5 ms·

This is not the answer the Australian government is looking for. The solution needed by politicians is highly technological, expensive, allows us to keep selli

This is not the answer the Australian government is looking for. The solution needed by politicians is highly technological, expensive, allows us to keep selling coal, and isn't understood by people so can be easily spun into ridiculous tales by politicians. "Just plant trees" would be ridiculously expensive and is totally impractical, the politicians would say.

14 5y ago
Let’s plant trees and have everyone of them e be connected via Bluetooth sensor next to them in the soil providing real time twitter updates. Would that suffice for the Australian government? If not maybe we suggest 5g.
- andrewstuart 5y ago
  Where is the part in your solution that captures the coal emissions?
  - pilsetnieks 5y ago
    That'd be the actual trees themselves.
throwawaylinux 5y ago
How does this comment relate to the article? What answer, and what was the question being asked? Australian government has tree planting programs as part of its climate policy, doesn't it?
- keyle 5y ago
  To answer your first question, the relative timezone at which this article has been posted helps triggers the local anger regarding climate change and our politicians taking the piss of it for profit. To answer your second question, I doubt it, and if it does, it's probably an insignificant joke.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    I asked 3 questions and this did not answer any of them. I assume your second answer actually relates to my third question, but really if you don't know the answer then speculating about it is not answering it. My first and second questions were also pretty specific, I appreciate there is anger about climate change issues but that is not what I was specifically asking about either. Let's wait for OP to clarify what they meant.
    - IncRnd 5y ago
      > but really if you don't know the answer then speculating about it is not answering it. There is a tendency for people who are knowledgeable in one thing to believe they have enough knowledge and discernment to answer on any other thing.
Gigachad 5y ago
The aus governments "Future technology will save us, not latte sipping inner city greenies" is such a sad state of affairs. Basically lets them do nothing while pretending to have a plan. But they won't even fund implementation of the technology we already have and that works.
- andrewstuart 5y ago
  Cause they never, ever even believed in global heating. It's just a straight cynical political manipulation that aims to prevent any real action and keep selling coal. Australian government literally does not want to solve this.
  - mistrial9 5y ago
    the cynical move is to let the effort of others build your own safety net, while maximizing your own network control and immediate income lots of finger pointing about this, yet so many are guilty at once right?
  - denkmoon 5y ago
    >Cause they never, ever even believed in global heating. Sure some of them do. They're just not willing to lift a finger to do anything about it.
    - h0l0cube 5y ago
      Why lift one little finger when you can be king of the ashes?
    - JimTheMan 5y ago
      The last guy who tried (Turnbull) got knifed. It's a sad world we live in.
      - memorysafety 5y ago
        To a non-aussie, the polititian speak is pretty darn bizarre. On the first read, I thought you were describing a physical assault...
Mikeb85 5y ago
To be fair, based on the action were currently seeing from governments worldwide, everyone is simply hoping for the technological answer.
- IncRnd 5y ago
  Many people want an answer so long as other people do things to solve it.
csee 5y ago
They'll be perfectly happy with that solution because they don't have to stop burning coal and it's funded by small fish taxpayers.
danans 5y ago
"Just plant trees" won't remove the need to stop the burning of coal either. Nothing short of changing out the fuel sources for the vast majority of human energy demands for zero-carbon versions will suffice.
- labster 5y ago
  It’s funny you mention that because “just plant trees” was the solution to get coal for hundreds of years; forestry was invented as a way to get sustainable, (incidentally) carbon-neutral (char)coal for iron furnaces.
  - pjc50 5y ago
    Yes, and to a great extent the industrial revolution kicked off because coal was available in greater quantities than forestry charcoal! Its production is also somewhat labour-intensive. Early coal was referred to as "sea-coal" in many places because the easiest way to get it was from veins close to the sea where it washed up. Deep mining of coal required the industrial revolution. There was a huge circular dependency between iron production, steam engines made from iron, and using the steam engines to pump out the iron and coal mines and draw up the mined resources.
- Gigachad 5y ago
  It's not even based on needs anymore. Australia does not _need_ to burn nearly as much coal as it does. Sure, the last bit might be tricky to remove, but the fact that they do not even remove the amount that they can shows that they have no interest in getting rid of coal.
  - danans 5y ago
    The need I was referring to was the need to stop coal burning, but your point is taken about Australia's foot dragging on that.
- stephen_g 5y ago
  Yeah, but all our major party politicians in Australia get big donations from the coal and oil & gas lobbies, and a lot of the conservative politicians have direct or indirect business links. So the whole “net zero” thing isn’t something their hearts are really in. Hopefully things will change a bit with the election early next year - the opposition party that actually did legislate an effective and workable price on carbon back in 2011 looks like they might get back in (the scheme was repealed by the conservatives as soon as they got back into Government in 2013).
roenxi 5y ago
> "Just plant trees" would be ridiculously expensive and is totally impractical, the politicians would say. There is a 1 billion trees initiative currently in progress in Australia. I'm not sure of the details but I have talked to some of the people involved. https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/australia-will-plant-1-billion-trees/ https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/australia-will-plan...
pjc50 5y ago
A problem in Australia is the risk of climate change induced fires burning down all the trees.
sleepysysadmin 5y ago
>This is not the answer the Australian government is looking for. Which blows my mind. Australia has the opportunity to do very large outback scale energy capture projects that would effectively drop the cost of energy to 0 in the long run. Develop and bring the auto industry back as EVs. As a society you could effectively eliminate one of the highest costs to your people. >The solution needed by politicians is highly technological, expensive, allows us to keep selling coal, and isn't understood by people so can be easily spun into ridiculous tales by politicians. I'm not aussie and only vaguely follow their politics. Australia has to export. If they drop back down into a losing balance of trade it'll be very bad news. >"Just plant trees" would be ridiculously expensive and is totally impractical, the politicians would say. It also isnt a solution. Us Canadians have 10,000 trees per person. We ought to be considered carbon neutral but we dont because our boreal forest is considered a pollutor. So trees aren't a solution.

