Two points for a conversion… to the Greens
Joining the enviro-activists in chaining yourself to plant and machinery at a coal mine isn’t a great look, and the Australian Rugby Union won’t give you a second chance.
All he has achieved is to portray himself as a complete goose:
Former Wallabies captain David Pocock has been charged over a protest against a coal mine in northern New South Wales.
The ACT Brumbies player was among a group of seven who locked themselves on to digging equipment at Whitehaven Coal’s Maules Creek Mine site for 10 hours yesterday.
Pocock, 26, and the other protesters have been charged with trespass, remaining on enclosed land without lawful excuse and hindering the working of mining equipment.
All were granted conditional bail to face court in January.
Pocock said he was aware he was likely to be arrested before joining the protest.
“Those charges are something each of us has considered,” he said.
“I think when you put it in the context of a possible future for the Earth with climate change and the challenges the local community face, that certainly puts it into perspective and it doesn’t seem like that big of a sacrifice.” (source)
Stick to playing rugby…
Australian Climate Madness 
And yet he’s happy to travel all over Australia and the wold playing rugby on planes that supposedly belch out “carbon pollution”. Hypocrite…
Spot on, this guy is another Bongo from U2. They don’t practice what they preach.
There’s no accounting for stupid…
There is you know,luisadownunder .
In his case he’s had his head in the bottom of too many rucks.
A bit like “Jerry” Ford, Jr. the 38th President of the United States who played too much football without a helmet.
Did Al Gore play football?
I believe so…as a tackling dummy. He seeks revenge on humanity.
Pocock is a man who believes so strongly in preserving wherever possible the natural environment, and in society putting a lot more effort into developing renewable energy as an alternative to digging up and burning coal, with all its harmful effects, that he is prepared to put his body and career on the line. For this he gets my admiration and applause.
Hey welcome back MWS…
Thank you, Simon. I bet you’ve missed my clear, insightful analysis of whatever topic is being discussed.
Dear ghoti, if you wanted to preserve the natural environment, you wouldn’t be on the computer in the first place. Oh, but your meant “wherever possible”, hence as long as it suits you.
Please provide evidence that coal is harmful. Coal is merely organic matter – you and I included one day – accumulated over millions of years.
Renewable energy has not given society any benefits whatsoever, requiring plant and machinery that only the digging up and the burning of coal, and other fossil fuels, can provide.
Renewable energy is inconsistent, unreliable and requires “dirty” coal to back it up or there would be continuous blackouts; something Germany learned first-hand, hence its return to coal and nuclear.
This is merely a rich guy, with lots of rich friends, with too much time on their hands.
Why doesn’t he go to places where coal has not been used to enrich the lives of the people and then live as they do?
Giving up his rich, vacuous lifestyle, however, would require a few sacrifices, something this superficial demonstration did not.
And why the cameras?
It seems hypocrisy can be a substitute for stupidity…or maybe they are needed in equal measure.
Dear luisadownunder,
One can’t live without having an impact on the environment. One can, however, try to tread as lightly as I can, for everyone’s benefit. I need to use a computer, if only to combat denialists like you, but I want the mining of its component materials, its manufacture, the power it uses, and its disposal to cause as little environmental damage as possible.
Evidence that burning coal is harmful? According to the Union of Concerned Scientists (USA), this is a leading cause of smog, acid rain, and toxic air pollution. Emissions include sulphur dioxide, which takes a major toll on public health, including by contributing to the formation of small acidic particulates that can penetrate into human lungs and be absorbed by the bloodstream; nitrogen oxides, which cause ground level ozone, or smog, which can burn lung tissue, exacerbate asthma, and make people more susceptible to chronic respiratory diseases; particulate matter, which can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility; mercury, a toxic heavy metal that causes brain damage and heart problems; lead; cadmium; other toxic heavy metals; trace amounts of uranium; carbon monoxide, which causes headaches and places additional stress on people with heart disease; hydrocarbons; volatile organic compounds, which form ozone; and arsenic. See http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.html#.VH6ceSh6UrU. Physicians for Social Responsibility (USA) claim that coal pollution damages human health at every stage of coal life cycle. See http://www.psr.org/news-events/press-releases/coal-pollution-damages-human-health.html. There are many such websites dealing with the harmful effects of burning coal, not all from pinko-greeny lefty hippy feral types.
The object is to minimise use of dirty energy sources like coal, then phase it out, not suddenly stop using it completely.
No benefits from renewable energy? My electricity bill has been reduced by four fifths due to solar panels on my roof. Has Tasmania derived no benefits from its hydro power? South Australia from its wind farms?
So what that Pocock is, allegedly, “a rich guy, with lots of rich friends”? Does being rich disqualify someone from expressing their views? How do you know that his lifestyle is “vacuous”? I would support his right to protest even if he came out in favour of the coal industry.
luisadownunder: “martyhoho” is really me, ghoti. I don’t know how that old alias popped up.
