The carefully avoided issue of climate change issues through out the previous election campaign may see a resurgence from some unexpected results of last Saturday's poll.
A new government made up of independents could finally see some real action at last.
http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2010/08/23/2990940.htm
thatmosis
Member
The first thing that must happen is all and I do mean all the peer reviewed scientific evidence should be put to the public in easy to understand form without the doom and gloom factor. Those studies that have been put forward and found wanting from the past must be deleted and no Al Gore type garbage allowed. This is the only way for an informed and competent debate to ensue as emotions do not help this subject at all. It must also come into the debate as to whether one small country like Australia can really make a significant dent in the CO2 level without destroying the businesses that have kept Australia out of the recent recession and adding to the burden on every household with increased cost on every item and serve we buy or need. To go it alone and make Australia uncompetitive would not be a smart move especially now that a second recession looks probable in the near future. It will take alot of thought and unfortunately Politicians are not the ones to lead this debate as they are looking not at what will hapen in the long run but what will happen in 3 years time.
A good place to start is here. http://www.science.org.au/news/
The Science of Climate Change: Questions and Answers.
By investing in good science we can make Australia very competitive.
I agree with rockabye that his link is a good one. I trust the Australian Academy of Science to refrain from spin more than I trust most authorities.
There was a pdf of the actual report, but it has been taken down and replaced by a "reader" accessed by clicking "View Online".
Each website seems to have its own unique reader nowadays. I can't get the hang of this one at all. The report first appears too small to read. When I click "Zoom" it goes berserk. Far too big and out of focus, then madly dashing right and left, then reverting to too small again.
Someone please tell me how to control it.
See if this link works for the pdf version.
http://www.science.org.au/reports/climatechange2010.pdf
Good luck
Benny
Member
thatmosis - I don't like this argument that Australia shouldn't "go it alone" because we have a small population and whatever we do will not affect the overall world situation. Australia is the worst per capita emitter in the world. Why should we be allowed to emit so much more (per person) than people in India and China ? Effectively they are already miles ahead of us in minimising emissions because their per capita emissions are so much lower. Sadly they are going up and getting closer to us, but who can blame them ? I think every person in the world has an equal right to the resources of the world.
Its obvious that the whole world population can't emit/consume at the same rate as Australians do and we need to reduce. The allowed emissions/consumption is probably somewhere between what we do and the developing world. So I think we need to get ours down to whatever that sustainable number is and then show the developing world that they should stop when they get to that sustainable value.
Now as to what that sustainable level is - this is where we need the experts. One thing for sure though is that with a lower world population it would be a lot easier.
thatmosis
Member
We may emit more than every other country , or some do, but 21 million people would be a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the world. Even if Australia stopped all CO2 emissions now that would only be less than 1 or 2% of the CO2 emitted in the world everyday and would be nullified in a day by the developing countries and their increasing emissions. Is it really of any benefit to us as a nation to put our economy in jeopardy, raise the prices of everything and make Australian companies uncompetitive in the world market for nothing except a warm and fuzzy feeling? Its very nice to say lets do this reduction but in the long run unless other nations do the same we are really just taking the high moral ground for nothing except more finacial pain for the people of Australia. If you or anybody else wants to save CO2 emissions then go for it and good luck but pay for it yourselves.
dymonite69
Member
Any country that finds no suitable alternative energy source to fossil fuels this century will suffer irreversible economic failure. Read the Hirsch report commissioned by the US Dept of Energy.
Without bountiful energy our standard of living will fall to that pre-industrial England.
thatmosis
Member
Thanks for the read rockabye but this is old hat. The IPCC was found to be wanting and a lot of their data was found to be eroneous. To go back just 20 centuries is ludicrious as the world has been having these hot and cold spells for millions of years and 20 centuries is but a drop in the ocean or a second of earths time. Its convienient for "scientists" to go back such a short time as it makes for wonderful pie charts and makes it easier to for the figures to look good. If one goes back millions of years the figures that are presented look altogether different but then that doesnt get funding from the Government does it. As I have said previously real science must be tabled for and against and real facts put to the people without the doom and gloom scenarios for people to make an informed decision based on true and peer reviewed facts.
