# The Planet is Toast



## wayneL (18 July 2007)

Beijing:


----------



## Sean K (18 July 2007)

*Re: The Planet is Toast.*

Can't we create giant vacuum cleaner sucker things that suck in all the bad air and pump it into the holes in the ground where the oil used to be? 

Easy peasie. 

Do you think I'd get a grant for that project?


----------



## theasxgorilla (18 July 2007)

*Re: The Planet is Toast.*

Well, its been said they're striving after our standard of living (the west)...pick up one end of the stick invariably the other end comes too.

Albeit not quite as extreme I took these photos of the same outlook, two days apart in Mexico City.  Day 1 was a Friday, a work day.  Day 2 was the Saturday or the Sunday when everybody had gone away for a long weekend.


----------



## Uncle Festivus (18 July 2007)

*Re: The Planet is Toast.*

China is toast. Think of anything detrimental to anything, then multiply it by 1000 and you have the Chinese economic phenomenom that shall never die. How about drowning in your own gridlock, smog, pollution, overcrowding, unemployment etc etc All is not as it appears, except for the pollution - it's very real.


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (18 July 2007)

*Re: The Planet is Toast.*

Yeah its really bad the Yangtze river is something like 80% critically polluted, fresh water dolphins are gone & Fish stocks collapsed. Its a pity to so many unique environments that their kids won't have.

Whats gets me is though surely they would have some common sense and realise they are digging their own grave. A person who build say a chemical factory on a rivers edge and just pumps untreated waste into the river has to know he's stuffing something up.


----------



## Aussiejeff (18 July 2007)

*Re: The Planet is Toast.*

Of course, before the Chinese even joined the Polluter's Ball, we shouldn't forget one of Planet Smog's leading trendsetters - LA!  

AJ


----------



## Kathmandu (18 July 2007)

*Re: The Planet is Toast.*

Might be worth reading this before turning this into another "The sky is falling" thread.


http://epw.senate.gov/109th/Carter_Testimony.pdf

Dave


----------



## wayneL (18 July 2007)

*Re: The Planet is Toast.*



Kathmandu said:


> Might be worth reading this before turning this into another "The sky is falling" thread.
> 
> 
> http://epw.senate.gov/109th/Carter_Testimony.pdf
> ...



Good paper. I've always been a climate "agnostic". It's the pollution problem I am more concerned about.


----------



## Kathmandu (18 July 2007)

*Re: The Planet is Toast.*



wayneL said:


> Good paper. I've always been a climate "agnostic". It's the pollution problem I am more concerned about.




So the *people* on the planet, in those cities may be toast, but *not* the actual planet.

Dave


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (18 July 2007)

Yeah i've always been sceptical on co2 causing global warming and the fact is that habitate destruction and pollution have/ will and are causing more extinctions loss of productivity and is ultimately the greatest challange to our world.

If we hadn't cut down so many forests etc pillaged the natural resources of the world climate change wouldn't have such a big effect. Look at the flood plains of almost all the great river systems they have been changed so much they no longer function anywhere near as well as they did in past. Nowdays we fertilise our crops with chemicals and non local nutrients where as in the past nature had natural ways of replenishing soil fertility. 

I think natural cycles tend to be longer and no so convienient in our modern world and there comes the prolem either change our habits or change the world.


----------



## UPKA (18 July 2007)

If you r an evolutionist you'll probably believe that overtime human and other creatures will adapt to the "new" environment overtime . Although emission of greenhouse gases is linked to global warming, bt there r no direct evidence to it, some may even argue that the animals n us humans produce more CO2s than the factories in China.


----------



## moXJO (18 July 2007)

What happened to everyone on the planet dying from bird flu? Wonder what it will be next year


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (18 July 2007)

Yeah i actually looked into the chemical properties of Co2 it doesn't actually absorb sunlight it absorbs radiated heat from the earths surface and only at certain wavelengths.

Aparently the Co2 absorbs all the radiation it can within the first 10metres of atmosphere and the only effect of increasing the concentration is decreasing that 10m envelope to say 9.5m etc.

But alot of scientists are apparently saying that there is a high altitude carbon heat effect but there is really not much information,/ research or testing been done to prove/disprove this.

Also another fact that the oceans may warm say 1 degree but because of the thermal efficiency of liquid vs gas for this heating to be caused by atmospheric heating ie. Co2 the atmosphere would actually have to heat up by a factor much more than that of the water eg. 10 degree rise in atmosphere = 1 degree rise in sea temp (in a short term scale). Either that of if the atmosphere heats up 1 degree it will take 10 times as long the heat the ocean that same one degree (in a long term scale)


----------



## nizar (18 July 2007)

moXJO said:


> What happened to everyone on the planet dying from bird flu? Wonder what it will be next year




LOL so true brother, so true!  :


----------



## Uncle Festivus (18 July 2007)

moXJO said:


> What happened to everyone on the planet dying from bird flu? Wonder what it will be next year




Not sure if it's off the radar yet. A lot of people in the know would like to keep it quit, but to be prepared for it if it did break out. The pandemic is the one thing that makes officials cringe with fear; there is no way they can be prepared for it on a mass scale.


----------



## Craze0123 (18 July 2007)

lets move to Mars.....fixt!


----------



## Kathmandu (18 July 2007)

Uncle Festivus said:


> Not sure if it's off the radar yet. A lot of people in the know would like to keep it quit, but to be prepared for it if it did break out. The pandemic is the one thing that makes officials cringe with fear; there is no way they can be prepared for it on a mass scale.





*That's it*!!!!

The budgies gone.

Dave


----------



## wayneL (18 July 2007)

*Re: The Planet is Toast.*



Kathmandu said:


> So the *people* on the planet, in those cities may be toast, but *not* the actual planet.
> 
> Dave



Yes, but do allow me to embellish for sensationalist effect.   

But we are kidding ourselves if we think we can keep trashing the planet without some deleterious effect.


----------



## Joe Blow (18 July 2007)

Pollution in Bucharest, Romania. I took this photo in December 2005. That building you can see in the background is the second largest building in the world, the Palace of the Parliament: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_the_Parliament

Second photo is a closer view without all the smog.


----------



## Kathmandu (19 July 2007)

Penang a few week's back.

Dave


----------



## Lucky (19 July 2007)

Hong Kong 2005 over 3 days from our hotel.  First two photos are day 1, 3rd photo Day 2, 4th Photo Day 3.

Last photo was a combination of fog and smog.


----------



## ZacR (19 July 2007)

Now obviously everyone here complaining about pollution etc drives an eco-friendly car or catches public transport every day instead of driving a 'normal' car and doesn't buy into companies that contribute to wrecking the environment on a massive scale... *cough BHP RIO etc etc cough*


----------



## Santob (19 July 2007)

As a youngish person (Under 30) I've had generations before me that ensured they profitted with reckless abandon to envionmental and social effects. But one day even the rich will have to drink dirty water and breathe polluted air. Pity they won't reap what they sow and its the generations after me that will suffer. But i'll do my best to make sure such selfish indulgences don't become a legacy.


----------



## Rafa (19 July 2007)

quite the contrary zacR...

firstly, there is money to be made...
secondly, as a shareholder, you contol the direction of the company... ethical and environmental funds are still in their infancy... but growing rapidly.


