The first time Sandy and I drove across Kooragang Island we were confronted by a large swamp devoid of any vegetation other than string of dead trees poking up out of the water. We turned to each other and simultaneously exclaimed “Mordor!”. Kooragang Island is home to Newcastle’s coal loader and such destruction had been unleashed that it truly resembled a barren wasteland from the Lord of the Rings.
In the years since that first trip the area has been rejuvenated. It is now filled with vegetation and presumably the animal and birdlife that follows. A little further up the road is an energy producing windmill. The rejuvenation of Kooragang and that windmill are signs to me that we are making some progress on our environmental stewardship. Naive really, for the backdrop is one of the largest coal export ports in the world!
It was table 14 in the 2014 United Nations human development report that threw me. Table 14 maps out the proportion of each nation’s power supply that comes from fossil fuels and the proportion from renewables. Looking at the chart below isn’t pretty reading.
The chart shows the percentage of a nation’s energy supply that comes from renewable sources. The balance comes from carbon based sources. Of the top thirty developed nations Australia is fifth last, sourcing just 4.6% of our energy supply from renewables and 95.4% via fossil fuels.
The figures in the chart are from 2012. The renewable energy target established under the previous government mandates that we must source 20% of our electricity from renewables by the year 2020. Thank goodness this target survived the attempt by the current government to scrap it. Indeed it seems very modest when you think that if we hit 20% tomorrow we would still only be middle of the pack.
Bottom of the pack yet again http://t.co/RGDga4XKg8
Scott for your information Fossil Fuels are Renewable Energy. Fossil Fuels are Greening the Earth through CO2 Fertilization (Hensen Et al. Dr Idso, CSIRO). Also CO2 does not cause Global Warming.
I’m not going to get into a scientific debate, other than to say the overwhelming consensus of scientists working in the field is completely at odds with your suggestion.
Scott if you believe the that you need to do a lot more research before such assertions. Also consensus is not and never will be Science. 97% of Catholic’s believe at Eucharist that bread and blood actually become the actual body of Christ does that make it true? So some homework for you. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/17/to-john-cook-it-isnt-hate-its-pity-pity-for-having-such-a-weak-argument-you-are-forced-to-fabricate-in-epic-proportions/. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136?mg=reno64-wsj
But I guess the real question is what has the RET got to do with the Baptist Church and The Gospel?
I’d call every major scientific academy (eg royal society, American academy of science ), every major meteorological association, the earth science faculties of the world’s most prestigious universities, and 97% of peer reviewed journal articles an overwhelming scientific consensus.
Re your final question, the biblical/faith rationale is:
1) stewardship – fulfilling the mandate given at creation
2) love – for those who are poorest and for generations to com
3) redemption – creation was made for Christ and is being redeemed
Scott you say you are for social justice and those in poverty yet you support policy’s like RET and the Carbon Tax which add stress to the weakest in our community who are stressed out trying to pay their energy bill’s. All this pain to the poverty stricken for zero gain to the Climate.
I don’t see action on climate change and action to reduce poverty as mutually exclusive. For example, any increase in the real cost of living for low income earners can be offset by compensation.