Australian tourism industry seeks urgent help as cost of bushfires grows

[snoop1130]

Australian tourism industry seeks urgent help as cost of bushfires grows

by Lidia Kelly

 

FILE PHOTO: A wallaby eats after NSW's National Parks and Wildlife Service staff air-dropped carrots and sweet potatoes in bushfire-stricken areas around Wollemi and Yengo National Parks, New South Wales, Australia January 11, 2020. NSW DPIE Environment, Energy and Science/Handout via REUTERS

 

MELBOURNE (Reuters) - Australia’s peak tourism body estimated the country’s bushfire crisis has so far cost the industry almost A$1 billion ($690 million) and called for urgent help from the government to lure back visitors.

 

Industry bosses were due to meet with Tourism Minister Simon Birmingham later on Thursday as storms and heavy rain brought some respite from months of fierce bushfires across Australia’s east coast.

 

The fires, which have killed 29 people and razed bushland across an area the size of Bulgaria, have hit several coastal towns at the height of the profitable summer season.

 

“People have basically stopped travel,” Simon Westaway, executive director of Australian Tourism Industry Council (ATIC), told Reuters. “And that’s absolutely understandable: human nature kicks in.”

 

Even though recent cooler conditions have led some tourist destinations to reopen after they were evacuated because of the fires, people remain wary of visiting.

 

Images of burnt-out towns, people huddled on beaches to escape huge flames, dead wildlife and thick smoke hanging over major cities have been beamed around the world.

 

The qualifying rounds of Australian Open in Melbourne this week, the first tennis Grand Slam of the year, have been blighted by complaints from players about the pollution.

 

“The imagery of the fires in the global marketplace is very bad for our country,” Westaway said. “We are worried about the contagion that may have.”

 

Tourism accounts for more than 3% of Australia’s A$1.95 trillion economy, with 9 million foreigners visiting the country annually and domestic tourism growing.

 

Accommodation booking cancellations in non-fire zones have reached upwards of 60%, while in fire-affected areas there were no tourists at all, Westaway said. Many destinations rely heavily on domestic tourism, as well as international visitors.

 

This week’s wet weather brought some temporary respite for fire-hit areas, but also came with the warning of potential flash floods and lightning that could ignite new fires.

 

Prime Minister Scott Morrison earlier this week welcomed a U.S. move to downgrade a travel warning and has stressed that Australia is open for business.

 

Birmingham said he would seek firsthand feedback from tourism bosses at Thursday’s meeting and devise a strategy to reassure visitors that many tourism destinations are untainted by fires.

 

Following are some highlights of what is happening in the bushfire crisis:

 

** The Australian Bureau of Meteorology provided some welcome news on Thursday with a new forecast that there is a 50% chance that the bulk of the country’s east will receive average rainfall from March 1 through May 30. Still, BOM warned that warned that follow-up rains will be needed to end a three-year drought.

 

** There were 85 fires burning across the state of New South Wales on Thursday, with 30 of them yet to be contained, while 19 fires were alight in Victoria, according to fire authorities.

 

** The rain has brought relief for a number of firefighters working across New South Wales state. “Although this rain won’t extinguish all fires, it will certainly go a long way toward containment,” state fire services said.

 

** Emergency responders in Victoria have dealt with nearly 600 cases of falling trees, flash flooding and other damage in since late Wednesday and warned of more risks from storms starting Monday.

 

** Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne ranked among the top 50 most polluted major cities worldwide on Thursday, according to AirVisual’s pollution ranking for major global cities, with winds set to bring more smoke to Melbourne over the weekend.

 

** The smoke haze that has plagued Australia’s major cities for weeks and has been tracked by NASA circumnavigating the globe.

 

** Australia’s conservative government has softened its rhetoric on climate change amid the crisis, acknowledging this week that changes are real and the country needs a strategy of “adaptation” and “resilience”.

 

** Australia’s Wollemi Pines, giant prehistoric trees that were thought to be extinct until 1994, were specially protected by firefighters as blazes swept through their secret location in a NSW national park.

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-01-16

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[TheDark]

Australia probably should promote "Scott from marketing" to lead the Australian tourism board. While doing so, why not offer him the job to lead the whole country.

 

Ah.. they already did so. 

 

Well, I guess, allowing leading populists to run countries has its consequences. 

