World News

37302 readers

1699 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

The Guardian Australia: Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan could cost as much as $600bn and supply just 3.7% of Australia’s energy by 2050, experts say (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 week ago by dugmeup to c/world

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 7 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Sounds about right for his party. They love dumping insane amounts of taxpayer money on obsolete technology. They literally stopped the rollout of a fibre network nationally part way through to switch it with a bullshit "multi technology" solution which turned out to be a dogs breakfast.

EDIT: for comparison, the cost to build a 100% solar wind and battery system that would supply all the power needs for Germany, a nation with more than double Australia's electricity demand, was estimated to be $367 billion (source)

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 week ago

Excuse me, don’t you mean they bitched about cost before the roll out, stopped the rollout, then promised a cheaper solution (MTM as you mention) that retained old shitty infrastructure and then it still cost $11 billion more than the initial FTTP proposal due to cost blowouts. All in the name of partisan politics.

I agree, I trust LNP and by extension Dutton as much as that party deserves with proposals like this, fuck all. They didn’t even have any figures for the project cost when he proposed it.

As someone who grew up in the bush with shit internet until their late teens I’ll probably never get over the nbn fuckup.

[–] WhatAmLemmy 13 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Conservatives around the world are waging a last ditch effort (as always) on behalf of the fossil fuel oligarchs — against cleaner, cheaper, democratized, renewable energy generation.

They don't want you to be able to power your home and car with the solar panels on your roofs. They want you to pay their cronies; a centralized generator, dependent on finite resources where all mining operations are also under their control, who can dictate the supply and demand of energy... meaning they can dictate the price of everything in society from the top down; the way they do with oil and all other fossils.

[–] librejoe 1 points 6 days ago

Are you actually calling nuclear energy a fossil fuel? I'm confused. Nuclear is the best thing we have green wise that can output sustained power 24/7. This project is a joke, but I am very pro nuclear and can't wait for more to roll out here in Canada. The nuclear renaissance is here.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago

Especially in Australia, where there's an insane amount of empty nothing to place wind turbines. Northern Australia gets twice as much solar irradiation as western Europe, it's absolutely ideal for (rooftop) solar.

Economies of scale and "high density" power generation make sense for some places, but even a place with the population density of the Netherlands can cram in enough wind turbines to get a significant fraction of renewable energy. It should be a total no-brainer for Australia.

[–] doodledup 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Who is they? All I hear is someone.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Of all the comments to argue against the use of a mysterious "they", I think you've picked the wrong one.

It's pretty clear who the "they" is here: Conservative politicians in the pocket of corporations who would stand to lose from cheaper, cleaner energy sources.

I'd go one step further and erase "Conservative", because it doesn't matter your other politics if you're receiving ~~bribes~~ lobbying money from big business. It does at least seem to be skewed more towards politicians in Conservative parties though.