Gruen
Member
thatmosis: 'If you or anybody else wants to save CO2 emissions then go for it and good luck but pay for it yourselves.'
I guess that is why people here who are resident in one of the world's richest and most wasteful lands subscribe to these fora and support the aims of the ATA. Always interested in alternative ideas but I suspect you are just trolling so it's a bit of a waste of time engaging you.
Jeffbloggs
Member
thatmosis:
I agree that a warm fuzzy "green" feeling will not suffice to combat climate change...
and that scientific study of the climate millions of years ago, before homo sapiens even walked the earth, will lead to clear evidence of anthropogenic climate change...do you have a time machine handy to collect this scientific proof from before and after humans existence, just so we can make sure? 
On the one hand you are claiming that fear mongering climate scientists are distorting the truth and excluding scientific "evidence" to promote their own objectives, whilst making a claim on the other hand, that "real scientific evidence" on climate change from "a million years ago"(!!!) is intentionally left out of the climate debate?!?
On your comments regarding the economic cost of addressing climate change; it would appear that your position would be akin to suggesting money is the solution to all problems, and so long we have enough paper, and print big enough numbers on it, we can afford to do whatever we want. Have you considered what will happen when the next "real" GFC hits?
It would seem that you have taken your freedom of religion, to believe whatever you want, quite literally...
Sojin_Muneshi
Member
.
It is unfortunate that the IPCC reports has been exposed to be poorly edited, and that some references are clearly not peer assessed and evidenced, because they allow doubt to be shed onto an important and obvious issue.
That simple issue is that we can't continue to breed like rabbits, clear the paddock of grass, pee into our drinking water and fill the room full of smoke and expect all to remain healthy wealthy and wise.
The world's population is growing from 6B to 9B people at the moment, and they all want Ipods, Broadband, Nike runners and McDonalds, the reason India and China have had low carbon footprints per capita is that most of their populations lived sustinance agricultural lifestyles not much different to mediaval or middle ages.
We dont want to strip back our 21st century lifestyles to that level, and they enviously want to enjoy the same luxuries we enjoy, imagine if all 9B drive to work in a car, have airconditioners, fridges, freezers, wide screen TVs etc and live in large houses, not simply scratching dirt to plant a few seeds, and living in huts without any electricity or appliances.
The Copenhagen negotiations wanted those countries to limit their populations to existing emissions, ie their existing low energy/low luxury lifestyles, and limiting us to our existing emissions ie high energy/high luxury lifestyles - its not surprising there was no agreement!
Its not surprising there are some who dont want to admit there is a problem at all.
The planet started as an unstable gaseous steaming volcanic mass and has cooled and evolved over time, and its climate has similarly changed over its aging process.
Sun spots, continental plate movement, volcanic eruptions, meteor collisions can, and have all had past impacts on our climate and will do so again in the future, however past "natural" climate change should not be used to excuse/ignore man caused climate change.
"If" we cause the climate to change "dramatically" life as we enjoy today will not be "enjoyable".
"If" current generations cause climate change to commence and to increase, it will be left to future generations to "suffer" the outcomes, or to "reduce" their contributions dramatically to compensate for our "waste".
It is clear from transparant and publicly available data that the average temperatures has begun to rise since the mid 1800's clearly alligned to the industrial age and massive use of coal etc.
Simple logic tells us we cant overstock the paddock with a high population, strip the paddock bare and fill the room full of smoke, and walk out at the end of our lives and say "good luck" to the new generations walking in behind us - ignorance of the issue cannot be accepted, and intentional "distraction", "distortion" or "denial" is simply greed at work.
Population, poverty, famine, sanitation, disease/health, consumption of agricultural land for cities, depletion of food and water stocks, depletion of energy, clean air are all interlinked, and access to food/water/land/energy are all issues that have caused wars in the past and are likely to cause them again if political management and agreement around the world cannot be achieved.
Carbon emmissions are simply a symptom/element of the above, but bringing the interests of future generations onto the table, not just the current generations divided into their geographic or national groupings.
Unfortunately for them/luckily for us, future generations can only curse our greed and shelfishness, rather than declare war on us and change our behaviour.
But it is no good just one portion of the planet, one nation, constraining emissions, while the rest simply expand emissions.
But to "do nothing", because "no one else is" either, is also not "solving the problem", the solution has to be started "somewhere", by "someone", and implemented by "everyone/everywhere". This was the political position of "both" major parties in 2007, and unfortunately "neither of them" in 2010?
regards
Sojin Muneshi
: Sojin: "future generations can only curse our greed and selfishness, rather than declare war on us and change our behaviour."
Yes if we look at some everyday behaviour and how much it costs each one of us you might think dealing with climate change was reasonably good value. The release this week of the annual cost of alcohol consumption to the community to be about $36B-$40B it makes dealing with climate change seem a good deal. I think the Zero Carbon Australia proposal was estimated to cost about the same amount.
Buzzman
Member
The solution is simple. The main reason why "industry" is up in arms about us "going it alone" is that it will put a cost burden on them/us.
So, reintroduce tariffs based on some "emissions index" so that that countries with less polluting systems will be MORE competitive.
At least then if we have to take some time to convert to renewables, we will at least be comparative with imports.
Okay, so export-based manufactures will be an issue, but as most of our export base is raw materials, should not be so bad. Might encourage manufacturers to buy 'green' power in order to comply with the Emissions Imdex.
We need to get creative about this. Free trade is anything but, and it's clear that some countries run massive subsidies which, in effect, distort the 'free and equal' intention of the the system.
Personally I'd like to see mirror tariffs - based on whether or not the exporting country complies with a range of measures - such as human rights abuses, votes for women etc etc. We'd allow them a 'mirror' tariff on same product imports as we impose on their exports. We might not export too many Holdens to China, but we'd sure as heck make ours more affordable by comparison, and therefore sell a few more of them.
Exporting countries whose cost-base is lower than ours due to their lack of provision of the services we enjoy (pensions, unemployment benefits, free hospital care, Medicare etc) would cop a higher tariff than those countries which did not.
Might make our own manufacturing industry competitive again and thus provide employment and possibly reduce the trade deficit with China for example.
thatmosis
Member
I live a "green" existance with 100% solar power for my home, solar hot water etc,etc and I payed for it myself so Im not trolling. I know what Im talking about and its up to the individual to do his or her own thing and not expect everyone to be forced into it. As for the "evidence" of a million years ago have a good look at the ice core samples from that age onwards. It clearly shows that the earth has been doing the heat/ cold thing over and over again and this is just another cycle we are going through. Green power is a furphy as it takes a small system like mine at $45,000 to run a house for two people with no aircond, no electric appliances except a fridge and freezer and maybe an electric kettle occasionally. Every 10 to 15 years we have to buy new batteries which adds to the cost as these are worth over $8,000 a bank and we have 2 banks. Work it out and you will see that alternative power via the sun although seemingly free is in fact a very expensive exercise. The average household in Australia uses 14kWHs per day, we use 2.5kWHs per day on our system. Now work out how much the average household would have to spend on Solar, a minimum of $150,000 to $250,000 to continue with the level of comfort that they now have. Multiply that by the number of homes in Australia and the figure is insurmountable even for a frugal Government and the cost to the consumer, well. The latest figures on making Australia 100% alternative powered was $37b a year for 10 years, $370b.
termite
Member
thatmosis - your system is a standalone, which costs a great deal more. In some cases, even that is cheaper than connecting to the grid. Most PV cells on roofs contribute to serving peak demand, rather than going into storage.
