# The Climate Change Policy Thread



## Aussiejeff (1 November 2007)

I can't find any threads that deal mainly with our current range of political party's climate change policies, so with the election nearing thought it might be a good idea to open one where discussion on aspects of climate change policies can be focussed..

Feel free to comment!


AJ


----------



## Aussiejeff (1 November 2007)

I found this little gem today on The Age website, with link ....

_"*AUSTRALIA is the ninth biggest contributor to increased global carbon emissions*, a new World Bank report has found.

The bank report shows that between 1994 and 2004, *Australia's annual emissions of carbon dioxide (the world's main greenhouse gas) increased by 107 million tonnes, or 38 per cent*. Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull declared yesterday that Australia was "leading the world on climate change"_.

I think Malcolm T's choice of words was unfortunate, given the context of the report. Technically though, it appears he was correct!   If we have increased our emissions by 38% in the past few years, it is going to take a leap of faith (and a whole lot of pain?) to get to the significant reductions proposed by both parties.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/feder...ly-on-emissions/2007/10/31/1193618975747.html



AJ


----------



## Aussiejeff (1 November 2007)

I noted in the previously linked report: 

_"Australia's emissions are high largely because it relies on heavily polluting coal for electricity; specialises in energy-intensive industries such as aluminium; *has a large car fleet with poor fuel efficiency*; and *lags behind Europe in energy efficiency standards for buildings* and appliances"_.

As far as I know, neither party offers any detail on specifically how those two highlighted significant points will be SUBSTANTIALLY dealt with by their respective policies.  

Regarding Australia's _"inefficient car fleet"_ - surely it wouldn't be hard in the "current climate of public opinion" for the new government to at least convert EVERY CAR, BUS AND TRUCK IN THEIR OWN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FLEET to LPG within 3 years, and also to promote some legislation or policy that would encourage ALL state governments to do the same? How about significantly increasing the rebate to fleet operators who purchase factory fitted LPG vehicles? It's time to get serious and provide some DETAIL on something like this.

Regarding _"inefficient building standards"_ - Around my own area covering the Cities of Wodonga and Albury (which are currently both booming regional centres) the design of many new houses considering the climate here is appalling IMO - many new homes built in the new estates have NO eaves and BLACK tile roofing - with the ubiquitous MASSIVE (sometimes multiple) air conditioners atop the said BLACK tiles to try and cool the designed hotbox below. Madness IMO. Whatever happened to "Australian" styled houses that sacrificed some inner space to have verandfahs all-round? They are few and far between these days.     

My two cents worth...

AJ


----------



## Mazrox (1 November 2007)

I'm no expert, but have a couple of observations:

1. My gut feeling is that we should be reducing our environmental footprint as much as we can, and I think most Aussies would agree. Good things can be done for marginal cost overall and over time, especially when compared to cleaning up the mess afterwards. (You'd think we would have learned by now that prevention is cheaper than cure!)

2. I heard Virginia Trioli say on the ABC this morning (while discussing the ALP's 20% sustainable energy target by 2020 with Maxine McKew) that accepted wisdom is that even if the target were in place, it would be physically impossible to meet it. I gotta say that I don't agree. We just have to decide to do it. Look what happened when the US decided to go to the moon. And from my limited reading/viewing, other places are progressing along this path quite nicely thank you (Germany springs to mind). Once again, because they decided it just has to happen.

3. I bought a little Honda Jazz 6 months ago, traded in my Commodore. I use less than half the petrol I used to - much less painful at the petrol pump. And I filled up yesterday about 8.30am - had a nice run from Kirrawee to Kogarah on the Princes Hwy, only one or two lights, avg speed 60kph - consumption 4.8l per 100km. Makes you wonder how much we could save if we drove a little slower and had less congestion. True greenies out there would rightly say public transport or a bike is better, but I'm afraid a bike is out of the question for me, and I'm addicted to my comfy car like many Aussies (and don't live close to a railway station).

I just think we could be doing a lot more, especially on the wind/wave/solar power front. We have smart people, we're a wealthy country, let's just do it! (And sell our technology overseas!  )

Maz


----------



## Rafa (1 November 2007)

I think your spot on there Mazrox...

JUST DO IT!!!


we have no 'real' technologicaly impediments... just preconeptions, prejudices and self interest holding us back...

Set the target and go for it... All you need is a strong, passionate leader... thats what Labor has with Garett


----------



## Julia (1 November 2007)

Rafa said:


> I think your spot on there Mazrox...
> 
> JUST DO IT!!!
> 
> ...



Rafa, Garrett may once have been outspoken and passionate.  Now he seems to mostly be stuffing up and then having to be corrected by his Leader.
He's one of the reasons I won't be voting Labor.  Just can't stand the bloke.


----------



## --B-- (1 November 2007)

Aussiejeff said:


> _The bank report shows that between 1994 and 2004, *Australia's annual emissions of carbon dioxide (the world's main greenhouse gas) increased by 107 million tonnes, or 38 per cent*. _




Excuse me? "The worlds main greenhouse gas"

What a load of tripe. This simply highlights the complete lack of fact and complete overblown hysteria surrounding the GW debate.

The amount of deception and misinformation being dished out is disgraceful.


----------



## --B-- (1 November 2007)

Rafa said:


> I think your spot on there Mazrox...
> 
> JUST DO IT!!!
> 
> ...




Rafa, do you think a balanced and reasoned approach is wise considering the impact these huge chances can have? There are a wide range of issues that are responsible government, and leader, should consider before 'just doing it".


----------



## Rafa (1 November 2007)

--B-- said:


> Rafa, do you think a balanced and reasoned approach is wise considering the impact these huge chances can have? There are a wide range of issues that are responsible government, and leader, should consider before 'just doing it".




the main impact is to the oil companies and those with vested interests...

as far as jobs go, yes, there will be job losses, but there will also be new jobs created... think of all the jobs that are not non existent thanks to progress... yet there are more people working than ever before... its no reason not to progress.

the thing is we already have the technology to go cleaner... its just that most of it is being held by becuase of vested interests...

PS: for the record, i think this CO2 / global warming issue is blown out of all proportion... i think pollution as a whole needs to be looked at, not just CO2... but CO2 is a good start.


----------



## Rafa (1 November 2007)

Julia said:


> Rafa, Garrett may once have been outspoken and passionate.  Now he seems to mostly be stuffing up and then having to be corrected by his Leader.
> He's one of the reasons I won't be voting Labor.  Just can't stand the bloke.




is it becuase he is not speaking out, or becuase he is speaking out...??? I'm confused...

u prefer macfarlane as environment minister then???