[jaiyen]

Western Australia is not affected by fires. It is a lovely place. I live in Perth. Only a 6 hour flight from Thailand.  

[tyga]

What it comes down to is, most people (governments, lobby groups etc) are only concerned about the short term economic cost, whether that be tourism, tennis tournaments, houses destroyed or even exploiting koalas (nice cuddly animals that are good to have photos taken with in zoos etc). The most significant ecological and long term habitat and climate issues are not even registering with most people. Only when the smoke gets in the way of the Sydney harbour or makes breathing difficult do people start to think about what we are doing to the World and even then for the most part, they vote for people like Morrison who is an utter disgrace . Australia is just one of many places around the globe at the moment which is experiencing massive ecological loss and very little is being done about it (Borneo, Amazon, Madagascar, Arctic, etc. ) It's heartbreaking how everyone is so short sighted, especially governments.

[Mick501]

14 hours ago, TheDark said:

Australia probably should promote "Scott from marketing" to lead the Australian tourism board. While doing so, why not offer him the job to lead the whole country.

 

Ah.. they already did so. 

 

Well, I guess, allowing leading populists to run countries has its consequences. 

Great.  Now people get their understanding of politics from Facebook memes.

[Mick501]

1 hour ago, tyga said:

What it comes down to is, most people (governments, lobby groups etc) are only concerned about the short term economic cost, whether that be tourism, tennis tournaments, houses destroyed or even exploiting koalas (nice cuddly animals that are good to have photos taken with in zoos etc). The most significant ecological and long term habitat and climate issues are not even registering with most people. Only when the smoke gets in the way of the Sydney harbour or makes breathing difficult do people start to think about what we are doing to the World and even then for the most part, they vote for people like Morrison who is an utter disgrace . Australia is just one of many places around the globe at the moment which is experiencing massive ecological loss and very little is being done about it (Borneo, Amazon, Madagascar, Arctic, etc. ) It's heartbreaking how everyone is so short sighted, especially governments.

Chief scientist Alan Finkel stated that even if reductions were reduced to zero it would make no difference to the rate of change. Of course, doing that would come at a massive cost.  The ALP emissions reduction target of 46% taken to the last election was independently costed at $560 billion (and 300000 job losses).  Explain why you think the economy should be destroyed for no reason?

[bristolboy]

4 hours ago, Mick501 said:

Chief scientist Alan Finkel stated that even if reductions were reduced to zero it would make no difference to the rate of change. Of course, doing that would come at a massive cost.  The ALP emissions reduction target of 46% taken to the last election was independently costed at $560 billion (and 300000 job losses).  Explain why you think the economy should be destroyed for no reason?

That "independently costed" report came via Brian Fisher and his consultancy BAEconomics.

Brian Fisher backgrounder

Brian Fisher, the former ahead of ABARE, has been a relentless campaigner against government action on climate change and renewable energy policies for decades. His consultancy BAEconomics has produced reports for the fossil fuel lobby, and in particular the Minerals Council of Australia. ➢ BAEconomics was slammed by the Ombudsman in 1998 for taking $50,000 fees from Exxon, the Australian Coal Association and Statoil (now Equinor) to participate in a committee conducting climate change research projects.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/190502-Brian-Fisher-Backgrounder.pdf

Fisher has gotten it repeatedly and massively wrong about the cost of renewables over his career. There's a lot more information about him and his work in the link above.

[Mick501]

37 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

That "independently costed" report came via Brian Fisher and his consultancy BAEconomics.

Brian Fisher backgrounder

Brian Fisher, the former ahead of ABARE, has been a relentless campaigner against government action on climate change and renewable energy policies for decades. His consultancy BAEconomics has produced reports for the fossil fuel lobby, and in particular the Minerals Council of Australia. ➢ BAEconomics was slammed by the Ombudsman in 1998 for taking $50,000 fees from Exxon, the Australian Coal Association and Statoil (now Equinor) to participate in a committee conducting climate change research projects.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/190502-Brian-Fisher-Backgrounder.pdf

Fisher has gotten it repeatedly and massively wrong about the cost of renewables over his career. There's a lot more information about him and his work in the link above.

Is that why both sides of politics had previously used his services for cost analysis?  

