{"href":"http://player.captivate.fm/services/oembed?url=http%3A%2F%2Fplayer.captivate.fm%2Fepisode%2F83f2d6a5-366d-4ed2-9da5-673035670db4","version":"1.0","provider_name":"Captivate.FM","provider_url":"https://www.captivate.fm","width":600,"height":200,"type":"rich","html":"<iframe style=\"width: 100%; height: 200px;\" title=\"Episode 223 \u2013 Renewable Energy\" frameborder=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" allow=\"clipboard-write\" seamless src=\"http://player.captivate.fm/episode/83f2d6a5-366d-4ed2-9da5-673035670db4\"></iframe>","title":"Episode 223 \u2013 Renewable Energy","description":"In this episode we discuss the cost of renewable energy and whether Australia can have stable power supply relying 100% on renewable energy.<br />\n2:12 The Great Debate<br />\n14:45 Dean Stretton<br />\n17:30 Was the Climate Poll Too Binary?<br />\n19:30 Do we care?<br />\n30:41 Renewables or Coal<br />\n53:38 Lionel Shriver<br />\n1:04:59 Donald Trump threatens to &#8216;obliterate&#8217; Turkish economy if it goes too far with Syria invasion<br />\n1:19:01 It\u2019s not just Chomsky, John Menadue too.<br />\n2:12 The Great Debate<br />\nHow did Fiona go?<br />\nNot great.<br />\nFiona did not lay a glove on him and exposed a limited understanding of the whole topic. Martyn Iles the lawyer exposed her lack of legal skills and she did not counter with a solid philosophical argument or even just some simple examples. I don\u2019t think she understands S.10 of the Bill.<br />\n14:45 Dean Stretton<br />\nAn extract from his submission:<br />\nClause 7 of the draft bill would prohibit direct discrimination on the basis of \u201creligious belief or activity\u201d, defined in clause 5 as follows:<br />\nreligious belief or activity means:<br />\n(a)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 holding a religious belief; or<br />\n(b)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 engaging in lawful religious activity; or<br />\n(c)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 not holding a religious belief; or<br />\n(d)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 not engaging in, or refusing to engage in, lawful religious activity.<br />\nThese provisions directly discriminate against non-believers by protecting beliefs held on religious grounds while failing to protect the same beliefs if held on non-religious grounds. Consider, for example, the following beliefs (or their denials):<br />\n<br />\n* Abortion is morally wrong.<br />\n* Active voluntary euthanasia is morally wrong.<br />\n* There are only two genders, and a person cannot change their gender simply by identifying as a different gender.<br />\n* Marriage should only be between a man and a woman.<br />\n* Killing animals for food is morally permissible.<br />\n<br />\nA person who holds any of these beliefs (or their denials) on religious grounds would be protected from discrimination under the draft bill, but a person who holds those beliefs (or their denials) on non-religious grounds would not be protected. In other words, the beliefs of religious people are protected (even if they are the product of mere dogma rather than reason, reflection or evidence), while the (philosophical) beliefs of non-religious people are not protected: for non-believers, only the absence of religious beliefs is protected (as opposed to protecting any positive beliefs they might hold). This differential treatment is itself a form of direct discrimination against non-believers. Anti-discrimination legislation should not introduce new forms of discrimination in this way.<br />\nIf freedom of thought, conscience and religion applies equally to atheists and agnostics (as well as religious believers), then it is wrong to privilege belief over non-belief, or to prohibit discrimination based on religious beliefs without also prohibiting discrimination based on non-religious (philosophical) beliefs. The definition in clause 5 should be amended as follows:<br />\n\u00a0<br />\nreligious belief or activity means:<br />\n(a)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 holding a religious or philosophical belief; or<br />\n(b)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 engaging in lawful religious or philosophical activity; or<br />\n(c)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 not holding a religious or philosophical belief; or<br />\n(d)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 not engaging in, or refusing to engage in, lawful religious or philosophical activity.<br />\n&nbsp;<br />\n17:30 Was the Climate Poll Too Binary?<br />\nRemember the Climate Poll?<br />\n<br />\n*  Do you believe that there is fairly conclusive evidence that climate change is happening and caused by human activity or do you believe that the evidence is still not in and we may just be witnessing a normal fluctuation in the earth\u2019s climate which happens from time to time?\u00a0\u00a0<br />\n<br />\nWaz was not happy with the Essential Poll.","thumbnail_width":300,"thumbnail_height":300,"thumbnail_url":"https://artwork.captivate.fm/085762e2-797c-4ef4-9b10-434ecde61c07/logo2018v2.jpg"}