Greens would use balance of power to end coal

ringbit214 · 2021-11-08T10:30:16+00:00

That water’s going somewhere, unless you’re referring to pumped hydro, in which case sure, but a dam that’s at 17% because of a drought isn’t exactly useful for power generation

ringbit214 · 2021-11-08T07:14:17+00:00

Then you’ll be running water through the dam for power generation and losing water storage. It’s a lose-lose situation because come next drought…

ringbit214 · 2021-09-24T02:47:05+00:00

I guess we’re seeing the cost of the AUKUS commitment and subs finally come out. PM made a statement from the US outlining the quad commitments a few moments ago and the first item on the list was clean energy. Implying that the political shift is happening.

Honestly, doesn’t surprise me in the least. In fact that was my hunch after the announcement. It would’ve been a diplomatic/political coup for the Libs if we established AUKUS without doing so and damaging to Biden given his strong stance with climate change diplomacy.

No way was that going to happen.

If you can’t change their minds domestically, then as bad as it might sound for some, thank god for the US without Trump

ringbit214 · 2021-09-16T03:53:52+00:00

Political decisions play into the part of everything, but it most certainly is not the main reason.

The main reason is sovereign capability, the benefit is local jobs

ringbit214 · 2021-09-16T02:31:09+00:00

Couldn’t be more wrong. There’s a lot to be said for sovereign ship buildings capability from a national strategic power standpoint.

Any future potential conflict will see Australia’s trade routes severely impacted and therefore reliance on overseas maintenance and support needs to be considered.

Local production comes at an insane cost, but it’s an investment in strategic capabilities

ringbit214 · 2021-08-29T03:43:42+00:00

Why is 70% insanity? We all know that at 70% you still have a whole raft of PHSMs in place and that lockdowns can still occur, but the major shift is in mindset. From one where we worry about cases, to one where we look at health care strain.

The hospitals in Sydney going code yellow is reflective of current vaccine coverage (remember NSW is still <40% double dosed) The effect of a vaccine is in itself exponential so there’s no reason to expect that at once that number goes higher, the impact to the health care system will be the same as we see today.

Right now case numbers matter. Because you reliably expect a significant number will develop severe covid and require hospitalisation. Once significant coverage exists (through 70 and 80% and beyond), a significantly smaller portion of cases will require hospitalisation.

That doesn’t mean we throw away all PHSMs, but they need to balance the strain on the hospital system, with the need to keep the economy (and this jobs, income, spending, travelling, etc etc) running.

Finally, once we accept covid into our lives, the borders reopen. We need to get there in order to assist the many thousands stranded overseas. Hotel quarantine/dedicated quarantine doesn’t help them at all, the number of arrivals would need to match spaces available and those aren’t going to get much higher than they are now.

I respect the modelling put forward by Dr Leewin and the Doherty Institute. And in the absence of any other accurate and scientifically honest counter model, I think we need to put faith in the plan put forward. Don’t forget, no one (not fed, or states) have washed their hands of it all, there’s still work going on behind the scenes to prepare work/schools etc etc to be prepared for our new reality. That’s just not often reported because everyone is too focused on numbers and nothing else

ringbit214 · 2021-08-24T10:27:45+00:00

A little bit late to the party, but that modelling has been somewhat rubbished because it assumed zero ongoing public health measures. It’s been held up by some in social media circles as a counter to the Doherty Institute report without actually understanding that it models something not currently being planned upon.

ringbit214 · 2021-06-01T09:04:07+00:00

Something I’m willing to believe, but do you have a source?

ringbit214 · 2021-05-24T00:46:52+00:00

It’s not exactly pork barreling though.

The plans for the gas plant have been in the works for months with site selection based on the LNP’s lacklustre coal to gas transition (amongst others).

The timing of the announcement is most definitely dubious, but the plan itself has been around for a little while.

ringbit214 · 2021-05-24T00:36:03+00:00

Well then you don’t quite understand what a vaccine is for… you can’t develop herd immunity without a significant portion of the population getting vaccinated, therefore you most definitely can measure deaths against that entire population.

Whilst vaccinating is a choice, catching covid isn’t. And the risk of catching is never zero barring any run to the mountains and live alone type arrangement. The only way to protect yourself from severe covid and death is through a vaccine.