I'm not going to try to argue with you about anthropogenic global warming; nevertheless peak oil has been and gone and fossil fuels will all exhaust eventually (as will nuclear, just on a different timescale).
That cost of alcohol abuse is an annual figure, too - but not just for 10 years; that's every year. The point is that because the cost is buried in our taxes we don't yell about it specifically, whereas electricity and fuel bills are discrete bills we can quantify the direct costs to us (of course there is the flow-on effect of energy prices on goods, but people don't whinge about one cause of price rises when there may be many contributing to them).
Personally I am sick of the rent-a-crowd who front up to journalists complaining of dire hardship if the cost of electricity threatens to rise by 5%. I will know that electricity is expensive ONLY when I see the likes of Paul Clitheroe putting fuel/energy use first on the list of expenditure to economise on when balancing a budget.
The issue of a carbon tax, among other things, was raised today in a very good conference at the National Press Club with the 4 MP's currently holding the balance of power in the house of reps. 3 out of 4 said we should be using the Garnaut report as our starting point to address climate change and that action needs to commence asap.
As for the viability of solar systems, much has changed in respect of affordability in the last 10 years. Simple maths based on local prices tell me that in 2000 a $200K new home would have needed a $40K solar system to provide 12kWh/day, or 20% of it's purchase price. Now a $400K home would need around $15K to do the same job. So prices have fallen dramatically and solar power could easily be factored in to any new home mortgage with very little impact on the monthly payment.
I agree with Termite, we spend more on beer & wine than electricity but people still keep buying both and wasting 4 times that amount on other wasteful behaviours. Time for a recalibration of our values me thinks.
thatmosis
Member
Good news just released to the industry but not to the public. Last week the WA Power companies reduced the amount that people would get for power they supplied to the grid, down to 8c a KWH. Now NSW is going to do the same but wont be released to the public until after the State election. That means that people who are buying these back to the grid systems will pay alot more for their power.
As for the cheaper Solar Systems the prices have come down but and a big but the quality of some of the products being sold is 3rd rate to say the least.We have 10 x 150w panels and 6 x 175w panels feeding into 12 x 4vDV 1030ah batteries with an 24vDC to 240vAC inverter that has been running for 10 years and its great but we paid for quality. Some of the cheap inverters lose up to 4% of electricity a day whereas a good inverter will lose abot 4% a year. Buy a cheap systm and you get what you pay for. Some of the holiday homes on Fraser island have systems that cost upwards of %150,000 and these are just holiday homes. If the price of electricty put back into the grid keeps falling the Solar industry will go broke in a very short time. A lot of the workmanship is shoddy and one installer has been ordered to redo 250 installations whilst another has just been hit by the ACCC with a hefty fine for the false advertising of their systems. Buyer beware.
It is unfortunate that early world wide debate was hijacked by those who labelled climate change as 'man made'. While creating awareness, it also created division with those who believed and those who did not and there was rarely any stated middle ground. While there is now growing acceptance that climate change is a perpetual naturally occurring phenomenon that is now accelerated by man made emissions, division still exists and the credibility needed to advance the debate remains eroded by the early scare mongering and mis-labelling by those who often had their own agenda.
Current commentary often decrees that if we are to 'stop' climate change, we must substantially reduce emissions. This again erodes credibility from the debate. Reducing emissions will not stop climate change but we do have a responsibility to our planet and to future generations to reduce pollution and its effects thereof.
Economic rationale dictates that sustainable energy and more efficient energy use continue to be developed to insulate against the effects of the inevitable carbon tax impost and depletion of fossil fuels. In time, this will have a positive impact on emission reduction. Like it or not, cost savings remain a greater motivation for the masses than environmental concerns.
