Australia Could Easily Meet Paris Agreement Targets

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

Australia will easily meet Paris climate accord target - study

Well done, Australia!

[markslawson + 1,042]

Marina - I don't have time to read the ANU report just now but I think its making big assumptions. If you go to the end of the article cited you'll see that Australia was more than 25 per cent over its emissions target by the end of 2017. I think the ANU report is assuming that the growth in renewables will continue so that unrealistic targets such as 50 or even 100 per cent renewables on the electricity network will be achieved. Going above 30 per cent average (not just at any one moment) on a large isolated, spread-out grid like Australia's East coast is a BIG task and never mind the green assurances. Renewables are causing major problems with grid security in Aus at the moment.

The Paris agreement doesn't actually start until next year, also note, and I might also note that it is essentially meaningless. Most of the major emitters (China, India, Russia) have arranged their targets so that they effectively don't have to do anything at all, the US has withdrawn and most of the rest are not trying to meet targets. Its not "we still have Paris" as in the film Casablanca. Its "we never had Paris, so why cry over it".   

[Red + 252]

8 hours ago, markslawson said:

Marina - I don't have time to read the ANU report just now but I think its making big assumptions.

Another crock of cobblers from the uninformed.

Try reading and understanding the report before putting foot in mouth.

Blakers is as good as it gets to writing these types of reports as he is one of the few who understands the complexity of Australia's energy market.

Claims about "unrealistic targets such as 50 or even 100 per cent renewables on the electricity network" are based on a complete dissociation with reality.  Do you know anything at all about renewables, or is it your habit to keep making up stuff?

Your claim that "Renewables are causing major problems with grid security in Aus at the moment" are not reflected in the data  (this link shows Victoria's wind generation much higher than average during recent load shedding in the State).  In fact it is well established that renewables played no part.

 Your claim that "The Paris agreement doesn't actually start until next year" is misunderstood.  Obligations of Parties towards limiting warming to below 2°C and pursue a 1.5°C target came from the 2015 Paris Agreement and remains an ongoing commitment. COP 24 at Katowice was the first meeting of Parties to the Paris Agreement (CMA 1), and it adopted rules and procedures on mitigation, transparency, adaptation, finance, periodic stocktakes, plus other Paris provisions.  Again, your ideas about the roles of key countries are not reflected by actual outcomes - perhaps you might like to read them.

 

Edited February 8, 2019 by Red
pen in foot

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

@markslawson, there are always assumptions. Let them have their moment of happiness and pride, however things turn out. 

[markslawson + 1,042]

15 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said:

@markslawson, there are always assumptions. Let them have their moment of happiness and pride, however things turn out. 

Fair enough, although I think that's its misleading, let them be happy.. 

 

16 hours ago, Red said:

Your claim that "Renewables are causing major problems with grid security in Aus at the moment" are not reflected in the data  (this link shows Victoria's wind generation much higher than average during recent load shedding in the State).  In fact it is well established that renewables played no part.

 Your claim that "The Paris agreement doesn't actually start until next year" is misunderstood. 

Red - as I noted in another link, your stuff is becoming more hysterical, inaccurate and, as of this post, considerably more abusive. I might give up responding if you challenge me. In the first part of the quote your response shows a misunderstanding. Wind generation might have been higher during peak demand, although I don't think that's actually the case for one of the peaks, the problem is that no-one is building the conventional capacity required to deal with those peaks, in part because of the obsession with renewables. In fact no-one dares build gas or coal plants as they typically have an investment life span of 40 years plus and green lunatics might get into government can change the rules in that time. Its a huge problem and I can see a solution. More renewables will not do much. The Paris agreement's start date is 2020 although, admittedly for those who intend to actually do anything about their obligations, action should start straight away. However, as I pointed out, the bulk of those who signed the treaty either don't have to do anything or won't do much, or will exit from it (the US and maybe Brazil). Anyway, hope that helps. Leave it with you. 

[Red + 252]

31 minutes ago, markslawson said:

Red - as I noted in another link, your stuff is becoming more hysterical, inaccurate and, as of this post, considerably more abusive. I might give up responding if you challenge me. In the first part of the quote your response shows a misunderstanding. Wind generation might have been higher during peak demand, although I don't think that's actually the case for one of the peaks, the problem is that no-one is building the conventional capacity required to deal with those peaks, in part because of the obsession with renewables. In fact no-one dares build gas or coal plants as they typically have an investment life span of 40 years plus and green lunatics might get into government can change the rules in that time. Its a huge problem and I can see a solution. More renewables will not do much. The Paris agreement's start date is 2020 although, admittedly for those who intend to actually do anything about their obligations, action should start straight away. However, as I pointed out, the bulk of those who signed the treaty either don't have to do anything or won't do much, or will exit from it (the US and maybe Brazil). Anyway, hope that helps. Leave it with you. 

Get over yourself and deal with the facts.

Now you are creating a straw man: go back to the original article and argue your claims against what it presented.  Or, perhaps show that you understand the NEM, which your language suggests you do not. 

I pointed out exactly why some of your claims were ill informed.  The best you can do is stick with your ideas about the Paris Agreement's "formality" which does indeed start in 2020, and my links gave the context to why.  What you again fail to do is substantiate your view that " the bulk of those who signed the treaty either don't have to do anything or won't do much".  This implies you understand the Rules, which is doubtful from your commentary.  Which is really interesting as the USA played a key role in driving them, and they do provide transparency.  As to who might exit, when or why, that's a different set of concerns.

 

Edited February 9, 2019 by Red
Added the "Rules"