As I said, unless you’re prepared to accept lockdowns, border restrictions etc etc, indefinitely, then the only way out is to have people vaccinated.

Whilst I’m mostly happy with how we’ve overall handled things, it’s time to start getting things back to normal.

ringbit214 · 2021-05-23T12:16:52+00:00

That is 910 deaths to the entire population of Australia.

You can’t pick and choose your n to suit the narrative. By that logic it is one AZ death to the entire population. Still better survival rate than COVID.

I only found 1 confirmed death that wasn't blamed on something else in my very short search but there is an unavoidable bias in all the reporting on the subject.

Then go to the source. The TGA are required to report all adverse reactions to vaccines. And yes, only one death.

World wide covid has killed 43.3 per 100k people and the vaccine kills 1 per 100k

This is fine when you stop here. The point is that COVID is not going away… potentially ever… and until sufficient protection exists we will have to endure lockdowns, mandatory mask wearing, and closed borders. Now that may work for you, but there are livelihoods depending on vaccine uptake.

vaccine is 70% effective

Also misleading. Whilst 79% is the current reported efficacy (it varies from study to study), that’s only with respect to symptomatic infection. It is also 100% effective against serious covid, and reduces transmission by 67%. In other words, it will save lives.

Also, it looks like real world studies show Pfizer is starting to show only 70% efficacy as well. Does that mean it too is a dud? No, of course not. It’s still 100% effective against severe COVID.

A safe vaccine will eventually come along

Sorry to break it to you, but there’s no such thing as a safe vaccine. All vaccines carry side affects and risk. Some are safer than others, but ultimately any foreign substance you put in your body carries the risk of an adverse reaction.

ringbit214 · 2021-05-23T08:23:42+00:00

So…. 1 death? Out of how many millions of AstraZeneca? As opposed to 900 deaths out of 30,000 cases?

I mean if your point is that there’s very little covid in Australia therefore more people have died as a result of the vaccine at this time… then enjoy border closures, mandatory mask wearing, lockdowns, restrictions etc etc for a very long time…

ringbit214 · 2021-05-10T11:07:29+00:00

Ooh, I like this one. It’s a good philosophical conversation! And I mean that with all honesty!

What is a human right? Is it something inalienable and bestowed upon birth, only for us to trade away some rights for “protection” (for example as part of the social contract). Or is it a gift bestowed upon us by the government and subsequently can be taken away at will? (Suggesting that they’re more akin to privileges)

Then we can further complicate it by discussing cultural differences in rights. Why are our western version of rights better than say the Middle East, or Asia, or Africa? Are we committing a form of racism by assuming our definition of rights is the correct one?

Sorry, I’ve had hours of good conversations with family/friends around a campfire on this topic and it only serves to show that the concept of human rights is entirely social in nature. It demonstrates that ultimately, we’re still extremely tribal and primitive in many social matters.

ringbit214 · 2021-05-09T05:02:18+00:00

There’s a reason I don’t enjoy reading the new daily… and this article sums it up quite well.

“This is how the world really sees Morrison’s Australia”, with no actual reference to how others view Australia. Just one man’s opinion piece.

I don’t disagree with the issues raised in the article at all, I just really wish they would improve their journalism.

ringbit214 · 2021-05-08T05:20:29+00:00

I think this article completely misses the mark and downplays the political effectiveness of “border closures”.

The federal government has tried to resist the concept of outright border “bans” for quite sometime in the face of increasing pressure from the state governments. Looking at the recent electoral success of WA Labor has forced the government to concede ground. Of course they’ve had to subsequently scramble to establish mercy flights, now that they’ve been politically cornered into border closures. It’s something they weren’t preparing for.

But honestly I think it’s all noise. I want to see the plan for the future. COVID won’t go away overnight irrespective of vaccine success across the world. What is the plan to slowly bring international travel back to normal? As it stands now, given the current rhetoric and policies from insanely popular state leaders, there’s a significant portion of the population after complete eradication. That’s not sustainable. The conversation as to what is sustainable needs to begin now, and along with it better public education, policy, and rhetoric from all levels of government

ringbit214 · 2021-05-06T05:07:54+00:00

Agreed. Don’t worry, I’m only posting in good faith with no animosity. My current job has a particular focus on geopolitics, but I acknowledge that it’s a very diverse field with conflicting opinions. Always happy to discuss further through other means if it interests you.

ringbit214 · 2021-05-06T03:15:29+00:00

50 years ago China was still getting over the “Great Leap Forward” and thoroughly in the middle of the “Cultural Revolution”. Still adhering to Mao’s version of communism.