Development of new technology is expensive and (often) quickly refined. Wind turbines for example are relatively inefficient but while Betz law limits maximum efficiency to 59%, turbines mostly operate at mid 40% efficiency. While technology to improve efficiency is proven, the substantial manufacturing upgrades and retro-fitting costs would be huge and slow to implement.
termite
Member
thatmosis - can't disagree about the variable quality at the moment. Although in a sense many who are installing now are essentially pioneers. With enough market penetration we as consumers will eventually learn what to expect in kw output per $ price of each branded system. We will also learn what constitutes a good installation. The market will eventually mature.
I can't comment on the cost of systems on Fraser Island except that I expect some of the high cost would be due to the transportation distances involved - both of labour and materials. I wouldn't put it past many in the building trade to factor in a few extra days of r&r there into the installation cost...
As for the disparity between fossil fuel-generated (FF) and renewable-generated power, this would have been clarified by a carbon (or FF) tax. Ideally, there should not be any need for a subsidy on renewables due to the high cost of FF use. It'll happen eventually, anyway; I would rather we did it up front and use the last bit of FF on removing the infrastructure gap. In the long term, renewables will cost more. If they were as cheap as FF, we probably wouldn't have even gone down the FF track in the first place. What we are not currently factoring into the FF price is the cost of the millennia to produce it in the first place.
The pros and cons of solar pv are really another topic.
Climate change policy is finally being discussed at the federal parliament level due to the outcome of the recent election, so at last it looks like the issue none of the big parties wanted to mention is finally back on the table.
dymonite69
Member
Ultimately where one stands on the climate change debate is based on faith that those who represent each camp correctly represent the data available.
The body of research is so great, it will take a whole lifetime to dissect, analyse and critique. When describing simple systems, one can be fairly accurate. However, predicting the behaviour of natural systems is far more complex. Most of the time effects are multifactorial and not unifactorial
I can see both sides of the argument.
On one hand we are attempting to extrapolate future changes in weather based on a very limited data set involving dozens of variables.
Yet it can also imagined that despite the huge buffering capacity of the planet to changes in CO2, it is very well possible that small perturbations (caused by man-made emissions) are enough to disrupt this equilibrium. For instance if the limits of buffering have already been reached or that the changes have occurred so rapidly other parts of the ecosystem are unable to adapt.
Jeffbloggs
Member
@ Sojin
You wrote my mind, word for word!! Good stuff.
It seems we were on the same page all along, despite our varied opinions on some subjects!
@ thatmosis
Your assumptions are correct in regard to pursueing a sustainable "high quaility of life" system through PV. In fact I think you have taken nearly the worst RE system of them all, to demonstrate how to combat climate change.
@ Everyone else who is interested in my rants
I would like to point out some factors that I consider important in regards to combating climate change by utilizing the existing economy.
Fossil fuels are the world economies main engines. It would seem that everything in life is directly or indirectly touched by fossil fuel consumption. For example embodied PV energy is from fossils, and we could never afford to produce PV from PV produced energy in this economy. To produce 100% RE for a sustainable future, we will be required to shutdown all of these "fossil engines" completely, and therefore effectively be shutting down fossil fuel consumption and the economy as we know it. Therefore, I seriously believe that sustainability of our climate will come at the cost of our existing economy. We will need a new one based on RE, and our problem will be in how to get to such a RE economy.
Regulating trade to reduce emissions, either locally via Carbon Tax, ETS or internationally via complicated "fair trade" agreements will not be enough to make this change happen, especially if we are trying to get rid of the fossils that fuel our economy.
Some interesting historical facts on how we got to this fossil based economy:
-Rudolf Diesel's engine originally operated on vegetable oil, there was no fossil "diesel" fuel yet, diesel fuels were named after the engine, not the engine after the fuel.