Ouch…
We all try to have minimal impact on the environment. You have absolutely no idea if I have more or less an impact on the environment than you do. However, you want all your futuristic toys and they do have an impact on the environment…and require coal and steel and all the elements that go into creating plastics that go into your computer.
Nice of you to want these materials to have as little impact on the environment as possible but you should put your money where your mouth is. So, who should go without, do you think?
The Union of Concerned Scientists, hey?. They are so concerned about the impact on the environment that not one of them is prepared to reduce their own impact on the environment: they just want everyone else to do it. Interestingly, people were going on about smog, toxic air pollution and acid rain back in the 80s. Apparently, acid rain was destroying all the buildings in Europe and having a detrimental effect on ancient monuments. The only thing destroying anything in Europe is pigeon poop and left-wing ideologues who want to impose a way of life for themselves and a different way of life for everyone else. Thus the double standard reins supreme. The “Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi” mentality’, or as otherwise translated: “Gods may do what cattle cannot”.
I don’t know if you are aware of this, but people have been on this earth for approximately 50,000 years and not until the 20th century did any of them die of anything really. They all lived to a ripe old age of…of….of….of. Ahh, what ripe old age did they live to? Wow, none of them died of any diseases or environmental causes. Shish, they were good old days to live in! This 21st Century sucks!
So many things causing such detrimental health problems. And all of it from burning coal. Better to burn cow dung in a mud hut, I say. When will you start doing that, ghoti? Of course, as soon as you get rid of your solar panels made with the help of coal. And steel. And plastics. Then, you’ll go back to living as one with nature, when everything was hunky dory. Just like in the 60s.
Such an emotive word “dirty”, isn’t it? “Dirty” coal. Why is it dirty, do you think? Oh, because it’s BLACK! Must be “dirty” if it’s black! How rude of all that animal and plant detritus to turn BLACK after millennia in the ground! Why couldn’t it be GREEN, instead?
Solar panels hey…and taxpayer rebates. What happens when the sun don’t shine?
Hydro power works and should be used more often, if possible. Having said that, how many people live in Tasmania?
Do you think South Australia would rely exclusively on its wind farm? I don’t think so. Now or ever.
It’s “vacuous” because if he really cared about the environment, he would live by example. If he really cared about minimizing the environmental impact he would begin with his own lifestyle. Had he begun with his own lifestyle, he would be advertising that, rather than use coal and oil to get himself over to Western Australia for a publicity stunt.
But hey, I’m a denier, what do I know?
luisadownunder:
“We all try to have minimal impact on the environment.” Rubbish. I’ve seen lots of people on this site boasting about turning all their lights on during Earth Hour. If you, however, try to have minimal impact on the environment then I applaud you.
“You have absolutely no idea if I have more or less an impact on the environment than you do.” I never claimed anything about your impact on the environment.
“However, you want all your futuristic toys …” I said I need a computer – hardly these days a futuristic toy.
“they … require coal and steel and all the elements that go into creating plastics that go into your computer.” Sure they do. I’ve never said that a person should not use these materials. All I’ve said is that we should start phasing out the burning of coal and phasing in renewable energy.
“The Union of Concerned Scientists … are so concerned about the impact on the environment that not one of them is prepared to reduce their own impact on the environment: they just want everyone else to do it.” How do you know that?
“Apparently, acid rain was destroying all the buildings in Europe …” What does this have to do with anything I wrote?
I have no problem with using coal to provide the power to build renewable energy plants, like solar panels, that will enable us to use less coal. We might always have to use a small amount of coal. The object is to minimise its use, for the sake of the health of the earth and its citizens.
“What happens when the sun don’t shine?” Use wind turbines, or hydro, or stored power, or, even (gasp!), coal.
“how many people live in Tasmania?” So what?
“Do you think South Australia would rely exclusively on its wind farm? I don’t think so. Now or ever.” Who knows? Perhaps it could, one day, rely exclusively on solar, wave, geothermal etc and wind power. Perhaps it will always need a small non-renewable energy source like coal. As I said above, the object is to minimise its use.
The well known member of “The Union of Concerned Scientists” Kenji Watts would reply “Woof woof”. That organisation is a con with a serious sounding name. Anyone, or indeed anything, can become a member merely by paying the membership fee. It has little or nothing to do with scientists or science.
Richard of NZ:
I didn’t know that about UCS. How about Physicians for Social Responsibility (USA), then? Or Scientific American, say: “(T)he waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant … carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.” (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/) Or Slate: “Emissions from coal-fired power plants and other coal-burning sources have been linked to neurological and developmental deficits in children, a worsening of asthma, and cardiovascular disease and other health woes. Coal-burning is bad, bad, bad for your health.” (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/coal/2012/11/coal_epidemiology_burning_coal_harms_children_and_worsens_asthma_and_heart.html) Or any of the hundreds of other such articles easily found on the web?
martyhoho says: ”Evidence that burning coal is harmful?”
marty, now people live longer than before the industrial revolution + plus there are more people. Without fossil fuel – the earth cannot sustain more than 3billion people, with lifespan of 45years. What’s your plan for the other 4billion? Hitler got read of 50 million people, AND many people think that Adolf was a naughty boy. What’s your plan?
Marty, water controls the climate, not CO2! Turning the lights off, wouldn’t make any difference – only indoctrinating the people in lunacy… and getting them away from the truth that: if extra storm-water is saved inland Australia – to attract extra clouds from the sea and improve the climate inland; because clouds avoid dry land. b] that dry land inland can grow trees if it was more moisture instead there is produced dry heat -> that dry heat vacuums the moisture from vegetation close to the coast for many months, and intensive bushfires, because of that!!
Those intensive bushfires burn hundreds of people – therefore: YOU by promoting lies = you are a ”premeditated mus murderer” not a saint, for switching off the electricity! Lots of properties and animals burn – that increases insurance premium for the rest.
Marty, if you want to learn some real truth, here: https://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/5floods-droughts-we-dont-need-to-have/
Marty,
Did Tim Flannery paid the ”subsidy” for your solar panels, or the Urban Sheep?! Was it Bob Brown, or Julia paid those subsidy, by ”borrowing money”?! Who will be paying ”interest’ on those money, for the next 50years?
When are your ”brains-trusts” going to make tractors for ploughing on the farm, on solar panels or wind power?! That tractor, or harvester needs to eat lots of baked beans, to produce enough ”wind” to be powered on.
Chinese factory or family pays only 10% per kilowatt of electricity than what Australian is paying… Chinese electricity produced by Australian coal
What’s my plan, stefanthedenier? I would like to see society phase out energy from coal and replace it with renewable energy. I don’t understand most of the rest of your posts. Ditto the website you referred me to. If I were to switch off the electricity then perhaps I would indeed be a mass murderer, but I’ve never advocated that. As I said above, I would like to see society phase out energy from coal and replace it with renewable energy. I believe, contrary to what our Prime Minister has said, that coal is bad for humanity and should be replaced, where possible and as soon as possible, by power from the sun, wind, wave, geothermal etc.
ghoti, your belief system is immaterial. This is not a religion, although global warming advocates preach about it religiously. They have never proven anything, mind you, but boy, do they preach and sermonize.
It seems that they, and you, have conveniently forgotten, or never knew, that the basic premise of science is that you disprove a theory, not prove it. Going on and on about something does not proof make.
Abundant photos of chimney stacks, bellowing out “smoke” are used as a “source” of “proof” that industries using coal are harming the environment. The (in)convenient truth is omitted: what is “bellowing’ out of those stacks is not smoke, but steam or water vapour. Harmless. Easily dispersed. Mixes with the moisture (otherwise known as water vapour) in the air.
In the meantime, Greenpeace runs around using vast quantities of petrol and diesel oil, sometimes referred to as fossil fuels, expending millions upon millions upon millions of dollars and, by default, harming the environment and our oceans, telling everybody else that they cannot use fossil fuels. Hypocrisy anyone?
Coal cannot be “bad” for humanity. Everything about coal has improved the lives of all “humanity”. Find a place where coal is not used, in the way of a modern society, and you find poverty.
Phasing out coal means fewer opportunities for every, single person on this planet to have the life that you now lead. We should be striving, no: advocating, that every single person, in our world, live a life free of disease with access to lighting, food, water and housing that only fossil fuels have been able to provide for you, me and everybody else in our modern, advanced, free world. You cannot ignore the basic tenet of reality.
Our advances in medicine have only been possible because of fossil fuels. Great minds have been around since Ancient Greece but all advances, physically encapsulating great ideas, have only been possible because of the mining of fossil fuels.
The nebulous ideas you are advocating will never be achieved without coal.
Stefanthedenier has made a valid argument: “People live longer than before the industrial revolution + plus there are more people. Without fossil fuel – the earth cannot sustain more than 3billion people, with lifespan of 45years. What’s your plan for the other 4billion? Hitler got read (sic) of 50 million people, AND many people think that Adolf was a naughty boy. What’s your plan?”
He may not articulate as well as you or I, but the only way your “pie in the sky” ideas about power from the sun, wind, wave, geothermal etc. can be achieved, is through the decimation of billions of people. So, his analogy that these elements can only be achieved through “mass murder” are right on the mark. Very difficult to argue with simple logic. The “proof is in the pudding”, as they say, and it is very hard to argue with the advances that have occurred since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
Just because you disagree with our Prime Minister does not make him wrong and you right .
What kind of logic is that? I reiterate: your belief system does not proof make.
luisadownunder:
“your belief system is immaterial.” I’ve said nothing about my belief system. All I’ve said is that I believe we would all be better off if we phased out coal and replaced it with renewable energy to the maximum extent possible.
“the basic premise of science is that you disprove a theory, not prove it.” So far, climate change deniers have not been able to disprove, in refereed articles in journals or, indeed, anywhere else, the general anthropogenic global warming theory. If the vast majority of climate scientists support this theory, with stacks of evidence, then while I’m a sceptic in most things I’m inclined to take notice of them rather than of the ignorance of most so-called deniers. The big question, of course, is “What if the so-called ‘alarmists’ are right?”
“(W)hat is “bellowing’ out of those stacks is not smoke, but steam or water vapour.” I think you’ll find that that’s the case with nuclear plants, not coal plants.
“In the meantime, Greenpeace runs around using vast quantities of petrol and diesel oil …” How else can they get their message across? Fly kites? They have to compete with the huge financial and political clout of the fossil fuel lobby. To do that they need to use, in the short term, the fossil fuels without which – until renewable energy has been developed and adopted far more than at present – society cannot function.
“Everything about coal has improved the lives of all ‘humanity'”. Sure. But burning it has caused a lot of health problems and premature deaths. If we can replace it with a clean energy source that doesn’t have harmful effects, why ever would we not do so??
“Phasing out coal means fewer opportunities for every, single person on this planet to have the life that you now lead.” Once again you ignore my point about REPLACING coal with other energy sources.
“The nebulous ideas you are advocating will never be achieved without coal.” How do you know this? There have been astounding advances in renewable energy technology in recent times. There’s every reason to believe that it will make a significant contribution to our lives.
“(T)he only way your ‘pie in the sky’ ideas about power from the sun, wind, wave, geothermal etc. can be achieved, is through the decimation of billions of people.” How will billions of people be decimated? Convince me of this and I might well change my position.
“Very difficult to argue with simple logic.” I agree. You seem to be finding it very difficult to argue with mine.
I have to withdraw from this debate as of now – I’m going away in half an hour or so and won’t be back for several days.
Have a nice day!
Just goes to show, you don’t need to be real smart to play football or be a Greenie. Definitely dumbed down to be both. The coal mine was operating legally but the attention seeking ‘Chicken Little’s were not.
bushwanker:
1. what’s the point of a public protest if it’s not attention-seeking?
2. I might be wrong but I suspect that Greens voters are more highly-educated and/or have a higher IQ than voters for other parties.
3. Sometimes protesters have to break the law in order to make their point – where would Afro-Americans be today if Rosa Parks hadn’t broken the law forbidding blacks to sit at the front of the bus?
Point 1: Do your protesting and attention seeking, but do it legally!
Point 2: Having a higher IQ or spending 10 years getting an Arts degree does not make you smarter or give you more common sense. I’ve known Uni grads that could rattle off the periodic table backwards from memory, yet struggled to use a washing machine.
Point 3: Working, not clogging up the welfare and prison systems and the US wouldn’t have this current leftoid greeny president hellbent on destroying his country.
paz:
Your Point 1: see my point 3 above
Your Point 2: so?
Your Point 3: ???
Afro-Americans: the result? Ferguson.
luisadownunder:
I have no idea what you mean – can you explain?
“Afro-Americans: the result? Ferguson.” I have no idea what you mean – can you explain?
Rosa Parks was an intelligent, decent woman…and she didn’t rob a grocery store to make her point.
Computers weren’t available until recently. The mining of coal and oil was needed in its production. Human beings lived on this planet for 50,000 years withOUT a computer and managed very well, hence a computer is a futuristic toy.
Wind turbines kill flying creatures such as birds and bats. Nothing to worry about here.
Solar panels are only affordable with massive Government grants, and even then by well-off people, and only work when the sun shines.
The rest of the human detritus just have to suck it up.
Earth Hour is a feel-good, hippy-type hogwash encapsulating the very basest of human intelligence. Whoever came up with it deserves derision. If you feel better about yourself by turning off your lights during Earth Hour, go ahead. It is about “self” though, isn’t it.
The woes of the world are not about coal. The environment is doing just fine with coal being mined. We’ve reached the third millennium and we have become more stupid.
Cretinous comes to mind. Perhaps its because we are eating “natural”…not enough iodine, you see.
You have everything you want, why deny them to anyone else?
And who gets to decide who should have and who should not?
We are back to the double standard: Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi.
Stick to what you are good at mate. I.e getting your ass kicked by the All Blacks. 🙂
I reckon there’s a good chance that there’s black money in this protest from the Arab oil sheiks. Fracking has put a real downer onto the oil markets.