I quoted several segments of a single article, not several articles.
This page aims to provide guidance on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), and its role in regulating bushfire management activities carried out by state and territory governments, local councils, other authorities such as fire and emergency services, and individuals.
Fire prevention activities may require federal approval if there is likely to be a significant impact on a nationally protected matter and no exemption applies (see What activities might be exempt?). These activities may result in irreversible or permanent loss of nationally threatened communities or key habitats for threatened species and could include:
The above list focuses on impacts on nationally threatened species and ecological communities, as these are the nationally protected matters most likely to be affected by fire prevention activities. However, fire prevention activities could require approval if they are likely to have a significant impact on any nationally protected matter, such as migratory species, Ramsar wetlands or Commonwealth land (see Where can I get more information?)
- constructing substantial new fire breaks, asset protection zones, access roads or tracks on a significant scale, in habitat for nationally threatened species or areas that form part of a nationally threatened ecological community
- one-off fuel reduction burns in remnant forest that is important habitat for nationally threatened species and has not been previously subject to burning regimes
- proposed new burning regimes in world heritage sites, national heritage places or Ramsar wetlands
- trial or experimental ecological burns, on a significant scale, in habitat for nationally threatened species or areas that form part of a nationally threatened ecological community
- one-off burns in listed or high habitat value ecological communities that are not fire tolerant (for example, littoral rainforests and wet schlerophyll forests)
- burning that may cause substantive indirect (downstream) damage to nationally protected matters as a result post-fire erosion (for example, water quality within a Ramsar wetland).
He cites this article from The Guardian, which summarises the findings of this 2010 study by psychologists Mazar and Zhong.They've actually done studies on this and it turns out that people who consider themselves more environmentally conscious are more likely to cheat are more likely to steal are more likely to do other morally depraved behaviours because they believe that their morality on the climate compensates and gives them licence to do those behaviours. They literally believe that the fact that they do more greenstuff makes them better than you… and then that gives them licence to do terrible things that we would all consider unethical in our society. so if you hear somebody virtue signalling about how they buy only environmentally sustainable products then watch your wallet because that person is significantly more likely to rob you and think that they are entitled to rob you.
So what Mazar and Zhong actually did was not study people who consider themselves more environmentally conscious. Rather, they randomly assigned a random sample of experiment volunteers to purchase from a store stocked with either green or conventional products, and then asked them to perform several tests to gauge their subsequent ethical behaviour:Also known as ‘self-licensing’ or ‘moral licensing’, the licensing effect is evident when people allow themselves to do something bad (e.g. immoral) after doing something good (e.g. moral) first (Merritt et al., 2010).
So they were studying how does moral licensing affect your average Joe or Jane in relation to environmental ethics, rather than studying the behaviours of a non-random sample of environmentalists. So at best AJW can claim that if your average Joe or Jane thinks that it's ok to steal or be dishonest after engaging in a bit of green consumerism, then it must follow that environmentalists who regularly and actively buy green when they do need to consume must also engage in such behaviour since if this phenomena applies to your average person, and if average people think it is noble to be considerate of the environment, then it must also apply to dedicated environmentalists.One hundred fifty-six students (95 female) from the University of Toronto volunteered for an hour-long experiment in exchange for class credit. Participants were randomly assigned to one condition of a 2 (store: conventional vs. green) × 2 (action: mere exposure vs. purchase) between-participants design...
Ninety undergraduate students (56 female) from the University of Toronto volunteered for this experiment in exchange for five Canadian Dollars. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions (store: conventional vs. green). Upon arrival they were seated at desks equipped with a computer and one envelope containing $5 in different denominations. Participants were informed that they were going to engage in a number of unrelated tasks.
