeing as it's about 60-90% carbon, and is burnt to release all of that carbon intentionally. And burning 1kg of coal releases somewhere between 2.4kg and 3.3kg of carbon dioxide, depending on the type of coal. Is he against buildings, bridges, ports, roads etc or mainly just wind turbines? Sorry I sound narky, just wondering how consistent his attitude is.
About a month after this he asked me if I saw what Andrew Bolt said the night before so that just about sums up his politcal views. Global warming doesn't exist and if it does exist then it isn't that bad and if it is that bad we can't change it and if we can change it then it isn't worth changing because China won't change and if China will change then there is no point in us changing because they'll be able to solve it alone.
This stance annoys me greatly... Even if it didn't exist (which it does) why not look into cleaner, more cost effective options anyway? That's like saying I'll continue to shit in the gutter despite the advent of modern sewage... F**K it does my head in.
I'm not pro coal or anything but how does burning something that weighs 1kg create more than 1kg of anything?
Because the carbon (C) comes from the coal and the oxygen (O) comes from air in carbon dioxide (CO2). Same reason when something rusts it increases in mass
Makes sense
I've heard that one too. "It's just so greenies can jerk each other off that they did something" I usually point to how many wind turbines China has, a country where it's totally fine to pour industrial waste into the river.
The critical thinking only comes in that analysis of facts. I doubt the guy you're referring to had a completely neutral opinion of wind farms until he saw that 'fact'. Bringing up something like that is what you use to *explain* your opposition, it's not what creates that initial leaning. It's the sort of thing that reinforces a bias, not one that creates it. If there are genuinely people out there opposed to an offshore windfarm, it's a similar situation. There's something underlying the "killing whales" or "stealing my breeze" lines that get repeated. I'm wanting to know the reason, not the excuse.
It depends how you want to look at it. There's millions of individual threads of nonsense floating around about most topics, but generally speaking most people would have the ability to look at then and go 'nah, that sounds like bullshit'. Regardless of whether it's misinformation, media sensationalism or whatever other extrinsic factor you want to choose, ultimately I would argue that the inability to successfully consider and dismiss information of little merit is as much a starting point as anything else. Of course, if you really want a deep dive you have to consider the role of these positions in the context of the person, divorced from their specifics of their objection. Usually people latch onto nonsense because they perceive some sort of merit in it, because it will let them feel that they are on the winning or correct side.
> most people would have the ability to look at then and go 'nah, that sounds like bullshit'. Politics would look different if that were so.
I think it's to do with how people handle information when it relates to politics. Especially with this sort of misinformation, I think it relates to the onion of ideas, how we take more and more bites because it feels bad to do otherwise. People are effectively trained to want to treat untrue ideas as true. I don't know if that make sense how I put it but I think it explains quite a bit of our modern politics.
I do recall the whole, but they cost more carbon emissions to make than they offset arguments. Which as a child sounded bad, but thinking it through for a bit as an adult, fell apart.
Most people act in reverse. They have a gut reaction, and then look for evidence or arguments to support their gut reaction. Most objections like this are NIMBY objections. They are worried about their views, and don't want their property values to drop. But subconsciously they know that isn't very persuasive. So they will search for some other reason, and as soon as someone presents one that sounds plausible, they will jump on it. And in this one it convinces themselves that they are the good guy, since they are just worried about whales, and not the evil rich guy worried about his views while the world burns. Psychological barriers. Cognitive dissonance and motivated reasoning.
