The great global carbon back-down continues:
The EU wants to keep their target while exploring every possible option not to keep it.
They’re contemplating a “non linear” path, meaning, a much slower approach now, while they think up excuses to bail out later.
EU exploring weaker 2040 climate goal
Politico, [Formerly paid by USAID]
The European Commission wants to keep a 90 percent emissions-cutting target but to change how countries calculate their progress.
To start, officials are contemplating a “nonlinear” path between the EU’s 2030 emissions-cutting target of 55 percent and its 2040 goal — rather than a straight line. That could mean slower emission cuts to start, compensated by rapid declines later in the 2030s. It would also mean more pollution in total over the decade.
But as well as the delayed plan, there is the cheap-foreign-escape clause, the forestry-option and domestic-swap games.
Now that everyone knows renewables are no good, and EVs won’t replace fuel cars, there are no end of creative accounting techniques to “meet targets” without spending much or admitting defeat.
The EU might return to letting European countries buy cheap international carbon credits. This means they could fob off the “carbon reduction” to dinky schemes in the third world and save billions of dollars. This was allowed until 2020 when the EU went pious and decided that they were all for globalization unless it was a CO2 molecule. They had to come up with some reason to stop the cheap foreign schemes, otherwise the expensive carbon credits produced by wind and solar power in the EU would be outbid by everything else. Consider that in Australia in 2014, Tony Abbott’s direct auction plan showed “carbon” could be reduced for a mere $14/ton, while wind and solar power were costing anything from $60 to $1,500 a ton. In the end, Labor’s carbon subsidy price in that same era came in at an obscene $5310 a ton. It was never about reducing CO2.
For the same reason the EU excluded nuclear power everywhere and all the time, which made no sense in atmospheric chemistry unless we view carbon-credits as a money laundering scheme to feed pet wind and solar corporations or as a way for foreign adversaries to destroy our domestic manufacturing.
In a blasphemy, the EU might even consider allowing forests to count as carbon sinks. ( The GreensTM might be saving the planet, they didn’t want people to plant trees instead of wind “farms”.)
Finally, the EU is considering allowing domestic swapping of carbon credits between sectors. If your country is good for agriculture but bad for transport, they might just call a CO2 molecule a CO2 molecule, which is it and always was. It’s just another shuffling of the accounting columns, and a loosening of the rules. Remember the game here is not to be scientifically meaningful, but to use jargon to justify whatever octopus-rules the government thinks it can get away with.
One day, if they really need to turn down the carbon trading spigot, they’ll include lakes and oceans too, then miraculously all the big emitters will finally be carbon neutral, and everyone can say the Paris Agreement saved the world.
In any case, the Trump deflation of the global carbon bubble continues:
“What’s happened with the U.S. monkeying around now is that all the air is gone out of the tires in terms of having people have ambitious NDCs,” [said a United Kingdom official who was not authorized to speak on the record, likewise granted anonymity.] “India’s not going to push it. Neither Saudi Arabia. And then the NDC dates for delivery are going back in time, in large part because the EU is going to be late.”
— Politico
At this rate, if the Australian Labor Party wins the next election on May 3rd, the only two countries in the world still sticking to suicidal fantasy carbon targets will be the UK and Australia. Unless Canada votes for Mark Carney on April 28th. Then there will be “three”. Lord help us all.
Image by Reto Scheiwiller from Pixabay
In Australia I see all factions of the Uniparty in full agreement on Net Zero targets. In fact Dutton even reaffirmed his commitment to the Paris Accords right after TRUMP abandoned them. Labor, Greens, Teals and Liberals are in full agreement on this.
And they have all dug themselves a hole so deep that they are unwilling or unable to see they were wrong and admit their mistake.
571
The whole point here is to back out of the carbon circus while pretending they were right all along and they met their targets.
Unfortunately the same applies to the Liberals who jumped on the carbon target bandwagon.
580
Agreed. But in Australia at this stage of the election cycle, there is not even a hint of that happening. As you said Jo, at this stage it will only be Once Great Britain and Australia (and perhaps Canada) that stick to the suicidal “carbon” targets – if Labor win. But I see no difference if Liberals win either as they have said nothing. We have to assume Dutton was telling the truth when he reaffirmed his commitment to the Paris Accords.