 

You're just reading your usual left drivel that tries to shoot down anything that doesn't reaffirm their narrative.

[Don Mega]

If everything is burnt to a crisp its gunna be a really fun holiday for the tourists !!!

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Mick501 said:

Is that why both sides of politics had previously used his services for cost analysis?  

 

You're just reading your usual left drivel that tries to shoot down anything that doesn't reaffirm their narrative.

Both sides used his services? Really? I haven't been able to find anything he's done for Labour. But lots of stuff for the mineral council and similar interests. 

[Mick501]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

Both sides used his services? Really? I haven't been able to find anything he's done for Labour. But lots of stuff for the mineral council and similar interests. 

So if I send you a link confirming he was used for coatings by the Rudd (Labor) government, you'll admit that the sources you use are  anything but impartial?

[bristolboy]

39 minutes ago, Mick501 said:

So if I send you a link confirming he was used for coatings by the Rudd (Labor) government, you'll admit that the sources you use are  anything but impartial?

You mean the Rudd government that expired 10 years ago? That's all you've got? Compared to the voluminous work he's done and is doing for the mining industry and the Liberals? The cost of renewables has plunged since 2010. Solar down by 85 percent. But I'd like to see the report and look at his ridiculously pessimist projections.

[White Christmas13]

11 hours ago, jaiyen said:

Western Australia is not affected by fires. It is a lovely place. I live in Perth. Only a 6 hour flight from Thailand.  

We had some fires in WA but not major ones like in the east.

Edited January 17, 2020 by White Christmas13

[TheDark]

4 hours ago, Mick501 said:

Is that why both sides of politics had previously used his services for cost analysis?  

 

You're just reading your usual left drivel that tries to shoot down anything that doesn't reaffirm their narrative.

I rather hear the truth on both sides. 

 

The air we breath, the water we drink is not a left or right politics. It's our life. 

 

Actually it's not just our lives, but the lives of who come after us and whose aim is to progress our knowledge and wisdom further. Their aim is to make our little globe habitable for their kids and their grandchildren. That's how life works. 

 

Stop complaining like a little do-nother. Start either creating or promoting solutions, if you wish your kids or your genes to forward. 

 

It's up to you, you know. It's up to all of us now. 

 

[Mick501]

5 hours ago, bristolboy said:

You mean the Rudd government that expired 10 years ago? That's all you've got? Compared to the voluminous work he's done and is doing for the mining industry and the Liberals? The cost of renewables has plunged since 2010. Solar down by 85 percent. But I'd like to see the report and look at his ridiculously pessimist projections.

You and I are in agreeance that emissions need to be reduced.  We just disagree on the timeframe.   Last I checked, probably about a year ago, coal was about $60 kWh and solar at $140.  Electricity prices up 60% over ten years.   The government pays massive subsidies for solar/wind.  If it was competitive, there would be no need.   The market wants to go that way, but it is just not competitive without massive subsidies.  

 

India and China and many other countries want to dig billions out of poverty.  The main driver will be coal.  It is not realistic that they will significantly change their habits, and asking them to do so consigns billions to poverty.  All well and good if you've had the benefit of a western life, but they do not give a rats about emissions (and will not for many years yet).

 

the chief scientist of Aus stated there would be no practical difference even if emissions were reduced to zero.  I'm sure you confirmed this in response to my earlier post.

 

given that it will have no effect, the only sensible policy objectives are the reduction of emissions over time, with minimal impact to the economy.

 

very interesting also that Labor (who were hotter favourites to win than Hilary) did not do their own costing on their emissions target. Even if you disagree with the model, no rational person could think it would not be extremely expensive.  It would not need subsidies otherwise.

 

 

[TheDark]

1 hour ago, Mick501 said:

You and I are in agreeance that emissions need to be reduced.  We just disagree on the timeframe.   Last I checked, probably about a year ago, coal was about $60 kWh and solar at $140.  Electricity prices up 60% over ten years.   The government pays massive subsidies for solar/wind.  If it was competitive, there would be no need.   The market wants to go that way, but it is just not competitive without massive subsidies.  

 

India and China and many other countries want to dig billions out of poverty.  The main driver will be coal.  It is not realistic that they will significantly change their habits, and asking them to do so consigns billions to poverty.  All well and good if you've had the benefit of a western life, but they do not give a rats about emissions (and will not for many years yet).

