|
|
Post by GO30 on Jul 10, 2024 13:33:22 GMT 12
The other evening I read Rabot Banks 'Sustainability Report'. The report all bigger companies are now required to do.
In it I saw their plan to reduce their emissions and thought 'That's a little WTF?'so went and sussed a few other big names we all know and their reports. Bugger me, they say the same thing so how is that supposed to work, surely it can't. Other names included Fontera, the ANZ bank, State and FMG Insurance, Ballance.
This is a short summery of Rabot and all the others plan to reduce their emissions.
Stage 1 emissions - which it their direct emissions. Basically change their fleets to EV's and use less air conditioning.
Stage 2 emissions - those are ones the company generates indirectly. One thing missing from all of them was emissions due to their EV's, gosh what a surprise NOT!. The plan for most is to keep doing the usual but plant a tree.
Now this bit has me a bit confused.
Stage 3 emissions - which are emissions due to their involvement in some form. All of them plan to reduce Stage 3 emissions by screwing their customers. Basically forcing,say Farms for example but some do also refer to 'households', to reduce emissions which they will then use to report how fucking wonder full they are at saving the planet.
On the surface for the muppets that's fine and admirable BUT...
Take my rural for example. According to the Govts calculator,the one that still reports methane emissions at a level 400% (I think, it is a very big number) above what the IPCC and sane people know, this calendar year our nett emissions will be -119 tons,note the - which means after all farming activities (and I added in our city existence) we will still sequester 119 tons of carbon. 12t above last year but me and D1 were flying around the world during our Central American jaunt.
So we are net sequestering, all good BUT
If Rabot expect us to supply them some Carbon good
and then FMG wants the same
and then Balance wants the same
and then RD1 wants the same
and then Caltex wants the same
and then others also want the same
My questions are -
1 - where are these reduced emissions coming from?
2 - if I do find say 20t of savings which all get claimed by the companies, how does anyone expect the farmer to claim any savings?
3 - If the big companies are going to brow beat us into saving they will then claim what compensation will they be offering? Retorical question as we all know they won't be compensating fuck all.
A bit the same with emissions. FuelCos pay which is loaded into the selling price,I buy their product and I'm paying to cover emissions. Fertilisers,again we pay when we buy. Food,we pay when we buy, fencing timber,we pay when we buy ....yet we are told we are dirty and need to pay due to that.
As much as I try I can't balance it all and I'm pretty sure no one can as the system is that fucked up and designed to screw over the little for the greater good of the big.
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Jul 10, 2024 14:57:50 GMT 12
The other evening I read Rabot Banks 'Sustainability Report'. The report all bigger companies are now required to do. In it I saw their plan to reduce their emissions and thought 'That's a little WTF?'so went and sussed a few other big names we all know and their reports. Bugger me, they say the same thing so how is that supposed to work, surely it can't. Other names included Fontera, the ANZ bank, State and FMG Insurance, Ballance. This is a short summery of Rabot and all the others plan to reduce their emissions. Stage 1 emissions - which it their direct emissions. Basically change their fleets to EV's and use less air conditioning. Stage 2 emissions - those are ones the company generates indirectly. One thing missing from all of them was emissions due to their EV's, gosh what a surprise NOT!. The plan for most is to keep doing the usual but plant a tree. Now this bit has me a bit confused. Stage 3 emissions - which are emissions due to their involvement in some form. All of them plan to reduce Stage 3 emissions by screwing their customers. Basically forcing,say Farms for example but some do also refer to 'households', to reduce emissions which they will then use to report how fucking wonder full they are at saving the planet. On the surface for the muppets that's fine and admirable BUT... Take my rural for example. According to the Govts calculator,the one that still reports methane emissions at a level 400% (I think, it is a very big number) above what the IPCC and sane people know, this calendar year our nett emissions will be -119 tons,note the - which means after all farming activities (and I added in our city existence) we will still sequester 119 tons of carbon. 12t above last year but me and D1 were flying around the world during our Central American jaunt. So we are net sequestering, all good BUT If Rabot expect us to supply them some Carbon good and then FMG wants the same and then Balance wants the same and then RD1 wants the same and then Caltex wants the same and then others also want the same My questions are - 1 - where are these reduced emissions coming from? 2 - if I do find say 20t of savings which all get claimed by the companies, how does anyone expect the farmer to claim any savings? 