• expired

Free #StartAdani T-Shirt and Stickers @ Adani Facts


I love coal almost as much as I love bargains.

Get your FREE Adani Supporter pack today!

Email [email protected] to request an Adani Supporter pack, including T-shirt and stickers.

Mod: A free T-shirt is a valid deal (as were the Free Stop Adani Sticker Packs). As always, negative voters are also free to express their opinion against the deal, as long as a reason/explanation is given. See guidelines, writing 'agree' is not valid. Debate is fine, but name calling, trolling or inflammatory comments will be punished. Thank you.

Related Stores


closed Comments

    • -1

      Having future generations releases high amounts of carbon. Will you forge ahead regardless? People having children have pyramidal, conceptually exponential and infinite consequential carbon emissions from their behaviour. Quite selfish environmental vandalism, really.

      • Having future generations releases high amounts of carbon.

        That argument goes against your own existence !! since you were part of a "'future generation" previously.

        People having children have pyramidal, conceptually exponential and infinite consequential carbon emissions..

        That is not a relevant or even a related point to start a new coal mine. Surely you made a desperate attempt to relate climate change to population growth and a lame excuse to cover up Adani coal mine.

        • -1

          No. It ably demonstrates the left/greens are happy to say 'stuff the science' when it suits their own, egocentric and selfish goals. If you support science, stay objective and consistent. It shouldn't be used hypocritically and selectively.

          If I say IVF is active devolution, respect the science, people ignore the science due to their instincts for self perpetuation. If I say the world is overpopulated, respect the science, people ignore the science. Why is climate change theory, in this case only lesser scientific consensus, the trump card and the term science denier an insult? Denial of facts and science is commonplace. People having children are science deniers. Inconvenient fact. The left then call others science deniers hypocritically. Please choose a stance on science and stick with it.

          Regarding myself, you haven't even considered the fact that I am carbon positive, so you are wrong, wrong, wrong. Hadn't even entered your head. Instead of slacktivising online, I ploughed my money into old growth pristine land. No children, carbon positive. Deal with it. You are the environmental burden on society. Getting lectured by the do-nothing left is tiresome. Show them some bills and they run.

          Regarding my paying bills to give carbon dioxide producing slackers like yourself clean air to breathe, you're welcome I suppose, not really my choice, but maybe you should be grateful to those who do considerably more than you.

  • +2

    I suppose bargain hunters tend to care more about immediate benefits than benefits for future generations. When it comes to stopping global warming, which inevitably leads to a big transition cost for current generation, bargain hunters are more likely to see it as a no deal. Am I right?

  • +1

    What’s the current most downvoted and/or controversial deal?

    • +5

      Fart Adani deal for sure ;)

  • +6

    Fully agree. Coal is not a good option for current/future generations. Though it creates a few jobs and some conservative vote bank in politics, it is very harmful for all living beings. Not a deal.

    • How is it very harmful to bacteria that live in hydrothermal vents?

  • +7

    Not a deal. We can't turn our back to our environment or this planet because our (humans beings') existence depends on it. You don't need university education to understand some of these fundamental facts. So I am not gonna negotiate our existence with free T-Shirts or a few jobs.

  • +5

    Not a deal. The long term cost of burning coal clearly outweighs the benefit from this cheap t-shirt. Stay away from dodgy people like Adani.

  • +4

    Not a deal. Promoting an organisation that seeks to destroy our planet is not a bargain.

  • +3

    Per capita we are worst polluters on earth.

    • +1

      Citation needed. This is completely false.

      • +1
        • +1

          Lol, did you actually read that or just look at the pretty graph? UAE, Qatar and a tonne of other countries are higher per capita than us and the US. The graph is even titled "selected countries CO2 emissions per capita". Nice work +ing information that's easily provable false.

          From the first paragraph "The US is ranked 11th at 16.5 per capita"

          Even if it were true that we were second (we aren't), the statement that we are the highest polluter per capita in the world is 100% false, and the reason people get sick of hearing climate change stats regurgitated at them, because lots of them are made up.

          Edit - https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/en.atm.co2e.pc?most_rec...

          That's where all these other sites get their info. Order it by highest to lowest per capita, you'll be getting quite a shock.

          • +3

            @brendanm: A per capita discussion often excludes countries with low populations. Also, their emissions problem stems from the world's addiction to oil. Australians, like Americans are energy guzzlers.

            • +1

              @knackers: Oh ok, so we use per capita to ignore China being the highest polluter, but then in per capita we ignore countries with "low" populations.

              Except saudi Arabia has a higher population than Australia? But we don't include them because it doesn't fit the narrative. Even though the UAE has 10 million odd, we won't include them either.