360
And Black-out Bowen has been blacked-out! Maxwell Smart’s “cone of silence” has descended in case another “if you don’t like our polices don’t vote for Labor” escapes his lips.
320
Do we sense that Blackout Bowens minders are wary of another “if you don’t like our polices don’t vote Labor”
130
Bowen has already advised people to shop around for a better electricity price.
“Let them eat cake.”
40
Indeed, I noticed finance minister Jim ‘Charmers’ handling questions relating to energy bills today on our ABC.
10
That depends. Were his lips moving?
70
David, Dutton was asked the question at the “pub test” with Paul Murray on Monday night as to whether he would pull Australia out of the Paris Accord. He talked about the importance of reliable power, the importance of gas and, eventually, nuclear. But the word Paris did not pass his lips. Very disappointing. I get it that he feels nervous to “do a Trump” on this issue, but I think he could have handled it much better, perhaps by alluding to the need to slow down “emission targets” to ensure that our grid and power generation can support an industrial economy. I know that push poling has shown that a majority of the population are concerned about “climate change”, but it all depends on how that question is framed. I am sure that if the questions had been asked if people were prepared to give up their standard of living in order to meet the targets the response would have been very different.
70
The average person will be 40% poorer if the world warms by 4C, according to Australian researchers.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/adbd58
Global temperatures will rise by 2.1C even if countries hit short-term and long-term climate targets, which isn’t happening.
https://climateactiontracker.org/global/cat-thermometer/
05
And what happens if the world slides into glaciation or just bumps along in the ‘climatic madhouse’ between full glaciation and an interglacial, the other actual option?
That is the elephant in the room no one is addressing.
10
Dutton obviously looking to get votes from those who wouldn’t vote for him
Whilst he maintains this stupid religious belief he looses my vote
Thank God for Trump!
160
We need to hope that Trump gets Putin sorted before our election. That would repair the damage he has done in recent weeks.
01
They’ve dug US ALL a hole so deep…..
110
On the other hand PD may give the impression that “ Net Zero “ is part of the coalition ‘s policies but never acts to progress toward the target !
He wouldn’t be the first politician to use a controversial policy as a front . Once in office he could say that Australia can no longer afford handing billions of Australian’s tax $$$ over to foreign entities to pursue Net Zero. No foreign entity will ever invest in Net Zero without all those lovely subsidies & the whole hoax will die a natural & well deserved death!
Impossible?? Improbable? Stranger things have happened!!
80
You’re on the money, Graham.
Spot on.
40
And this is why the higher emissions scenarios are becoming the new base case.
Here is an interview with a NOAA director, provisionally fired under the DOGE restructuring.
https://defector.com/an-interview-with-a-fired-noaa-director
[Link is paywalled. – LVA]
119
Simon, I’m assuming this is the link you posted, it seems to get around the paywall.
This is the last paragraph in the interview.
“Being a climate scientist, I’m a scenario-planner, right? I think about scenarios. I think about what happens in a high-emissions world, a low-emissions world. So that training kind of leaks into, I’m thinking about what happens in a high-NOAA-wreckage world or a low-NOAA-wreckage world. I’m trying to figure out what exactly that future looks like. And I think that’s what we’re all trying to do right now. Maybe as the dust clears and I get a cooler head about all of things, I’ll be able to kind of figure out what elements must we retain so that we can have something to raise out of the wreckage in the future. But it’s the uncertainty. It’s like taking everything that has been set up so deliberately over decades, and just like throwing it against the wall to smash on the ground.“
The only thing about this quote that surprises me is that the word “dude” doesn’t feature in it. This “scientist” could get a speaking part in a Bill and Ted movie.
https://defector.com/an-interview-with-a-fired-noaa-director
90
The donkey says:
I think about what happens in a high-emissions world, a low-emissions world.
The answer, that he cannot comprehend, is basically ……..
Nothing.
30
Yep. It was never about reducing CO2. 98% of our emitted CO2 gets sucked into the oceans anyway thanks to Henry’s law.
380
And remember that the EU Commission. who make all of these stupid rules and play games, is an UNELECTED body. So, how to get them out or to change things?
The EU elected Parliament has no authority or decision making capability.
LOL. So much for democracy.
What a joke.
440
Johnny,
The EU is currently engaging in lawfare against political candidates they don’t like . Its to save democracy – Sounds familiar…
140
When contemplating a non-linear path,
if you come to a fork in the road …
take it.
