Greenpeace spell out PM's 'real' coal agenda

[cal04]

ELEVEN Greenpeace activists in inflatable boats have entered the world's biggest coal port at Newcastle and, in a play on the APEC acronym, painted the message "Australia Pushing Export Coal" in two metre high letters along the side of a coal ship.

The message was part of a peaceful protest to highlight to the world that Australia's addiction to coal is behind its spoiler role in international negotiations on climate change, Greenpeace energy campaigner Ben Pearson said.

"It also exposes the Howard Government’s real APEC agenda: to protect Australia’s coal export industry by undermining the Kyoto Protocol," Mr Pearson said.

Activists also unfurled a large banner in Chinese, calling on China to be cautious of John Howard and George Bush’s attempts to sabotage Kyoto.

(snip)

“At a time when we need to see deep reductions in greenhouse gases, Australia is not only refusing to act, but is also increasing the greenhouse pollution it exports to the rest of the world. Australia’s climate policy is to protect coal exports at the expense of the climate rather than make the switch to renewable energy and improved energy efficiency measures we know we need to make.”

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22348464-12377,00.html

[spag68]

1. Aussie energy

Australia is a country that has the environment to use solar pv and thermal to it's fullest extent. Coal and other carbons can be used in the future broken down to their basic forms without polluting the air and are much more valuable that way. Get it right, this energy policy is designed to maximize big money holders and their profits, what it will do to the rest of us is of no concern to them. They are just following the lead of their rich cousins here in the us, like the six chinned fat bastard that got the 400 million retirement bonus from exxon.

[NNadir]

2. Greenpeace couldn't care less about coal.

They never have cared about coal and they never will.

This is why they do all this 2050 talk:

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/releases2/wind-power-can-produce-one-thi

Notice how they don't talk about the other 70 percent, not that their plans for the 30 percent they do talk about are realistic.

Note too that the "percent" talk is a scam for avoiding the world "exajoules." If I am an alcoholic and my beverage consumption rises by two quarts of water, the percentage that is whiskey falls but I am still a drunk.

Note that they have never called for a ban on dangerous fossil fuels. Nor will they. If they did, they'd have to shut down their self congratulatory web sites, even though what they are congratulating themselves for is their willingness to dump responsibility on generations that haven't even been born yet.

[depakid]

3. As I've said before- it makes sense to take allies on this issue

wherever you can get them.

Trashing Greenpeace or pointing out what you see as hypocrisy- when obviously there are much bigger fish to fry isn't helpful.

Seems to me that Churchill had the right take: "if Hitler invaded hell I would at least make a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons."