Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

[Smurf1976]

Sheer anecdote - no evidence!

When you've got the former leader of the Greens campaigning against wind farms that's more than enough for most ordinary people to walk away shaking their heads at the whole thing.

That the location isn't far away from the same spot environmentalists advocated be used for wind energy decades ago, because it has the best resource and that's well known, makes it all the more ridiculous.

These are the claims of those who do not accept the science.

Can't argue with that although many do claim to accept the science.

The key actions are political decisions that set a clear path to CO2 reductions. Individuals have a small overall impact given that industry per se is responsible for controllable contributions.

If the population is making it clear that they're not willing to act then they're unlikely to elect a government which forces them to do so against their wishes. MP's are elected to represent not to control.

No, that is NOT a logical argument. Think about why!

In what way?

Surest way to have ordinary people conclude that something's a load of nonsense is to find out that whoever's preaching isn't heeding their own advice.

Eg the first question regarding anyone telling others how to make a fortune on the stock market is to verify that they are in fact using this system themselves? If not well then that doesn't give them much credibility now does it? If the system's so good then why aren't they using it? Lots of alarm bells ringing there!

A key reason people pay attention to what Warren Buffet has to say is that it's known that he has actually made a lot of money through investing and as such his comments are from real experience. That's several orders of magnitude more credible than some "expert" whose real income comes about not from the market but by charging others to hear them speak and buy their "black box" system.

Same with anything. Walk the talk.

Personally well my understanding is that there likely is a problem with CO2 and I've taken sensible steps to reduce my contribution to it. Even though I'm not convinced it's an actual emergency, I've taken reasonable actions and I sure won't be coming up with silly excuses as to why emissions shouldn't be reduced. Worst case, if all we lose is aesthetics and even then only temporarily, well that seems a pretty lame excuse to me.

 

[wayneL]

I think its funny that some don't seem to see the connection between collective personal consumption and industrial output.

 

[rederob]

When you've got the former leader of the Greens campaigning against wind farms that's more than enough for most ordinary people to walk away shaking their heads at the whole thing.

That's like quoting Al Gore instead of a climate scientist - it does not wash!

Can't argue with that although many do claim to accept the science.

Those accepting the science cannot be virtue signallers.

Surest way to have ordinary people conclude that something's a load of nonsense is to find out that whoever's preaching isn't heeding their own advice.

Repeating something devoid of logic is not at all helpful.

 

[rederob]

I think its funny that some don't seem to see the connection between collective personal consumption and industrial output.

Try using facts to back your ideas.

 

[wayneL]

Try using facts to back your ideas.

That is a fact. Economics 101, demand v supply.

Price signals matter, but in the case of cc, if people are concerned, they should be considering the externalities on an individual basis, with a collective effect, rather than relying on agendized politics.

 

[rederob]

That is a fact. Economics 101, demand v supply.

Developing economies have high energy demand but limited supply options, so your case is fundamentally flawed.

Price signals matter, but in the case of cc, if people are concerned, they should be considering the externalities on an individual basis, with a collective effect, rather than relying on agendized politics.

Word salad!
Simple test of power of government to influence CO2 trend related to impact of carbon tax when introduced and then again when lifted. Individual consumers were - and remain largely - subservient to policy.
Try offering something concrete rather than your usual trifles.

 

[SirRumpole]

Climate change is already hitting home in local communities.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07...perty-prices-noosa-climate-emergency/11327474

 

[Smurf1976]

Simple test of power of government to influence CO2 trend related to impact of carbon tax when introduced and then again when lifted.

You mean the way in which various companies brought forward things which would temporarily reduce emissions and pushed back those which would increase them so as to profit from it?

 

[rederob]

You mean the way in which various companies brought forward things which would temporarily reduce emissions and pushed back those which would increase them so as to profit from it?

No.

 

[Smurf1976]

That's like quoting Al Gore instead of a climate scientist - it does not wash!

When the subject is politics, Al Gore would seem to be a far more credible source than any scientist.

Repeating something devoid of logic is not at all helpful.

Indeed it isn't but it's standard practice in politics and has been so for a very long time. All sides do it routinely, environmental ones included. There's nothing new about that and the entire advertising industry relies heavily upon the fact that it works in practice.

Keep saying it and it becomes accepted as true by a substantial portion of the population. Whether or not it is actually true is completely irrelevant to that.

 

[Smurf1976]

No.

Then what do you mean?

During the two year carbon tax quite a few temporary things were done which were never going to permanently reduce emissions but which made a profit for all concerned.

Taking coal-fired plant out of service for overhaul or upgrade and running down hydro water storages as the replacement power source was one such example and of itself significant. No permanent reduction and all paid back with higher emissions later but it made money under the circumstances so it was done.