----------



## --B-- (1 November 2007)

Rafa said:


> the main impact is to the oil companies and those with vested interests...




oil is one issue and then there is coal. One of the primary issues being considered is the transition to 'green' energy. With green energy come increased cost of electricity etc etc. Clearly not everyone can afford increases in the electricity bills and so does the govt. have a safety net to assist these people?

Thats one basic example and highlights the many associated issues that must be considered when we talk about mass changes to living necessities such as electricity and fuel.



> as far as jobs go, yes, there will be job losses, but there will also be new jobs created... think of all the jobs that are not non existent thanks to progress... yet there are more people working than ever before... its no reason not to progress.




i completely agree.



> the thing is we already have the technology to go cleaner... its just that most of it is being held by becuase of vested interests...




no doubt any move away from current methods will hurt those industries and obviously they have vested interests however i disagree that this is the sole reason. I do agree for example that oil companies have long stood in the way of large scale transitions to motor vehicles using 'greener' energy.



> PS: for the record, i think this CO2 / global warming issue is blown out of all proportion... i think pollution as a whole needs to be looked at, not just CO2... but CO2 is a good start.




i completely agree the issue has been blown out of proportion and dont deny that the idea starting somewhere to reduce human caused pollution is a good idea. 

However as the science behind the "CO2 = evil" is far from settled and as the science that human emitted co2 is the main contributor to GW is inconclusive at best, im yet to be convinced co2 should be our main target.


----------



## Aussiejeff (1 November 2007)

--B-- said:


> However as the science behind the "CO2 = evil" is far from settled and as the science that human emitted co2 is the main contributor to GW is inconclusive at best, im yet to be convinced co2 should be our main target.




If CO2 was the only factor, I'd tend to agree with you. However, it just so happens that CO2 is pretty much a component or by-product within most forms of air pollution - it's present in the exhausts of vehicles, the smoke from bushfires, the chimneys of factories and powerstations etc, etc. Particulates, sulphur dioxide and methane are also part of the makeup in many forms of combustion. If you introduce technology "to reduce emissions of CO2", I think as a by-process you are probably going to lower many of the other noxious baddies as well. 

But I agree on one point. The big thrust should be to REDUCE ALL POLLUTION IN GENERAL, but to focus initially on ALL AIR POLLUTION, as the potential downside to our continuing existence (if air pollution levels continue to rise at the current alarming rates) appears to be a primary motivator for governments and industries to actually DO something? 

Maybe some of the CO2 campaigners ARE too fixated on "CO2" only, and need to embrace the more encompassing term of "Total Air Pollution". If the planet can start significantly reducing "Total Air Pollution" as opposed to arguing only for "levels of CO2 reduction", I'm sure the CO2 junkies will be pleasantly surprised by the associated inevitable fall in CO2 levels as a consequence of reducing "Total Air Pollution"..... 




AJ


----------



## chops_a_must (1 November 2007)

Aussiejeff said:


> I found this little gem today on The Age website, with link ....
> 
> _"*AUSTRALIA is the ninth biggest contributor to increased global carbon emissions*, a new World Bank report has found.
> 
> The bank report shows that between 1994 and 2004, *Australia's annual emissions of carbon dioxide (the world's main greenhouse gas) increased by 107 million tonnes, or 38 per cent*. Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull declared yesterday that Australia was "leading the world on climate change"_.




Just before we get onto discussions about Manbearpig, I'd just like to point out another blatant lie from Howard on the matter.

Frequently we are being told that China has not ratified, or is not a signatory to Kyoto: "The reason I won't ratify the Kyoto treaty is: the existing Kyoto treaty doesn't cover countries like China, and we could be at a competitive disadvantage," as we are constantly told by Howard.

The fact of the matter is China *HAS* ratified the Kyoto protocol. And any 16 year old with any research skills can see that they did so on the 30th of August 2002. 

So, in order to have a proper debate on the issue, Howard firstly has to stop sprouting this deliberate mistruth and lie before we begin. Geez, I wonder how many times honest John has pulled this tactic.


Back to the issue. The fact that Australia has a small population to land mass and is an island nation, helps it when it comes to working out emissions targets in the international arena. I just don't believe that the cuts to emissions are going to have the drastic implications for the economy that conservative politicians are leading us to believe. And the fact of the matter is, if everyone signs up to the Kyoto protocal, and subsequent charters, it's going to be a level playing field anyway.

But there is a fundamental problem when it comes to Australia and greenhouse emissions. The urban design in this country is disastrous for the environment, and a lot of remedial work needs to be done in this area if we are actually going to reduce emissions. And that's where I'd like to see a lot more policy devoted.

I just can't take the coalition seriously when it comes to climate change.


----------



## Julia (1 November 2007)

Rafa said:


> is it becuase he is not speaking out, or becuase he is speaking out...??? I'm confused...
> 
> u prefer macfarlane as environment minister then???




I was referring to something he said (don't even know what it was) a couple of days ago which the media referred to as "Garrett's blunder".  It precipitated Mr Rudd issuing some overriding statement.  This is not the first time this has happened.

What I'm suggesting is that - rather than being an influencing force within the Labor Party - he has been told to toe the party line and thus has had to modify a good deal of what he may have stood for in the past.  Kevin Rudd's political antennae are too finely tuned for him to approve any radical approach to dealing with real or imagined climate change.  He will continue to consider the effects on business and the economy in general, and rightly so.

Mr MacFarlane?  I'm sorry to say he hasn't even registered with me.


----------



## --B-- (1 November 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Just before we get onto discussions about Manbearpig, I'd just like to point out another blatant lie from Howard on the matter.
> 
> Frequently we are being told that China has not ratified, or is not a signatory to Kyoto: "The reason I won't ratify the Kyoto treaty is: the existing Kyoto treaty doesn't cover countries like China, and we could be at a competitive disadvantage," as we are constantly told by Howard.
> 
> ...




ratifying it and being subject to its restrictions/obligations can be two different things chops. Correct me if im wrong but i believe China may have ratified Kyoto but still arent subject to the same restrictions/obligations as it is a 'developing nation'...



> Back to the issue. The fact that Australia has a small population to land mass and is an island nation, helps it when it comes to working out emissions targets in the international arena. I just don't believe that the cuts to emissions are going to have the drastic implications for the economy that conservative politicians are leading us to believe. And the fact of the matter is, if everyone signs up to the Kyoto protocal, and subsequent charters, it's going to be a level playing field anyway.




'everyone' being the key word. Until Kyoto covers the likes of China and India its pointless.

What is needed is a completely new internation agreement that covers everyone. Kyoto is old and outdated and many European nations who jumped in amidst the hype (as Labor no doubt would have - hell they want to sign up now!!) are trying to abandon it.

here is an article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/oct/23/renewableenergy.energy




> But there is a fundamental problem when it comes to Australia and greenhouse emissions. The urban design in this country is disastrous for the environment, and a lot of remedial work needs to be done in this area if we are actually going to reduce emissions. And that's where I'd like to see a lot more policy devoted.




i agree with you here.