3 - If the big companies are going to brow beat us into saving they will then claim what compensation will they be offering? Retorical question as we all know they won't be compensating fuck all. A bit the same with emissions. FuelCos pay which is loaded into the selling price,I buy their product and I'm paying to cover emissions. Fertilisers,again we pay when we buy. Food,we pay when we buy, fencing timber,we pay when we buy ....yet we are told we are dirty and need to pay due to that. As much as I try I can't balance it all and I'm pretty sure no one can as the system is that fucked up and designed to screw over the little for the greater good of the big. Which is why we will never adopt nuclear power (or Aus). Completely emissions free An established technology, been around for 80 years, used by every major country in the world. Completely emissions free Stable, reliable energy. Did I mention completely emissions free? But if we had completely emissions free power, how could the big screw everyone else? Every action and activity would not register on CO2 audits, we could all be economically productive without any extra climate taxes, levies or emissions trading. Imagine. If the climate change industry was really about climate change, wouldn't we just adopt the established, very widely used completely emissions free power? Take the Aus example, they rely solely on coal for baseload power production, yet have squillions of tonnes of emissions free power fuel sitting out in their back yard. Very low risk of earthquakes, and shitloads of uninhabited space to site said emissions free power plants. So, why not do it? |
|
|
|
Post by GO30 on Jul 11, 2024 14:47:27 GMT 12
The other evening I read Rabot Banks 'Sustainability Report'. The report all bigger companies are now required to do. In it I saw their plan to reduce their emissions and thought 'That's a little WTF?'so went and sussed a few other big names we all know and their reports. Bugger me, they say the same thing so how is that supposed to work, surely it can't. Other names included Fontera, the ANZ bank, State and FMG Insurance, Ballance. This is a short summery of Rabot and all the others plan to reduce their emissions. Stage 1 emissions - which it their direct emissions. Basically change their fleets to EV's and use less air conditioning. Stage 2 emissions - those are ones the company generates indirectly. One thing missing from all of them was emissions due to their EV's, gosh what a surprise NOT!. The plan for most is to keep doing the usual but plant a tree. Now this bit has me a bit confused. Stage 3 emissions - which are emissions due to their involvement in some form. All of them plan to reduce Stage 3 emissions by screwing their customers. Basically forcing,say Farms for example but some do also refer to 'households', to reduce emissions which they will then use to report how fucking wonder full they are at saving the planet. On the surface for the muppets that's fine and admirable BUT... Take my rural for example. According to the Govts calculator,the one that still reports methane emissions at a level 400% (I think, it is a very big number) above what the IPCC and sane people know, this calendar year our nett emissions will be -119 tons,note the - which means after all farming activities (and I added in our city existence) we will still sequester 119 tons of carbon. 12t above last year but me and D1 were flying around the world during our Central American jaunt. So we are net sequestering, all good BUT If Rabot expect us to supply them some Carbon good and then FMG wants the same and then Balance wants the same and then RD1 wants the same and then Caltex wants the same and then others also want the same My questions are - 1 - where are these reduced emissions coming from? 2 - if I do find say 20t of savings which all get claimed by the companies, how does anyone expect the farmer to claim any savings? 3 - If the big companies are going to brow beat us into saving they will then claim what compensation will they be offering? Retorical question as we all know they won't be compensating fuck all. A bit the same with emissions. FuelCos pay which is loaded into the selling price,I buy their product and I'm paying to cover emissions. Fertilisers,again we pay when we buy. Food,we pay when we buy, fencing timber,we pay when we buy ....yet we are told we are dirty and need to pay due to that. As much as I try I can't balance it all and I'm pretty sure no one can as the system is that fucked up and designed to screw over the little for the greater good of the big. Which is why we will never adopt nuclear power (or Aus). Completely emissions free An established technology, been around for 80 years, used by every major country in the world. Completely emissions free Stable, reliable energy. Did I mention completely emissions free? But if we had completely emissions free power, how could the big screw everyone else? Every action and activity would not register on CO2 audits, we could all be economically productive without any extra climate taxes, levies or emissions trading. Imagine. If the climate change industry was really about climate change, wouldn't we just adopt the established, very widely used completely emissions free power? Take the Aus example, they rely solely on coal for baseload power production, yet have squillions of tonnes of emissions free power fuel sitting out in their back yard. Very low risk of earthquakes, and shitloads of uninhabited space to site said emissions free power plants. So, why not do it? Mr Fish pushing the EV theory lie?  ? Naughty boy Nuke plants are made with concrete, lots of it, which is one of the worse products man makes for emissions. Everything used to make it, run it and then dispose of it creates emissions and lots of them.