 

[rederob]

Then what do you mean?

The ETS was under consideration by Labor prior to November 2011 when the Carbon Tax passed through the Senate. This graphic shows it a little more clearly:

After Abbott returned to power and repealed the tax, CO2 emissions from electricity generation barely changed.

 

[Smurf1976]

After Abbott returned to power and repealed the tax, CO2 emissions from electricity generation barely changed.

Emissions didn't go up or down overall greatly that is true, the tax and its subsequent removal didn't meaningfully reduce emissions as per the chart you posted indeed the total went up during the second year of it. Source = the chart you posted.

If you look closely though it clearly does show electricity sector emissions lower during the two years in which it applied and virtually no change from anything else apart from land use which marked the conclusion of a trend commencing many years prior.

That electricity sector reduction was the lakes being drained, something which commenced "in anger" literally at the stroke of midnight when it came in, and also the gas fields being drained for which we're about to see LNG imported as the replacement.

 

[Smurf1976]

After Abbott returned to power and repealed the tax, CO2 emissions from electricity generation barely changed.

I don't think anyone would dispute that the whole thing was largely ineffective but, as per your chart, to the extent it had any effect on anything it was with electricity. Still not very effective, but more effective with electricity than with the rest of the economy (largely because tricks could be employed that aren't possible with anything else).

Meanwhile in Bangladesh: https://www.theage.com.au/politics/...l-for-new-power-stations-20190722-p529ls.html

 

[rederob]

Emissions didn't go up or down overall greatly that is true, the tax and its subsequent removal didn't meaningfully reduce emissions as per the chart you posted indeed the total went up during the second year of it. Source = the chart you posted.

Tens of millions of CO2e were not emitted via generation, so the effect of policy was meaningful. Labor's stance on reducing CO2 emissions, first with the threat of an ETS and then with the tax, is evident throughout their period in government, and the Coalition's immediate return reversed the trend from 2013 to date. The chart is pretty clear on that so I disagree with many of your contentions.

 

[IFocus]

Individual consumers were - and remain largely - subservient to policy.
.

Yep

 

[Smurf1976]

After Abbott returned to power and repealed the tax, CO2 emissions from electricity generation barely changed.

the Coalition's immediate return reversed the trend from 2013 to date

Which one?

From my own perspective, well I remember the day it commenced quite well. The gates were opened at the stroke of midnight to start letting out the water that had been intentionally held back over the preceding period once it was known that the tax was likely. End result - a jump in emissions prior to it, a dip during it, then partly back up once it was over. That's what happened across the hydro industry in most cases.

Plus there was an increase in gas-fired generation, including that from relatively inefficient facilities, which brought forward the inevitable production decline in Victoria in particular. That was always going to happen, it's a finite resource, and it was never going to be sustainable to be burning another billion cubic meters of gas in power stations every few months indeed objections to doing so were first raised in 1971 well before the CO2 issue became a mainstream concern.

 

[rederob]

From my own perspective, well I remember the day it commenced quite well. The gates were opened at the stroke of midnight to start letting out the water that had been intentionally held back over the preceding period once it was known that the tax was likely. End result - a jump in emissions prior to it, a dip during it, then partly back up once it was over. That's what happened across the hydro industry in most cases.

Labor reversed a long term trend, and while what you say is true, it was a blip on the radar over the 15 years posted at #1732.
The other undeniable trend was the turnaround under Coalition policies.
The tragedy was that there was a NEM policy vacuum as a result of diametrically opposed policies in that period, leading to no agreement on the best way forward. And six years on we are none the wiser.

 

[sptrawler]

The biggest tragedy is the waste of gas. IMO

 

[Smurf1976]

The tragedy was that there was a NEM policy vacuum as a result of diametrically opposed policies

One thing I think everyone would agree on is that policy on this subject in Australia has been a disaster no matter what objective is considered as being the priority.

If for example we had pursued a policy of addressing CO2 then we could still have had lower market prices than the prices we actually have today, which have increased dramatically with minimal gain to the environment.

If alternatively we had pursued a policy of lowest cost then we could still have achieved lower emissions than we actually have today, simply by operating generating plant optimally and avoiding the doing of things which make no sense either economically or environmentally.

If we had pursued a policy of maximum supply reliability then that also could have still achieved lower costs and emissions than we actually have today. It doesn't cost a fortune to retain a facility that's already built, it's not as though these power stations are sitting on valuable real estate such that there's something to actually be gained from demolition.

So what we've managed to achieve is the worst of all aspects really. No matter which of the three aspects were considered as the priority, with a proper approach the other two could also have been done better than they actually are being done today.