> I just can't take the coalition seriously when it comes to climate change.




a balanced and reasoned approach is far better than a "gun-ho we'll sign kyoto" approach proposed by Labor. As i stated above many nations have now abandoned Kyoto and to advocate its signing is living in the past and hardly forward thinking...


----------



## --B-- (1 November 2007)

Julia said:


> I was referring to something he said (don't even know what it was) a couple of days ago which the media referred to as "Garrett's blunder".  It precipitated Mr Rudd issuing some overriding statement.  This is not the first time this has happened.




it was dopey Garrett saying we'd sign an international agreement that didnt include Chine and India. 

Rudd quickly put a stop to it.knowing full well it was a ridiculous suggestion for the very reason Howard has alweays claimed.

Here:



> Mr Garrett started the day by committing a Labor government to signing a new global agreement on greenhouse gas emissions targets that might not include developing nations, such as China and India.
> Last night, Mr Garrett issued a statement, reversing his position.




http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22670481-601,00.html


----------



## chops_a_must (1 November 2007)

--B-- said:


> ratifying it and being subject to its restrictions/obligations can be two different things chops. Correct me if im wrong but i believe China may have ratified Kyoto but still arent subject to the same restrictions/obligations as it is a 'developing nation'...



To argue that China isn't a developing nation, or hasn't been in recent times a third world nation, is simply preposterous.



--B-- said:


> 'everyone' being the key word. Until Kyoto covers the likes of China and India its pointless.



As illustrated above, it DOES cover the likes of China and India. What more proof do you want that the Kyoto protocol does cover China and India?



--B-- said:


> What is needed is a completely new internation agreement that covers everyone. Kyoto is old and outdated and many European nations who jumped in amidst the hype (as Labor no doubt would have - hell they want to sign up now!!) are trying to abandon it.
> 
> here is an article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/oct/23/renewableenergy.energy




Yes, and unless you have ratified Kyoto, you have absolutely no right, nor should you, to have any say in debates on future environmental protocols. We will be left with a like it or lump it declaration to sign, with no ability to make changes for our own benefit.

As to the UK not meeting its targets, in large part that is due to the lateness of which it agreed to these targets. We aren't in the same position here as in the UK. We don't have a large nuclear industry needing replacement in the next 10 years, and we have a decent platform for renewable energy. It's a false analogy to compare the two.

And it can't be all bad. Apparently we are going to meet our targets anyway.


----------



## --B-- (1 November 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> To argue that China isn't a developing nation, or hasn't been in recent times a third world nation, is simply preposterous.




is anyone arguing China isnt a developing nation?

Howard rightly says that we will be at an economic disadvantage if the worlds biggest emitters are not bound to the agreement. 



> As illustrated above, it DOES cover the likes of China and India. What more proof do you want that the Kyoto protocol does cover China and India?




what? where was this illustrated chops?

China and India are not subject to the limitations that other nations who have signed Kyoto are. do you dispute this?



> Yes, and unless you have ratified Kyoto, you have absolutely no right, nor should you, to have any say in debates on future environmental protocols. We will be left with a like it or lump it declaration to sign, with no ability to make changes for our own benefits.




now that is a ridiculous statement. unless you sign an agreement that you disagree with you cant sign any other agreements? hmmmm...



> As to the UK not meeting its targets, in large part that is due to the lateness of which it agreed to these targets. We aren't in the same position here as in the UK. We don't have a large nuclear industry needing replacement in the next 10 years, and we have a decent platform for renewable energy. It's a false analogy to compare the two.




im not comparing us to the UK, merely showing examples of countries who wish they'd never signed in the first place. many other nations are now wishing the had never signed also.


----------



## chops_a_must (1 November 2007)

--B-- said:


> is anyone arguing China isnt a developing nation?



Yes, you are wishing China to be dealt within which parameters it does not meet. If it is a developing country, it has to be dealt with as such. It is simply unfair to say that 1/6th of the world's population isn't entitled to 1/6th of the world's greenhouse emissions.



--B-- said:


> what? where was this illustrated chops?



In my first post in this thread.



--B-- said:


> China and India are not subject to the limitations that other nations who have signed Kyoto are. do you dispute this?



Yes, indeed I do.

They are limited under the protocol as they have signed it. You are never going to have an agreement that stops people in developing countries from being allowed access to a better standard of living. That's an absurd notion and an absurd proposition to place on impoverished people.

But here is some easy reading for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories#Signed_and_ratified

China and India are both there. Signed and ratified.




--B-- said:


> now that is a ridiculous statement. unless you sign an agreement that you disagree with you cant sign any other agreements? hmmmm...



Don't misquote me.

You can still sign, you just have no access to debate on that which you may be signing.



--B-- said:


> im not comparing us to the UK, merely showing examples of countries who wish they'd never signed in the first place. many other nations are now wishing the had never signed also.



What? One example?


----------



## stoxclimber (1 November 2007)

Chops, I will endeavour to be polite, but your patronising tone to other posters given your level of ignorance of the Kyoto Protocol, when you are espousing its greatness, is seriously amazing. There are *no binding targets* on China or India as a result of the Kyoto Protocol. In fact, when the Protocol was made, China and India REFUSED to be included in making binding targets. That is the point John Howard is making, which is very evident in the quote which you mentioned previously. He has never said that China or India has failed to ratify the treaty, he said that they are not limited by the treaty.

I'm probably the 4th or 5th person to try and point this out to you in this very thread. 



chops_a_must said:


> They are limited under the protocol as they have signed it.




That's simply not true. 



> But here is some easy reading for you:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories#Signed_and_ratified
> 
> China and India are both there. Signed and ratified.




Signing and ratifying, when you are not limited by the text of the document signed and ratified, does not magically introduce limitations into your domestic law. 

I find it amazing you can use the patronising term "easy reading" when you are completely off base.


----------



## --B-- (1 November 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Yes, indeed I do.
> 
> They are limited under the protocol as they have signed it. You are never going to have an agreement that stops people in developing countries from being allowed access to a better standard of living. That's an absurd notion and an absurd proposition to place on impoverished people.
> 
> ...




China and Indoa have ratified Kyoto but are not bound by its limitations:


> ...China, India, and other developing countries were not included in any numerical limitation of the Kyoto Protocol because they were not the main contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions during the industrialization period that is believed to be causing today's climate change.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

i dont disagree that developing nations shouldnt be allowed access to cheap energy however a more adequate international agreement would consider this and would include all of the worlds largest emitters. 