40
Shades of Yogi Berra.
10
When contemplating a non-linear path,
if you come to a fork in the road…
take it.
30
Sometimes a change of identity when I post ? Sorry,
for inadvertently putting words in your mouth, Kalm Keith
40
It wasn’t defined in the text but NDC stands for Nationally Determined Contributions.
For Australia, these are:
90
All we ever hear about is emissions.
‘Net zero’ should account for both sources and sinks.
The CSIRO Cape Grim web site states that the Southern Hemisphere is a net sink for CO2, CH4 and N2O so we do not have to go through the pain and suffering that Black Out Bowen and Albasleezy wish to foist on us.
https://capegrim.csiro.au/
101
I agree and Viv Forbes has proved this as well.
50
Water vapor is a ‘greenhouse gas’. Average global water vapor has been increasing more than twice as fast as possible from just planet warming and can explain all of humanity’s contribution to climate change with no net contribution to climate change from increasing carbon dioxide. NASA/RSS deleted their website that reported average global water vapor anomalies through 2023 and have not reported later measurements. What is the Deep State hiding?
201
I don’t think so. Water vapour in the atmosphere is highly variable. It is still 1-4%, same as it always has been.
150
Water vapour anomaly.
‘The Hunga eruption contributed about 150 metric megatons of water vapor into the stratosphere—an amount so high that it raised global levels of stratospheric water vapor by about 10%. This massive water injection cooled temperatures in the tropical stratosphere by 4°C in March and April of 2022.’ (EOS)
172
The OECD countries have wasted trillions of $ for nothing, but so far very few voters understand the data since Dr Hansen’s BS speech in 1988.
Are the voters really stupid enough to pursue this net zero con trick for another 30 years?
I’m not sure what will happen after the 3rd of May, but all is lost if Labor, Greens and Teals coalition are still in control.
220
The advice Labor and LNP is getting is from advisors who are young, woke, and have no understanding of science. You would think that there would be someone, somewhere, who could advise them with the facts. And don’t use the word “modelling”. As Albanese admitted yesterday he wasn’t to blame for anything because it’s all due to (incorrect) modelling not him!
170
I doubt whether any Uniparty politicians actually know what modelling means. And models need to be validated. Not a single climate model in use by the IPCC is validated as they have no forecasting or hindcasting ability whatsoever.
170
Just the other day even the LNP announced they would be releasing their “modelling ” for future energy prices soon. Modelling is just estimated guessing, which at the end of the day is just guessing. We all know modelling can be tweaked to suit your own position anyway. Lies, damn lies, statistics and modelling. All the LNP need to say is “we aim to provide the cheapest, most reliable power prices”. Say it often, say it loud.
140
David, I saw him dribbling on about the “modelling” last night. Could not run away fast enough from it…..This bloke has no shame and will take zero responsibility for anything……97 times during the last election campaign ($275 reduction) to find out 3 years later that is was all B.S. …………our political class really do think of us as dimwits…..
80
I am surprised that the Liberals don’t sit down with Senator Roberts (PHON) because he does know his stuff. They could also talk to Ian Plimer or Peter Ridd and get some real facts. They are fraidy cats. Frightened of the truth it seems.
The thought that Albanese is leading in the polls says a great deal about the effectiveness of educational brainwashing and the corruption in the universities and journalism. After the horrors of the past three years one would think people would vote for a brick rather than let the ALP continue their destructive assault on Australia.
130
Carney actually scrapped Trudeau’s carbon tax in Canada. And then called a General Election to capitalise on his resulting popularity and the fact that he isn’t Justin Trudeau. At present, despite being PM by having replaced Trudeau as head of the Liberal Party, he isn’t even allowed to address Parliament since he isn’t an MP. So the nepotism which will shoehorn him into a safe seat won’t be noticed.
The question is what anti-carbon measures he (guided by his radical environmentalist wife) will replace the carbon tax with, if he wins the election. He apparently has a short temper, which should make for interesting interviews – especially if he is asked whether he plagiarised the work of others for his Oxford thesis. (Google is your friend.)
310
I’m in the riding Carney is running in (after he unceremoniously booted out the Liberal MP we had before, who’s been here for years and years), and we are doing our best to prevent him from winning his own riding. That would be funny 🙂
60
Good luck!
50
Again here’s the OWI Data for co2 emissions for the world and NON OECD and OECD since 1945.
For the world we have a straight trajectory and ditto NON OECD , but OECD co2 emissions are SFA change since 1988.
This takes 5 minutes and yet somehow, we’re not supposed to notice the increase of 15 + billion tons per year from the NON OECD countries?
So why do lefty extremists find these simple graphs and data so very difficult to understand?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?country=OWID_WRL~OECD+%28GCP%29~Non-OECD+%28GCP%29
80
Neville, from the OWD site:
“Carbon dioxide can stay in the atmosphere for centuries. That means that CO2 emitted in the 1800s is still driving climate change [voodoo religion, profiteering & slavery] today”. My added contribution.
Reading that introduction, it’s fairly impossible to take seriously any of their ensuing gospel and graphs [GAG], especially when they are part of the University of Oxford and the Global Change Data Lab, which is partly funded by the usual suspects: Bill & Melinda and the WHO (no mention of USA International Development funds yet they’ll be sloshing around in there somewhere – or were).
My summation of the numerous graphs is that Once Great Britain was exactly that, yet now it’s plummeted to Central African or PNG levels: Sorry, Business Closed. Yet Ch!na soars…
I take it that’s your inference?
120
So looking at Australia only, the emissions were around 400mt in 2005. If as David has advised, these are expected to drop by 43% by 2035, then they should have well on their way down by now. But looking at the graph, the emissions have only reduced a fraction, around 5%, in the last 20 years. There is no way that they will reach the 43% reduction mark by 2035.
30
That’ll leave stupid Australia to become a ‘renewables superpower'(???) and save the world.
100
The EU wants to keep the “Climate Change” slush fund , but is looking at ditching “Net Zero” . It’s a slow-motion car crash.
100
So 37 billion tons annually? Total CO2 in the atmosphere is 3140 billion tons! And that is only 2% of what is in the ocean.
Our output is tiny!
Atmospheric CO2 exchanges so rapidly with the ocean that half is exchanged every 5 years.
The very idea that fossil fuel is significant and special is silly and incredibly requires at least half of this specific CO2 to stay in the atmosphere even though it is identical to all other CO2. Fossil fuel is only old plants after all. It’s all fabulous science known as ‘The Science’. Scientology is more plausible with General Zod than Climate Scientology.
232
No one worries about the other component of combustion, H2O, causing floods and drowning cities. That would be laughable. We understand it is a cycle and a huge rainstorm does not mean people drown on the other side of the world. But the public do not understand the cycle of CO2 is identical. Into the ocean. Out of the ocean. Into living things. Out of living things. Evaporation and condensation. A vast planetary equilibrium. Man released CO2 from old leaves is barely noticeable even from satellites. And what is in the air is 98% not from fossil fuel.
220
For the years I have been following this scam, I am amazed that no one calls out the fundamental lie. If the 50% increase in CO2 since 1750 is from fossil fuels you should have to prove that 33% of the atmospheric CO2 is from fossil fuels. No one has proven this! Or questions it. Not even the CO2 coalition.
But fossil fuel CO2 is not radioactive. Thanks to cosmic rays, all biosphere carbon and carbon dioxide is very slightly radioactive. So I looked in the literature and this idea that fossil fuel CO2 builds up in the air was debunked in 1958 by the new Radio(Active) Carbon Dating by a New Zealander G.J.Fergusson and published by the Royal Society. It was interesting at the time as the slight dilution of C14 in the air was very noticeable in dating of recent objects. No one has disproved any of this.
But suddenly we have 12 years to live? And that announcement was 37 years ago.
Why don’t these Chicken Litte/Henny Penny stories have a time limit? King Charles should be more concerned about dying of cancer than Global Warming.
And I like to ask Global Warming pushers where they holiday? Hopefully somewhere much cooler. But the tax loving upper middle class Greens are the ones most likely to be flying to their favourite beach. Or snow skiing and sipping wine in front of an open fire. Global Warming was invented by the rich to disenfranchise the poor. We see it in Australia with the Teals.
301
For those who are pointed to the ice records as showing a sudden lift in CO2, that is what I call the Ice Hockey Stick. The argument is that CO2 has never gone up by 50% in only 250 years before, so we must have done it. Firstly it is not direct proof, just coincidence.
