https://reneweconomy.com.au/eraring-and-loy-yang-a-coal-closure-wrangles-show-need-for-hard-renewable-targets/

In some ways it is: Victoria has a hard, legislated target for 95 per cent renewables, which means there is no place for either Loy Yang A, or its half sibling Loy Yang B on the state grid beyond that date.

Now the attention is turning - again - to Australia’s biggest coal generator, the 2.88GW Eraring coal plant in NSW. Its owner Origin Energy has for some time flagged its “Intention” to close the plant as early as August, 2025, although this has never been “Locked in.”

He put the renewable infrastructure roadmap into place - and legislated it - but there are no fixed times for coal exits or renewable targets.

Environmental activists point out that paying hundreds of millions of dollars a year to keep Eraring open is not needed, and that two reports - including “The Lights Will Stay On” by the Climate Energy Finance and “Earing can be closed on schedule” by Nexa Advisory - outline why and how Eraring should close.

The CEC’s Kane Thornton says keeping Eraring open will simply make it worse for renewable energy investors.

Beaver. Always beaver.

Australia is mostly degraded, channelised shallow creeks and erosion problems. Bam, beaver does all the work for us.

Can beavers survive in the subtropics?

Phew. I thought I was going to be banned from Roblox.

I was watching Active Users and Environment passed Melbourne a week or so ago. They are comment heavy with a set amount of users posting as their Active Count has barely moved off of 200.

If Environment stopped posting, it would fall behind Melbourne and Brisbane quite quickly. It’s the excessive regularity that pushed it up there.

Trains.

We shall ignore this factoid and continue to centralise power generation into white elephants that are 30 years into the future.

Looks like coal is back on the menu, boys.

are more likely than not killed by those seeking to enhance views and, accordingly, property values.

When there are no water views, the next reason is “leaves”, then “property damage” from branches, roots, leaves in gutters, “bird poo”, “solar panels”, “insects”, “sap”, “don’t like the look of it”, “gets in the way of my mower” and/or “it’s killing the grass”, the list goes on…

These are all paraphrased complaints about trees. It’s a hyper-common thing that trees are intentionally killed in the urban landscape. Unintentionally is usually ringbarking by whippersnippers and that kills just as many, if not more. Shame that well-treed suburbs actually increase property values but then removed of individuals do their best to ruin that, it’s probably the main character syndrome.

The novelist and celebrated nature writer James Bradley says the “hatred of trees” is a settler-colonial legacy of the desire to impose order on the natural landscape and a symptom of increased alienation from nature.

“Trees have helped shape and sustain human cultures for hundreds of thousands of years. Many Indigenous cultures recognise this with systems of reciprocity that connect them to trees, within which trees are not just living beings, but actually relatives or kin. That connection has been disrupted by the processes of extraction that have seen most of the world’s forests cleared, and the hostility to trees you hear when people complain about their messiness, or them blocking their view,” he says.

“The more science learns about trees, the more we realise that even though they exist upon quite different timescales to humans, they are beings, with the ability to communicate and learn. And that they aren’t just good for the environment, they’re good for us, and just being around them makes us calmer, improves our mood, and makes us feel more connected to the world around us.”

What’s interesting is that earlier in my posting session, there was an article about humidity levels changing fire behaviour.

It’s nice to blame Eucalyptus but there are other issues afoot as well. Conservative media has a long history of blaming arsonists or the Greens for not backburning rather than the one thing mostly responsible.

Not only Clive but the boards and management teams of these companies are reaching cartoon villain levels.

Plenty of stories about multinationals skipping on paying tax though…

High income earners in Australia are subject to progressive tax rates. The tax rates for the 2023-24 financial year are as follows[5]:

• 0 - $18,200: Nil tax
• $18,201 - $45,000: 19 cents for each $1 over $18,200
• $45,001 - $120,000: $5,092 plus 32.5 cents for each $1 over $45,000
• $120,001 and above: $29,467 plus 37 cents for each $1 over $120,000

It’s important to note that these rates are subject to change and may vary depending on individual circumstances. Additionally, high income earners may also be subject to the Medicare levy, which is a 2% levy on taxable income[3].

Please consult with a tax professional or refer to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) for the most up-to-date and accurate information regarding tax rates for high income earners in Australia.

Citations: [1] https://www.forbes.com/advisor/au/personal-finance/how-much-tax-do-i-pay-in-australia/ [2] https://www.superguide.com.au/how-super-works/income-tax-rates-brackets [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_Australia [4] https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/ato-reveals-how-much-tax-the-rich-pay-003025028.html [5] https://www.ato.gov.au/Rates/Individual-income-tax-rates/ [6] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/may/16/stage-three-tax-cuts-cost-blowout-predicted-with-the-wealthy-and-men-to-benefit-most