> Don't misquote me.
> 
> You can still sign, you just have no access to debate on that which you may be signing.




my apologies, it seemed your initial comment was so absurd i couldnt quite understand. 

So youre saying: if you dont sign an agreement you disagree with, you cant enter debate on any potential new agreements? hmmm...



> What? One example?




Many of the nations who signed Kyoto are no chance of meeting thie targets (incl. Canada, NZ, and Japan).. They no doubt wish they had signed a more achievable agreement. Do you think the NZ public like to pay for credits to offset their cow's flatulence?


----------



## --B-- (1 November 2007)

stoxclimber said:


> but your patronising tone to other posters given your level of ignorance of the Kyoto Protoco
> 
> I find it amazing you can use the patronising term "easy reading" when you are completely off base.




thanks for the support stoxclimber.. i was beginning to think i was the only one who could understand it....


----------



## chops_a_must (1 November 2007)

stoxclimber said:


> Chops, I will endeavour to be polite, but your patronising tone to other posters given your level of ignorance of the Kyoto Protocol, when you are espousing its greatness, is seriously amazing. There are *no binding targets* on China or India as a result of the Kyoto Protocol. In fact, when the Protocol was made, China and India REFUSED to be included in making binding targets. That is the point John Howard is making, which is very evident in the quote which you mentioned previously. He has never said that China or India has failed to ratify the treaty, he said that they are not limited by the treaty.
> 
> I'm probably the 4th or 5th person to try and point this out to you in this very thread.



That's because they are classed as developing countries. I just can't see the argument where we should be dealt with in the same class as India or China.

In any case, China is likely to have a larger percentage of total electricity capacity coming from renewable sources, than most developed countries, within the next few years. Even more than in Australia. So that argument is silly anyway.

I've never promoted Kyoto as a panacea, but it is a start, and that is the whole point. If we keep arguing that China should do this, and China should do that... well... they are going to be smashing us at the things we are nagging them for anyway.


stoxclimber said:


> That's simply not true.
> 
> Signing and ratifying, when you are not limited by the text of the document signed and ratified, does not magically introduce limitations into your domestic law.
> 
> I find it amazing you can use the patronising term "easy reading" when you are completely off base.



It's apodeictically true. If you sign an agreement that says you are not limited, then you are still limited by those non-limitations within the agreement.


----------



## wildkactus (1 November 2007)

In my opinion it has to be everyone or no one in an agreement for it to work.
The like's of china and india from what i can see (I Live and work Here) are taking up the idea of renewable energy and energy saving practices for the reasons it save's money in the long run (just good business).
Yes cheap power production is need for developing countries but most of these are having to develop a renewable energy sector as well due to limited supply and building capacity of the current cheap methods. The countries that are going to lead the world on renewable energy, are the one's that everyone is protesting over, China, india, russia. So i think it is time for the rest of the world to get together with these countries and forge out a new protocol, and a way forward, or if it happens in the west we talk and it will take way to long for things to get done.


----------



## stoxclimber (1 November 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> It's apodeictically true. If you sign an agreement that says you are not limited, then you are still limited by those non-limitations within the agreement.




WOW! With spin like that, you should be a politician!!


----------



## Aussiejeff (8 November 2007)

Hmmmm.... more not-so-good news regarding the deteriorating health of our beloved patient Earth. 

_"Nov. 7 (Bloomberg) -- *Global temperatures may rise at least 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit), increasing the risk of mass flooding and disease, because emissions won't be subdued before 2020, the International Energy Agency said.* 

Carbon dioxide output from fuel combustion could peak around 2025, with China probably overtaking the U.S. this year as the world's biggest emitter, the IEA said in its World Energy Outlook 2007 report. That assumes lawmakers adopt new, costly laws to curb greenhouse gases, embrace wind farms and nuclear reactors, and require household appliances to be more efficient. 

*Keeping temperature gains to less than 3 degrees Celsius, or at a carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere of about 450 parts per million, would need ``exceptionally vigorous policy action,'' the IEA report said. ``A later peak and less-sharp reductions in emissions would lead to higher concentrations and bigger increases in temperature.''* "_


----------



## Aussiejeff (9 November 2007)

Courtesy of AAP, this news gem today from our PM is most re-assuring....

-------------------------

_THE world isn't about to come to an end because of climate change, Prime Minister John Howard says_.

"*I think climate change is important. I don't think it is as important in this election as economic management,*" Mr Howard said on Southern Cross radio today. 

"*I think a strong economy is central to everything. I don't think the world is about to come to an end because of climate change*. I think we have to have a balanced approach." 

The Prime Minister was responding to a caller who questioned his priorities. 

"I don't know how you can say that economic management is far and away the single most important issue in this election when the issue of climate change threatens the survival of humanity right across the planet," said the caller, identified as Steve. 

"I have a daughter. I am worried sick about climate change," Steve said. 

The Prime Minister had said earlier in the interview: "There's only one big issue in this election campaign that dwarfs everything else and that's economic management." 

Mr Howard said greenhouse gas emissions had to be reduced and that could be achieved by using more clean energy, setting up an emissions trading system and seeking a new international agreement which included all the major emitters. 

--------------------------


So, is John Howard REALLY serious about climate change, or is it all just an election trick? I wish Rudd007 would also get dinkum with his policies. What a choice.

AJ


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 November 2007)

The day the Kyoto Protocol was ratified by the required number of countries to bring it into effect, the coal industry announced expansion plans.

Kyoto is worse than ineffective.

But if you want to do something then it's not that hard. Cut your consumption. 

Renovation, for example, is a truly shocking polluter. So try and get another decade out of that kitchen unless it really is falling apart. And even then try repair over replacement. And yes I'm being serious. Environmentally, it's just not on to be replacing kitchens and bathrooms every decade or two just because their owners want something that "looks modern".

Likewise your 2 y.o. mobile phone should still be working fine - so you _don't_ need a new one. Nor do you need to replace your 5 year old carpets or your 5 year old TV. You may want to, but you don't need to. 

But most would rather have the fancy new this, that or something else and pay no more than lip service to the environment when it comes to the crunch. Look at any Australian city from the air and something really stands out - if Aussies are as concerned about climate change as they claim then WHERE are the solar hot water heaters? And WHY are there so many big cars on the road? And for that matter, why are their houses so big and so shockingly inefficient in their design?

IMO the average Aussie doesn't really give a damn about climate change when it comes down to actually doing something about it. They say they do, but the "reno" or gas guzzler wins out over the environment nearly every time.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 November 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> China is likely to have a larger percentage of total electricity capacity coming from renewable sources, than most developed countries, within the next few years. Even more than in Australia. So that argument is silly anyway.



Actions speak louder than words. 