              So Australia and the us and Canada are the worst polluters is we use per capita and ignore the ones we don't want to blame. Very convenient.

              Even if you want to make all these caveats, the original comment which I said was false, and you have a + to, is still false.

              • +3

                @brendanm: No we should include everyone.. we live on one planet and it's going to require a united effort. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away. If people living in China and India match the consumptive habits of people living in the West the planet is doomed.

                • +1

                  @knackers: If you want to include everyone, and have people believe your statistics, why erroneously claim that Australia is the highest, or 2nd highest polluter per capita?

                  You realise that regardless of how many people it has, China is the biggest polluter by far. This is because of how industrial it is, and how poor their emissions regs are. India is also rising rapidly, yet everyone wants an Indian company to come here and not only damage this country, but produce more pollution from burning more coal?

                  • +3

                    @brendanm: that's why many of us oppose this mine.

                    • +1

                      @knackers: I oppose it. Doesnt mean I have to make up or twist stats to do it.

                  • +3

                    @brendanm: You're right , Australia's household energy consumption ranks behind Nordic countries, Nrth America and oil rich Middle Eastern countries. (I had to take a closer look after jumping out of bed). Telling China and India to curb their energy consumption when their average household energy consumption is a quarter that of a typical home in the west is a bit rich. Humanity has a serious problem.

                    • @knackers: It's obviously not the citizens of China doing the polluting is it, hence why per capita is pointless. It is industry, with little/no environmental regulation.

                      Per capita doesn't change pollution, the total does.

                      • +3

                        @brendanm: You're right in that China is the manufacturing hub of the world, and their energy consumption is directly linked to our addiction to Chinese made products.. but they also have a growing middle class that aims to bring people out of rural areas and into electrified dwellings. Same with India.

                        • @knackers: So China and India are a much bigger problem than Australia?

                          The problem is endless population growth.

                          • @brendanm: This is basic demand and supply.

                            • @whooah1979: Yes, as I said, population growth.

                              If there is so much demand, why do we not have an Australian company champing at the bit to mine coal and ship it to India? Probably because it's not going to be financially viable, and we will simply be propping up another countries dirty energy production. But we will get 3 permanent jobs out of it!

                              • +3

                                @brendanm: The industrial revolution powered by fossil fuels and the discovery of industrialised farming techniques allowed for the rapid expansion of human populations. Today, the same fuel that powered this growth will usher in our decline. Human population levels will peak at 9 billion and come down to more sustainable levels.

                          • +3

                            @brendanm: Yes, how China and India choose to fuel their powerplants will determine the fate of the world. Australia is making that decision easy for them by supplying cheap dirty coal. What's in it for the Australian people? nothing. Adani is notorious for using tax havens to avoid paying corporate tax in the countries they operate in. Australian workers will be overlooked as FIFO workers and automation provide a cheaper alternative. There is no economic case for this mine to proceed. The immediate benefits are not there and the damage to marine life and climate will be long lasting.

  • +7

    It’s not the messiah the people who support it are thinking it will be.

    A handful of jobs which will mostly be FIFO foreign workers, and the destruction of the tourism industry in the long term when the reef is just a bleached mess and nobody wants to visit it anymore - which will cost tens of thousands of jobs.

    • +5

      A sensible comment? Voice of reason? You're in the wrong discussion.

  • +7

    Supporting the aggressive destruction of the environment… Not a deal. Think of the future generations, they won't be able to buy back the clean environment that we are so selfishly denying them from having.

  • Not a deal as its propaganda which will cost taxpayers more if it gets up.

  • Let's burn coal like the bronze ages. Maybe we can all give up our technology to. Coal is not the future.

  • +2

    Maybe if you wear it inside out. Or perhaps we can bulk give it to a screen printer who can edit them to 'stop adani' t-shirts, have Adani fund their own protest

    • Why not get some stop adani shirts made? I will line up for that one!

  • -2

    Queensland has spoken… Adani is going ahead weather yall like it or not.

    Labor Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk is "sick of the delays !"

    The Hancock and Palmer camps are biting at the bit to get their mines up and running too… Bring on the Galilee Basin boom !

    Personally i say we go full nuclear and start a Uranium mining boom to pay for all those roads and schools.

  • Great for cleaning the car.

  • +6

    The true cost of promoting Adani is not free, therefore this is not a deal.

    • If I wear the shirt while inside the house only, is that promoting any cause?

  • +1

    If there are people out there genuinely interesting in becoming a roaming billboard, then there are plenty of companies willing to to take you up on the offer for the cost of a cheap $5 t-shirt.

  • +3

    Coming soon to facebook events:
    Federation square 'Start Adani' tshirt burn off

    • +1

      I dont think so, that would create unnecessary emissions.