NZ has zero need for nuke power. Nor does it need a bomb capable of destroying most of the country sitting in fault lines.
Aussie yes fine, they don't have the options we do nor does the ground get angry, besides most things over there want to kill you anyway so whats one more.
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Jul 11, 2024 15:56:42 GMT 12
I think the point everyone is missing is straight forward: Do the climate catastrophists really want to reach their emissions targets?
All the climate catastrophists are clamoring to cut everything from grass fed cows to the LPG to run your BBQ, so emissions targets can be met.
There is a well established technology, in use by every major country in the world, that can immediately met ALL of the emissions targets.
But for some reason the climate catastrophists are morally opposed to it. Much like the Greens and anything logical.
It is basically a double bluff - you make us give up everything that is good in our lives, for what? Well, we can achieve your said goals very, very easily - if you want us to?
|
|
|
|
Post by harrytom on Jul 11, 2024 17:16:30 GMT 12
Which is why we will never adopt nuclear power (or Aus). Completely emissions free An established technology, been around for 80 years, used by every major country in the world. Completely emissions free Stable, reliable energy. Did I mention completely emissions free? But if we had completely emissions free power, how could the big screw everyone else? Every action and activity would not register on CO2 audits, we could all be economically productive without any extra climate taxes, levies or emissions trading. Imagine. If the climate change industry was really about climate change, wouldn't we just adopt the established, very widely used completely emissions free power? Take the Aus example, they rely solely on coal for baseload power production, yet have squillions of tonnes of emissions free power fuel sitting out in their back yard. Very low risk of earthquakes, and shitloads of uninhabited space to site said emissions free power plants. So, why not do it? Mr Fish pushing the EV theory lie? ? Naughty boy Nuke plants are made with concrete, lots of it, which is one of the worse products man makes for emissions. Everything used to make it, run it and then dispose of it creates emissions and lots of them.
NZ has zero need for nuke power. Nor does it need a bomb capable of destroying most of the country sitting in fault lines.
Aussie yes fine, they don't have the options we do nor does the ground get angry, besides most things over there want to kill you anyway so whats one more.
One decent earthquake and Hydro dams gone. Maybe not in our lifetime but it will happen. |
|
|
|
Post by Cantab on Jul 11, 2024 17:46:56 GMT 12
And nuclear would be better in that scenario?
|
|
|
|
Post by em on Jul 12, 2024 9:54:03 GMT 12
And nuclear would be better in that scenario? Very valid point . Where would be a safe place to put a plant in NZ ? Cooling water is a must have so they need to be near a water supply , be it river , lake , sea or aquifer . The cooling water supply would be at risk of contamination in an earthquake . Hydro expansion would be the best way forward IMO . Unfortunately we all like our backyard too much to allow major development to go ahead . |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Jul 12, 2024 10:32:55 GMT 12
You guys have missed the point.
Our baseload is already reliable emissions free (hydro). Aus on the other hand has a baseload of coal. Aus don't have earthquakes, have huge amounts of empty land to site one of these things, and even have the raw material (uranium) just sitting there in the ground.
It is Aus that needs nuclear, so they can catch up with us on their carbon emissions.
The bluff is that the climate catastrophists don't want to use the established technology that will easily meet their stated goals.
There is zero business case for nuclear in NZ. Firstly we don't have the scale needed to make it economic, second, we don't have the climate drivers to justify it. Way down the bottom of the list is the points you guys make, risk of EQ and where to put it (cooling water). We already have a low carbon economy. Aus doesn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by em on Jul 12, 2024 10:51:57 GMT 12
You guys have missed the point. Our baseload is already reliable emissions free (hydro). Aus on the other hand has a baseload of coal. Aus don't have earthquakes, have huge amounts of empty land to site one of these things, and even have the raw material (uranium) just sitting there in the ground. It is Aus that needs nuclear, so they can catch up with us on their carbon emissions. The bluff is that the climate catastrophists don't want to use the established technology that will easily meet their stated goals. There is zero business case for nuclear in NZ. Firstly we don't have the scale needed to make it economic, second, we don't have the climate drivers to justify it. Way down the bottom of the list is the points you guys make, risk of EQ and where to put it (cooling water). We already have a low carbon economy. Aus doesn't. Yeah Aus probably has some much safer locations away from waterways and bodies plus population centres . They even have uranium mines ? They could stick the waste in there and recycle it |
|
|
|
Post by GO30 on Jul 12, 2024 11:38:12 GMT 12
Assuie has the ground work for a Nuke plant already in place. Can't remember the spot but it is right by, almost in, the 'Port of Canberra', which is not by Canberra the city obviously, it is on the coast a little below Sydney but not as far south as Eden. It's not, or wasn't last time I was there, heavily populated with the main activity being a navy base. Probably a good spot for one.
|
|
|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Jul 12, 2024 13:57:11 GMT 12
Assuie has the ground work for a Nuke plant already in place. Can't remember the spot but it is right by, almost in, the 'Port of Canberra', which is not by Canberra the city obviously, it is on the coast a little below Sydney but not as far south as Eden. It's not, or wasn't last time I was there, heavily populated with the main activity being a navy base. Probably a good spot for one. Jervis Bay |
|
|
|
Post by harrytom on Jul 12, 2024 15:38:48 GMT 12
And nuclear would be better in that scenario? And when we have a drought? Cant rely on gas as we only have 8yrs supply left. |
|
|
|
Post by jim on Jul 12, 2024 20:35:18 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by GO30 on Jul 13, 2024 10:19:34 GMT 12
Assuie has the ground work for a Nuke plant already in place. Can't remember the spot but it is right by, almost in, the 'Port of Canberra', which is not by Canberra the city obviously, it is on the coast a little below Sydney but not as far south as Eden. It's not, or wasn't last time I was there, heavily populated with the main activity being a navy base. Probably a good spot for one. Jervis Bay That's the bugger. Go there and you can see the foundations of a Nuke plant.
|
|
|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Jul 15, 2024 8:40:56 GMT 12
So yet again NIWA is caught out providing false climate information In brief
- NIWA appears to have misled Parliament and Minister Ayesha Verrall regarding missing storm data in the Climate of Fear study. It claimed no data was missing without verifying this.
- Documents released under the Official Information Act show NIWA did not thoroughly analyze the Climate of Fear study. It didn’t review 26 historical storm events mentioned, including 21 flagged as missing from NIWA’s database
- Senior management’s failure to address criticism from the study raises doubts about NIWA’s competence, integrity, and adherence to information laws, impacting its reputation as a reliable climate research organisation.
This is nothing new, weather agencies around the world, be it NIWA, BOM, NOAA, NASA, Met Office UK etc have been manipulating data to advance the catastrophists agenda. It is almost 20 years since the Climate Gate scam was revealed yet the catastrophists are still pushing their false agenda
|
|
? Naughty boy
