What Does It Take To Cut Emissions Here?
One of the things that the people-against-doing-anything-about-Global-Warming complain about is the cost of cutting emissions. What's it going to cost? What's it going to cost me? It's the general line of questioning they trot out like somehow the costs of Global Warming are insignificant. If there's one thing that's become evident in the pandemic it's that there are a whole cabal of people who think any social restriction or imposition on their lifestyle in order to preserve the society in which we want to live, is just too much. Masks? No. Social distancing? No. Restricting movements? Hell no. Vaccines? No way. And on and on it goes. Let's face it, they're literally sociopaths.
Let us then subtract the sociopathic out of the discussion and address the reasonable question of cost - i.e. what's it going to take to seriously cut down emissions in Australia? Turns out, not a whole lot.
The general idea is to replace technologies that still run on combustion with alternatives that run on renewable electricity: swap petrol cars for electric vehicles (EVs) and gas heaters with reverse-cycle air conditioners.
By electrifying everything that can be electrified, Australia could cut its emissions by 80 per cent by 2035, according to credible estimates.
And it wouldn't need to invent any new technology to do this.
"It is an easy slam dunk," Dr Griffith said.
"It's not even particularly invasive to our quality of life.
"For every other country, including America, it's much harder and the economics are not as good."
<...>
Dr Griffith estimates the acquisitions would cost about $100,000 per household.
Multiplying that by Australia's 10 million households equals $ 1 trillion.
But a lot of this is money that households would have spent anyway to replace cars, heaters and so on, Dr Griffith points out.
The only difference is they're buying an electrical version.
Most households buy a new car about every 10 years.
Big appliances like hot water heaters can last 20-30 years, but households may be encouraged to switch earlier by considering the savings generated by using cheaper electricity over gas.
"If you started replacing those machines in 10 million houses and you took until 2030 to do it — so roughly a million houses a year — by about 2024, every household that's done that will be saving a few thousand dollars a year," Dr Griffith said.
"By 2030, 100 per cent of homes would be saving [$5,000 or $6,000) a year on their current costs of owning cars and powering their house."
The one country that could just reap the benefits of lots of sunshine and wind is refusing to make the transition because the fossil fuel lobby donates so much money to the political establishment, making out this transition is much too onerous. I guess they're desperately defending their meal ticket but come on, we don't want to feed them at the expense of our lives.
Here's the thing: We don't even need to move over to hydrogen fuels stored in Ammonia and Magnesium Hydrides. We just plug ourselves into the naturally abundant renewables. It's not onerous at all. Australia is uniquely well placed to just electrify stuff and reap tremendous emission control dividends.
You could say it's a no-brainer but of course our political leaders are without brains. They want a gas-led transition. You can't make up this stuff. The writing is on the wall and these idiots are claiming there are hidden messages in that writing saying gas is a good idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment