This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

What do you think of global warming?

  • There is no reliable evidence that indicates global warming (GW)

    Votes: 8 5.2%

  • There is GW, but the manmade contribution is UNPROVEN (brd),- and we should ignore it

    Votes: 12 7.8%

  • Ditto - but we should act to reduce greenhouse gas effects anyway

    Votes: 46 30.1%

  • There is GW, the manmade contribution is PROVEN (brd), and the matter is not urgent

    Votes: 6 3.9%

  • Ditto but corrective global action is a matter of urgency

    Votes: 79 51.6%

  • Other (plus reasons)

    Votes: 7 4.6%
  • Total voters
    153
Jump to new
2020hindsight said:
(Ps I don't follow your banking revolution - but my bank manager is revolting - does that help ?)
Click to expand...
In short, with the fiat currency system we have now tomorrow's growth is collateral for today's debt. The entire system has only two modes - growth or collapse - it doesn't work as a steady state.

Now, in practice, economic growth means energy demand growth. Argue all you like about efficiency etc but history says economy up = energy demand up.

The few periods that have occurred where energy demand appears to have fallen (eg oil worldwide in the early 1980's, electricity in Tasmania in the 1990's) were associated with both a stagnating / contracting economy and general economic strife, fuel switching to some other energy source and/or changing the location of energy consumption to outside the area being considered (eg export raw materials instead of manufacturing will lower energy consumption in one area but it keeps rising globally).

If we switched to even 50% renewable electricity then it won't cut emissions. By the time we could implement such a change, growth in non-electricity fuel use (which is well over half the total in most countries anyway) plus electricity demand growth would ensure that total fossil fuel use still went up, not down. Sure, it would be less than it otherwise would have been, but total emissions would keep rising. And of course not even the most hard line people are seriously proposing we go as far as 50% renewable electricity any time soon.

Even John Howard's 25 nuclear reactors wouldn't help. Due solely to demand growth, we'd be using more coal by the time they are built than we do now. And that's with enough reactors to supply our entire present electricity demand (excluding existing hydro) - but it would be less than half of demand by the time they could be built.

So either we go to 100% renewable / nuclear for all energy, or damn close to it, or total fossil fuel use will continue to rise. OR we radically change the banking system to one that doesn't require constant growth.

The only way I can see fossil fuel use actually falling is if:

1. For whatever reason above ground availability of fossil fuels declines. A situation that's happening now with oil but being more than offset by rising coal and gas production. OR

2. We actively force down total fossil fuel use. That means focusing on the acutal total quantity in tonnes, barrels etc and not as a % of total energy use. The latter is a flawed approach (hence not opposed by the fossil fuel industry - a point that says it all really) as previously explained. Given that such a move would, without a move towards total reliance on renewables / nuclear being part of it, collapse the economy it is not likely to happen. OR

3. The present financial system comes to an end and is replaced by one that does not, in practice, involve next year always requiring more energy than this year. That could be either due to a radical change to an alternative system or simply the collapse of the present system and consequent economic strife.

I'd love to see fossil fuels consigned to the history books but I just can't see anything other than constant growth until such time as it either becomes physically impossible (peaking production) or the consequences become so blindingly obvious that we accept whatever happens economically (ie actual collapse of the present banking system) as the lesser of two evils.

Technically, we can go renewable for just about everything. Aviation, petrochemicals and a few industrial processes are the main exceptions (though nitrogen fertilizer can be made from electricity - been done before without much trouble). Everything else we can do with, mostly, electricity. And we know how to go very close to 100% renewable for power generation. Long distance trucks etc can be replaced with trains (worked before). Short distance road vehicles can go electric with some niche use of hydrogen. Ships can go solar / wind / battery.

All technically very possible but simply tinkering around the edges with x% renewable electricity, a bit of insulation on hot water pipes and different light bulbs does little to take us off the constant growth in fossil fuels track.
 

Pretty much in total agreement with those observations, Smurf1976. I think history shows us conclusively that even though we might LIKE to think the bulk of humanity will be flexible enough to drastically change an ever increasing consumptive lifestyle in order to ultimately SAVE ITSELF from catastrophe or even near extinction, it seems to be in our genetic makeup that come crunch time, no-one wants to forego the trappings of "civilisation".