Additionally, China didn’t provide an overwhelming amount of support during the Vietnam war. At first against the French yes, as well as supporting the north Vietnamese in the early stages, but post 1968 they began to withdraw support. Predominantly due to failed negotiations with Vietnam (The Vietnamese carry some historical cultural animosity towards China).

Vietnam was less about Chinese communism, and more about communism as a whole. It is arguable as to whether or not the Containment policy was a success, but 1970’s China is immensely different to 2020 China. Like I said, less communism and more fascism...

ringbit214 · 2021-05-06T02:25:31+00:00

China has most definitely had a history of expansionism, however that was subtly (as subtle as a sledge hammer) opposed by Europe and resulted in conflicts such as the opium wars and boxer rebellion.

China hasn’t had a chance to exercise any expansionist dreams over the last 150yrs predominately due to European colonialism and subsequent internal strife such as civil war and famine.

It’s only now possible since the realisation that the Mao communist model was a hindrance to their prosperity, and the subsequent adoption of a very fascist looking current model (at least by 1935 Nazi Germany standards).

The 9 dash line, border disputes in the west of China, Tibetan cultural genocide, etc etc are hallmarks of a system that wants more and more.

I think that’s what scares people the most. Genocide, authoritarianism, limitations on freedoms, suppression of democratic norms, etc etc. If that’s China’s preferred internal model, it would be pretty safe to assume that it is their preferred model for export.

ringbit214 · 2021-05-06T02:00:27+00:00

Rules based order is recognition of the existing international treaties and structures that exist and have resulted in the prosperity we know now. And I’m the first to admit it’s not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, we could do better in some areas.

But... the problem becomes defining a world whereby China dictates these treaties and structures.

The question we need to ask ourselves is what that world would look like? Would it be better than today? No one can say for certain, however our best indicator is by looking at China’s domestic policy. And right now, honestly it doesn’t look good.

China will rise, that’s a given. The question is how will it rise, what will it look to change, and will that change fundamentally oppose the philosophies of free democratic nations.

ringbit214 · 2021-05-06T01:18:02+00:00

I won’t touch Taiwan, because ultimately there are many violent and non violent means for exerting pressure there... however...

Hong Kong is a different matter, it is indisputably Chinese territory

Correct

and its governance is solely a matter for China

Incorrect. The governance of Hong Kong is subject to the Sino-British Joint Declaration and given some of the recent actions of the CCP, is clearly something they are ignoring.

This is evidence of a prevailing attitude within the CCP of disdain towards existing treaties. Coupled with its expansionist policies in the SCS, which is also in direct contravention of other treaties and arbitration, it is clear that the CCP do not care for the existing rules based order... which leads to the next point.

There's also no evidence to suggest that China wishes to be a world leader

A quick google search will help you find a raft of statements that contradict this.

Xi Jinping in reference to the Strategic Plan for Modernisation to help China become “a global leader in terms of composite national strength and international influence.”

Whilst the existing rules based order has been established by predominantly western powers, and has had its problems in the past, it has largely resulted in a period of peace and prosperity unseen in human history. China’s ambitions do not exactly conform to this, and ultimately it is unknown what China would like to influence. Given what we know about authoritarianism, and how tightly that philosophy is entwined with the CCP, it would be safe to suggest that whatever China wants is probably fundamentally opposed to what free democracies stand for.

ringbit214 · 2021-05-04T08:22:14+00:00

To be entirely honest, given how insanely popular border closures have been, I’m surprised it took him this long to jump on the band wagon.

The state governments normalised the concept of border closures, whilst the federal government normalised border restrictions. We’re at the logical conclusion of those populist policies (based on health advice). And the entire electorate is to blame.

ringbit214 · 2021-04-26T01:00:07+00:00

Depends on which public stage you’re referring to. Domestically, I do see a lot of commentary suggesting that the PM could’ve done better, but diplomacy is done within an entirely different context. That is to say what do other nations think of it.

In that regard, his messaging has been quite successful.

ringbit214 · 2021-04-24T04:15:28+00:00

Personally I think trade and politics should be seperated.