----------



## Gundini (19 July 2007)

*Re: The Planet is Toast.*



kennas said:


> Can't we create giant vacuum cleaner sucker things that suck in all the bad air and pump it into the holes in the ground where the oil used to be?
> 
> Easy peasie.
> 
> Do you think I'd get a grant for that project?




That is not as silliy as it sounds. I have always wondered why they don't attempt to control the Ozone layer in a similar way that a hot air baloon works. Simply make the hole in the Ozone larger, let all the excess heat, smog, and crap out into the stratesfear, then close the bludger up!

Solves the Global Warming and polution debarcle in one hit...

Then, let the Aliens deal with it using their supersmarts!


----------



## ZacR (19 July 2007)

Rafa, that's the problem, making money is always first... although it can't be avoided can it ? We all need it to live.  Greed is the issue. As far as the ethical and environmentally healthy companies are concerned, let's hope they start to make a big enough impact before it's too late... or is that time already here ?


----------



## wayneL (19 July 2007)

ZacR said:


> Now obviously everyone here complaining about pollution etc drives an eco-friendly car or catches public transport every day instead of driving a 'normal' car and doesn't buy into companies that contribute to wrecking the environment on a massive scale... *cough BHP RIO etc etc cough*



We bicycle mostly, live in a small house, buy organic etc etc.

But it's futile. We're the only ones in our peer group doing so, where conspicuous consumption scores the most admiration.


----------



## Rafa (19 July 2007)

like waynel, everyone can do their bit...
it does make some difference.... its not at futile as you think.

not buying BHP shares becuase of an ideological postion, doesn't make a bloody difference at all... that is futile!


----------



## stockGURU (19 July 2007)

ZacR said:


> Now obviously everyone here complaining about pollution etc drives an eco-friendly car or catches public transport every day instead of driving a 'normal' car and doesn't buy into companies that contribute to wrecking the environment on a massive scale... *cough BHP RIO etc etc cough*




The whole point of capitalism is to consume the planet until there is nothing of value left, and hopefully make a buck in the process.

Now, before you get all holier-than-thou on us, what are you doing to save the planet? What eco-friendly companies do you invest in? 

Pointing out the hypocrisy of others only works if you're not a hypocrite yourself.


----------



## ZacR (19 July 2007)

stockGURU, I was just trying to point out that we are all in this together and that we all add to this problem in one way or another, whether we like to admit it or not. As for me, I maintain my holier than thou-ness by not partaking in the monetary system and instead survive through life on happy thoughts and positive energy. I also breathe one third amount each day that everyone else does so as to provide extra oxygen for my fellow man.


----------



## Pat (19 July 2007)

I believe humans will wake up over time. My generation was one of the first to be taught to recycle in school, we learn't about the importance of recycling,  what damage waste and rubbish can do to the environment and what we can do to help. This was back in the late 80's. What are they being taught now?
Slowly the developed countries are waking up, more importantly other pressures such as cost of oil will be a catalyst to a cleaner future. 
Have faith we will adapt.


----------



## Spaghetti (19 July 2007)

We were hippy generation, save the planet, save the earth, Hug a tree, save the Franklin and the Daintree. We were far more vocal and far more activist than todays youth and yet we get blamed for doing nothing. We did not do enough but to be fair, we did far more than todays youth.

Time for a revolution youngsters


----------



## Kathmandu (19 July 2007)

Looking at the rubbish getting dumped these day's eg: the Live Earth concert, it would seem the young of today don't know what a rubbish bin is.

Compared to the "Pig City" concert at QUT Brisbane on the weekend where it was a mainly 40+ crowd, there was little to no rubbish.

I drive an old recycled/restored car on LPG, and as I type I listen to go fast rice burners doing the drifter thing in the industrial estate nearby, plenty of fuel and rubber being wasted there, "But I can't afford to buy a house" they say.

Pfffttt

Dave


----------



## Kimosabi (19 July 2007)

ha, those pictures are nothing, try these out for size:

Chemtrails or Contrails, you decide???

















28.06.2007 Dover England 08:45



Chemtrails (Aerial Spraying) Over Esperance, W.A


----------



## Pat (20 July 2007)

Spaghetti said:


> We were hippy generation, save the planet, save the earth, Hug a tree, save the Franklin and the Daintree. We were far more vocal and far more activist than todays youth and yet we get blamed for doing nothing. We did not do enough but to be fair, we did far more than todays youth.
> 
> Time for a revolution youngsters



Well you could say the "hippie revolution" is the reason we are taught about the environment in schools, and why there is now much focus on the environment, compared to the 50's for eg. 
Most would say there is still not enough focus on the envirinment, as we have been taught the effects of what happens when man does... well anything. So we try to change for the better... in the last 15yrs we in Australia have a recycling bin.
If we keep this up, we, as a global community will change, slowly but surely. I guess the only question is do we have time.


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 July 2007)

No smog thread would be complete without at least one picture of Launceston from the 1990's.

And no, that's NOT natural fog in the photo (though the area does get natural fog at times). It's 96% wood smoke from domestic heaters that is estimated to kill about 25 people a year whilst damaging the health of many more.  

Toxic wood smoke that stings the eyes, stinks up your clothes and leaves tourists disgusted. 

A mix of tars shown beyond reasonable doubt to have impaired the lung function of children growing up in the area during the 80's and 90's.

It's the ultimate conservation trade-off. A river flowing free versus lungs blackened. Untouched wilderness versus human health. Big business versus small business. Greens versus Liberal. Hydro versus wood. Development versus conservation. 

All of which comes to the point that it's rarely a simple decision when it comes to the environment. Fix one problem, cause another in many cases. And this one'a real classic IMO.


----------



## Uncle Festivus (20 July 2007)

Kimosabi said:


> ha, those pictures are nothing, try these out for size:
> 
> Chemtrails or Contrails, you decide???




Kimosabi, we should nip this one in the bud before it get's a life. If you have a closer look at this weirdo's website you will see the section where he's indicating spaceships are also being sent from the sun to invade the earth. 
Interesting theory, but a complete nutter in this case


----------



## --B-- (20 July 2007)

Pat said:


> Most would say there is still not enough focus on the envirinment, as we have been taught the effects of what happens when man does... well anything.




taught? based on what? Scientific fact or greeny propaganda??



> So we try to change for the better... in the last 15yrs we in Australia have a recycling bin.




Sure, recycling can make us feel all warm and fuzzy knowing (knowing?) that our PET bottle is being given a new life however there is debate over whether much recycling actually consumes more energy and $$ than it saves. Simplistic views that recycling = good are not always accurate.


----------



## Pat (20 July 2007)

--B-- said:


> taught? based on what? Scientific fact or greeny propaganda??
> Sure, recycling can make us feel all warm and fuzzy knowing (knowing?) that our PET bottle is being given a new life however there is debate over whether much recycling actually consumes more energy and $$ than it saves. Simplistic views that recycling = good are not always accurate.