- Nikolaus Otto 4 stroke "petrol" engine ran on ethanol as there was also no fossil "petrol" fuel yet either
- Energy from coal was generally limited to large steam engines, in trains and industry, and only provided low powered centralized energy for a few processes, unlike the significantly better energy capacity and availability through liquid fossils
- In Europe there were over 1 million pyrolysis gas RE vehicles in operation before WWII, these operated by anaerobically "cooking" timber to generate syngas fuel for the combustion engine.
- After their defeat in WWI, Germans industrialized their nation using fossils as they understood that their country was unable to produce enough (RE) crops in the short term, especially though out their extensive winter periods. They required a high energy capacity, which could only be provided by fossils at the time, to sustain the energy demand of their modern industry
- When the German "Blitzkreig" pitted tanks against horse drawn cannons and foot soldiers of the Allies, it forced the Allied to develop and accelerate the same fossil based industry & economy
- Germany went to Africa and Arabia for fossils, via their "then" allies the Italians, and their loss of access to fossils is one of the main reasons Germany lost the war
- in the period of WWII technology developed at a never to be repeated pace, we went from barely being able to fly in double decker balsa planes and air ships, to jet planes and guided missiles like the V2 (btw you can pretty much scrap all human flight achievement without a fossil enabler), from dirt roads to autobahns (fossil derived bitumen), from predominately horse and carriage to automobiles(fossil fueled steel fabrication and mining). This was also the point where technology enabled the fossil based economy, and it became predominately driven by individual consumption and demand.
Just to throw another few other climate problems in there to make things interesting:
- The heat capacity of the atmosphere is equal to a mere 3.2m depth of ocean. Measuring atmospheric temperature change to prove climate change, is like sticking your finger out the sunroof of a driving car, to measure the road temperature. Chk this link for more:
http://www.oco.noaa.gov/index.jsp?show_page=page_roc.jsp&nav=universal
- Methane clathrate deposits can become a major problem if there is a oceanic temperature rise. Estimates range to exponentially more methane hydrates than fossils, and methane is 20-60times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas
- Ocean warming provides extra momentum, by creating an imbalance in the climate cycles, similar to a person only slightly pushing a child on a swing to gain height. These "swings" will not necessarily manifest themselves in an overall temperature rise, they are more likely to produce weather extremes (high an lows) like in Afganistan, China, New Orleans etc. and promote more droughts, floods, heat waves etc by effecting natural patterns like El Nino and the North Atlantic system.
- Global dimming is skewing actual climate temperature rise, because anthropogenic water vapor in the atmosphere is reflecting between 10%-40% more of the suns energy back into space since the introduction of fossils, without the sunlight even being absorbed by the atmosphere or earth surface to increase climate temperatures.
- Ice caps reflect up to 90% of sunlight, and also have only half the specific heat capacity of liquid water which also absorbs more than 90% of heat.
- Some marine biologists say that Phytoplankton account for possibly 90% of the world's oxygen production, and these all live in the ocean in very specific temperature ranges. (In other words chop down all the rainforests who cares! Just kidding;)
Anybody have an "fossilized" economic solution to combat climate change on offer now?
We need something new and we need it yesterday.
thatmosis
Member
Agree completely dynomite69, I believe the world is heating up but have yet to be convinced that humans are responsible. A small spike maybe but not enough to fuel the "sky is falling" scenarios we had last year. Fossil fuels will runout eventually, Dubai is out of oil but Abu Dhabi has just found new resrves to last another 100 years. In that space of time alternative energy will progress to the point where we will have Peak Power available using it. Until that time its up to the individuals to make their small changes as they see fit but not for the Government to blindly go ahead with ill conceived ETS's or whatever. Make it mandatory that all new homes have Solar and Water tanks as that is a concrete way of doing, make the subsidies larger for those that want to put Solar on and bigger for those that opt out of the power grid altogether but stop short of a new tax that will impact those that can least afford it.
You can argue all you like about whether climate change is occurring or not but it matters little because the Australian science community that advises government, without exception, believes it is happening.
That is what is being considered by the parliament. And it is also likely that a majority of MP's, if given a conscience vote, will support actions to reduce man made CO2 emissions.
dymonite69
Member
1) Anthropogenic global warming doesn't actually have to be true for us to move away from unsustainable fossil fuels.
2) Renewable technology has it own embodied energy, lifecycle and cost. Only the sun is free.
3) We need a twenty year lead time to begin switching to renewables before peak oil occurs or we will suffer a drastic economic decline.
4) I suspect the most likely scenario is that we will switch too late and have a GFC that could last decades. It's effects will work its way slowly up the food chain.
Jeffbloggs
Member
dynomite & others
1) Spot on, I agree
2) the sun provides the original energy to most usable forms of energy on earth, including fossils millions of years ago. Wind, hydro, wave, tidal etc are all directly related to the sun, even geo-thermal is thought to come from the interaction of magnetic fields between the earth and the sun. On the point of the sun being free, I think this is a question of perception, when it comes to utilizing its energy for man made purposes. I can agree that sunlight reaches us for free (as in no cost economically), but it nearly always requires some human input to convert it into something we actually use, even planting/harvesting crops requires human input. Sadly we are only indirectly fusion powered, as opposed to directly like PV. It will be one of the first questions on my lips, why he made it so, when I meet my maker
On the point of free and cost. Only gifts are free and cost nothing. Can't we just have a giving economy instead of a taking one?
3) Pending your definition of peak oil it has already occurred in the 90's. I might cop some heavy criticism for this statement, but I'll say it anyway:
There is some evidence that fossils might not actually be from decaying million year old fossil organics at all...there is evidence that it is being produced by internal earthly processes that are making the earth grow 50square km a year...so much so that GPS satellites are compensated for this...however, I still don't believe that this fuel should end up in our atmosphere and contribute to climate change. Maybe thats why the Saudis have been claiming for the last 60 years, to have 100 years of oil reserves?
4) As per my previous post; all fossil powered economies, including ours, will die at the hand of a 100% fossil emissions reduction. Emissions reduction and wealth through fossils are mutually exclusive of each other. We need to get rid of fossils as an economic engine in order to change it to a RE economic engine.
Be nice to me responders! I can't help but to question everything!
Gruen
Member
Thatmosis, It might have been an imprecision of language that lead me to the conclusion that you were trolling. Apologises. We are all motivated by different things but, I personally, can't understand someone spending so much going the RE route when they don't believe in climate change or, seemingly, peak oil. What's your motivation, then?
I can't understand your insistence that a price on carbon is some form of economic suicide for Australia. Industry currently has no incentive to make decisions based on a broadened bottom line that includes environmental and social considerations. Smart green companies should be rewarded, companies who don't give a toss about the earth and the manner in which they use resources should suffer financial consequences. The mechanism to achieve this will almost certainly be imperfect, but to argue that we should not have some form of system to force the corporate to share the environmental consciousness of the individual is a bit daft. I find that Australians generally have a pretty good understanding of green issues and are coming around to seeing carbon as a part of the mix, but that our corporate entities lag well behind.
Completely agree with your view that those less able to pay the consequences of carbon tax should be compensated and that these mechanisms have not been properly handled to date (eg the rollout of 'smart meters' is one way the poor and elderly who are more likely to be energy frugal end up carrying a disproportionate cost).
Sojin_Muneshi
Member
[quote]
Jeffbloggs
Member
@ Sojin
You wrote my mind, word for word!! ;) Good stuff.
It seems we were on the same page all along, despite our varied opinions on some subjects![/quote]
Jeff we might disagree about the merits of certain programs/subsidies or strategies, but I have thought for a while we had much agreement on the seriousness of the problem and the need to implement some real solutions.
I personally would be putting Nuclear power on the table today in Australia and commencing closing of older black and brown coal stations. (Germany, US, Japan, China, Russia, UK, France - etc etc etc already have it in their base load clean energy mix)
As stated elsewhere I dont have much confidence in "clean coal" but see merit in some R&D to prove or disprove its viability - but we cant wait another 20 years "doing nothing" hoping it "will work".
I would also set a simple carbon price and implement it as a carbon tax to level the playing field between fossil fuels and RE, and energy efficiency/conservation.
Our entire economies are based on "consumption" hence economic growth of 3% needs @3% of population growth (20M people, 200k immigrants = 1% from overseas, then locally born makes up the rest - ie Costello's have 1 for yourself and 1 for your country).
Cars/Goods are not "made to last", they are "made to be replaced", planned obsolence, to maintain factories/shops/sales, consumerism is trained buy luxuries not neccessities, we eat too much to keep the growers, processors, retailers, and kids flipping burgers at Macca's all "making money" and then suffer the illnesses and keep the doctors, nurses and funeral directors "employed" too.
But to stop this game of monopoly will hurt thousands of people financially and physically - around the world!
Workers (who wont vote in parties "for it") and investors (who will lobby or donate to political parties "against it") hence we blindly rush forward to Big Australia, Big World, PEAK POPULATION?
The two extremes of climate outcomes are sitting next to us for all to see.
Venus, an Earth like planet with super high temperatures due to the thick gas atmosphere trapping heat in like a pressure cooker, (of course its "natural" not a result of the "Venitian's" using too much coal.)
Mars, a planet that at one time has surface water - yes rivers, and so a level of atmosphere, now a barren dry cold dead planet, (similarly its "natural" not the result of "Martians" over grazing?)
Which one do we plan to make Earth look like, Mars after we have stripped and eaten, burnt, consumed, or built over every stick of wood and plant on the planet just like a plague of locusts, or Venus after we put enough smog, carbon and other chemical and gas emissions into the atmoshere that it starts the same green house effect here?
(You know now I come to think of it? "Perhaps" the Martians stuffed Mars, survivors moved to Venus, stuffed that too, and a few of the then Venitians escaped to Earth and they in now the process of stuffing it as well!- smiles- well it would make a good TV comedy! - Exterminate all Venitians immediately - woops they're - "US")
The Climate is clearly in delicate balance, if it is in balance at all or are we just in a pleasant period between an ice age and a dry age, but we are clearly causing man made change, with science claiming those changes will accelerate!
To agree with Rupert Murdoch just once!
"WE have to give the planet the benefit of doubt"
We can of course rely on religion or science fiction to save us!
1. God will turn up, spend another 7 days to build us a new planet to live on, and scold us for messing this "garden of eden" up! (perhaps the new planet wont be given any apple trees next time to tempt us with?)
2. Science will design the hyperdrive, or a fleet of Star Trek Enterprises, or StarGate worm holes and simply move our 9B+ population to another Earth like planet in the Alpha Quadrant -
it happens every week on TV, and todays scfi device is tomorrows IPOD isnt it - all we have to do is wait! - (perhaps the Vulcans will turn up and take us all to their place while we find a new planet to live on?)
I am intentionally being sarcastic and flippant about a very serious issue, because our lack of action is so laughable! There seems not one Government in the world who is 100% certain its a hoax, that it DOESNT exist!
And most appear to be publicly committing to some level of reductions, Kyoto etc
Yet few if any are actually delivering or achieving on them, or implementing any serious plan to do so?
By the time the climate changes are so obvious, so beyond any sceptic or serious debate, we will have already moved beyond recoverable change, we will be on the slippery slide to a less enjoyable world, and those who greedily put off dealing with it because they were too busy making money will have enjoyed their life in any case!
Simply too greedy to consider their fellow and current human passengers on the planet, let alone the future human passengers who will use this planet after us.
To the Last one aboard onto the Intergalactical Space Bus - please turn the lights out on planet earth, "we're trying to save energy, and the planet"!
regards
Sojin Muneshi