My own observations that lead me to make this comment are simply these....

We all know the classic story of what happened to the occupants of Easter Island and their own form of "civilisation". Could they control their population growth to a sustainable level, thus warding off their (in glorious hindsight) inevitable catastropic decline & demise courtesy of raping the island of its sustainable bounty? NO.

It seems clear to me that modern "civilisation" has learnt nothing from that valuable ancient environmental and ecological lesson. Unlike the hot air from both sides in the climate debate, it is an irrefutable FACT that the planet's population is growing at an alarming and ultimately un-sustainable rate. So what are the planet's inhabitants collectively doing about that? In practice, virtually nothing. Significantly reducing population growth is the single biggest factor that could reduce growth in emissions - not many pundits want to talk about that one.

Why not? Our very future existence is at stake and yet for year after year, decade after decade, NOTHING CHANGES except the rapacious hunger for ever richer "trappings of civilisation". I often think of the lemmings when I ponder the sillier side of humanity and wonder whether there is an unchangeable genetic flaw in the human species that predisposes us on a cyclic basis to set up our own future destruction.

Evidence of the complete collapse of earlier "civilisations" should be warning enough, but with an ever-optimistic "she'll be right, mate" attitude, I feel this current "civilised planet" is heading at 200kph down a one way road towards a sheer precipice with only 100m left to make an emergency braking manouvre. So, who's gonna apply the brake?

*scratches head till brain seeps out.....*

Happy New Year!


AJ
 
THanks Smurf..

1. liberty, equality, fraternity, and get-it-through-your-thick-head-tax-on-power-and-growth-mentality

we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight in the banks, ....

2. .... and as you say, what happens in Aus is chicken feed to what will happen in China and India (as they try to get 10% of what we have). - still we have to do our share - especially as prorata we are one of the worst.

3. let's do it

4. seems to me that planes are running pretty much 100% full these days - gotta be a good start - put air prices up maybe.

petrochemicals? - could go back to using wool instead of synthetics I guess; polyethylene, plastics etc - millions of dumb products, guess we could could reduce by 50% if we cut out half the idiotic toys etc which usually break before boxing day? - at least many are recyclable )

5. let's do it

6. let's do it

7. ditto

8. ditto

9. "All technically very possible but simply tinkering around the edges with x% renewable electricity, a bit of insulation on hot water pipes and different light bulbs does little to take us off the constant growth in fossil fuels track."

agreed - let's stop tinkering and get serious.
give your wind turbines a go - and solar photovoltaic - even dams - although Traveston (for instance) is average depth 1.5m - not much power there m8.

If it turns out that they can't cope (and in themseves are just tinkering , albeit perhaps with a capital T) , then the next gerneration can go nuclear - in the interests that there might be a generation after them

Also put a massive tax on big petrol guzzling cars - also on car-racing events , even formula 1 etc - also on the US military etc
 

Does that include the Bentley Arnage?

Is there any room for beauty in this brave new world of global warming warning?

I must again read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Bob Pirsig and see what he has to say about it.

gg
 

AJ, spot on with your Easter Island comparison - likewise the lemmings , likewise the head scratch.

Someday (100years?, 200? 1000?) someone will be digging around doing a port-mortem on the human race - "seems they just didn't like it here" -
"a fraction selfish and shortsighted - almost to a fault"


Apart from the fact that I agree that we aren't doing enough - I would add that we aren't saying enough, nor with sufficient conviction.

PS I am so sick of that pun about "hot air" lol

imo, forget the hot air - the question is will it take a red hot bludy poker shoved up the orifices of those in a position of influence - to get (even more) international agreement and move this Titanic matter in the right direction.
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
I must again read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Bob Pirsig and see what he has to say about it.
Click to expand...
"she'll be right mate"
closest an aussie ever got to a Zen buddhist statement
we may be the lucky country, but I gotta feeling our luck is gonna run out if we don't use our brains a bit more.
(and , like, yesterday - gotta try to make up for that idiot Howard's contribution)

Does that include the Bentley Arnage?
Click to expand...
ok - we'll put more weight on a tax on the petrol - rather than the car

you can admire it in the garage
 

Thanks mate, you had me worried there for a few minutes.

gg
 
Buy a book, and save the world:

quote:
buying two books worth £26 instead of an Optimus Prime Transformer toy robot costing £30, for example, this would save around 25kg of CO2 in a year.