Having built one wind farm each in Tas and SA, Roaring 40's is now in the process of building six of them in China and has also opened an office in India as the only real way to grow the business.


----------



## Aussiejeff (17 October 2008)

Yikes! Many thought the Rudd targets were high!

*"BRITAIN will introduce a legally binding pledge to cut carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, the minister for the newly created Department for Energy and Climate Change said today*.

This announcement might stir up the debate again.... 41 years now left to reach that target. What effect would THAT target have on the UK (and presumably, the rest of Europe's) economies, given that they are sliding into a prolonged recession ATM?

Full article - http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24509645-5005961,00.html


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 October 2008)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/30/2406150.htm


> Govt 'still considering options' for emissions trading targets
> Posted 1 hour 23 minutes ago
> Updated 48 minutes ago
> 
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/30/2405888.htm?section=justin


> Opposition says emissions trading modelling flawed
> By Online parliamentary correspondent Emma Rodgers
> 
> Posted 6 hours 12 minutes ago
> ...




That's it .. the Opposition are a pack of insincere eggheads.  (imho)


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 October 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/30/2406150.htm
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/30/2405888.htm?section=justin
> ...



Let's see the detail in the report. That's necessary before anyone can make a proper assessment. 

That said, I'll go out on a limb and speculate that it is presumably flawed in that it presumably is based on the notion that natural gas remains around current prices in real terms. 

Given recent and projected trends in the gas industry, that seems incredibly unlikely. I personally doubt very much that gas will be viable for baseload power generation beyond the next 20 or so years unless there's a sudden outbreak of peace and global co-operation involving Russia and Iran in particular. 

I'd give the model some credit if it factors in an almost complete transition away from oil as an energy source over the next 40 years. That plus a revaluation of gas as a transport fuel (ie priced comparable to petrol) rather than the boiler fuel it's viewed as now. Those two things are pretty foreseeable events unless gas hydrates are commercialised, something that's been "just around the corner" for decades with little success so far. 

For those not aware, we're in the midst of a gas boom in Australia at the moment. This involves development of essentially ALL known reserves (with the odd exception) and committment of those reserves to near term domestic use or exports. That means that within literally a few years, there isn't any more (apart from new discoveries) to commit to any other use - but we've got the entire transport fleet that will be needing the stuff, something nobody's factoring in. Switching from coal to gas for power just isn't going to work, at least not at anything near current prices, in this environment.

As I said I'm only speculating, but I'd be surprised if there isn't a gas-fired flaw in the report. Treasury aren't exactly known for getting things right where oil and gas is concerned (take a look at a few old predictions of the oil price - consistently wrong). 

Let's have the detail publicly released then we'll all know.


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 October 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> Yikes! Many thought the Rudd targets were high!
> 
> *"BRITAIN will introduce a legally binding pledge to cut carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, the minister for the newly created Department for Energy and Climate Change said today*.
> 
> ...



Don't forget that Britain experienced peak coal 90 years ago and has since experienced peak oil and peak gas. It's not hard to cut emissions when you've got nothing left to burn.


----------



## Julia (30 October 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/30/2406150.htm
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/30/2405888.htm?section=justin
> ...



Really?   Why?  Isn't it relevant that they are questioning aspects of the modelling, particularly including the non-inclusion of the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression?

Sometimes, 2020, I have this great fantasy.  In it, you actually develop the capacity for just a tiny measure of objectivity!


----------



## chops_a_must (30 October 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Don't forget that Britain experienced peak coal 90 years ago and has since experienced peak oil and peak gas. It's not hard to cut emissions when you've got nothing left to burn.




Given they are an island anyway, they have no choice.

Given Europe relies on Russia, they have no choice.

It doesn't leave them much room to move anyway.

A lot of this is kind of irrelevant now.

We are likely to see a massive reduction in emissions whether we like it or not.

The important thing is to set us up for the next cycle, especially with energy self sufficiency and base load infrastructure.


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 October 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> A lot of this is kind of irrelevant now.
> 
> We are likely to see a massive reduction in emissions whether we like it or not.
> 
> The important thing is to set us up for the next cycle, especially with energy self sufficiency and base load infrastructure.



Can't argue with any of that.

In my opinion we'll burn all we can as long as we can. Trouble is, that's not anywhere near as long as most seem to be expecting - the main reason I'm not as concerned as some about climate change. 

For conventional oil and gas (including tar sands and natural bitumen) I think it's pretty much set in stone now. We'll burn the lot as fast as we can get it out of the ground. We'll push the peak as high and as fast as we can and to hell with the future. That's certainly where we've been headed since the mid-1980's and there's no sign of a change in direction yet.

It's coal, gas hydrades and oil shale that are the big question as to future emissions in my view.


----------



## Aussiejeff (31 October 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Can't argue with any of that.
> 
> In my opinion we'll burn all we can as long as we can. Trouble is, that's not anywhere near as long as most seem to be expecting - the main reason I'm not as concerned as some about climate change.
> 
> ...




Or maybe more worryingly of late, METHANE:

-------------

*Global methane levels on the rise again*

30 October 2008

After eight years of near-zero growth in atmospheric methane concentrations, levels have again started to rise.

“This is not good news for future global warming,” says CSIRO’s Dr Paul Fraser, who co-authored a paper to be published in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.

“Over recent years, the growth of important greenhouse gases, namely methane and the CFCs, had slowed. This tended to offset the increasing growth rate of carbon dioxide that results mainly from large increases in the consumption of fossil fuels, particularly in the developing world.

“Now that methane levels have resumed their growth, global warming may accelerate.”

Methane is the second most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere after carbon dioxide, accounting for nearly 20 per cent of global warming since the industrial revolution.

Methane is emitted to the atmosphere from natural wetlands, rice fields, cattle, forest and grassland fires, coal mines, natural gas leakage and use, and other sources.

“Over the past decade these methane sources have been close to balancing the absorption of methane through atmospheric oxidation and into dry soil,” Dr Fraser says.

“This fragile balance has resulted in little growth of methane in the atmosphere. Apparently some sources have been increasing, such as from fossil fuel use, cattle, and rice, while others have been decreasing, particularly natural tropical wetlands. However, over the past year, the total sources have overwhelmed the total sinks, and methane has again started to rise.”

“Over the past decade these methane sources have been close to balancing the absorption of methane through atmospheric oxidation and into dry soil,” Dr Fraser says.

Dr Fraser says that recent analyses of global data by CSIRO and collaborators at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Scripps Institution of Oceanography and the University of Bristol suggest that the methane increase is, at least in part, due to methane releases in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere.

“Such increases have been predicted as rapid Arctic ice melting creates more high latitude wetland sources,”  says Dr Fraser.

