BF2S Forums Presidential Election 2016

the funniest thing is, dilbert tries to make out that korea's energy is all australian coal. coal is actually not korea's main source of energy generation.



35% of korea's coal comes from australia.

by the usual flukes and accidents of geography/geology, korea has little to no fossil fuel reserves of its own. same as japan. that's unfortunate, and importing LNG from the middle-east is far from ideal in terms of sufficiency and the environment; but what can you do? korea was an undeveloped country less than a lifetime ago. it had a GDP on par with central african nations. korea had to modernise and industrialise, and do so fast.

of course, it goes without saying that korea, like all other industrialised, high-consuming nations, needs to pivot to nuclear and renewables as quickly as possible. it should be a policy priority. on that score, as per the US energy information administration (EIA):

In 2019, the share of nuclear energy consumption rose, while the share of coal consumption fell compared with 2018 levels. Nuclear reactors are beginning to return from extensive maintenance, and the government is restricting some coal-fired generation during winter months to lower air emissions.

it's going in the right direction, in other words. whereas, meanwhile, australia is massively expanding its fossil fuels-related projects and earning censure at COP summits. australia's export economy is fatally addicted to that coal dollar, it seems.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment … -breakdown
Cop26: Australia accused of ‘hiding’ while opposing deal needed to limit catastrophic climate breakdown.

australia has been a developed country for well over a century. it is generations ahead of korea in terms of development and wealth. it has quite literally no excuse for its cynical and self-interested pursuit of fossil fuels and expanding that sector. other rich and developed nations are pledging to leave their fossil fuels reserves in the ground, e.g. denmark.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 … -north-sea
Denmark has brought an immediate end to new oil and gas exploration in the Danish North Sea as part of a plan to phase out fossil fuel extraction by 2050.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment … -emissions
Australia considering more than 100 fossil fuel projects that could produce 5% of global industrial emissions.

so, importantly, how much of australia's national grid is still powered by coal?



australia literally relies more on coal than korea. unbelievable stuff. and they've had at least a 50-year headstart on korea when it comes to weaning themselves off this stuff.

you literally can't make it up. a guy sat in a high-consumption suburb, driving a car everywhere, is trying to lecture me about another country's energy profile, when said country relies on coal less than his own nation.

in terms of total coal consumption, korea consumes 1.8% of the global share (between 51 million people), and australia consumes 1.5% (over 25 million people). so i'm effectively being lectured over a 'morally reprehensible' and totally culpable 0.3%. me, with my lifestyle, not driving a car or using any energy-intensive applications.
https://www.worldometers.info/coal/coal … y-country/

dilbert continually tries to portray australia as some green paradise, taking the moral highground and spitting on developing countries, when in reality it is, and has been historically, one of the biggest producers of greenhouse gases in the history of the planet. per capita emissions taken throughout history places australia in an entirely unenviable place near the top of the table. and even today his country derives just as much of its energy from fossil fuels as korea and all the other developing nations he tries to portray as savage backwaters with their pollution-belching 'dark satanic mills'.

remember when dilbert tried to explain this hypocrisy away by claiming that korea didn't have any heavy industry? LMAO.

so funny.

Last edited by uziq (2022-10-07 02:36:58)

i am not passionate about climate change. i certainly don’t try and guilt trip people about it.

dilbert has been playing this one bum note for two years where apparently i have a huge carbon footprint. or, by being a visitor to a place, i somehow bear responsibility for their national economy and energy grid.

some of the most idiotic stuff i have ever heard.

OK, to summarise:

uziq is not responsible for the past and current climate emissions of the country he lives in, all the benefit he gets from living in a city of concrete buildings, his personal energy use which is largely coal powered, all the environs, parks, public services and utilities he enjoys paid for by taxation of carbon emitting industries - not me guv.

Dilbert is responsible for all the past and current emissions of the country he lives in, even though that apparently includes the burning elsewhere of all the coal which has been exported, even though Dilbert lives in a state where half the energy is from renewable resources and which doesn't use or export coal.

You're using them?

62% of my power is not 'a few times per week'

Beef goes to be eaten by people like you - stop eating beef.

Stop buying coal - then we won't need to export it so slackers like you can keep warm.