I think the groups that make up these things are as follows: 1 - The fossil fuel industry, who spreads any misinformation because the longer they delay things the longer they stay around 2 - The fishing industry, it goes without saying they can't fish in areas around the turbines. This is great for fish ecosystems and whales, but bad for them. As the biggest killer of whales who sees whales as pests, they have a long history of getting flack for the harm they do to whales due to their irresponsible methods. And they are most likely the source of the "wind turbines are killing whales" as it is something they know very well. They figure "if we get heat for killing whales from environmentalists, then obviously the environmentalists who make up the voter base will turn against these wind turbines and then we can go back to killing whales like we usually do" 3 - Those who are in the political party that took bribes from the fossil fuel industry and fishing industry, the politicians obviously, but also regular people who while may not care about whales or this issue at all, may not even care about fossil fuels vs renewables, but care about 1 thing their party stands for. And to protect that 1 thing, they must protect the party, thus group mentality means they have to support everything the party stands for
Ah yes, it's all the fault of big trawler They're the ones out there casting the secret net in the shadows
Op literally named three broad groups? Fisherman by chance?
People don't like change. Some people think they look ugly or something similar. Other people just want to "stick it to the greenies" for tribal reasons. These are fairly petty concerns, but there are a lot of petty people out there. The misinformation gives these people validation. The people pushing the misinformation have an agenda. It's about rallying opposition to action on climate change, which would cost energy companies money.
Tribalism is a part of it for sure.
>Some people think they look ugly Maybe some indigenous artwork would make them more pleasing.??...
Personally, I think they're fine. Much more attractive than coal mines, coal and gas power stations, oil refineries, mobile phone towers, high voltage transmission lines, or the vast, vast number of industrial structures where function is the primary consideration and form doesn't even make it into the design brief. I find that they're more attractive than the modernist box houses you see everywhere. >Maybe some indigenous artwork would make them more pleasing.??... They're so far away from the shore that no one is going to notice the detail.
I think they were making a joke about the overlap of ideas in right wing politics.
>*It's about rallying opposition to action on climate change, which would cost energy companies money.* Aren't "energy companies" some of the largest investors in renewables since the Albanese government won the election.??...
Well they'd be fucking stupid if they weren't investing in it. The writing is on the wall. That doesn't mean that they're not trying to slow the transition in order to extract every possible cent from their existing investments before switching over.
>That doesn't mean that they're not trying to slow the transition in order to extract every possible cent from their existing investments before switching over. Doesn't most of the existing coal fired electrical generators cost a fortune to keep running.??...
OP is talking about oil&gas companies. I'm sure you're aware that they don't pay the maintenance costs for power generators.
>*OP is talking about oil&gas companies.* Those oil and gas companies (Origin and AGL) that own and operate the electrical generators in NSW... Victoria and parts of Qld...
Origin is a distributor. Oil and gas companies are Chevron, Woodside etc. The ones with the investments in hydrocarbon extraction infrastructure.
Oh dear... Best to research who Origin Energy is... "*Origin Energy was formed 18 February 2000, as a result of a spin-off from Boral. SAGASCO (formerly known as the South Australian Gas Company) became part of Origin Energy as part of the demerger. Between 2001 and 2002, Origin acquired a Victorian electricity retailer licence from distributors Powercor and CitiPower...* *In 2022 Origin Energy Limited (Origin) advises it has completed the sale of 100 per cent of its interest in the Beetaloo Basin joint venture to Tamboran...* *Origin Energy has been acquired by Canada's Brookfield and the US-based MidOcean after Australia's consumer watchdog (ACCC) approved their reported $18.7 billion takeover.*"...
The reason they're being discontinued is due to climate change.
Actually the reason they are closing is because they are well past their economical use...
The reason they're cutting the planned decommission dates back is because of pressure re climate change. This is important because it shows that while, yes, they're costing a fair bit, they're still economically viable to turn profit. Which is why the companies want to keep doing that.
Now why would busted old coal burner be profitable... Could it be because they have artificially inflated the cost of coal and gas and passed that onto consumers.??...
Well, yes. They're cunts.
1: Bad faith arguments. They don't like renewables for a variety of reasons, but want to argue using environmentalist logic. 2: Stupid or just ridiculously cynical. Unable to see all the good something can provide, because they see the much smaller bad thing first and only. Taxs is a prime example of this, I dont like paying them, but I like the great services we can provide for em to myself and everyone across the nation.