“A possible additional cause of the methane increase is that atmospheric oxidation may be weakening, for reasons as yet unknown, although recovery from ozone depletion, which is predicted to have commenced, may be involved.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified the need to understand causes of the variations of methane growth rates as a priority area of research. “The reality is that scientists have only a very basic understanding of these methane variations,” Dr Fraser says.

“In order to predict the future contribution of methane to climate change, continuing high-quality observations, in particular in tropical and boreal locations, are required as input to, and verification of, sophisticated climate model.”

--------------------


----------



## Aussiejeff (31 October 2008)

It seems a significant number of climatologists are now of the opinion that the increasingly rapid thawing of the Greenland permafrost is beginning to contribute a faster rise in methane concentrations.

The problem with that scenario from what I can see is that there doesn't seem to be ANY possible scientific solution to it in the short term, or for the subsequent probable disastrous effects (more rapidly rising global sea levels and considerably faster northern hemisphere warming than recently predicted).

So, CO2 the big bogey? Maybe CH4 is going to be re-grabbing the headlines. 


aj


----------



## Aussiejeff (31 October 2008)

As for the GuvMint's super-duper ETS paper - releasing it without taking into account the World Financial Crisis or the Imminent (some may say Current) World Recession and the effects those two massive factors may have on the willingness of companies or economies to participate in an ETS is sheer folly IMO.

IMO this ETS paper is at most merely a token gesture at predicting the "cost" of such a scheme.


aj


----------



## treefrog (31 October 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> It seems a significant number of climatologists are now of the opinion that the increasingly rapid thawing of the Greenland permafrost is beginning to contribute a faster rise in methane concentrations.
> 
> The problem with that scenario from what I can see is that there doesn't seem to be ANY possible scientific solution to it in the short term, or for the subsequent probable disastrous effects (more rapidly rising global sea levels and considerably faster northern hemisphere warming than recently predicted).
> 
> ...




ah crap, back to remodelling the treasury modelling:
just have to drain all those wetlands and marshes to stop the methane production - I feel sure we could claim massive greenhouse credits if we play this right: we have already drained the murray/darling system


----------



## Aussiejeff (31 October 2008)

treefrog said:


> ah crap, back to remodelling the treasury modelling:
> just have to drain all those wetlands and marshes to stop the methane production - *I feel sure we could claim massive greenhouse credits if we play this right: we have already drained the murray/darling system*




_Brilliant!_

It should be easy to rig up some Super-Sized windmill thingys to blow all our hot air across to Greenland and WALLAH! - problem solvered....!! 

Geez. These climatologists should get a real job.


----------



## SophieSweet (12 November 2008)

What if climate change was due to changes in the solar system and not by man and we were being conned?? Check it out this information from NASA describing how the earths magnetic fields are changing, yes icecaps are melting, but where is the water going?? The earth has changed from an egg shape to a pumpkin, according to NASA. And are there other changes on other planets??

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020801gravityfield.html 

We all know that the Earth is experiencing global warming and other changes

What we may NOT know is the following:

SUN: The Sun’s magnetic field is over 230 percent stronger now than it was at the beginning of the 1900s, and its overall energetic activity has sizably increased, creating a frenzy of activity that continues to embarrass NASA’s official predictions.

VENUS: Venus is now glowing in the dark, as is Jupiter’s moon Io.

EARTH: In the last 30 years, Earth’s icecaps have thinned out by as much as 40 percent. Quite inexplicably, just since 1997 the structure of the Earth has shifted from being slightly more egg-shaped, or elongated at the poles, to more pumpkin-shaped, or flattened at the poles. No one at NASA has even bothered to try to explain this yet.

MARS: The icecaps of Mars noticeably melted just within one year, causing 50-percent changes in surface features. Atmospheric density had risen by 200 percent above previous observations as of 1997.

JUPITER: Jupiter has become so highly energized that it is now surrounded by a visibly glowing donut tube of energy in the path of the moon Io. The size of Jupiter’s magnetic field has more than doubled since 1992.

SATURN: Saturn’s polar regions have been noticeably brightening, and its magnetic field strength increasing.

URANUS: According to NASA’s Voyager II space probe, Uranus and Neptune both appear to have had recent magnetic pole shifts – 60 degrees for Uranus and 50 for Neptune.

NEPTUNE: Neptune has become 40 percent brighter in infrared since 1996, and is fully 100-percent brighter in certain areas. Also, Neptune’s moon Triton has had a “very large percentage increase” in atmospheric pressure and temperature, comparable to a 22-degree Fahrenheit increase on Earth.

PLUTO: As of September 2002, Pluto has experienced a 300-percent increase in its atmospheric pressure in the last 14 years, while also becoming noticeably darker in color.

So before going along with the government and the cult of global warming, consider the above points. And if the government, like the NSW government, which claims to be all unanimously behind the same CO2 theory, according to Reese, then why are they talking of building power stations for coal?? Its a shame Solar Heat and Power-http://solarheatpower.veritel.com.au/mainmenu.html relocated to California. Why bother with expensive technologies to then treat the CO2 and can they do it safely, when you could do it by solar?? Rudd saved my penalty rates, but where is he going with this climate change thing?? My thoughts!!


----------



## wildkactus (12 November 2008)

you could be right on this, I just don't know,

But what I now think is that this "Climate Change" problem / thingy has become such a big money spinner for both sides public and private that no one whats it to stop.

That said what I do know and trust is what I see and that is that man has well and truly done his bit to stuff up our environment, land fills, tree clearing, over population (in some places, under in others), water wastage, ineffective recycling and rubbish handling, over use or wrong use of natural resoucres, the list goes on. 
So for me its not now about is it going to get hotter, but what can i do to reduce my ecological footprint on this planet, and I think that if everyone acted this way there would no longer be a "Climate Change" problem, and we would live in a clean healthy environment.

Dreaming I know but I will continue to do my bit and see what happens.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 November 2008)

The biggest single exporter in Tasmania, accounting for about one sixth of the state's total overseas exports, is set to close as a direct consequence of the Rudd government's emissions trading scheme.

And it will be replaced by production in countries not subject to such a scheme, thus delivering no benefit to the environment whatsoever. Precisely the situation which I and many others have warned of for years.

Economically a disaster. Socially a disaster - there would hardly be a person in Hobart who hasn't either worked there at some point or knows someone who has. 

The ulitmate irony being that the construction of this plant launched the large scale renewable energy industry in Tasmania. What was then the Hydro-Electric Power and Metallurgical Company and is now Nyrstar (previously Zinifex) and the Hydro-Electric Corporation (Hydro Tasmania) commenced construction almost a century ago. It should never have come to this...

Oh the irony that building hydro dams was supposedly destroying the environment. And now we have industry set to close in the name of protecting the environment solely because a previous federal Labor government blocked the building of more dams. What an outright mess up that's set to wreck the local economy.

