Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Smurf1976]

Ever since the conversation about cutting CO2 use started it was always accepted that developing countries which have a very low energy use and desperately needed to actually have an energy system to develop would be allowed to increase their use of fossil fuels. But it was also understood that these countries would run parallel paths of renewable energy development and over time (hopefully quickly) retire their fossil fuel use to go to total renewables.

Western countries on the other hand have already fully developed energy systems which are largely fossil fuel based. There target was two fold
1) Become far more efficient in energy use and reduce the impact of fossil fuels. ie better fuel consumption, more efficient industry and homes

2) Move as rapidly as possible to replacing the fossil fuel systems with clean, renewable energy sources. If they have been successful at introducing good efficiency measures then they might get away with having less energy supplies.

That sounds awfully like a plan to simply relocate energy-intensive industry from developed countries to "developing" ones so that they avoid, or at least delay by a few decades, the cost and environmental gains.

Which brings us back to the point that so-called "free" trade is the primary barrier to shifting to clean energy.

If Australian industry had no need to be competitive against developing countries and only had to compete against other developed countries with comparable standards to our own then this whole debate would largely cease to exist.

If a developing country wants to use coal and produce goods for their own use then I'm fine with that. But if they want to export to any developed country then the same environmental and other standards applying in developed countries should be applied to the production of those goods. To do otherwise just harms our own economy and defeats the purpose environmentally.

 

[SirRumpole]

If a developing country wants to use coal and produce goods for their own use then I'm fine with that. But if they want to export to any developed country then the same environmental and other standards applying in developed countries should be applied to the production of those goods. To do otherwise just harms our own economy and defeats the purpose environmentally.

Nothing to do with emissions but I would go further an say that a tariff should be applied on imported goods equal to the difference in the salaries between us and the importing country in the same industry (relative to the cost of living in the other country).

While some may say this would reduce our need to be competitive, it would also discourage the use of slave labor
and help to raise the standard of living in places like India where the workforce is exploited.

 

[trainspotter]

basilio

 

[explod]

basilio

Your blank post prompted a look at basilio's last few posts. They had substance and reasoning that adds up.

Your effort is no more than empty crapola. Why even bother Champ

 

[trainspotter]

Your blank post prompted a look at basilio's last few posts. They had substance and reasoning that adds up.

Your effort is no more than empty crapola. Why even bother Champ

Your failure to understand the written word astounds me Chump

If you have nothing to add then why bother criticizing my posts

India = TREBLING Co2 output by 2030 and the media cites this as a REDUCTION

basilio says this is wonderful cause they spending truckloads of $$$ cause they going solar/wind/blah blah blah.

Ice caps melting because of global warming ring a bell?? (That Co2 is nasty stuff remember??)

 

[Tisme]

My house is on water's edge, luckily it is two story and I think I have time to build a jetty out from the top deck if I get cracking on it soon.....

.....I've seen Waterworld and without gills I would otherwise be doomed to life on a polluting ship and Dennis Hopper being a dick.

 

[luutzu]

My house is on water's edge, luckily it is two story and I think I have time to build a jetty out from the top deck if I get cracking on it soon.....

.....I've seen Waterworld and without gills I would otherwise be doomed to life on a polluting ship and Dennis Hopper being a dick.

I like Waterworld. Don't know why people pan it.

 

[basilio]

TS you just don't understand the thinking behind how the world is going to come to grips with decarbonising all economies in some sort of fair way. Recognising that Third world countries did have a right to some extra CO2 production is just part of the equation.

It is an extremely complex problem. There are no easy or simple answers. It would have been hard enough to do 25 years ago when the problem was first properly recognised and we had some time to spin out a more gradual approach to such a huge change.

Attempting to go full bore to total de carbonisation by 2050 AND pulling greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere as well. A lot of eggs will be broken.

 

[poverty]

I like Waterworld. Don't know why people pan it.

I only pan it because it's a freakin scene for scene copy of Mad Max 2.

 

[trainspotter]

My house is on water's edge, luckily it is two story and I think I have time to build a jetty out from the top deck if I get cracking on it soon.....