Taught? Both, you be surprised on the emphasis on the environment in primary schools. If it is greeny propaganda, does this change the importance of the message? Clean up Australia day... More propaganda??
So recycling is bad??? Recycling is not about saving $$$ or saving energy! Planet Earth and its environment are looked upon as a business. Always trying to make things profitable. It's about reducing the amount of waste and landfill. Perhaps spending money, using more energy will have less impact on the environment than destroying it with man made waste. Where you not taught the importance of recycling?
Recycling is the future, IMO nearly everything will be recycled, including water and air. As it is today but on much larger scales.


----------



## --B-- (20 July 2007)

Pat said:


> Taught? Both, you be surprised on the emphasis on the environment in primary schools. If it is greeny propaganda, does this change the importance of the message?




well clearly it does. are you unable to see this?



> Clean up Australia day... More propaganda??




nothing at all wrong with clean up australia day. My concerns are based around the ever growing number of school children being force-fed greeny propaganda much of which is not supported in any way by proven scientific fact.


> So recycling is bad??? Recycling is not about saving $$$ or saving energy! Planet Earth and its environment are looked upon as a business. Always trying to make things profitable. It's about reducing the amount of waste and landfill.




im not against recycling at all however i challenge the simplistic view that all recycling = good.



> Perhaps spending money, using more energy will have less impact on the environment than destroying it with man made waste.




then apparenty the greenies have a dilemma on their hands because according to their view, excess energy consumption = bad. what about the dreaded co2 (read: plant food)??


----------



## Pat (20 July 2007)

--B-- said:


> well clearly it does. are you unable to see this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your Views --B-- are very pessimistic. This should not be a political debate. What are kids being "force fed" that is not scientific fact? And what negative impact does this have?
I agree the less energy we consume the better. However we are developing ways to make energy more efficient. So the "costs" to our pockets and to the environment should decrease in time. If everything goes to plan she'll be right. Just give it the time it needs.
Please tell me what mades some aspects of recycling = bad?


----------



## --B-- (20 July 2007)

Pat said:


> Your Views --B-- are very pessimistic.




i simply do not get caught up in the greeny hype that is so prevalent today.



> This should not be a political debate. What are kids being "force fed" that is not scientific fact? And what negative impact does this have?




the entire GW debate is exactly that - a debate. AGW is far from being proven scientific fact however school children believe wholeheartedly that humans have "ruined" our environment. in my opinion, that in itself is a negative impact.

no doubting anything that humans do to conserve our environment is a good thing - however i believe this should be based on fact.



> Please tell me what mades some aspects of recycling = bad?




ive never said recycling = bad. simply that i challenge the simplistic view (obviously taught to school children) that recycling = good.

a good article is: http://downloads.heartland.org/2377bl.pdf


----------



## stockGURU (20 July 2007)

--B-- said:


> a good article is: http://downloads.heartland.org/2377bl.pdf




That article is 10 years old and isn't from a scientific journal but a consumer magazine. Hardly authoritative or cutting edge stuff.  

Sounds like you are rejecting one lot of propaganda and simply embracing another because you don't like 'greenies' and it fits with your political views.


----------



## --B-- (20 July 2007)

stockGURU said:


> That article is 10 years old and isn't from a scientific journal but a consumer magazine.
> 
> Sounds like you are rejecting one lot of propaganda and simply embracing another because you don't like 'greenies'.




sure the article is not from a scientific journal and ive never claimed it was. I simply challenge the blanket idea that all recycling = good and clearly the article raises valid points in that regard.

i also dont think the article i provided was propaganda in the slightest. It simply raises questions and concludes with a "Yes and no" type answer which is exactly my thoughts on the issue.


----------



## stockGURU (20 July 2007)

--B-- said:


> sure the article is not from a scientific journal and ive never claimed it was. I simply challenge the blanket idea that all recycling = good and clearly the article raises valid points in that regard.




So some real, up to date scientific evidence of this would be appreciated.



--B-- said:


> i also dont think the article i provided was propaganda in the slightest. It simply raises questions and concludes with a "Yes and no" type answer which is exactly my thoughts on the issue.




Nobody ever thinks anything they agree with is propaganda now do they?


----------



## Pat (20 July 2007)

--B-- said:


> i simply do not get caught up in the greeny hype that is so prevalent today.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I understand what you mean about the "hype". I'm saying that is hype will lead the way for the future. The way I see it, more emphasis will be put on the environment due to this hype. Not bad thing if our goal is to conserve.

Children aren't taught that we have ruined our environment, well I wasn't. I was taught that humans have some ruined parts of the environment, and that this can be fixed, with everyone chipping in. Every little bit helps. I believe it is important to know what is happening to our planet. Amazon disapearing, extinction of native animals, the effect of burning coal and hydrocarbons on the quality of air.

Your article makes some good points. I understand how it can be un-economic, and seem somewhat pointless in some instances. However the effect of recycling what we can today, will only make recycling what we have to in the future easier/possible. The best way to learn is from experiance.

Our new found awareness is just the begining. As smurf has pointed out we fix one thing and another problem arises. Learning curves... We will one day have the knowledge and tools to co-exist with the rest of the planet without destroying it.


----------



## --B-- (20 July 2007)

stockGURU said:


> So some real, up to date scientific evidence of this would be appreciated.




im not trying to argue any point here stockGURU. i simply presented my view and provided that article in support. 

there are many articles on the web which raise similar questions however these dont come from a peer-reviewed scientific journal and as such are justifiably open to scrutiny. 



> Nobody ever thinks anything they agree with is propaganda now do they?




i dont consider raising questions as propaganda however perhaps, by definition, it could be.


----------



## Kimosabi (20 July 2007)

Uncle Festivus said:


> Kimosabi, we should nip this one in the bud before it get's a life. If you have a closer look at this weirdo's website you will see the section where he's indicating spaceships are also being sent from the sun to invade the earth.
> Interesting theory, but a complete nutter in this case





Mate, after some of the stuff I have learnt in the last few months, I'm not prepared to dismiss anything outright anymore.


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 July 2007)

The real issue I have with many in the Green movement is that they are _very_ good at shutting down the debate when anyone starts to question the basis of their claims. The intention may well be good but the scientific methodology most certainly isn't robust.

Anyone with an interest in environmental politics and the Green movement overall would do well to research the history of Tasmania over the past 40 years. You'll find that both sides have swapped positions so many times it just isn't funny.

There was a time when the Greens advocated burning the forests, using coal for power and opposed any form of subsidy for renewable energy.

Likewise there was a time when the pro-development lobby was against burning wood, against coal and in favour of subsidising renewable energy.

And both sides have swapped back and forth so many times that it's hard to take anything too seriously. The pro-development side is driven by economics. The Greens simply take the opposing view. Hence the constant changing of position.

Science? Nobody's worried about that...


----------



## --B-- (20 July 2007)

Very well said Smurf...


----------



## Pat (20 July 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> The real issue I have with many in the Green movement is that they are _very_ good at shutting down the debate when anyone starts to question the basis of their claims. The intention may well be good but the scientific methodology most certainly isn't robust.
> 
> Anyone with an interest in environmental politics and the Green movement overall would do well to research the history of Tasmania over the past 40 years. You'll find that both sides have swapped positions so many times it just isn't funny.
> 
> ...



That said, what are your views on the environment? Politics aside.
I don't need a politician or a scientist to tell me that things we do and have done will ruin the environment, I can see for myself.