Like Mann’s Hockey stick, you have different types of data bolted together as if they are measuring the same thing in the same way. This is illegal in experimental science without proof in this case that if CO2 had gone up or down before, we would see it in the fossil ice record. So clear blue ice data is bolted onto semi solid firn compressed snow data and onto instant laboratory data. Basically this is wrong in any science, improper if not illegal.
Consider the in any spectrum the width of the peaks give as quick indicator of the (time) resolution. And that is measured in thousands of years for a peak. So in short changes like +50% in 250 years just get wiped out. And practically this averaging happens as CO2 drifts and leaks, diffuses during the process as you would expect. You get the same thing with temperature for example if someone asks you today’s temperature. Rapid large changes are just ignored as people given an average. Michael Mann even added his own guess into the future as an ‘expert’. That’s arrogance and wrong.
Otherwise I can say that fossil fuel CO2 is not only 2.0%, that is the limit because that is two years output and a balance between how much is generated and how fast it goes into the great balance between oceans and sky on this water covered planet (72%).
But the Climate money is fantastic. Like Australia’s 35% tax on CO2 (big polluters only, but we end up paying). And as important as the political power it gives to control populations and make up and enforce rules. To save them, of course. Almost as good as the Wuhan flu, another great socialist success.
161
The original ice-core data didn’t support the AGW theory so the supporters of the AGW theory arbitrarily adjusted the ice-core data by 83 years (they assumed that the the bubbles were 83 years younger than the ice it was trapped in) that allowed them to get the ice-core data to agree with the AGW theory. See article by Jaworowski here. There are so many issues with the ice-core data, not to mention that high CO2 concentrations measured in the ice-core were removed and that Stomata data contradicts it.
80
TdeF,
The “Bomb Pulse” radioactive carbon (from the nuclear testing) should be giving us a better picture of what the carbon cycle is doing . It created anomalies that could be followed through air, water and living organisms . A bit like seismic testing…
70
Yes, it did. Exactly as Fergusson suggested. His answer was 2.03%+/-0.15% after two world wars. The fact is today it is the same.
And the doubling of C14 from one molecule per trillion to two molecules per trillion behaved exactly as he predicted. e-kt decay with a half life around 5 years (allow for the 2:1 exchange) Perfect.
A beautiful example of how systems react. But it gets neater. As the C14 vanished into the ocean which has 50x the CO2, the increase of 1x was diluted x50 and added +2% so that the horizontal asymptote is exactly where you expect. 0%. So C14 is now unchanged from 1800 and centuries before. Fully understood.
This was an accidental world wide experiment on a truly global scale. Double C14 in the atmosphere and see how long it takes to vanish into the ocean. The pushers of the hoax say ‘thousands of years’
All gone in 60 years. So all the CO2 from 1965 with its double load of C14 is in the ocean. And with a half life of 5740 years, it cannot hide anywhere else. Only 2% remains.
There is theory and there are facts. That’s science.
Seismic testing yes. Also very much like a medical tracer. We saw what happened in the real laboratory of the planet. And all those silly theories about a ‘surface’ ocean and ‘deep’ ocean are just nonsense. Invented to cover the fact that real scientists understand equilibrium. CO2 is strictly maintained across the planet. There is nothing puny humans can do to change it.
100
I want to thank you, mostly Aussies, for having this conversation here.
130
BBC Report on Australia and net zero emissions 2021
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-59046032
20
How CNN reported on Australia’s net zero position 2021
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/25/australia/australia-climate-net-zero-intl/index.html
20
Peter Dutton speech Energy Is The Economy
https://peterdutton.com.au/leader-of-the-opposition-speech-to-the-committee-for-economic-development-australia-ceda-sydney-check-against-delivery/
40
I don’t know who’s responsible for Dutton’s website typography but that’s extremely annoying to read with double spaces between paragraphs.
40
A pollie that doesn’t know what a paragraph is…or how to format text…or run an economy…or understand that PEOPLE drive the economy…
Oh but prattle on about 2040 or 2050. Pollies will all be long gone by then, and their utopian dreams destroyed way earlier.
70
The double spacing is probably for the autocue. Kemi Badenochs speech was like that too last week. It seems pretty lazy not to convert it to normal sentence structure for the website. Was the speech important? Do they want people to read it?
Leaving in the autocue format screams “we don’t think this speech matters”.