.....I've seen Waterworld and without gills I would otherwise be doomed to life on a polluting ship and Dennis Hopper being a dick.

My house is 30 metres above sea level so when the polar caps melt I will have a house on the waters edge !!

So can the homo sapiens as a species evolve into this?

 

[SirRumpole]

I'm 900 metres above sea level so stuff the rest of you

 

[luutzu]

My house is 30 metres above sea level so when the polar caps melt I will have a house on the waters edge !!

So can the homo sapiens as a species evolve into this?

View attachment 65097

I knew it!

Those roofs we see are blocking your view aren't they?

 

[luutzu]

I only pan it because it's a freakin scene for scene copy of Mad Max 2.

Is it? Haven't seen Mad Max 2. Will check it out.

 

[Knobby22]

Scott Phillips of Motley Fool - the investment group, stated that he is squarely in the global warming is real camp and it would be wise to consider this when investing -e.g. don't invest in coal and electrical retailers and distributors.

He stated even if you are one of the people who don't believe it is real that you should do this in any case as it looks like the weight of public opinion will force change in any case.

 

[Tisme]

Scott Phillips of Motley Fool - the investment group, stated that he is squarely in the global warming is real camp and it would be wise to consider this when investing -e.g. don't invest in coal and electrical retailers and distributors.

He stated even if you are one of the people who don't believe it is real that you should do this in any case as it looks like the weight of public opinion will force change in any case.

So there is no opportunity in waterproof poles and wires?

Wave powered dehumidifiers and desalinators should be big business in the future.

 

[trainspotter]

I knew it!

Those roofs we see are blocking your view aren't they?

No ... I see them as reef structure for the fish to live in when I cast the rod off the balcony PfffffffffffffTTTT

 

[luutzu]

No ... I see them as reef structure for the fish to live in when I cast the rod off the balcony PfffffffffffffTTTT

Sounds like a good plan. How will the oysters do with the ocean ticking up a few Celsius? More time for fishing I guess.

All jokes aside, nice pearls you got there. Are they natural or cultured? Will give you a call when there's cash to plash around.

 

[trainspotter]

Oysters will be just fine as a few more degrees celsius water temperature will actually help them grow pearls quicker

They are ALL natural colours made by Mother Nature and Pinctada margaritifera. The oyster undergoes an operation to insert a nucleus into the gonad which then secretes nacre around the irritant. So to answer your question they are cultured. Natural pearls happen when an irritant gets inside the gonad and usually they are munted or misshapen. They are called Keshi pearls.

 

[trainspotter]

Read this and thought of you basilio ...

Building a 2-megawatt solar system is a little more ambitious than planting potatoes. It required an investment of $4.8 million dollars. But after careful analysis the numbers seemed to add up nicely and the banks agreed.

“We did it for economic reasons,” says Dan Hofer. “They didn’t have an issue at all. After seeing some of the numbers, how the economics would work out, they were fully supportive.”

As for the environment, Dan Hofer says the clean nature of solar energy is gravy: “We’re all polluters of the land, so it’s good to give something back.”

For project developer SkyFire Energy, the project was a first in terms of scale.

“The solar resource here is some of the best in Canada,” says Vonesch. “A system installed right here will produce about 50 or 60 per cent more than if the same system were installed in Germany, where there’s more solar than anywhere in the world.”

The wind resource in Southern Alberta is also among the best in Canada. So why did the colony choose solar and not wind? “Maintenance was one of the big issues,” chuckles Jake Hofer. “And I’m terribly scared of heights.”

http://calgary.isgreen.ca/energy/solar-power/green-acres-the-largest-solar-farm-in-western-canada/

 

[explod]

Read this and thought of you basilio ...



http://calgary.isgreen.ca/energy/solar-power/green-acres-the-largest-solar-farm-in-western-canada/

Thanks for posting. However the combination of solar, wind, coastal wave and thermal, properly combined and fully supported by Governments will be the answer.

Is it HYSYERICAL to hope for this (complete in my view) solution?