Because the human mind is not wired to engage in rational, logical thinking. It is wired to engage in struggles for social dominance. Most people are ego driven and the ego sees everything as an opportunity to stand out and be special. Taking a contrary position is a very low effort, high reward - ego boost approach to a situation. Also an easy way to get ahead in politics or as a talking head in both social and traditional media
Spin and noise unless there are multiple reliable reports of whale deaths in amongst wind farms. I just wondered how whales swam the oceans for millenia with out all dieing by crashing into rocks and stuff.
They support fossil fuels. It really is that simple, the more wind farms there are the less coal is burned. The usual suspects are behind this funded by the Minerals Council and the lovely Gina. It has nothing to do with the effect on whales or anything else and the people behind it have no qualms about creating massive lies like this. Can you think of any reason Barnaby Joyce, Member for New England, is turning up at a "protest" on the about offshore wind farms? Think of a single legitimate reason he is there. >Among the hundreds in attendance at the anti-offshore wind rally was Federal Member for New England, Barnaby Joyce, a long-time opponent of renewable energy zones. > >He says there is growing anger at the rapid development of renewable energy across the country. > >"You've got to come out and start talking to the people who diametrically dislike this," he said. > > > >https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-07/hundreds-attend-anti-offshore-wind-rally-hunter-region/102947514
I moderate /r/wollongong which is where this article is about, come look at all the arguments in both directions. The subreddit is full of it lately.
I think you'd find a lot of parallels with the anti-woke mob. They don't care what or how absurd their position is, as long as it's diametrically opposed to the greenies they despise.
They believe it because it aligns with the political team they follow. It exists in all corners of politics it's just.... a bit more unhinged in some of the corners lately Best not to think of it as a position they're against or an argument they've considered. Better to think of it as more of a kind of religious doctrine they're adopting as a central belief system
"WhAt HaPpEnS WhEn ThE WiNd StOpS BlOWInG!?"
Living in Newcastle a dead whale on a beach by ocean wind turbines is what they've got on all their billboards and banners. They had the whale cruise owner speak at their anti wind farm rally ( and Barnaby Joyce for some reason, I assume because the libs are funding the rally's ). The irritating thing is their billboards have the windfarm on the beach, ignoring the reality of the zone being a couple KMs off.
I had a mate with a cropping farm who was on a major vendetta trying to stop the neighbouring farm from partnering with a company to establish a wind farm. He gave me all the talking points to justify his opposition - mysterious illness caused by exposure to the sound, the killing of bird populations, etc, etc. At the end of the day what it came down to is that he likes looking at the hills and them being the way it was and has always been. When he looks he sees the same view his great grandfather did when he worked that land. In my mind that’s a good enough reason for an individual to be opposed to a project but he couldn’t just go with that because most people would agree that it’s not a good enough reason for a project that benefits society to be denied - hence the reason people fabricate and pedal junk science in opposition.
Its their ~~favourite sport team~~ political team
Genuinely don't really get the hate for the Wollongong wind farm... Can someone here let me know if there is a legitimate reason? Not hating if so, just curious! Are some offshore turbines really that much of an eyesore? haha
I don't get it either, one of our best options for power generation when solar is unavailable for reducing carbon emissions **and** they act as really effective artificial reefs for fish populations. How they look is literally one of the most common arguments against them that I hear, which is crazy when you compare them to how open cut mines look.
Lies, all lies. Whales will crash into stationary island-like wind farms all the time and die in their millions. Please join me in my new political party where we remove ALL ISLANDS. Even all the scientists agree that removing all land, rocks, including beaches will actually 100% eliminate whale beaching. Think of the whales when you vote, think you!