Households that usually buy several pricey electronic toys and gadgets at Christmas, but pledge to buy at least two less this year, would save some 55kg of CO2 if they bought books instead.

And households that normally buys lots of expensive electronic toys and gadgets at Christmas but pledge to buy at least three less this year, would save more than 122kg CO2 if books were bought instead.
 
roland said:
buying two books worth £26 instead of an Optimus Prime Transformer toy robot costing £30, for example, this would save around 25kg of CO2 in a year..
Click to expand...

good point roland ..
Heck - you can even read em without the need for paper involvement

http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors.html
Top site this one - includes some books complete ( eg Defoe's "Robinson Crusoe")

I know Robinson Crusoe mightn't qualify as a rivetting read (for the nth reread lol) - but the day will come when you can read other books / authors - ! (like Dawkins, Sagan etc

Then again , Crusoe might have made a great MD for Telstra etc

Ah heck - it's holiday season ....
at the risk of annoying some, I'll add a long attachment - read it or not - up to you.


 
I notice those weighty Company Annual Reports may become a thing of the past as it is now necessary to request one. Probably, hardly anyone downloads a copy of a full Annual Report?
 
noirua said:
I notice those weighty Company Annual Reports may become a thing of the past as it is now necessary to request one. Probably, hardly anyone downloads a copy of a full Annual Report?
Click to expand...

Not only that, I sometimes get annoyed that "My Company" is wasting so much of "my" profits in producing all that paperwork....
 
2020hindsight said:
THanks Smurf..

1. liberty, equality, fraternity, and get-it-through-your-thick-head-tax-on-power-and-growth-mentality

we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight in the banks, ....
Click to expand...
You've somewhat lost me with the "thick-head-tax-on-power-and-growth-mentality". Was that a reference to something I've posted?

Anyway, I'll make the observation that we need to be VERY careful in taxing things as it's easy to produce a bad outcome.

For example, on the surface it makes some sense to tax electricity since gas is a cleaner option for the householder. However, (1) many homes don't have access to gas and (2) in the long term we need to be going 100% electric - wind, solar etc produce electricity not gas.

So in that example it might make sense to tax coal-fired or more sensibly (in view of peak oil and gas) all fossil fuel electricity generation but it makes no sense to tax electricity per se. Indeed it makes sense to switch to electricity once we've got a serious plan to generate it without using fossil fuels.

Get it wrong and all sorts of nasty things can result. That 60% of Launceston homes ended up using wood heating by the early 1990's, giving the city an air quality standard that made even Sydney look incredibly clean in comparisson, is a classic example. You even used to see the smoke in headlight beams at night and it didn't smell real nice either. Not surprising with a particulate level at 3 times the WHO "safe" limit.

All that was fixed simply by dropping unit rates for electricity, removing the defacto "tax" on high consumption (given that heating is typically about 50% of household energy use in Tas) by separately metering heating and not recovering any of the fixed cost through heating unit rates. Throw in a massive marketing campaign with a product branding ("HydroHeat") and now electric heating dominates statewide for the first time ever. Not good for the greenhouse issue of course, the marginal source of generation being fossil fuels not hydro, but a win for human health.

Air-conditioners are another one. The single greatest energy saving device you can buy in a cold climate is an air-conditioner. And of course there's really nothing wrong with having one in a hot climate if the power source is renewable. And you'd be surprise how little they add to overall energy use anyway despite all the negative publicity - they're just an easy target because of their very peaky demand and an uneducated public.

So tax the problem, not the symptoms. Tax the coal, oil and gas but don't tax the renewable alternatives. Tax at the coal-fired power station, not the household meter since the latter can equally measure 100% renewable energy if the incentive becomes strong enough to supply it.
 
no reference to you , just my own thoughts on the matter
call is micro-economic reform

2020hindsight said:
THanks Smurf..

agreed - let's stop tinkering and get serious.
give your wind turbines a go - and solar photovoltaic - even dams - although Traveston (for instance) is average depth 1.5m - not much power there m8.
Click to expand...
gotta feeling that the alternative dam was much higher (and didn't affect so many farms) - although how efficient it would be for hydro power I don;t know - my guess is pretty hopeless , but certainly better than Traveston

PS how about a carbon tax on airline tickets ?
 