 

the chief scientist of Aus stated there would be no practical difference even if emissions were reduced to zero.  I'm sure you confirmed this in response to my earlier post.

 

given that it will have no effect, the only sensible policy objectives are the reduction of emissions over time, with minimal impact to the economy.

 

very interesting also that Labor (who were hotter favourites to win than Hilary) did not do their own costing on their emissions target. Even if you disagree with the model, no rational person could think it would not be extremely expensive.  It would not need subsidies otherwise.

 

 

End complaining. Start offering solutions. 

 

We are all fed up of the populist people whose only way to affect the world is to complain. Don't be one of them. 

 

Give us your solution. Solutions are what we need right now. 

 

What are your solutions?

[TheDark]

On 1/17/2020 at 11:21 AM, Mick501 said:

Great.  Now people get their understanding of politics from Facebook memes.

Oh yeah, you got it right. Memes are sometimes good to get the message through. 

 

[Mick501]

11 hours ago, TheDark said:

End complaining. Start offering solutions. 

 

We are all fed up of the populist people whose only way to affect the world is to complain. Don't be one of them. 

 

Give us your solution. Solutions are what we need right now. 

 

What are your solutions?

You really are quite "special", aren't you.  My team is in power and doing a good job., so no complaints from me.  They have their policies pretty much spot on to honour emissions agreement and minimise economic harm.  Just attempting to educate the likes of you and others as to how the real world works.

 

But since you're full of spite and criticism, perhaps you could share what it is you are doing to make a meaningful difference?

 

Ill save you the trouble and answer for you:   Nothing!

 

the reason being is there is nothing that can be done to make a meaningful difference.  Perhaps you should read up on Alan Finkels comments.  Or you can just stick to educating yourself by memes and keep embarrassing yourself with your posts.  That's fine for you, but painful for the rest of us, so please consider that.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 18, 2020 by Mick501

[TheDark]

1 hour ago, Mick501 said:

You really are quite "special", aren't you.  My team is in power and doing a good job., so no complaints from me.  They have their policies pretty much spot on to honour emissions agreement and minimise economic harm.  Just attempting to educate the likes of you and others as to how the real world works.

 

But since you're full of spite and criticism, perhaps you could share what it is you are doing to make a meaningful difference?

 

Ill save you the trouble and answer for you:   Nothing!

 

the reason being is there is nothing that can be done to make a meaningful difference.  Perhaps you should read up on Alan Finkels comments.  Or you can just stick to educating yourself by memes and keep embarrassing yourself with your posts.  That's fine for you, but painful for the rest of us, so please consider that.

When it comes to protecting the environment, there is no "My team". There is only us all, who either benefit of having clear air to breath, or not.

 

Scott from marketing is clearly not a fan of protecting the environment. He is known to snare the idea of protecting the environment. It's good if he has to pay for his own actions. The same applies to all sides, when they are doing stupid acts.

 

 

[Mick501]

2 hours ago, TheDark said:

When it comes to protecting the environment, there is no "My team". There is only us all, who either benefit of having clear air to breath, or not.

 

Scott from marketing is clearly not a fan of protecting the environment. He is known to snare the idea of protecting the environment. It's good if he has to pay for his own actions. The same applies to all sides, when they are doing stupid acts.

 

 

Yes dear.  (Pat, pat)

[bristolboy]

18 hours ago, Mick501 said:

You and I are in agreeance that emissions need to be reduced.  We just disagree on the timeframe.   Last I checked, probably about a year ago, coal was about $60 kWh and solar at $140.  Electricity prices up 60% over ten years.   The government pays massive subsidies for solar/wind.  If it was competitive, there would be no need.   The market wants to go that way, but it is just not competitive without massive subsidies.  

 

India and China and many other countries want to dig billions out of poverty.  The main driver will be coal.  It is not realistic that they will significantly change their habits, and asking them to do so consigns billions to poverty.  All well and good if you've had the benefit of a western life, but they do not give a rats about emissions (and will not for many years yet).

 

the chief scientist of Aus stated there would be no practical difference even if emissions were reduced to zero.  I'm sure you confirmed this in response to my earlier post.

 

given that it will have no effect, the only sensible policy objectives are the reduction of emissions over time, with minimal impact to the economy.