140
Or potentially “we dont care who reads this because we will renege on this promise the first chance we get” 🙂
70
‘Clean nuclear energy is reliable. It will underpin renewables.’ There’s a problem right there.
30
There’s going to be a lot more of that -paying lip service to the narrative but doing what has to done to avoid economic collapse.
That’s the thing about cold, hard, reality, it can be very cold and very hard.
51
At this rate, no matter who wins the next election on May 3rd, the only two countries in the world still sticking to suicidal fantasy carbon targets will be the UK and Australia.
There FIFY Jo. Stop letting the labor lite Liberal Party off the hook on this. They are fully into the nett zero hoax
40
I don’t know what FIFY means but I do know what FITH means and I suspect we are talking about the same thing
30
Fixed It For You
10
Ah ok so the politicians that are FITH will FIFY that makes sense
00
Shows how stupid and shallow Aussie voters are!
01
In other news after Albo berated the supermarket chains for high prices and he will (if re-elected) will ensure big-markets will be brought to heel (but only if you vote labor of course).
The supermarkets hit back by saying the primary reason why food prices are so high is because of the cost of power, they claimed it costs over 100k a month just to run the refrigeration.
I believe/hope power prices will be labors undoing.
70
Everything in our world is based on the cost of energy. Food especially. Transport. Harvesting. Fertilizers. Making anything. All those labour saving devices in factories, processing, homes. All energy driven. People who want to tax our society out of existence have no plan for the future. No country can survive without cheap energy. So blame the supermarkets. Not the government which is going to apply a 35% on all the input energy costs because they all produce CO2. Even the electric cars as in fact they run on coal.
I just wonder if we only had windmills and solar panels, where we would get the energy to manufacture them? The CO2/Energy debt must be enormous and the payback measured in years. And all those silly people running around in electric cars running on coal power or nuclear power are just lying to themselves. We cannot live without fossil fuels and society may collapse completely without them. Or is that the idea?
110
But it’s ok. The windmills and solar panels are all made in China and they will be the first to go with all that nasty CO2 and Climate Change?
It’s their choice. We just keep supplying them with coal and iron ore as our two biggest exports.
Perhaps we should refuse to supply and save them from their terrible fate? Oh, the humanity.
60
“I believe/hope power prices will be labors undoing.”
Which is why the Safeguard Mechanism hides the coming 35% CO2 tax in your cost of goods and service. It’s a direct massive tax on fossil fuels but they can blame the farmers, factories, truckies, aircraft companies, supermarkets for price gouging and you’re none the wiser. And it’s not even being mentioned as a tax on fossil fuels. What else is it for QANTAS and Virgin and Toll and The Tasmanian Ferry ..
80
And remember Prime Minister Julie Gillard’s promise, “there will be no Carbon Tax in a government I lead”. Except it is her legislated 2011 Carbon Credits which are being used in Albanese’s extraordinary and illegal CO2 tax to reach 35%. Illegal because it’s not a tax as the money just goes to people, largely overseas, who claim to grow trees and the like. Julia is right though. It’s not a tax. Just theft.
In five years when you get on an aircraft, the fossil fuel will be taxed at 35%. Now see if you can afford that holiday or business or family trip. And your money leaves the country if you do pay.
That’s if you still have a job because those 250 ‘largest polluters’ will have to lay off hundreds of thousands of people. Like Australia’s biggest chemical company who last year fired 800 and sold off all the plant. Maybe you can get a job in a factory making solar panels for China?
Why is Dutton pretending this extraordinary and massive theft does not exist?
40
How much CO2 is Elon Musk generating to launch 10,600 satellites? Shouldn’t it be illegal to launch your own satellites?
Millions of people need to boycott his Star-Link in protest.
Jan 2025 It started the year with 2.3 million customers globally and ended with 4.6 million.
So users of Starlink doubled in 2024. I guess the per person CO2 of his launches are fine, but it’s immoral. Surely?
At least no one in Australia has launched anything. We have our Climate ethics.
50
Ironic observation from TdeF …”At least no one in Australia has launched anything. We have our Climate ethics.”
Ironic reply from a serf… ” No one in present day Oz would be able to bring the space station astronauts safely home
to Planet Earth. Neither the aims or the means.”
… Instead, we are on a way-back path to the Dark Ages.
70