----------



## --B-- (20 July 2007)

Pat said:


> I don't need a politician or a scientist to tell me that things we do and have done will ruin the environment, I can see for myself.




see for yourself? what do you base your firm belief on then if not scientific fact?


----------



## barnz2k (20 July 2007)

simply looking round for a start.. 

mostly I wanted to say that the first photo in beijing i remember well - of course pollution is a big part of it, but everyone there blames the Gobi  Desert for the air! not just pollution.


----------



## Pat (20 July 2007)

--B-- said:


> see for yourself? what do you base your firm belief on then if not scientific fact?



Did not say I did not belive in scientfic fact. In fact, scientific fact is all we have. I mean't I don't need a third party to tell me the clearing of the bushland near my house has had a negative impact on the animal population. No more roos around here anymore, no more possums, galahs, trees! The rate of development on the Central Coast in the past 2 decades is crazy, much like everywhere else. Just one tiny example.


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 July 2007)

Pat said:


> That said, what are your views on the environment? Politics aside.
> I don't need a politician or a scientist to tell me that things we do and have done will ruin the environment, I can see for myself.



My own personal view is simply that _sustainability_ is the objective and that everything else is very much a secondary consideration.

From a sustainability perspective, forests and dams are a long way down the list of concerns since the efffects are, largely, ultimately reversible. Might take a few decades but the damage can be largely restored (a point that even some high profile environmentalists have come to acknowledge).

Top of the list are those things where we can NOT reverse the damage in a reasonable time frame. For example (listed in no particular order):

Agricultural land degradation.
Oil depletion.
Gas depletion.
Persistant chemical pollutants.
Species extinction.
Climate change.
Contamination of fresh water.
Acidification of the oceans.
Accumulation of anything hazardous requiring ongoing care that can not be safely destroyed. 

And the total non-issue? Aesthetics. The great excuse for doing nothing about real problems such as the ones above.


----------



## Pat (20 July 2007)

Good words Smurf. I'd say deforestation is a main cause of extinction for animal species... loss of habitat. Not everything is reversable.


----------



## Smurf1976 (21 July 2007)

Pat said:


> I'd say deforestation is a main cause of extinction for animal species... loss of habitat. Not everything is reversable.



Agreed there.

I was thinking in terms of the very public debate about forestry. Given that there have been instances of previously logged forest being nominated (by environmentalists) as an area of high conservation value now that it has regenerated, the regeneration can't be that bad. Not perfect maybe, and I certainly don't claim that replacing a natural forest with a monoculture plantation is legitimate "regeneration", but it's possible to replant mixed species and put back something that, whilst different, doesn't really constitute the environment having been "wrecked".

Agreed about animals. The studies that I have seen found that firewood collection is a far bigger problem on a per tonne of wood taken basis than the contentious clearfelling for woodchips since firewood targets the dry, hollow logs thus maximising habitat loss. I don't recall the exact figure, but the impact on habitat loss was an order of magnitude difference per tonne of wood taken. 

Overall, I'd put it this way. If a forest was logged in 1950 and then properly regenerated then what we have today is likely to be a reasonable forest. Perhaps not perfect, but it's a forest with mixed species, animals and so on. Done properly, we could keep taking some wood from that forest every so often and nothing drastic is likely to happen. A change in the environment certainly, but the underlying activity is reasonably sustainable if done properly (doing it properly being the key point). 

Contrast that with an oil field put on production in 1950. With the exception of the very large fields such as Ghawar, Burgan etc (Saudi Arabia and Kuwait respectively) which actually do date back that far, odds are it's all but dried up now. The oil's gone, in practice, forever. And the carbon is in the air for longer than it's worth calculating. We can't undo the damage. And no matter how it's done the end result is the same - the oil's gone and the carbon's in the air. Extracting a non-renewable resource, or one that renews incredibly slowly, just isn't sustainable when done on an industrial scale no matter what technology is used and how carefully the operation is done. Sooner or later it's all gone.

Dams are much like forests in terms of ability to restore the landscape. Studies in Tasmania have found no real problem with restoration of even large (240km²) man-made water storage sites. That said, I'm absolutely opposed to actually doing such a restoration right now (as is essentially everyone involved with the issue) as I see the value of renewable hydro power as vastly exceeding any benefit in restoration at the present time. We need to do something about fossil fuel energy with a degree of urgency given the depletion, pollution and climate issues. In contrast, restoration of a water storage is likely to be no more difficult (that is, quite doable) in 20 or 100 years time than it is today. Sustainability versus conservation (or in this case restoration) of an untouched natural environment. 

In contrast to water storages and forests, a future generation has absolutely no chance of getting back the oil and gas we're burning at such an incredible rate. And they've got close to zero chance of doing anything about the carbon we're putting in the air, the nuclear waste we're piling up or the persistent pollutants we've added to the land and oceans. Hence I'm not too worried about dams or a properly managed forestry operation with proper regeneration. 

Note that there's a big difference between proper forest management as a long term source of wood (fairly uncommon) and simply clearing land or putting in plantations (all too common). Forestry's one area where I think we did a lot better environmentally 50 years ago than we do today. The trouble now is the pursuit of efficiency - a concept that doesn't fit well with the natural environment.


----------



## Dukey (14 November 2007)

*plus - Barrier Reef = Toast !!! Almost too late.*

Just saw something that made me sit up and take notice - Some scary sh!te this - an aspect of climate change I hadn't heard of before. 

Like most, I have heard that coral reefs may be 'toast' due to global warming - I had understood it to be linked to rising ocean temperatures. 

Now we have....   OCEAN ACIDIFICATION ...  - recently identified by scientists and caused by atmospheric CO2 being absorbed by the ocean to form carbonic acid.

Watch this short clip from ABC Catalyst program (or Real Video).

According to the scientists studying this phenomenon ocean acidification is already affecting the shell density / strength of planktons - which are the all important base of the ocean food chains. The exact effects of this are yet to be mapped out - but rest assured it's not looking good people .

Add to that the fact that all corals are made from calcium carbonate - which is weakened by acid. Coral scientists are predicting that unless we reverse our CO2 emissions significantly and very quickly - before 2030 - corals will be unable to grow and will be starting to die out by 2050.

These guys think it could be the most devastating aspect of man-made climate change - potentially demolishing our ocean food resource; reefs; and fish right through the food chain....
......
... oh dear ....
...
...
better go turn off those - big plasma tv's (up to 350+watts!!).
 - superfluous light bulbs
 - air cons and heaters
 - pool filter/chlorinators (can double your power bill!!)
 - 2nd fridge
 - stand-by appliances leaking power
 - blah blah.

We'd better all buy some solar panels and ride our push-bikes to work tomorrow too...
and every day...
forever...

(sorry - somewhat depressed by this news... what have we done????)


----------



## Pat (14 November 2007)

*Re: plus - Barrier Reef = Toast !!! Almost too late.*



Dukey said:


> Now we have....   OCEAN ACIDIFICATION ...  - recently identified by scientists and caused by atmospheric CO2 being absorbed by the ocean to form carbonic acid.



