Andrew Bolt

Oct 28, 2011

Bashing the Greens again for the failure of something they actually opposed

You might recall a Southbank columnist back in

Pure Poison IconYou might recall a Southbank columnist back in March attacking the Greens for the problems with the Victorian desalination plant – even though they had opposed it.

And here he is today, blaming them for the failure of a company involved in “carbon capture and storage”, something they also oppose:

So angry! Can’t! Hit! Keys! Straight!

Note that the Greens have got the Gillard Government to spend $10 billion on global warming schemes. Now note the fate of one such… This is not just a warning of the dangers of governments trying to pick winners, especially in the field of green dreams. It’s also a warning that one of the great hopes of saving our coal-fired power stations seems to be a mirage.

Which, of course, is what the Greens always said it was.

CCS was the coal industry’s attempt to look like they were doing something about climate change without actually having to do anything about it. The environment movement always called it as an unconvincing scam, and now that this columnist comes to the same conclusion – he blames the Greens that reached it much earlier than he did.

Still, to be fair, you could possibly blame the Greens for the failure of this CCS company precisely because they thought it was dodgy and refused to support it – the Clean Energy Fund is, at their behest, blocked from investing in “clean coal”, something he was whinging about in July.

But to criticise the Greens for that would be to demand that more public money be spent on dodgy coal capture technology schemes, if even coal industry money can’t keep it alive.

In short: the Greens to blame, again, for being right. Damn them! Damn them to Hell!

27 comments

27 thoughts on “Bashing the Greens again for the failure of something they actually opposed

  1. returnedman

    Fran Barlow owns the copyright on Blotsense

    Too late. It’s out there.

    I didn’t mind when the term ‘netiquette’ started making the rounds after I WAS THE FIRST TO INVENT AND USE IT back in 1996. So she can suffer like I did.

  2. Tomus Barava

    AR @ 23/24 (comment numbers are back, yeah!)

    Fran Barlow owns the copyright on Blotsense.

  3. AR

    TomasB @14 – GOLD! May I use it?

  4. AR

    TomasB @14 – GOLD!! may i use it in future?

  5. Rich Uncle Skeleton

    Burn, Monkeywrench.

  6. Rastafella

    The Little Poffertje’s determined to turn the Australian media into a dutch oven that distributes the stench of misinformation into the corners of our nation. He should be ashamed of distributing such a misleading story as should his editor and publisher.

  7. monkeywrench

    Mr. Freedom of Speech is a hypocrite:

    The Greens oppose the establishment of new coal-fired power stations, new coal mines and the expansion of existing mines, as the technology to capture and store greenhouse gas emissions remains unproven. It took me two minutes to check their policy, Andrew, and you have seriously misrepresented it.
    Monkeywrench of Melbourne (Reply)
    Fri 28 Oct 11 (12:03pm)

    Compare to my actual post at 3 (and now the post numbers are missing- Guys!), and one can see that the post has been selectively edited to preserve the Little Poffertje’s sensitivities.Bless! They also expunged my link to the Greens’ policy page- can’t have the Winged Monkeys getting corrupted by such radical Stalinist propaganda, can we! Poison, undiluted and pure.

  8. Andrew McIntosh

    If it’s Green, treat it mean.

  9. Matthew of Canberra

    “Slightly OT, but I’m torn on CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage), and more particularly whether or not Australia should invest in it.”

    It doesn’t matter. The market will ultimately decide anyway. If the coal industry isn’t investing, it’s because it doesn’t make financial sense for them to do so. If it makes coal more expensive for kwh than natural gas, it’s a pointless business investment. It doesn’t matter what the scale is, the basic thermodynamic numbers are known and can be calculated. I’d suggest that it doesn’t pay, at least not yet 🙂

    Actually implementing it is just an engineering problem. The process is understood.

    Now … here’s the other side: Know all that carbon that’s in the ground? We’re going to burn it. All of it. Well, most of it. At any given time, the cheapest form of energy will be something that can be dug up and burned. It’s going to be burned.

    We can count on of that CO2 being released at some point. We can put it off but it’s going to happen. If that’s a problem them we pretty much WILL have to think about ways to get it back out of the air again. Probably not in my lifetime (assuming it’s a problem), but eventually. Sequestration is inevitable – be it compressing CO2 it and using it to make sharks all sleepy under the sea or trees or mallee roots or whatever.