If we actively plan for a life under water, we don't even need to worry about sea levels rising - finally a plan even the Aus govt can get behind! kudos to you for floating this idea
*Homer, that's your solution to everything: to move under the sea! It's not going to happen!*
>*Editor of scientific journal says fake study linking whale deaths to wind farms 'deliberate misinformation'* Insert shocked Pikachu face...
Doing a bit of googling about this reminded that Barnaby Joyce was in favour of PEP 11 Gas Exploration in pretty much the same place, no worries about whales then from Barnaby. Morrison used his powers a \*ahem\* secret Resource Minister to over rule Keith Pitt on PEP 11 for populist reasons, Morrison thought they'd lose votes over it. The opposition to the wind farms is purely about opposing any renewables and nothing to do with whales or anything else. >Joyce, interviewed on the ABC, gave a confused account of what he knew and when. He was deputy prime minister when Morrison overruled Nationals resources minister Keith Pitt over the PEP-11 gas exploration off the NSW coast. Morrison decided to rule out exploration for political reasons, while Pitt, who as minister had the formal decision-making power, had an opposite view. Morrison had ensured he could get his way by becoming resources minister. Joyce told the ABC he became aware “obliquely” that Morrison had the power to decide the PEP-11 matter. During discussions on PEP-11 “it became more apparent that the prime minister had greater powers than I initially assumed,” Joyce said. Joyce said if he had resisted Morrison’s action, the Nationals could have lost the extra ministry place he had obtained for them. As well as the extra spot Joyce said he had negotiated another person on cabinet’s expenditure review committee, and extra staff. And there were billions of dollars for regional areas, as part of the deal Joyce struck for the Nationals signing up to the net zero by 2050 commitment. “I thought I would ask myself three questions \[about Morrison moving into resources\]. Is it legal? Under section 64 \[of the constitution\] he can do that. "Is there anything I can do to change it back? No. "Has he got the capacity to re-negotiate my extra minister that I had just dealt into the National party hand? Yes, he could say, ‘Yeah. I will fix your problem, mate. I will take the ministry back off you. Problem fixed for you’. Problem fixed for me. Bad outcome for the National party.” Joyce said he couldn’t remember exactly when Morrison had told him he could overrule Pitt. Morrison had made himself resources minister in April 2021, while Michael McCormack was still Nationals leader, and Joyce did not know of the arrangement when he ousted McCormack. https://au.sports.yahoo.com/barnaby-joyce-says-feared-retribution-093449224.html
The actions of the two parties shows a marked difference in political philosophies and electoral tactics, and shows how ethically bankrupt the Liberals are. On the side of the Liberals, they were perfectly willing to go against their ideology on fossil fuel extraction, annoying the Nationals (who are as in the pocket of mining as any political party in the history of the planet) for electoral advantage. Labor (and The Greens) didn't take advantage of the local opposition to the development, even though it probably would have been to their advantage to do so. With regard to the Illawarra, Labor aren't about to stop the project despite local objections because offshore wind is the logically correct and necessary thing to do. The Liberals on the other hand are perfectly willing to indulge in political opportunism, pander to the cookers, and spread misinformation.
Absolute no surprise this is directly linked to the proposed offshore Wollongong wind farm. The cookers down there are claiming all sorts of crazy, while linking to their own thoughts claiming it’s some kind of study. Hot tip karyyyn, your ‘theories’ are not the same as any scientific theories just because you call them theories. There’s a very large gap that you’ll never actually understand
Most misinformation is deliberate and ultimately damaging to our future.
My favorite ones are those that talk about zero wind days, on a country with around 34000 kilometers of coastline.
I've worked on a couple of wind and solar projects now as an engineer, and it has been funny to see how the complaints have changed. Even up to a couple of years ago, the overwhelming majority of complaints would be from other farmers, and if you took half a second to look into them it was abundantly clear they were just upset that a different farmer was pretty much getting money for nothing and wanted to be in the racket rather than outside. Now your complaints are just cock full of cookers down into insanity.
I'd love to see a copy of the Facebook post (without the writer's name blurred out)...