Meanwhile Japan, the very birth place of the Kyoto Protocol, has it's own emissions soaring. That would be the same Japan that already buys lots of raw materials from Australia and processes them at a profit. They and many others certainly don't seem to be sacrificing their industry to cut emissions. Perhaps they'll soon have a zinc smelter too. 

Bottom line is we've been shafted big time on this one...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/12/2418002.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/12/2418014.htm?section=justin


----------



## Julia (12 November 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> T
> Bottom line is we've been shafted big time on this one...
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/12/2418002.htm
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/12/2418014.htm?section=justin



So right, Smurf, and how!  And we haven't even really started on this yet.


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 November 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> ... The problem with that scenario from what I can see is that there doesn't seem to be ANY possible scientific solution to it in the short term, ...




Flannery had a short term solution 
Of course it was mocked at the time by those who mock anything that is beyond them 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=294922


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 November 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> I can't find any threads that deal mainly with our current range of political party's climate change policies, ...



AJ , as Penny Wong said in parliament yesterday, the coalition opposition have yet to come up with a coherent statement / policy on where they stand with the issue, and any statement that they are taking it seriously.

PS The other quick reaction to this (if not quick fix) would be to go nuclear (and neither party is going there). Personally I'm totally confident that we will have to go there in 50 or may 80 years - but seems we're (mankind's) gonna have to wait till these dire predictions come true before we are prepared take any serious action 

As I heard once, the effects of global warming will make Chernyobel look like a walk in the park.  As for that previous "quick fix" of an artificial volcano,  I agree it's bludy drastic - but as Flannery says, it may be necessary if we don;t start acting - and  it's a case of one disaster to prevent a far bigger disaster.  

PS Interesting that a dust storm took out the Mars Phoenix - sun's rays too weak to charge its batteries etc.  - so likewise solar power on earth will be vulnerable to volvanic dust etc.  

Correction - I believe the radio mentioned dust storm on Mars  - but this article only mentions cloud - still, it's the same outcome  



> Because of increased cloud cover and the approach of winter, the solar powered batteries on board the Phoenix Lander cannot recharge.



http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/11/2417030.htm


----------



## spooly74 (13 November 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Bottom line is we've been shafted big time on this one...
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/12/2418002.htm
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/12/2418014.htm?section=justin




Absolut disgrace smurf, and agree with Julia's sentiments ...This is only the beginning.



2020hindsight said:


> Flannery had a short term solution
> Of course it was mocked at the time by those who mock anything that is beyond them
> 
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=294922



LMAO .. Flannery's idea to pump sulphur into the atmosphere was a new level of stupidity. He actually conceeded that the consequences of doing that were unknown ... and it was his idea ffs.


----------



## Aussiejeff (13 November 2008)

Then of course, throw this into the mix.... but stand back - the fumes are toxic!

----------------------

*Energy agency warns of supply crunch*

By AP's JANE WARDELL – 7 hours ago

LONDON (AP) ”” The International Energy Agency on Wednesday called for massive investment in producing more oil to prevent a supply squeeze in coming years, saying energy demand will rise 1.6 percent a year on average between 2006 and 2030.

The IEA's base scenario for energy demand has fallen due to the global economic slowdown and higher oil prices, but the agency stressed that a delay in spending on new projects due to the credit crisis could lead to a "supply crunch that could choke economic recovery."

But project delays ”” and cancellations in some cases ”” is precisely what's happening as producers and refiners, large and small, adjust to oil prices that have fallen more than 60 percent since peaking above $147 in July.

Many companies have slashed their capital spending budgets for at least the coming year. Just last week, ConocoPhillips and the state-run Saudi Arabian Oil Co. said they've postponed construction of a multibillion-dollar refinery in Saudi Arabia because of the uncertain economy.

The IEA expects demand for oil to rise from 85 million barrels per day currently to 106 million barrels per day in 2030 ”” 10 million barrels per day less than projected last year.

China and India continue to be the main drivers, accounting for more than half of incremental energy demand to 2030, but the Middle East, a longtime supplier, also emerges as a major new demand center.

The agency said that these trends call for energy supply investment of $26.3 trillion to 2030, or more than $1 trillion a year, but it noted that tight credit conditions could delay spending.

----------------------

Full article here: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h4ZGTUrYhzzLOhFASpNhny3b_mmgD94DFF300


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 November 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> ... energy demand has fallen due to the global economic slowdown and higher oil prices,
> 
> ...   The IEA expects demand for oil to rise from 85 million barrels per day currently to 106 million barrels per day in 2030 ”” 10 million barrels per day less than projected last year ...



So the recession might save us yes? 

"God works in stange ways", as the saying goes.  



			
				spooly said:
			
		

> LMAO .. Flannery's idea to pump sulphur into the atmosphere was a new level of stupidity. He actually conceeded that the consequences of doing that were unknown ... and it was his idea ffs.



laugh if you wish m8, 
some questions:-
a) do you agree that the global temp is increasing?
b) if so do you think it will reach 2deg higher by 2100?   
c) 4 deg ?
d) 6 deg ?
e) What's your first impression of this graph ? ... (prepared true before the economic downturn) 

PS It's a complete copout to say you don;t trust modelling at all.  So far they have been spot on.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 November 2008)

Julia said:


> So right, Smurf, and how!  And we haven't even really started on this yet.



This alone is a $2 billion loss of exports for Australia according to ABC news. That's rather significant I'd have thought. Heaven only knows what happens if TEMCO, Norske Skog, the NW mills and the aluminium plant end up going the same way. That lot account for about half the state's entire overseas exports and an awful lot of employment and flow-on benefits to suppliers, contractors etc.

This is ridiculous. These industries were set up amidst the World Wars in order to ensure Australia was self-sufficient in key industrial materials production. That was to the point of direct Commonwealth and State government investment to get things up and running before private enterprise took over. And they were built in Tasmania specifically because of the state's hydro-electric resources. 

And now we're just going to blow it and hand the lot to some foreign country which won't give a damn how much pollution they create? Outright madness.

I haven't heard much other news today. Papers, radio etc all the same - Nyrstar plant could close. If there's one bit of good news it's that the state government (Labor) is now publicly attacking Rudd's scheme as flawed etc and pointing out Rudd's failure to deliver on practical means of actually reducing emissions.


----------



## spooly74 (2 April 2009)

Good grief . .  A new amendment has just been passed in the U.S. that eliminates cap and trade as an effective means of reducing CO2 emissions. 
WTF is going on?



> The ability of Congressional legislation on cap and trade to result in actual emissions reductions was dealt a serious blow yesterday. An Amendment was introduced by Senator John Thune (R-SD) on the Budget Resolution and its text is as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Conza88 (3 April 2009)

I'm jumping in on this thread late. Anyway:

Climate Change Policy?