    The irony is that without some sort of carbon capture for coal combustion now, we’re letting CO2 go which we’re going to have to pay (at a higher price) to get back later on 😉

  10. Eponymous

    Slightly OT, but I’m torn on CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage), and more particularly whether or not Australia should invest in it.

    I suspect it can probably work, but will cost about 25% of the energy that was generated. So, say it usually takes a tonne of coal to make a MWh, with CCS it might take 1.25. Those numbers aren’t very accurate, but I’m illustrating a point.

    Plus infrastructure costs, that will probably make coal power twice as expensive, making most renewables cost competitive. So, it’s probably not necessary in Australia. In a choice between retro-fitting existing plant and installing new renewables I’d take renewables every time. Building new coal (which will be more efficient than the old kit we have installed) with CCS vs renewables is less clear, but I’d probably still take renewables.

    However, if global emissions are your interest, and making money from it, I think we need to invent CCS and sell it to the world. China have _a lot_ of coal plants, and they’re not going anywhere any time soon. We need to invent the early stage bits of the process and sell them to China. This will give our coal exports some longevity, which isn’t a priority of mine, but it’s politically palatable. It’s not how I would design my Utopia, but probably deals with the reality that other people burn a lot more coal than we do.

    For those interested, CCS combines 4 separate processes; Oxy-firing, CO2 Capture from the exhaust stream, compression and transport, and storage. Storage is largely dependent on geology, and there’s not much there to invent and sell. The other bits require some processes and equipment to be invented, which can then be sold. There are some projects underway in Australia, but they are not at scale and not very effective. A cynic would think the coal industry didn’t actually care.

  11. shepherdmarilyn

    Spot on Matthew, it is all the fault of the Greens that we are killing people in our rotten prisons.

  12. Matthew of Canberra

    I think the greens are way overdue for some heat on mandatory detention for asylum seekers, not to mention their disastrous plot to swap refugees with malaysia.

  13. Tomus Barava

    Fran Barlow

    Blotsense

    A type of sense that allows you to blot out reality.

  14. John Reidy

    I think Crikey is getting their system serviced by the guys that did the stock exchange yesterday…

  15. Brizben

    I blame John Howard.

  16. liliwyt

    Apologies for the double post – is it just me or is Crikey playing up this afternoon?

  17. liliwyt

    Greens supporting “global warming schemes”?

    Isn’t that taking the conspiracy theory a little too far?

  18. liliwyt

    Greens supporting “global warming schemes”?

    Is that taking the conspiracy theory a little too far?

  19. specialtask

    Not sure who to laugh at for this ad on Blot’s bog….

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/6287972932/in/photostream

  20. John Reidy

    That is pretty impressive – even for Bolt.
    I do remember criticism (not necessarily from him) a couple of weeks ago about the clean energy fund – and how it excluded CCS – at the request of the greens.

  21. fractious

    @ MW it’s all on the blink – slow to load and it’s eaten a post of mine on the w/end open thread.

  22. Fran Barlow

    Jeremy

    Can I object in the strongest possible terms your attempt to shut down Blot’s free speech by citing salient facts. Everyone knows that salient facts are

    a) a damned nuisance to rightwing trolling
    b) likely to confuse persons possessed of Blotsense
    c) Almost certainly a leftwing c*nspiracy and what happens when lunar lefties get in charge

  23. monkeywrench

    Hey, where did the “preview” link go, Guys!

  24. monkeywrench

    Let’s see if this one beats the gatekeeper: I copied the Green’s policy on CCS from their site.

    (quote)38.{The Greens} oppose the establishment of new coal-fired power stations, new coal mines and the expansion of existing mines, as the technology to capture and store greenhouse gas emissions remains unproven.(/quote)
    It took me two minutes to check their policy, Andrew, and you have seriously misrepresented it.
    Put it another way: if this was a libel case in the High Court, you would once again be the loser because of your shameful desire to smear before getting your facts right.</blockquote

  25. surlysimon

    I may be wrong but wasn’t Carbon Capture and Storage a technology being promoted by the previous Liberal Federal Govt?

  26. fractious

    But Jeremy, even if the Greens did say they opposed CCS that can’t be taken at face value cos they can’t be trusted. And tehy probably said it with their fingers crossed behind their backs. And anyway I bet they nearly didn’t oppose CCS, so there that proves it.

    True.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details

Sending...