      • +1

        More landfill then.

  • +1

    And he is a crony politician in his home country on top. I suppose get the start Adani T-shirt and use it as a free cloth rug.

  • +8

    Coal needs to be discarded, a lot more cleaner options available these days.

    • -4

      What other options are there and are we in a position to mass export this resource in a year or two?

      • +2

        Nuclear, yes.

        Also wind, solar, hydro, thermal, waves.

        • Great. How can we sell these resources to India and the PRC?

          • +5

            @whooah1979: You don't sell the resources, you sell the things to harvest them. You seem to be under the illusion that the Adani mine is going to actually pay dividends for Australia.

        • Nuclear, yes.

          Australia's uranium export is a drop in the ocean compared to other energy resources. It doesn't even make the top 25 list.

          Uranium export have no chance to replace coal exports in the next two years.

          • @whooah1979: Of course it doesn't, as everyone is using coal.

          • @whooah1979: Canadian company has just been given the right to develop largest uranium mine in Australia. And we have offered to take back all the waste. Another pre election rush thru.

  • +2

    Just out of interest, for those who are pro free tshirt, is there anything you wouldn't wear or are you pragmatic and like 'I don't mind wearing this Pol Pot t-shirt to do some painting round my house'?

    People would say 'not a deal, you're supporting genocide' but I'd be like 'I'm painting my house in a free T'.

    • -1

      The 190+ negative voters on this post are usually the ones who wear Che and Mao t-shirts. Ask them.

      Adani is a mine who's environmental impact has been reviewed. Learn the facts.

      • +5

        "The 190+ negative voters on this post are usually the ones who wear Che and Mao t-shirts. Ask them."

        Uh, no…..
        Maybe you've been sniffing too much coal?

      • +1

        Not properly. See: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/14/adani-mine-...

        Plenty of projects have been approved that are now causing huge problems. See Linc Energy's underground coal gasification project west of Brisbane. The regulatory system for mining has huge limitation and the mining companies are not accountable for the damage they do.

    • My reasons are my own. No need to explain it to strangers

  • +5


  • +1
  • +3

    Coal is bad for everyone.

  • +2

    Heating up the popcorn then comment reading time.. wish you could post GIFs on here

  • +11

    Sell your country’s largest underground aquifer, the last remnants of the Great Barrier Reef and it’s associated $7 billion tourism industry, the socioeconomic viability and environmental well-being of your children and grandchildren, and your soul to a foreigner with a track record of environmental destruction who can’t get a single bank in Australia or anywhere else on the planet to finance the Carmichael project for a free shirt 👍🏼 Nice try! #corporatefacepalm

    • How much of an impact is the Adani mine going to actually have on our children's future Vs China's total impact?
      I'm pretty ignorant and would love some figures/facts.

      • Australia's (#1) coal exports is approximately 200% compared to Indonesia (#2). India and the PRC wants as much coal as they may get their hands on. If Australia doesn't sell to them then three others (Indonesia, Russia and the USA) may sell to them.

        That is $60b gone to our competitors.

        • +1

          Good point. We'd better kill the planet before someone else does it.

  • +1

    Is it just me or is there no link to an actual t-shirt?

    What it does link to is a site with questionable assertions.
    For example - Adani claims to have indigenous support, but this appears to be untrue.

    Is vapour-wear a bargain if it is really just propaganda?

    • +3

      It's like anything, they only have to find one indigenous person who says they support it, to be able to claim that it has "indigenous support". It's all propaganda.

  • +1

    By the time anyone gets a chance to wear one of these it will have started anyway.

  • +1

    I understand how people agreed that Adani Mine is bad for the environment/climate change.
    You taking/not taking the free shirt is not going to change anything about it.
    If you think by not taking the free shirt is going to stop Adani Mine then you're dreaming. They've already figured this out. The free shirt is probably marketing budget surplus.
    I wanted to take one but not anymore because I'm scared people are going to punch me in the face if I wear them outside. I got too many free shirts from here that my wardrobe's not gonna fit…

    • -1

      Free shirt will make no difference, Just like banning things in Australia will make little difference to the world as a whole. Thats something that needs to be drilled in, I like doing things right by the environment too, but nothing we do here will have a worldwide impact and the climate change thing, Australia has zero control over, its other nations that really do pollute that can help.

      • +2

        Are other nations likely to agree to anything if we exclude ourselves from the process? They can rightly point to our high per capita emissions and ask 'what about you?'

    • +1

      I'm scared people are going to punch me in the face if I wear them outside.

      Well there's the real issue right there…

      That's the kind of people lefties and greenies are…

      • +1

        That's the kind of people the right and science deniers think the lefties and greenies are, because that's what they're like.

        • science deniers

          I guess your definition if science is closer to science fiction…

          Some 'so-called' scientists have been brainwashed into the cult and only see what they choose to see, which is not science.

        • +1

          Ever been to a university science and/or engneering faculty? Science is not on the lefty green side. The typical left/green is studying gender studies in the arts faculty and has little to no understanding of science other than the rebranded quasi-science propaganda they have been fed and now spout. Science can and should be challenged and robust enough to provide reliable,repeatable answers. Climate change is categorised as a consensus science as it does not meet basic scientific rigour. There is more science within the theory of human overpopulation yet the left and greens still have babies. Such science deniers! Science is objective and cannot be used selectively. Why is skepticism of faith healing a bad trait? Why is skepticism of ESP a bad trait? Skepticism is a healthy quality within science and never a source of shame, other than with climate change quasi-science which seeks to persuade the mentally suggestible and fragile through stigmatism and social pressure.

          • @DisabledUser171442: Maybe have a bit of a read to help you understand a little better. Climate science, much like other sciences, is based on testing scientific theories.

            Yes, overpopulation is an issue and it contributes to the climate issues as well, but people are selfish and are made to feel like they're worthless if they don't procreate, so even those who don't want to often do anyway.

            Great, be skeptical, but at the point lay people, or those who have never even studied climate science themselves, automatically disregard climate science because the results show that we need to change, it's a bit ridiculous. People are making up their own theories based on absolutely nothing except what they want to believe and lying about agreed upon facts to support their theories, read through the comments. People who have no idea what they're talking about at all.

            • +1

              @Miss B: Climate change is definitely Not about testing scientific theories. It's not even a science, just a concensus science, previously called quasi-science. The whole aim is to change people's behaviours and support policy changes, meaning the global warming models they devised are no longer testable or even worth testing, if they worked. The papers are riddled with caveats and presumptions and are abandoned at will.

              Have a look at the language used even this month: "This kind of survey of experts is important, because computer models are not perfect at predicting the future," said Dr Tamsin Edwards from King's College London.
              "Here they took the eight most accurate of 22 experts on Antarctica and Greenland and combined their judgements about the future."

              Average the most accurate of 22 experts..but consensus, right. Lol. Not a science. Sorry. They know it, too.

              • @DisabledUser171442: Let's not forget the real data they find that would go against their climate change theories. B

              • @DisabledUser171442: I'm sure you're a climate scientist and therefore understand exactly what they do. So do you know what the difference was between the predictions of the 22 climate scientists? What was the best possible outcome? The sea levels are already rising as previously predicted, is it really a stretch that their predictions show they will rise more and there may be slight differences in the exact temperature and amount they will rise by?

          • @DisabledUser171442: Climate science attracts low quality students with a low entry entry score requirement.

  • -1
  • +2

    What this debate about the environment and carbon emissions has taught me is most people want action on climate change if it doesn't cost them anything or much, or if someone else is the one making the cut. We did have a government who introduced carbon pricing but it didn't go down well with the resource sector and with the public. Money still rules the world and since we don't place a price on the environment so it can't complete. I can't see it ever being a priority and more than a moral stance as human are socially condition to attain wealth.

    I agree coal isn't the way of the future but is it not hypocritical to be against this coal mine on the basis of carbon emissions and environmental impact when most people haven't made significant changes in reducing their own carbon foot print? For example cars are ~2 ton pieces of metal which at times transport a person who weighs roughly 80kg in a network were we use energy getting speed but then having to waste that energy braking at stops, seems highly inefficient yet most people drive them. We even up vote deals for cheap petrol. So at a personal level it would appear we care more about our pocket than the environmental impact we make but demand others make changes. Maybe it speaks more about human nature?

  • -3

    With election gone are so are the poster of #StopAdani :)))
    Nice try. i ordered and i will give it free to people, if Adani sends me whole box of stuff including posters and tshirts.

    • +1

      what do u do for a living?

  • +2

    Can all of us buy one so we can just use them as rags?

    Better than people getting these and using them to actually support this ridiculous, environment damaging project.

    • +2

      Why neg then? Free rags are still free, and useful.

  • +2

    Ordered one just to reduce the resources of adani supporters

  • +4

    ugly propaganda

  • +1

    May I ask why people are so against coal mining in Australia when we produce less than one tenth of one percent of the world's pollution?

    Why are people so worked up about it?
    We obviously need a greener future. Personally I'd like to see more affordable electric cars and more nuclear power plants built as a safe, stable form of energy supply- as well as solar innovation.

    If you understand that we cause minimal impact on the environment in Australia, why are we so adamant on spending huge amounts of money or stopping huge amounts of Australian investment in our local economy for something that has such minimal impact on our environment?