“Choose coal or choose death”


“Choose coal or death.”  It is this type of idiocy, uttered by our Green apostles, along with dogmatic settling of science around climate change, which pollutes the waters of energy policy.

Allow me to raise my flag here, and make some unambiguous statements relating to my position on matters of environment, energy, science and green politik.

I don’t believe the science is settled. Ever. Dogma is settled.

Just because science is not settled, doesn’t mean it is false. Nor that it is true.

Good science typically delivers working theories and associated models that accurately, and repeatedly, and independently, return consistent results. (dear reader, bias alert: I am sceptical of the accuracy of the climate change theories)

But wait – there is more:

E is not synonymous with eco. Follow the supply chain of your e-bike’s or e-car’s charge, and it’s probably sourced to an out of mind and out of sight Coal powered power station. (but… it does not pollute – it’s an e-vehicle… half accurate, hippy; the e-vehicle’s pollution is of the NIMBY sort, so close enough for the hip hypocrites).

The bulk of the fossil fuels retail cost is taxation, so for a truly leimagevel playing field, remove the taxation on fossil fuels. But that removes government revenue – which is a no-no. WE MUST INCREASE TAX SO WE CAN INCREASE THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT. Because.

But hey, let me rant more:

I actually dislike fossil fuels. Think about it: They pollute the air, they are a finite resource, and honestly, number one for me, they fund the madness of the Middle East, including the spread of the warm and fuzzy (or is that retrogade and bloody) brands of Islam.

Now, for a little side tangent. I took the time recently to read Moby Dick. Lovely read, book the size of a fallen tree. A striking concept emerged from the depths of the page, like a Green whale as it were. People hunted whales – until quite recently, on an industrial scale. For (whale) oil. What saved the whale from extinction? Scientific advances which enabled us to extract brown gold, often from underneath the sands of barren lands. Economically, commercial whale hunting (excluding for whale sized sushi) became economically unviable. As an industry, it got out evolved and became financially as dead as the Dodo.

In fact, Oil is one of those bitter-sweet entities. Humanity’s ability to extract artificial light and warmth has roughly evolved from burning trees (bad), to peet (bad), Whale Oil and Coal (bad bad), to Petroleum (bad bad bad,) Natural Gas and Nuclear stuff (bad bad bad bad bad). Oh, and there have always been windmills and watermills and such thrown in the mix – but the salient point is, it evolves and moves in the direction of ever increasing yields from a unit of material. A kg of uranium will yield more energy than a kg of coal or a kg of wood – try it at home kids.

So what is my point? I like clean air. I like cheap energy. I am just disappointed that we do not have cheap, clean energy. The economist in me knows that we do not use oil, or frack, for the fracking sake of it. It’s because it’s economically advantageous.

So, how about this: Why don’t the Greens and all the ecolytes put up or shut up. Cease fossil fuel taxation and subsidising renewables. It is an artificial competitive advantage, and not sustainable in the real world. That’s retarded (as in the hindrance sense of the word). Deliver genuinely cheaper technologies and the crowd will follow. I know I will. And we will ALL be better off, for the right reasons.

The irony is, that the imperative which drives the required innovation (can-do pragmatism driven by the profit motive) is often at odds with the lefty/green (tax and subsidise and redistribute) mindset.

And that’s what shits me

  • Chooie

    I agree that The Greens and most environmentalists are terrible when it comes to energy policy. Their opposition to alternative production methods that can realistically provide base load capacity means that we will continue to burn shitty brown coal for many years to come.

    Sadly your idea isn’t much better. How does your proposal address market failure, and in particular negative externalities? I think you need to dust off your high school economics text books and have a read.

  • Please enlighten me more on the economic shortcomings of my theory. I actually hold a BCom so it would be those uni books to dust off.
    Externalities are essentially uncosted. As I mentioned with reference to the source of an evehicle charge, often overlooked. How much is the carbon footprint of producing solar panels or maintaining offshore windfarm or transporting nuke waste?
    Define and uniformally charge, globally, for each externality and we may find its economic to burn our own poo for heat.
    My main point is this: greenies tax well but do not innovate. Forget carbon trading or fossil fuel tax rise upon tax rise. I fear we have hindered energy techology through watermelon energy policy. Imagine consumer technology if we taxed against innovation?

    • Neville

      Yes, well replied, Keating. Chooie I think was a little ‘choosy’ in comment.