A carbon tax on Airline tickets should be one of the first things rolled out !

Look at just how much uncalled for Air travel there is for no other reason than its sooo damn cheap !
 
You'll find that climate change proponents, and targets set at Kyoto and discussed at Bali, all focus on a percentage reduction on 1990 levels for developed countries. 1990 levels are seen as a benchmark or a base from which we should work - we our PM talks about 60% reduction by 2050 he's talking about having a CO2 emission in 2050 which is 60% lower than it was in 1990. There's no metric for fossil fuel as a percentage of total energy supply.

You note that the previous government announced increases in the portion of energy from renewable sources (i.e. less of our total energy will come from fossil fuels). This has also been put forward by energy companies. It's the argument for those who don't really believe there is a problem, and don't really want to reduce CO2 emissions.
 

spot on .. fortunately they have gone the way of the dinosaurs they were.
apart from the fact that they chaired APEC which came up with very serious "aspirational" goals of one day maybe doing "something"
 
I note that Labor has also gone down the x% renewable track along with Liberal and Green. That's my point - until we get serious calls for 100% and a shift to electricity from gas etc we're still stuck on the emissions growth track if at a slightly slower pace.

That said, it does make more sense in the long term to be focusing on total fossil fuel use rather than emissions per se. The latter approach can all too easily embed higher emissions tomorrow in order to deliver short term cuts today - hence the fossil fuel industry prefers that approach.

It amounts to covering up the problem with temporary measures, mainly increased use of gas, which do nothing to reduce our overall fossil fuel dependency thus setting us up for sharply higher emissions when gas inevitably declines.

That this strategy has reached the backfire stage is the primary problem in the US cutting emissions. The gas has peaked meaning the US is heading back to coal. Exactly what will happen everywhere that embraces the "dash for gas" rather than a switch from fossil fuels to renewables.


 
A point of clarification about my last two posts.

What I'm saying is:

1. Fix the problem. Actually cut emissions rather than trying to be seen to be doing something by tinkering with light bulbs etc.

2. Fix it in a manner that is sustainable and doesn't either (1) backfire at a future date and produce vastly higher emissions or (2) simply swap one problem for another.

In regard to point 2, switching to gas is the classic example. A 46% immediate drop in emissions compared to coal sounds attractive. But the downside is gas reserves are massively smaller than coal worldwide. Once it's gone, and that is something many here will live to see if usage is increased as many proposed, then we're in a real pickle.

Odds are we then go to running practically everything via inefficient coal liquefaction and gasification processes - something that will make present day emissions seem trivial compared to what we'll have then.

And of course the other downside with gas is geographic concentration. Russia and the Middle East between them have nearly 75% of world reserves. No matter what your stance on the Iraq war etc, it's hard to argue that having the whole world totally dependent on a handfull of countries for not only oil but for virtually all energy is going to be peaceful.

At the very least it puts the immediate future of most countries in the hands of very few and creates the greatest political weapon imaginable - not a wise move IMO. We're in enough trouble with needing oil/gas for transport as it is without relying on it for electricity as well.

So fundamentally, just changing the fossil fuel doesn't work in the long term. Easy today, worse tomorrow.

Also with constant growth we end up with emissions eventually coming back to present levels and then continuing to rise. It's like switching to low tar cigarettes in the hope you'll avoid the health effects while continuing to smoke more and more of them every year. Odds are it won't end well.

I don't hate gas by the way. I own quite a few gas stocks. But it's not the panacea that many claim. It's cleaner, not clean. Plenty of it, but not for long if we keep using more and more each year - which comes back to the problem of constant growth.
 
Nothing is simple where this is concerned. Read the following and tell me which is the best way to heat the house - it's anything but simple with no clear winner (see page 14 especially).

Dr John Todd is one of the fairly well known energy gurus in Tas by the way. Been around for ages doing this sort of stuff.

http://www.hydro.com.au/handson/sustliv/johntoddtalk.pdf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Poll
Poll on Action on Global Warming
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
11K
2020hindsight
  • Poll
Terminal Triangle: Peak Oil, climate change and global economic meltdown
Replies
7
Views
6K
Smurf1976
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...