- The climate has always and will always be changing.

If you mean "Global Warming", or better yet "Man Made Global warming" why didn't you say so? 

In essence - it doesn't actually matter if there is global warming or not.

The solution?

Full private property rights, which have been neglected since the Industrial Revolution.

If pollution is bad, why tax it? That only legitimizes it. If it is wrong or immoral it should be stopped.

Essentially, you don't have the right to damage any other persons property. If you live next to a coal mine, and the soot lands on your clothes, which you have hung out. The coal company should be able to be sued for compensation.

At the moment - it is; tough luck.

Enlightening video below. Free market environmentalism. The solution you have never been presented with, never in the media, never in school, no-where else. Find out why. 


*Part 2*​


----------



## --B-- (3 April 2009)

spooly74 said:


> Good grief . .  A new amendment has just been passed in the U.S. that eliminates cap and trade as an effective means of reducing CO2 emissions.
> WTF is going on?




lol.

well it is indeed amusing seeing how these ETS's pan out.

hopefully australia follows suit and introduces a similar amendment to protect us from taxes to 'fix' a unproven hypothesis

thankfully for those in the US, common sense has prevailed and they have decided against ruining their economy for the sake of feel-good greeny rubbish.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 April 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> PS The other quick reaction to this (if not quick fix) would be to go nuclear (and neither party is going there). Personally I'm totally confident that we will have to go there in 50 or may 80 years - but seems we're (mankind's) gonna have to wait till these dire predictions come true before we are prepared take any serious action
> 
> PS Interesting that a dust storm took out the Mars Phoenix - sun's rays too weak to charge its batteries etc.  - so likewise solar power on earth will be vulnerable to volvanic dust etc.



There's really only two options. 

1. Use less energy.

2. Supply energy by some means that emits less of no CO2.

Option 1 means by its very nature ending constant growth in GDP. Tied up with that is fundamental monetary reform - the current system having only two modes either constant growth or outright collapse.

Option 2 means either capturing and storing CO2 or using something other than fossil fuels. Realistically, that's some combination of nuclear, geothermal, hydro, biomass and new (non-hydro) renewables.

In terms of scale, nuclear, hydro and biomass are already significant whilst the others are trivial at best. All of them have downsides though, including environmental effects. 30 years ago few were worried about fossil fuels (apart from a few nuclear and hydro companies...) whilst mainstream environmentalism was about stopping uranium mines and hydro dams.

In my opinion the greatest opportunities are to develop geothermal and/or thorium nuclear power (as distinct from uranium which is far more hazardous). 

The others can make a contribution but are limited. Hydro works fine but there aren't enough rivers even if we did "dam the lot". Solar, wind etc are technically limited within reasonable economic limits so aren't a real solution. Biomass could be expanded but we'd completely trash the environment if we made it a major energy source, a point that was realised a couple of centuries ago and which lead to the development of the large scale use of coal in the first place.

Realistically, if we actually do something about CO2 then it will be carbon capture and storage, geothermal or nuclear (thorium not uranium) that makes it happen. The rest, particularly hydro and biomass, are a help but in themselves they're not enough at the global scale (though they are of major importance locally in some places).

As for small scale solar like the Mars Phoenix, well I'm presently working on some stand alone (no backup of any type) solar systems at work and these are certainly going to be built very soon (weeks). But we're talking about 40 Watt loads here not 40 megawatts and the cost is huge compared to conventional energy sources (only reason for doing it is that with such a small load, the cost of connection to the grid is large relative to the volume of energy used and on that basis solar stacks up due to the saving on materials and especially labour costs for installation).

If you want a "funny" use for solar, then I could mention that there are large scale (hydro) power station headworks being operated by solar. Somewhat ironic but it stacks up financially since it saves the cost of maintaining a power line back to the dam just to operate the outlet valves and monitoring equipment. Lots of situations like that - solar stacks up as a means of avoiding connection to the grid for small loads but it's prohibitively expensive as a major energy source.


----------



## Wysiwyg (3 December 2009)

Conza88 said:


> Essentially, you don't have the right to damage any other persons property. *If you live next to a coal mine, and the soot lands on your clothes, which you have hung out. The coal company should be able to be sued for compensation.*
> 
> At the moment - it is; tough luck.



That would be real smart living next to a coal mine. Maybe a move near an active volcano would be more exciting. 

Anyway, in a recent Australian Geographic story "The prodigal SUN" there was an overseas initiative the Aust. Gov. could do well to adopt. Hand typed, my bold. 

"In more enlightened parts of the country, such as the ACT, feed-in tariffs are being introduced, meaning that homeowners are paid a premium for the electricity they generate. Depending on the size of the tariff, and whether it pays for all electricity produced and used (gross) or only that exported to the grid (net), homeowners can pay off their system in 3-10 years, and then generate a profit for the remainder of the system's life.
In Germany, where the introduction of *a national feed-in tariff system gives* *domestic solar-power producers about four times the going rate for* *the electricity they produce*, there has been an exponential uptake of solar panels."


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 December 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> "In more enlightened parts of the country, such as the ACT, feed-in tariffs are being introduced, meaning that homeowners are paid a premium for the electricity they generate. Depending on the size of the tariff, and whether it pays for all electricity produced and used (gross) or only that exported to the grid (net), homeowners can pay off their system in 3-10 years, and then generate a profit for the remainder of the system's life.
> In Germany, where the introduction of *a national feed-in tariff system gives* *domestic solar-power producers about four times the going rate for* *the electricity they produce*, there has been an exponential uptake of solar panels."



By virtue of them being a subsidy paid by the majority (non-solar) to the minority (those with solar), such schemes necessarily require that solar remain a minority energy source and not a replacement for other forms of power.

It works fine whilst 1% of homes have solar but falls in a heap financially and practically if that figure rises beyond a few %. And given the actual output of a typical solar installation, that commits us to effectively 95%+ non-solar generation forever.

Why not use the cheaper renewable alternatives that can go well beyond such low market shares instead? Probably because they're actually a threat to the fossil fuel industries...


----------



## Wysiwyg (4 December 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Why not use the cheaper renewable alternatives that can go well beyond such low market shares instead? Probably because they're actually a threat to the fossil fuel industries...



According to Keith Lovegrove, and I suppose in line with present technologies, a solar panel about 138 sq. klm's would be enough to power Australia. Of course it wouldn't be in the one place but it does open up the door for improved tech. making solar a very viable alternative for the distant future. Tassie might have to use the wind and water. 

Solar thermal concentrators: Capturing the sun for large scale power generation and energy export. 

click to enlarge if wished


----------