 

very interesting also that Labor (who were hotter favourites to win than Hilary) did not do their own costing on their emissions target. Even if you disagree with the model, no rational person could think it would not be extremely expensive.  It would not need subsidies otherwise.

 

 

A year ago you checked " Reallhy. More like 2010. Your figures for the cost of power from solar and wind are ridiculously out of date. 

 

In fact here's out of date they are: per kwh it costs just about the same to build a solar power plant than it cost just to run an existing coal powered.  So if you have to build that new coal power plant the levelized cost of energy is necessarily going to be a lot more expensive. 

And it doesn't look real good for the cost of natural gas vs. solar or wind either:

And storage costs are declining rapidly too. In the United States, getting to 95% renewables would require storage to cost about $150 per kwh.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/8/9/20767886/renewable-energy-storage-cost-electricity

Given the rapid and continuing decline in renewable costs, why would anyone in their right mind want to build a coal powered plant, a gas powered peaker plant or even a gas plant. "Stranded assets" anyone?

And do keep in mind that coal plants are massively subsided. By the medical system and by farmers:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0453-5

 

[Mick501]

40 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

A year ago you checked " Reallhy. More like 2010. Your figures for the cost of power from solar and wind are ridiculously out of date. 

 

In fact here's out of date they are: per kwh it costs just about the same to build a solar power plant than it cost just to run an existing coal powered.  So if you have to build that new coal power plant the levelized cost of energy is necessarily going to be a lot more expensive. 

And it doesn't look real good for the cost of natural gas vs. solar or wind either:

And storage costs are declining rapidly too. In the United States, getting to 95% renewables would require storage to cost about $150 per kwh.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/8/9/20767886/renewable-energy-storage-cost-electricity

Given the rapid and continuing decline in renewable costs, why would anyone in their right mind want to build a coal powered plant, a gas powered peaker plant or even a gas plant. "Stranded assets" anyone?

And do keep in mind that coal plants are massively subsided. By the medical system and by farmers:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0453-5

 

If the costs of renewables was remotely comparable then they would be in widespread use, driven by the market.   

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Mick501 said:

If the costs of renewables was remotely comparable then they would be in widespread use, driven by the market.   

Out of touch much?

In 2018, 66% of New Electricity Generation Capacity was Renewable, Price of Batteries Dropped 35%

https://sdg.iisd.org/news/in-2018-66-of-new-electricity-generation-capacity-was-renewable-price-of-batteries-dropped-35/

[Mick501]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Out of touch much?

In 2018, 66% of New Electricity Generation Capacity was Renewable, Price of Batteries Dropped 35%

https://sdg.iisd.org/news/in-2018-66-of-new-electricity-generation-capacity-was-renewable-price-of-batteries-dropped-35/

This refers to new energy.  It is simply not cost effective to knock down existing coal power plants.

[Lacessit]

6 hours ago, Mick501 said:

You really are quite "special", aren't you.  My team is in power and doing a good job., so no complaints from me.  They have their policies pretty much spot on to honour emissions agreement and minimise economic harm.  Just attempting to educate the likes of you and others as to how the real world works.

 

But since you're full of spite and criticism, perhaps you could share what it is you are doing to make a meaningful difference?

 

Ill save you the trouble and answer for you:   Nothing!

 

the reason being is there is nothing that can be done to make a meaningful difference.  Perhaps you should read up on Alan Finkels comments.  Or you can just stick to educating yourself by memes and keep embarrassing yourself with your posts.  That's fine for you, but painful for the rest of us, so please consider that.

 

 

 

 

Yes, your team is in power. It is doing a s**t job. It is fudging its emissions targets with carryover credits from Kyoto. It is crippling Australia with its blind insistence on a budget surplus. The housing sector is distorted with negative gearing. Minimizing economic harm? LOL.

In a few years, Australians will look back on the past decade and mourn it as lost opportunity. All because the COALition was infiltrated and taken over by the coal lobby. ScoMo waving a lump of coal in Parliament was just the tip of the iceberg. It's called state capture.

Think about it. Australia gets more sunshine than just about anywhere else on the planet. Why are we also-rans w.r.to solar power? We should be world leaders.

Think about it. CSIRO punches well above its weight in science. Every time the Liberals are in power, CSIRO gets the death of a thousand cuts.