I don't live in an overpopulated concrete jungle, for every Dilbert there's about 20 superfluous koreans consuming energy.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I don't live in an overpopulated concrete jungle, for every Dilbert there's about 20 superfluous koreans consuming energy.

dude. cities are MORE EFFICIENT than SUBURBS. korean apartment buildings might fill you with horror but the simple fact is they are FAR MORE EFFICIENT than the cul-de-sac and patio-out-back model of living. you hapless fucking idiot!

and why are koreans ‘superfluous’ but you’re not? this is again your argument? ‘asians are dirty and pollute’.

korea industrialised and began emitting on a large scale in about 1970. how much do you think australia has put into the atmosphere, cumulatively, in comparison? again, there isn’t a great difference between their present total emissions. australia is about 4 places below korea with 1/2 the population.

you can’t dodge the basic statistics. your country is culpable in every metric. why are you deflecting and blaming asians who have only had first-world living standards since about 1985?

sure, guess away. or just go read the source. derp!

‘there’s about 20 superfluous koreans for every excellent white man like MEEEE!’

erm, there’s 2x as many koreans as aussies, and they almost all live in highly efficient, modern apartment buildings built within the last 20 years. and considering that australia has as many cows as human beings, i’m not sure your arithmetic adds up. i think the 1 bogan + 1 heifer model is far more wasteful and emitting than the 50 million ‘superfluous’ asians (cute fascism there, you cuck).

notice that korea ranks precisely nowhere on that cumulative total of emissions since the industrial revolution? again, it’s not developing countries who attained modern living standards in the 1980s who have put the lion’s share of shit in the atmosphere. china might shoulder the blame presently but it was your beloved, non-superfluous white people who were at it for the last 150 years.

DilDerp_xo wrote:

Australia is barely industrialised and doesn't really consume a lot of energy.

but i thought you told me australia's stats are bad because you have yuuuuge industry and are massive exporters? and korea has no heavy industry, right? but wait, now australia is barely industrialised? the world's LARGEST COAL EXPORTER has no industrial base? hahahahahah

but, hey, even taking your argument that australia is some outback pioneer frontier with no industry – your pre-industrial farming and cattle emissions are ... nat good my friend!

Australia is the world's twentieth largest consumer of energy, and fifteenth in terms of per capita energy use. Australia's primary energy consumption is dominated by coal (around 40 per cent), oil (34 per cent) and gas (22 per cent).

https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy/overview

australia's population is 0.33% of the global population and yet it is 20th out of 195 nations for consumption, 15th per capita. but sure, tell me how asians are superfluous and wasteful.

YOU CAN'T IGNORE THE FUCKING STATS DILBERT!

Last edited by uziq (2022-10-08 21:30:42)

An aside, natural gas and coal make up a too-large chunk of US power generation. Not to mention fossil fuel used for personal transportation. It's far past time we prioritize more into nuclear and renewable sources of power, as well as electric vehicles. Sadly I'm always hit back with some argument about how something wasn't reliable in the 1970s or whatever early iteration that made a person scared of change. "Three Mile Island! Electronic car fires!"

I like having a little square of dirt to grow tasty food on, even swapping some of it for other plants grown by neighbors ("anti-social" I guess). And not having people stomp around on the floor above me and having my own floor rattle from the music below. I like not having to pay through my nose each month for a broom closet in some noisome, violent hive.

haha here we go again. ‘australia’s co2 per km is low!’ what a useful statistic.

the US and china seem to be doing respectably well on that metric. very useful thing to consider when it occludes the contributions of the world’s top emitters.

it’s MORE EFFICIENT to live in high density groupings, brainiac.

Last edited by uziq (2022-10-09 02:07:42)

Urgh. Please, stop, dilbs. Sitting in your voracious, suburban Australian paradise plinking away at countries that buy fucking Australian coal. "All y'all in densely populous countries need to start making sacrifices. I don't." No wonder why per capita statistics goes in one ear and out the other. Parsing it would destroy your worldview. "'The climate doesn't care about per capita,' that's why *I* can go about business as usual, guilt-free!"

You are the literal rich man telling the destitute to tighten their belts.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2022-10-09 03:36:01)

"If only people living in cities would consume (an even more) meager fraction of what I consume, so that I could nod approvingly of their emissions/area. Let's do better!"

How could someone not see the sheer preposterousness.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2022-10-09 04:06:04)

Dilbert_X wrote:

What it suggests is if we can cut the world population back to a sensible level we will solve the problem.
India and China can never fully achieve first world status, there literally isn't enough food for one.

What NSW does with its energy is about as relevant to me as what Japan does compared with Korea.

The fact is the bulk of my consumption is from renewables whereas your - non- trivial - consumption is derived almost exclusively from coal - which is the worst of the worst.
I can run the AC on a sunny day, or a cold and windy one, with a clear conscience because there's literally no carbon impact.

it always comes down to culling indians and asians for you, doesn’t it?

the world needs a lot less australians and americans with their terrible urban design and vast suburban sprawl. you consume as much per year as 500 illiterate indian farmers or africans.