The main issue with this argument is what exactly would incentivise those vague ''innovations'' from being developed in time to mitigate the effects of climate change? If it is solely the effects of climate change, then those inventions would be too late to the party. In addition, AJW seems to realise that climate change is a problem that requires international co-operation, because it's through co-operation (e.g. the Paris Accords) that Australia can punch above its weight in solving the issue. Australia is itself an economic powerhouse who can help significantly to develop ''innovations'' to mitigate climate change with other nations, and then adopt them to decarbonise while minimising any side effects of decarbonisation on the economy and potentially gain money in patenting them.Australia's current prime minister who took office in August of 2018 isn't really warm to climate change he doesn't really put it as a top priority for his administration which honestly makes a lot of sense because even if Australia cut their carbon emissions to zero assuming everything else stayed the same or stayed on the same trajectory that would only lower global temperatures by point zero five or 0.5 degrees in the next 50 to 100 years that's not really a big impact it actually makes a lot more sense for a nation like Australia to ignore climate change not destroy their economy and wait for innovations from larger powers that are also large or carbon producers if I'm an Australian politician the decision isn't even difficult I could tank my economy ruin the lives of my citizens for no discernible impact on the problem or I can have a good economy and prepare for the effects of the problem and try to mitigate them with the wealth that my nations creating because regardless of what I do the large bulk of the problem is going to have in any way if the climate change forecasters are to be believed
0.5 degrees is a huge impactwould only lower global temperatures by point zero five or 0.5 degrees in the next 50 to 100 years that's not really a big impact
like replacing coal power with renewable energy? that's already happening everywhere, no need to wait any longer!wait for innovations from larger powers that are also large or carbon producers
false dichotomy thereI could tank my economy ruin the lives of my citizens for no discernible impact on the problem or I can have a good economy and prepare for the effects of the problem
0.5 degrees is a huge impact
yes, that's what it means
Negative power prices on the electricity exchange occur when a high and inflexible power generation appears simultaneously with low electricity demand. This is often the case on public holidays such as Christmas or Pentecost. Particularly in hours of (predictable) high renewable power supply (lots of wind and sun), power producers offer their electricity for negative prices on the exchange. This is often done by marketers of renewable power but also by conventional power stations like nuclear and lignite plants. In this event, the market clearing price can be set below zero (see Figure 2).
Why do power supply and demand have to be matched on the exchange?Power can currently not be stored at a large scale in the German electricity system. To keep the power grid running stable at a frequency of 50 Hertz, the amount of electricity fed into the system and power demand have to be kept equal.
This balance has to be achieved by closely matching supply and demand – something that the power market has to deliver apart from its other purpose of shaping the trading price for electricity.
Because negative power prices are a sign of very high supply at the market, additional “cheap” renewable power is often blamed for causing the electricity price to drop below zero. But inflexible conventional power stations are equally responsible.
There are several reasons why conventional power station operators, which are either losing money or at least losing profit during times of negative prices, keep their plants running (See study by Energy Brainpool, page 4-5 and the 2016 results from Consentec). They can be technical, for example the power plant can be too inflexible to change its output, or the ramping or costs for shutting down and starting up can be too expensive. Another reason for keeping the plant running can be the obligation to provide contracted balancing power to keep the grid stable or provide re-dispatch power. Alternatively, it may be that a certain production has to be kept up to provide heat for a town household heating network.
Regarding the false dichotomy, one third option I arrived at is of an economy tanked by climate change's effects under a no decarbonisation scenario. What other alternatives to the dichotomy can you pick out?false dichotomy there
the economic impact of climate change is huge
that's why it's important for them to deny that bush fires have anything to do with the climate, because that's one way climate change is already costing Australia lots of money
the rest of his argument is like, "when I'm sitting in a speeding car, I should prepare for the impending crash rather than hit the brakes". It's irresponsible.
well, "the economy" can be improved through decarbonisation, it shouldn't "tank" because of thatRegarding the false dichotomy, one third option I arrived at is of an economy tanked by climate change's effects under a no decarbonisation scenario. What other alternatives to the dichotomy can you pick out?