You are wrong when you say nothing can be done. Read up on the Montreal Protocol, the most successful environmental initiative to date which is currently bearing fruit. Check out the energy security of South Australia, much improved by embracing TESLA battery storage. That's the future. Who would have thought a smartphone would have more computing power than a mainframe of the eighties?

I've read a few of your diatribes. The main thrust of them is labelling anyone with a different opinion as a leftist. The classic dishonest ad hominem argument which attacks the person, not the opinion they express.

OK. Here's a challenge for you. Can you define the Second Law of Thermodynamics without Google? And if you did, would you understand its significance in climate change?

Yes, I have read Alan Finkel's comments. Odd that the current government studiously ignores them, just as they have done with Ross Garnaut. We are paying the price now.

 

 

 

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Mick501 said:

This refers to new energy.  It is simply not cost effective to knock down existing coal power plants.

First of all, what does this have to do with your previous statement?

"If the costs of renewables was remotely comparable then they would be in widespread use, driven by the market." 

 

Secondly, we have your assertion that "It is simply not cost effective to knock down existing coal power plants." offered without evidence as against that of Lazard's report:

"Lazard (formerly known as Lazard Frères & Co.) is a financial advisory and asset management firm that engages in investment banking, asset management, and other financial services primarily with institutional clients. It is the world's largest independent investment bank, with principal executive offices in New York City, Paris and London.^[2]"

Ya think this hypercapitalist organization is going to be doing a bad financial analysis because it wants to hurt its reputation?

And what the report said is that of now it would be more or less a wash to replace an existing coal power plant with a new solar powered one. The point being, of course, that it now makes no sense to build new coal power plants and in a few years most likely it will make sense to tear them down. What do you think the outlook is going to be in five years? Do you think the cost of solar power is going to rise? That solar cells are going to become more expensive? Is that what the trend has been? Why would any rational body build new coal power plants, which I believe have a life of 40 years, when the energy they produce will be far more expensive than that from a new solar powered plant?  Ponder the term "stranded asset".

[StayinThailand2much]

Don't worry, mates. I'm on my way! Spending 100,000 baht (maybe more) this April in Aussie. Already booked 24 tours. Will donate some for the koala hospital, too.

Edited January 18, 2020 by StayinThailand2much

[Mick501]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

A year ago you checked " Reallhy. More like 2010. Your figures for the cost of power from solar and wind are ridiculously out of date. 

 

In fact here's out of date they are: per kwh it costs just about the same to build a solar power plant than it cost just to run an existing coal powered.  So if you have to build that new coal power plant the levelized cost of energy is necessarily going to be a lot more expensive. 

And it doesn't look real good for the cost of natural gas vs. solar or wind either:

And storage costs are declining rapidly too. In the United States, getting to 95% renewables would require storage to cost about $150 per kwh.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/8/9/20767886/renewable-energy-storage-cost-electricity

Given the rapid and continuing decline in renewable costs, why would anyone in their right mind want to build a coal powered plant, a gas powered peaker plant or even a gas plant. "Stranded assets" anyone?

And do keep in mind that coal plants are massively subsided. By the medical system and by farmers:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0453-5

 

Not sure if you repeatedly post irrelevant graphs because you don't understand their relevance, or is it deliberate attempt to mislead?  Anyway, here's some recent information from an AUSTRALIAN electricity company.  It is in really simple terms so you should be able to understand.  In summary,  Coal = cheap.  Renewable = not cheap.  

 

By by the way, this company has committed to 100% renewable, but in a far more realistic time frame, determined by the market.  In their case it is 2050.

 

https://www.originenergy.com.au/blog/electricity-generation-in-australia/

[StayinThailand2much]

2 hours ago, Mick501 said:

Scott from marketing is clearly not a fan of protecting the environment. He is known to snare the idea of protecting the environment. 

Why should he? Australia burned and he went holidaying on Hawaii...

[Mick501]

2 minutes ago, StayinThailand2much said:

Don't worry, mates. I'm on my way! Spending 100,000 baht (maybe more) this April in Aussie. Already booked 24 tours. Will donate some for the koala hospital too.

Hope you have a great time.  April probably the best time to travel. Not too hot, not too cold, hotels cheap and queues short.