14 5y ago

Let’s plant trees and have everyone of them e be connected via Bluetooth sensor next to them in the soil providing real time twitter updates. Would that suffice for the Australian government? If not maybe we suggest 5g.

andrewstuart 5y ago
Where is the part in your solution that captures the coal emissions?
- pilsetnieks 5y ago
  That'd be the actual trees themselves.

throwawaylinux 5y ago

How does this comment relate to the article? What answer, and what was the question being asked? Australian government has tree planting programs as part of its climate policy, doesn't it?

keyle 5y ago
To answer your first question, the relative timezone at which this article has been posted helps triggers the local anger regarding climate change and our politicians taking the piss of it for profit. To answer your second question, I doubt it, and if it does, it's probably an insignificant joke.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  I asked 3 questions and this did not answer any of them. I assume your second answer actually relates to my third question, but really if you don't know the answer then speculating about it is not answering it. My first and second questions were also pretty specific, I appreciate there is anger about climate change issues but that is not what I was specifically asking about either. Let's wait for OP to clarify what they meant.
  - IncRnd 5y ago
    > but really if you don't know the answer then speculating about it is not answering it. There is a tendency for people who are knowledgeable in one thing to believe they have enough knowledge and discernment to answer on any other thing.

Gigachad 5y ago

The aus governments "Future technology will save us, not latte sipping inner city greenies" is such a sad state of affairs. Basically lets them do nothing while pretending to have a plan. But they won't even fund implementation of the technology we already have and that works.

andrewstuart 5y ago
Cause they never, ever even believed in global heating. It's just a straight cynical political manipulation that aims to prevent any real action and keep selling coal. Australian government literally does not want to solve this.
- mistrial9 5y ago
  the cynical move is to let the effort of others build your own safety net, while maximizing your own network control and immediate income lots of finger pointing about this, yet so many are guilty at once right?
- denkmoon 5y ago
  >Cause they never, ever even believed in global heating. Sure some of them do. They're just not willing to lift a finger to do anything about it.
  - h0l0cube 5y ago
    Why lift one little finger when you can be king of the ashes?
  - JimTheMan 5y ago
    The last guy who tried (Turnbull) got knifed. It's a sad world we live in.
    - memorysafety 5y ago
      To a non-aussie, the polititian speak is pretty darn bizarre. On the first read, I thought you were describing a physical assault...

Mikeb85 5y ago

To be fair, based on the action were currently seeing from governments worldwide, everyone is simply hoping for the technological answer.

IncRnd 5y ago
Many people want an answer so long as other people do things to solve it.

csee 5y ago

They'll be perfectly happy with that solution because they don't have to stop burning coal and it's funded by small fish taxpayers.

danans 5y ago

"Just plant trees" won't remove the need to stop the burning of coal either. Nothing short of changing out the fuel sources for the vast majority of human energy demands for zero-carbon versions will suffice.

labster 5y ago
It’s funny you mention that because “just plant trees” was the solution to get coal for hundreds of years; forestry was invented as a way to get sustainable, (incidentally) carbon-neutral (char)coal for iron furnaces.
- pjc50 5y ago
  Yes, and to a great extent the industrial revolution kicked off because coal was available in greater quantities than forestry charcoal! Its production is also somewhat labour-intensive. Early coal was referred to as "sea-coal" in many places because the easiest way to get it was from veins close to the sea where it washed up. Deep mining of coal required the industrial revolution. There was a huge circular dependency between iron production, steam engines made from iron, and using the steam engines to pump out the iron and coal mines and draw up the mined resources.
Gigachad 5y ago
It's not even based on needs anymore. Australia does not _need_ to burn nearly as much coal as it does. Sure, the last bit might be tricky to remove, but the fact that they do not even remove the amount that they can shows that they have no interest in getting rid of coal.
- danans 5y ago
  The need I was referring to was the need to stop coal burning, but your point is taken about Australia's foot dragging on that.
stephen_g 5y ago
Yeah, but all our major party politicians in Australia get big donations from the coal and oil & gas lobbies, and a lot of the conservative politicians have direct or indirect business links. So the whole “net zero” thing isn’t something their hearts are really in. Hopefully things will change a bit with the election early next year - the opposition party that actually did legislate an effective and workable price on carbon back in 2011 looks like they might get back in (the scheme was repealed by the conservatives as soon as they got back into Government in 2013).

roenxi 5y ago

> "Just plant trees" would be ridiculously expensive and is totally impractical, the politicians would say. There is a 1 billion trees initiative currently in progress in Australia. I'm not sure of the details but I have talked to some of the people involved. https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/australia-will-plant-1-billion-trees/ https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/australia-will-plan...

pjc50 5y ago

A problem in Australia is the risk of climate change induced fires burning down all the trees.

sleepysysadmin 5y ago

>This is not the answer the Australian government is looking for. Which blows my mind. Australia has the opportunity to do very large outback scale energy capture projects that would effectively drop the cost of energy to 0 in the long run. Develop and bring the auto industry back as EVs. As a society you could effectively eliminate one of the highest costs to your people. >The solution needed by politicians is highly technological, expensive, allows us to keep selling coal, and isn't understood by people so can be easily spun into ridiculous tales by politicians. I'm not aussie and only vaguely follow their politics. Australia has to export. If they drop back down into a losing balance of trade it'll be very bad news. >"Just plant trees" would be ridiculously expensive and is totally impractical, the politicians would say. It also isnt a solution. Us Canadians have 10,000 trees per person. We ought to be considered carbon neutral but we dont because our boreal forest is considered a pollutor. So trees aren't a solution.