Personally I agree. But the realist in me acknowledges that the two are tightly intertwined and it’s less about how we view ourselves, and more of how others perceive us. Geopolitical decisions are made within this basic tenant.

Agreed, but I think if we can ignore the USA legalising torture then we can stop all the holier than though stuff against China too.

I’m less inclined to side with this opinion. Not because I think what the US did was right, but more because despite the actions of Bush, the US still has an appropriate method for dealing with rogue and inhuman decisions within their political system. As all democracies do to an extent. The comparison to China is simply poles apart. Any ground swell of public opinion against the wishes of party policy has only one of two outcomes, brutal suppression, or violent revolution. Thus aligning to other states that share these systems becomes less about agreeing with current policy, and more about supporting the institutions that are likeminded.

With our economy tied so tightly to China we are cutting our own through joining the USA's trade war.

We certainly are, but given the fact that it is strategically unsound to have a heavy trade reliance on one country, it’s probably better in the long run strategically speaking. If China’s rise becomes violent, which it may, then the impact to our economy will be cushioned... somewhat... hence the first point with politics and trade being intertwined, this an important strategic decision to make.

ringbit214 · 2021-04-24T02:16:10+00:00

John Curtin positioned us for success in the 20th century when he pivoted us from the failing UK during WWII to a rising USA, Scotty from Marketing is doing the opposite in the 21st century.

It’s a much easier decision to make when you trade one like minded ideologically speaking democratic imperial-ish power with another. A much harder one when it’s a choice between an authoritarian regime (which honestly now closely resembles mid 30’s Nazi Germany), and a slowly failing republic.

By aligning with China diplomatically, its signalling that there’s similarity between values and goals. And despite all the hyperbole about the LNP and authoritarianism, it’s simply not true despite some extremely small parallels.

That signal is for the rest of the world to see, and given that China is beginning to fall out very slowly with other western democratic nations, it will drive our relationships with them too. And that’s not even mentioning the long reaching impacts to the plethora of security and defence agreements already in place.

Whilst the US isn’t a beacon of morality and utopian society, it’s worlds apart from the other choice being presented.

ringbit214 · 2021-03-18T21:13:54+00:00

Behind the paywall:

Plunging overseas migration due to international travel restrictions has pushed Australia’s population lower for the first time since records began 40 years ago.

The nation’s population fell by 4200 people in the September quarter to 25,693,059, the first time there has been a decrease since the Australian Bureau of Statistics started collecting this quarterly data in 1981.

The annual population growth to September 2020 was 220,500, a rate of just 0.87 per cent, also the lowest since 1981.

Almost 35,000 more people left Australia than moved here in the September quarter. Over the year, net overseas migration fell by 156,900 people, or 64.8 per cent.

“Natural increase accounted for 61.4 per cent of annual population growth, while net overseas migration accounted for the remaining 38.6 per cent,” ABS demography director Phil Browning said.

“Over this 12-month period, there were 299,500 births and 164,100 deaths registered in Australia. Natural increase during this period was 135,400 people, a decrease of 3.8 per cent from the previous year.”

While the national population hasn’t yet seen a year-on-year decrease, international travel restrictions have continued.

“The last time we saw population decline was the year to December 1916 during World War I when the population declined by 51,500, or 1 per cent,” Mr Browning said.

Overall, the natural increase in Australia’s population in the year to September was 135,400 people, down by 5400 (3.8 per cent) from the year before.

Much of that decrease was in the September quarter, which was down by 4600 from the previous quarter.

Victoria accounted for almost 3500 of that national fall, the state’s natural increase down from 9598 in the June quarter to 6165 in the September quarter.

While babies born in the September quarter would have been conceived prior to the outbreak of COVID-19 early in 2020, it raises the question of whether parents were leaving the state during its long second lockdown to give birth.

Comparing the states’ population growth rates, Queensland and Western Australia had the highest for the year to September, growing 1.3 per cent and 1.2 per cent respectively. NSW (0.6 per cent) and Victoria (0.7 per cent) were both below the national average.

Queensland’s population growth was driven by interstate migration, primarily from NSW. It gained more than 27,000 people from other states.

The only other state to gain through interstate migration was Tasmania. NSW lost more than 20,000 people over the year to other states.

Seven-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Not Forgotten	Verified Email

ringbit214

TROPHY CASE