I think I noticed this on that Al Gore DVD. What an eye opener. Makes you wonder how many terrible, hidden secrets their's out there (dunno, one for the spelling and grammar thread...teach me!). But, nature will always win, we are but mere mortals... as my Dad would say 

Anyone see that doco on Chernobyl and the way nature without human influence seems to thrive? Apparently, the life span of most, some???, animals does not give the effects of radiation time to make a difference. Also, the mutant animals that arose from the disaster, almost died out completely due to natural reasons, like not being able to reproduce (like attract a mate, live long enough to reproduce etc.) Interesting, hope it wasn't propaganda.


----------



## Dukey (14 November 2007)

*Re: plus - Barrier Reef = Toast !!! Almost too late.*



Pat said:


> I think I noticed this on that Al Gore DVD. What an eye opener. Makes you wonder how many terrible, hidden secrets their's out there (dunno, one for the spelling and grammar thread...teach me!). But, nature will always win, we are but mere mortals... as my Dad would say
> 
> Anyone see that doco on Chernobyl and the way nature without human influence seems to thrive? Apparently, the life span of most, some???, animals does not give the effects of radiation time to make a difference. Also, the mutant animals that arose from the disaster, almost died out completely due to natural reasons, like not being able to reproduce (like attract a mate, live long enough to reproduce etc.) Interesting, hope it wasn't propaganda.




Yep - nature will indeed win in the end - but it will take a long long time - we're talking 'geological time' - to recover from our excesses of comfort and greed.  
The guys in the clip I think said the ocean acidification would take many thousands or hundreds of thousands of years to fix itself. And if there is any coral left by then - it will take yonks (??geo-yonks!?!) to recover to a similar population as we have today.

Imagine - by the time many of us at ASF are ready to .... croak ... the oceans maybe toast - nothing much left for the kiddies to play in, enjoy or eat!!!!!!!!!!

Of course we might have humongous de-acidification plants all around the world - probably pumping more  CO2 and heat into the atmosphere.

---------------
Interesting about natures quick fix around Chernobyl - I'd believe it. The power of natural systems to right themselves is phenomenal... so maybe 'mother nature' could find a quick fix for the oceans too - maybe the best solution would probably involve a 100% fatal, human specific disease like airborne ebola!!!!!!  
------------------
... thats a stupid joke of course (just to avoid anyone taking offense) - but sometimes I wonder about our place here on Earth...


----------



## Pat (14 November 2007)

*Re: plus - Barrier Reef = Toast !!! Almost too late.*



Dukey said:


> Yep - nature will indeed win in the end - but it will take a long long time - we're talking 'geological time'...



Yes it will, but when you think about it, it takes that long for anything natural to happen, like evolution. I often wonder how the world coped... or will cope... when a massive volcano blows, or where hit by an asteroid.



Dukey said:


> ...but sometimes I wonder about our place here on Earth...



I often do too. Although I have faith in our technological evolution. StarTrek universe here we come!


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 November 2007)

no argument from me Dukey and Pat ..

As for the pollution in the Beijing air ...
It must almost be at a point where you can run a machine just using the air (and semi-burnt pollution) as fuel.  

PS I think when the pollution is cleaned up, the greenhouse effect gets worse.


----------



## Pat (14 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> PS I think when the pollution is cleaned up, the greenhouse effect gets worse.



Do you think the smog blocks and rebounds some radiation?


----------



## algis (14 November 2007)

Pat said:


> Do you think the smog blocks and rebounds some radiation?




Something I would like to know is what is the science behind the knowledge that CO2 in the atmosphere allows for a greenhouse effect - that is, it lets in a certain range of radiation and then, once through, reflects it down.  

Have chambers been set up where such an experiment could be carried out?  Where say, you could vary the composition of the atmosphere within the chamber, stratify it etc and then work out the sensitivities of the change?  Has it only be done via Monte Carlo type computer modelling techniques?  Or has this correlation only been based on circumstantial evidence that shows that CO2 levels are somewhat in tune with global temps?


----------



## Pat (14 November 2007)

algis said:


> Something I would like to know is what is the science behind the knowledge that CO2 in the atmosphere allows for a greenhouse effect - that is, it lets in a certain range of radiation and then, once through, reflects it down.
> 
> Have chambers been set up where such an experiment could be carried out?  Where say, you could vary the composition of the atmosphere within the chamber, stratify it etc and then work out the sensitivities of the change?  Has it only be done via Monte Carlo type computer modelling techniques?  Or has this correlation only been based on circumstantial evidence that shows that CO2 levels are somewhat in tune with global temps?



Good question, I think they use drill core samples from the Antarctic as reference to CO2 in the atmosphere in the past… but I'd like to know how the guesstimate global temps etc in the past.


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 November 2007)

plenty of wikipedia on greenhouse gas effects

light (sun's spectrum) gets to us, then sent skyward as longer wavelength (infrared) - much of which is reflected back again (not all).  

all about infrared light = heat - As I understand it, if you looked up at the sky with sensitive infrared filters you would see a heap of infared rays being reflected back at you from the atmosphere.  O2 and N2 don't absorb and reflect this heat back ( both O-O)   but CO2 and H2O water do (O-O-O) also methane CH4 etc  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GHG_per_capita_2000_no_LUC.svg

meanwhile here is the greenhouse emission per capita
and just by coincidence - see if you can pick the two first world countries who have not signed Kyoto.


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 November 2007)

Here are the CO2-equivalent- emitters-per-capita  listed on order of with or withou land use change.  (I feel without is more relevant personally - just because we got in early and cleared our forests is no excuse not to cut back on how much energy we use each for instance - and paying Indonesia to leave their forests standing - WITHOUT a change of mindset back home - is not the same as our OWN contribution and hardship.  That is nothing more than a con in my opinion).  

Note that Aus is 5th - and the 4 above us are OPEC countries (Qatar Emirates Kuwait Brunei)
Note also that Aus (25.6) is worse than USA (24.3).
And for all the talk of Canada being so deadful, we are worse than them as well. (they are 22.2) 
NZ 18.5
Aus (25.6) is more than twice as bad as UK.(11.0)
Likewise Greece ( 11.0) and South Korea (11.0)
South Africa 9.5
Sweden 7.5
Malaysia 6.8
Brazil 4.9
China 3.9
India 1.9
Ghana 1.2
Heaps of African countries less than 1.0


----------



## numbercruncher (14 November 2007)

Another bit of climate change action barrelling down on North Qld, first cyclone this early in over 30 years ..... They are tipping a bad season all round


----------



## Wysiwyg (14 November 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Another bit of climate change action barrelling down on North Qld, first cyclone this early in over 30 years ..... They are tipping a bad season all round




Yes it is early and presently only a *1* but forecast to intensify on this map.Cyclone Guba.Cane fields and bananas again?


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 November 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Another bit of climate change action barrelling down on North Qld, first cyclone this early in over 30 years ..... They are tipping a bad season all round




I notice t's called Goober ( and named by PNG , means "storm over water") 
Here's a song called "Goober Peas", a Southern song from the American Civil War 

Goober Peas = peanuts  (the man who discovered peanuts was Mr Goober apparently - sheesh I thought it was Joh B Peterson) 

You have to go to the 2m30s mark
 Johnny Cash & Burl Ives


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Here are the CO2-equivalent- emitters-per-capita  listed on order of with or withou land use change.  (I feel without is more relevant personally - just because we got in early and cleared our forests is no excuse not to cut back on how much energy we use each for instance - and paying Indonesia to leave their forests standing - WITHOUT a change of mindset back home - is not the same as our OWN contribution and hardship.  That is nothing more than a con in my opinion).
> 
> Note that Aus is 5th - and the 4 above us are OPEC countries (Qatar Emirates Kuwait Brunei)
> Note also that Aus (25.6) is worse than USA (24.3).



I'll stir the pot... 

If we had the same portion of nuclear power and hydro-electricity as the OECD average then our emissions would be around 22.

If we had the same combined share of nuclear and hydro as France then our emissions would be around 15.

My point being that these are the only large scale low emissions energy sources that actually have a significant impact globally. Practically all other commercial energy is from fossil fuels.

Nuclear and hydro are, of course, also the energy sources most strongly opposed by environmentalists. No nuclear waste and free flowing rivers maybe, but it comes at a price. 

I'm personally of the view that we ought to be including nuclear waste production when ranking countries according to emissions. It may not add to climate change, but it's a toxic legacy nonetheless. 

Nuclear power is the sole reason US emissions are lower than Australia's. Take that out and the US position looks considerably worse.

Likewise it's hydro making Canada and NZ look good. Take that out and they'd be much higher on that list.


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 November 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> I'll stir the pot...
> 
> If we had the same portion of nuclear power and hydro-electricity as the OECD average then our emissions would be around 22.
> 
> ...



Thanks Smurf - good to have your expert opinion there. 

nuclear is interesting isn't it. - must be hundreds of nucler power plants out there (other than aus of course)  - happily pouring out heaps of clean energy - damn all contribution to GW  or pollution -  

..except as you say the waste - but no way do I treat that in the same light as other pollution - you need to be careful that's all (imo) - easy if you say it fast .  

And furthermore, "clean coal" is surely gonna be a joke in five or fifteen years whatever, when people understand that you're trying to stuff the genie back in some ( underground) bottle.   Bet you $20 that in 70 years time there wll be a lot more nuclear plants than "clean coal" plants 

I propose we leave the bets with our grandkids as our proxies, lol.
(that's assuming that the $20 bill is still in use then - and hasn't gone the way of the 2c piece )


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 November 2007)

One thing not to be able to see the wood for the trees....

it's nice (occasionally) not to be able to see the sunset for the trees as well 

(gee I like daylight saving )


----------



## Dukey (15 November 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> I'll stir the pot...
> 
> If we had the same portion of nuclear power and hydro-electricity as the OECD average then our emissions would be around 22.
> 
> ...




Smurf - can I ask - cause I too value your input...
When all is said and done, If you were the K-Rudd - Miester-Mann (making a gross assumption that it's he that matters now...!) - would you throw cash at Nuclear Plants OR  Renewable Energy Technologies OR both?


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 November 2007)

Dukey said:


> Smurf - can I ask - cause I too value your input...
> When all is said and done, If you were the K-Rudd - Miester-Mann (making a gross assumption that it's he that matters now...!) - would you throw cash at Nuclear Plants OR  Renewable Energy Technologies OR both?



Renewable.

And a full scale coal to liquids plant in the Latrobe Valley using the wastes to generate power and the CO2 (hopefully) injected into depleted offshore Bass Strait gas fields. If geosequestration doesn't work here with a plant like that then it's not going to work anywhere - let's settle the argument and we need the liquid fuels anyway.

But I wouldn't waste my time with renewables that can only take us to 20 or 30% renewable energy in the grid. 

Instead, I'd start building what will ultimately be a viable 100% renewable system. That's technically doable if we combine geothermal, solar thermal, hydro (pumped and natural) and to a far lesser extent wind.


----------



## Dukey (16 November 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> Renewable.
> 
> And a full scale coal to liquids plant in the Latrobe Valley using the wastes to generate power and the CO2 (hopefully) injected into depleted offshore Bass Strait gas fields. If geosequestration doesn't work here with a plant like that then it's not going to work anywhere - let's settle the argument and we need the liquid fuels anyway.
> 
> ...




Thanks again - you've reinforced my earlier opinion.....
Smurf for PM...  who's onboard!!!!!!!!!!   Should put you in the "who will you vote for poll"

Who is gonna be first cab off the rank with Geothermal?


----------



## kgee (16 November 2007)

why? when there's so many hydrocarbons?


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 November 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> Renewable.
> 
> And a full scale coal to liquids plant in the Latrobe Valley using the wastes to generate power and the CO2 (hopefully) injected into depleted offshore Bass Strait gas fields. If geosequestration doesn't work here with a plant like that then it's not going to work anywhere - let's settle the argument and we need the liquid fuels anyway.
> 
> ...



A test case for "clean coal" is urgent you're right - I'll personally believe it  when I see it, but it's a good way to keep winning elections in the Hunter and Collie etc. 

as for renewables - so many are weather dependant - I guess it's unlikely to be dry (hydro) and overcast ( photovoltaic/solar), and lack of wind (wind turbines) at the same time  

I mean a decent volcanic eruption (Krakatoa revisited) would surely cause a major downgrading for solar generation in those latitudes affected 

At least nuclear runs 24/7 base load power.   Most of the arguments against nuclear seem to start from the premise that we are the only ones who would be using it - when in fact we are one of the few (moderate sized industrialised) countries NOT using it. 



> http://www.uic.com.au/nip07.htm Nuclear Power in the World Today
> Briefing Paper 7
> August 2007
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...






> Today, only eight countries are known to have a nuclear weapons capability.  By contrast, 56 operate civil research reactors, and 30 have some 439 commercial nuclear power reactors with a total installed capacity of 372,000 MWe (see table). This is more than three times the total generating capacity of France or Germany from all sources. Over 30 further power reactors are under construction, equivalent to 7.5% of existing capacity, while over 80 are firmly planned, equivalent to 24% of present capacity.




Concerning share of power that is nuclear in origin, Belgium and Sweden are up over 50% , and France is almost 80% 
http://www.uic.com.au/nip07.htm
http://www.uic.com.au/reactors.htm


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 November 2007)

I mean , have a look at the last bar in this graph - that's Australia, and the red is the percentage coal we use ...  bludy disgraceful - we are environmental vandals here. 



> Kurt Vonnegut - note his last book ended in a poem .......
> When the last living thing has died on account of us, how poetical it would be if earth could say in a voice floating up, perhaps from the floor of the Grand Canyon, it is done, people did not like it here,  *- ESPECIALLY THE AUSSIES!!!*
> http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1895585.htm
> 
> We are addicted to fossil fuels, and we are about to be forced to give up, and forced to go cold turkey. etc




http://www.uic.com.au/nip07.htm

PS  Gee whiz, Canada has a lot of "hyro / renewables"  (blue line) - how the heck can they be nearly as bad as us on "CO2 equivalent per capita"??


----------



## Tysonboss1 (17 November 2007)

UPKA said:


> If you r an evolutionist you'll probably believe that overtime human and other creatures will adapt to the "new" environment overtime . Although emission of greenhouse gases is linked to global warming, bt there r no direct evidence to it, some may even argue that the animals n us humans produce more CO2s than the factories in China.




Evolution theory means that probally 95% of the species will perish it the changed cercumstances and some may survive and then continue to breed with the new adaptions,...


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> I mean , have a look at the last bar in this graph - that's Australia, and the red is the percentage coal we use ...  bludy disgraceful - we are environmental vandals here.



I would argue that it is more appropriate to look at total fossil fuel use for electricity than focusing only on coal.

Oil is a limited resource. Once we've tapped the easy (lower pollution) sources we end up using tar sands, coal liquefaction, shale etc. Much the same applies to gas.

Factor that in and it's better to use coal in power stations and save the oil for other uses from both an environmental and economic perspective. 

If we use the oil and gas for electricity today, then we end up with coal, shale etc based transport fuels tomorrow. We save a bit of emissions now, but they soar tomorrow. Environmentally, the last thing we want to be doing is turning solid fuels into liquids or gases.

LNG is another one. Factor in the energy use to make it, losses during shipping etc and at best it's as polluting as oil. Factor in the loss of gas as as future transport fuel and coal starts to look decidedly "green".

So I'd evaluate the countries on the basis of total coal, oil and gas contribution to electricity generation rather than simply looking at coal. In many ways I'd actually view LNG and oil use as worse than coal simply because of what it's setting us up for tomorrow.

Also there are non-environmental issues with oil and gas too. Use either of those and we're going to have to find a way to get the stuff from the countries that have it. That's primarily Iran, Qatar and especially Russia in the case of gas. Odds are that ain't going to be either peaceful or clean in the long term.

Personally, if I was going to ban any type of new power station construction then it would be gas-fired baseload plants, not coal, for the reasons above. Cleaner now but committing us to soaring emissions in the not to distant future.

Another point about fossil fuels is transport losses. Gas is terrible - LNG ain't clean by any means. And shipping coal (or anything else that's bulky) around the world isn't too climate friendly either.

So to the extent that we're going to use fossil fuels, it makes sense to use the low grade resource (coal) and not the high grade resources (oil and gas) that can be more efficiently used directly for heat (eg gas hot water at 80% efficiency versus using far more gas to heat the same water via electricity). And use the fuel locally where possible.

As for nuclear, if we're going to use something non-renewable then it makes sense to put the nuclear power in countries that don't have local fossil fuel resources. Japan is a country that should logically be using far more nuclear than coal, oil and gas combined for this reason. So too any other country that imports fuel.

So it doesn't make sense to me for Australia to use nuclear power. Whilst someone is using coal, it makes sense to do it as close to the mine as possible. So send the uranium to Japan (stop selling them coal) but don't waste that very high grade, low bulk resouce by using it here.

Mining coal in NSW and road / rail freighting it straight past a nuclear plant in order to export it would be the height of environmental and economic madness. Better to sell the uranium and burn the coal here if we're going to use it anywhere.

As for how a near-100% renewable grid would work, the main points are as follows:

Geothermal as the major baseload source. Other than large scale hydro, which we don't have enough of, it's the only non-intermittent renewable source we have.

The point about hydro relates to storage. It's by far the most practical means of balancing short term supply and demand in any grid due to the technical characteristics of hydro turbines. A hydro plant can easily go from zero to 100% virtually immediately. And a hydro plant can stop incredibly fast too. It's like comparing the acceleration, turning and stopping times of an ocean liner with a motor bike. 

For example, here is the output for 2 (of 6) of the Poatina (hydro, Tas) units that were in service feeding the bulk transmission system yesterday. 

5:50am - offline
5:55am - 1% of capacity
6:00 - 21%
6:05 - 48%
6:10 - 24%
6:15 - 2%
6:20 - 2%
6:25 - 32%
6:30 - 67%
6:35 - 94%
6:40 - 102%
6:45 - 100%

Here is Cethana power station output (hydro, Tas) later that same day:

17:35 - 79%
17:40 - 98%
17:45 - 88%
17:50 - 90%
17:55 - 87%
18:00 - 87%
18:05 - 5%
18:10 - 64%
18:15 - 3%

No coal or nuclear plant can efficienty follow load like that. Never has been able to and probably never will. 

In the case of a 100% renewable national grid, much of the additional hydro power would come from pumped storage rather than natural flow hydro.

Solar thermal is the other key. It nicely ramps up output during the day and falls somewhat (though not to zero) at night. Exactly the same pattern as routine (excluding heating / cooling loads) daily fluctuation in power demand. Solar thermal thus can provide most of the energy not provided by geothermal or natural flow hydro.

Wind is relevant really only to Tas. It integrates quite nicely (up to a limit) with a large storage based hydro system. Wind can thus, through integrated operation, add baseload energy in Tas whereas it doesn't on the mainland. There are limits however.

Operation depends on system integration. It's quite possible to get reliable power supply from intermittent sources as long as (1) there is some long time (months) in advance predictability as to the periods of no production and (2) the system is integrated.

Predictability is why we need geothermal (consistent just like coal), hydro (flexible and very predictable), solar thermal (reasonably predictable and has some short term storage) rather than too much wind (unpredictable) and photovoltaic (no storage doesn't work at all on Winter evenings when demand is high).

As for droughts (not just rain, but wind, sun etc droughts too) I'll say this. Yes they happen. But if you have adequate storage and integrated system management across a properly designed system with adequate capacity then reliability is very high. Not absolutely reliable, but any well designed hydro system can beat coal or nuclear for reliability and a geothermal / solar / hydro system ought to be more reliable than a hydro-only system and therefore more reliable than coal.


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 November 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> I would argue that it is more appropriate to look at total fossil fuel use for electricity than focusing only on coal.
> 
> Oil is a limited resource. Once we've tapped the easy (lower pollution) sources we end up using tar sands, coal liquefaction, shale etc. Much the same applies to gas.
> 
> ...



so you reckon more (CO2) now, less later. mmmm

I'll have to think about that m8 - 

but I more or less agree  that it is wasteful to use oil for power


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> so you reckon more (CO2) now, less later. mmmm
> 
> I'll have to think about that m8 -
> 
> but I more or less agree  that it is wasteful to use oil for power



Quite simply the world doesn't have sufficient gas resources outside the Middle East and Russia for there to be a major switch to it for power generation. So if we use it for power then we won't be using it for something else.

Some rough figures for Victoria to illustrate the point.

If we switched all brown coal use to gas then total stationary energy greenhouse emissions would be about 45% below present rates. 

However, if we had done that then Bass Strait gas would now be totally depleted and we'd be far more reliant on coal not just for electricity, but for everything else as well. And that puts total emissions about 80% above present levels.

So we could cut emissions 45% now. And then send them 80% above present levels in a decade or so and keep them there forever.

Factor in the loss of gas for transport use and, in view of peak oil, we end up relying on coal for that as well. And that's one incredibly polluting process.

I'll make one prediction however. No private investor will go anywhere near gas-fired power by 2020 in this country. And the plants being built now will end up every bit as much an economic millstone as all those oil-fired plants built worldwide in the 60's and 70's. Indeed gas is already becoming uncompetitive (too expensive) in WA right now.

I suppose I could agree that gas-fired power permanently cuts emissions to the extent that it will probably end up being so expensive that nobody can afford to use it. That's the ultimate in energy conservation, but not really a good outcome IMO.


----------



## numbercruncher (18 November 2007)

Latest UN climate change report is out, and as expected nothing short of scary ....


http://http://www.usatoday.com/money/topstories/2007-11-17-1076370395_x.htm


I reckon this could be the precursor to the mother of all asset bubbles, might make dotcom look like a walk in the park ?


----------



## numbercruncher (18 November 2007)

> Or, as he put it when talking to The Sunday Age: "The continuing growth in human numbers multiplied by the growth in consumption per person has brought us to the point whereby human activities are on the same scale and scope as the natural biological, chemical and geophysical processes that built the biosphere. And that's never happened before."
> 
> Lord May said it was *urgent* that humanity *constrained its population growth.*




http://http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/11/17/1194767024566.html


Finally someone who can attract an audience has said it, maybe its time someone had a long hard talk to followers of Abramatic religions etc ...

I think Western nations are in a great position to reduce populations because of our aged Population's, population reduction is happening naturally for us.


----------



## lusk (19 November 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> Geothermal as the major baseload source. Other than large scale hydro, which we don't have enough of, it's the only non-intermittent renewable source we have.




The only thing the worries me with Geothermal energy is if everyone starts using it, what will happen when we start drawing huge amounts of heat energy from the earth will we upset the balance. You do not get something for nothing.


----------



## numbercruncher (23 November 2007)

> Jellyfish wiped out Northern Ireland's only salmon farm, with more than $2.06 million worth of stock massacred in the attack.
> 
> The jellyfish, covering an area of around 26 square km, engulfed the Northern Salmon Company's cages off the province's northeastern coast, suffocating 100,000 fish, the firm's Managing Director, John Russell, told Reuters on Thursday.
> 
> ...




http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=328019

Failing crops, record droughts, now legions of killer jelly fish taking out fish farms! Is mother nature planning to starve us mere humans for our evil ways?


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 May 2008)

Kimosabi said:


> ha, those pictures are nothing, try these out for size:
> 
> Chemtrails or Contrails, you decide???
> 
> ...




Kimosabi, 
I still find this fascinating - thanks  

http://home1.gte.net/quakker/documents/chemtrails_over_america-interesting_reading.htm

http://home1.gte.net/quakker/documents/chemtrails_over_america-interesting_reading.htm#into_thin_air



> Previously explaining the government’s position, Lieutenant Colonel Michael K. Gibson of the U.S. Air Force wrote U.S. Representative Mark Green in August 2000 and stated, “The term ‘chemtrail’ is a hoax that began circulating approximately three years ago which asserts the government is involved in a joint federal program of covert spraying of the public.”
> 
> .......
> 
> ...


----------



## Aussiejeff (15 May 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Kimosabi,
> I still find this fascinating - thanks
> 
> http://home1.gte.net/quakker/documents/chemtrails_over_america-interesting_reading.htm
> ...





Well, was it not only a few weeks back the Russkies were "chemically treating" the skies over Moose-cow to "ensure fine conditions" for some whizz-bang parade??

Shirley we don't think the Yanks or Brits would let the Russkies control the weather without having a dip themselves?

Now here's a thought - maybe China needs to seed the atmosphere over the Olympic Stadium with some sort of "Atmospheric Cleansing Agent" (TM) to eliminate the pea-soup S.M.O.G. that will otherwise blot out the spectacle?

Ah, the bind we smart humans have got ourselves into.....


AJ


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 May 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> Shirley we don't think the Yanks or Brits would let the Russkies control the weather without having a dip themselves?
> 
> Now here's a thought - maybe China needs to seed the atmosphere over the Olympic Stadium with some sort of "Atmospheric Cleansing Agent" (TM) to eliminate the pea-soup S.M.O.G. that will otherwise blot out the spectacle?




pretty close AJ,  - certainly (it seems) the "Weather Modification Department" plans to shoot a heap of rockets (with silver iodide) into the air around the Olympics.  

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/china/ig13ad01.html



> Ready, aim, fire and rain
> By Pallavi Aiyar  Jul 13, 2007
> 
> BEIJING - After weeks of watching the mercury soar, hardening the already cracked earth of their wilting orchards and farms, a group of farmers on the outskirts of Beijing gather in the Fragrant Hills that line the western fringe of China's capital city. Unlike their ancestors, they do not assemble to perform a rain dance or gather in a temple to pray to the Lord Buddha to bring the rain.
> ...


----------



## Spanning Tree (17 May 2008)

> China is toast. Think of anything detrimental to anything, then multiply it by 1000 and you have the Chinese economic phenomenom that shall never die. How about drowning in your own gridlock, smog, pollution, overcrowding, unemployment etc etc All is not as it appears, except for the pollution - it's very real.



You do understand don't you that carbon emissions in China will heat up the whole world?


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 May 2008)

ST said:
			
		

> China is toast. Think of anything detrimental to anything, then multiply it by 1000 and you have the Chinese economic phenomenom that shall never die. How about *drowning in your own gridlock, smog, pollution,* ..... -  All is not as it appears, except for the pollution - it's very real.




I posted this elsewhere, (videos with a message) - a few youtubs on various aspects of Chinese pollution. - no need to see these right through of course 

Chinese pollution ?  - USA (and us) prepared to ignore international conventions about dumping in the third /second world 
  E-Waste: Dumping on the Poor , 4m30s
 Chinese Pollution Death Tolls, 1m30s
BBC-China's Grime Belt Air Pollution Extreme, 2m50s
 Nasty pollution in China, 1m30s

Here's a comment posted on that last youtube - just some American idiot ...  incidentally he claims to be "a Republican and a Christian" 



> We should not let radical environmentalists create all kinds of regulations in China because "pollution" is overstated and exploited in these videos and blown out of proportion. Waste = success. No waste = no money being made.
> 
> *As a Republicand and a Christian I say we vote to overturn pollution laws in America so we can have a competitive edge again. "global warming" is a myth. GOD is REAL*!




well he might be a Republican 
and he might even be a Christian
But I can't see that he is justified in calling himself a member of a humane race. - or human race for that matter


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 May 2008)

and this also from a previous post:- 
reminds me of a quote by Ayn Rand (US novelist - ironically she wrote "Atlas Shrugged"  )

Ayn Rand ........Here's what she said about pollution:- back in the 60's or 70's granted - but we are reaping the rewards today ...




> "If it were true that a heavy concentration of industry is destructive to human life, one would find life expectancy declining in the more advanced countries. But it has been rising steadily. Here are the figures on life expectancy in the United States:
> 1900 - 47.3 years
> 1920 - 53 years
> 1940 - 60 years
> ...




btw, adjusted for population.... CO2e per capita , USA 24.3 tonnes , China 3.9 tonnes


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 May 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> pretty close AJ,  - certainly (it seems) the "Weather Modification Department" plans to shoot a heap of rockets (with silver iodide) into the air around the Olympics.
> 
> http://www.atimes.com/atimes/china/ig13ad01.html



There's nothing new about making rain. Closer to home, Tasmania's been doing it since the 1960's. It's cheap and effective - more than a 20% increase in the central parts of the target areas at very little cost. 

And no, it *doesn't* result in huge white trails across the sky - that's certainly something else IMO.


----------

