Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

Jump to new
Further feedback effects of Global Heating.

Indian Ocean system that drives extreme weather in Australia likely to worsen with global heating
Researchers believe the Indian Ocean Dipole is more clearly influenced by climate change than previously thought

Indian Ocean surface temperatures that helped drive hot and dry conditions in eastern Australia last year were more clearly influenced by climate change than previously thought and are likely to worsen in future, researchers have found.

Scientists studying a phenomenon known as the Indian Ocean Dipole say their observations suggest Australia could experience future conditions even more extreme than those that elevated the bushfire risk during the 2019-20 fire season.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ustralia-likely-to-worsen-with-global-heating
 
But while we are talking about the corona Virus and global heating consider this

Coronavirus and climate change are obvious risks we ignore

Forget black swans. We’re getting run over by two gray rhinos: coronavirus and climate change.
The intrigue: A gray rhino is a metaphor coined by risk expert Michele Wucker to describe “highly obvious, highly probable, but still neglected” dangers, as opposed to unforeseeable or highly improbable risks — the kind in the black swan metaphor.
The big picture: The novel coronavirus spreading infections and fear around the world is prompting black swan references from the media and investors alike, as is climate change’s impact on financial markets.
  • But for epidemics like the coronavirus and the slower burn problem of global warming, there have been plenty of warnings for those who were paying attention.
https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-climate-change-risks-bc81ec96-ca03-4af7-867f-2aac2648b2d5.html
 
basilio said:
But while we are talking about the corona Virus and global heating consider this
Click to expand...
A huge difference is the approach to the two problems.

Climate change has become politics first and foremost, everything else second.

The virus response has been a practical one first and foremost, politics being at most a minor sideline confined to specific countries.

Now once the virus is sorted then I expect the politics will be on in earnest albeit mostly out of public view, China's going to be under huge pressure from basically everyone to sort their food markets out real quick and prove they've done so, but in the meantime the focus is on fixing the problem.

If that approach were taken to climate change, focus on fixing it and forget the politics, then we'd have fixed it long ago. :2twocents
 
Smurf1976 said:
A huge difference is the approach to the two problems.

Climate change has become politics first and foremost, everything else second.

The virus response has been a practical one first and foremost, politics being at most a minor sideline confined to specific countries.

Now once the virus is sorted then I expect the politics will be on in earnest albeit mostly out of public view, China's going to be under huge pressure from basically everyone to sort their food markets out real quick and prove they've done so, but in the meantime the focus is on fixing the problem.

If that approach were taken to climate change, focus on fixing it and forget the politics, then we'd have fixed it long ago. :2twocents
Click to expand...

The big difference is that the Virus is here and now, something tangible can be done locally even though the two problems are sourced from the same location.

CC in China has the official OK from the UN until 2030, nothing to see here folks, move along.

I can't help but feel that the blind eye being turned to the polluters by the UN is a lot of the reason that people are fed up with the hysteria in the lesser polluting countries
 
macca said:
CC in China has the official OK from the UN until 2030, nothing to see here folks, move along.

I can't help but feel that the blind eye being turned to the polluters by the UN is a lot of the reason that people are fed up with the hysteria in the lesser polluting countries
Click to expand...

Globalisation.

So long as we don't have tariffs and import quotas etc then if China's getting a free ride then Australian industry necessarily requires the exact same free ride in order to compete on price.

So long as the climate issue is seen to be giving advantage to one country over another then it won't be resolved. That is especially so if the country gaining advantage just happens to be one which already dominates manufacturing. :2twocents
 
New land boom in Antarctica coming .!!:D
Yep if we continue with Business as Usual we can anticipate a verdant Antarctica.

Antarctica was warm enough for rainforest near south pole 90m years ago
Experts say new evidence from Cretaceous period ‘shows us what carbon dioxide can do’
Nicola Davis
@NicolaKSDavis
Thu 2 Apr 2020 02.06 AEDT Last modified on Thu 2 Apr 2020 04.54 AEDT
Shares
148

3465.jpg
An artist’s impression of Antarctica as a swampy rainforest between 92m and 83m years ago. Photograph: James McKay/under Creative Commons licence CC-BY 4.0

Think of Antarctica and it is probably sweeping expanses of ice, and the odd penguin, that come to mind. But at the time of the dinosaurs the continent was covered in swampy rainforest.

Now experts say they have found the most southerly evidence yet of this environment in plant material extracted from beneath the seafloor in west Antarctica.

The Cretaceous, 145m to 66m years ago, was a warm period during which Earth had a greenhouse climate and vegetation grew in Antarctica.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/01/antarctic
 
Jeez I never thought I would be the one to resurrect this thread, but I thought the doom and gloom posters might get a lift from the Governments latest announcement, just quietly getting on with business.;)
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/...-drive-hydrogen-industry-20200414-p54jqu.html
From the article:
Companies developing commercial-scale hydrogen energy projects can get access to $70 million worth of public money, but they must use renewable energy to power the "green hydrogen" trials.

Federal Energy and Emissions Reduction Minister Angus Taylor has selected hydrogen as a priority in the Morrison government's "technology investment road map" to lower Australia’s carbon emissions and meet its commitment to the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees.
Mr Taylor said the $70 million fund would assess proposals against their potential to reach a long-term goal of producing hydrogen at $2 a kilogram, which is the “point where hydrogen becomes competitive with alternatives” in the energy grid.

“Getting costs down will be key to establishing Australia as a world leader in the hydrogen sector through both domestic uses, such as blending hydrogen into local gas networks and heavy-vehicle transport use, to exporting Australian-made hydrogen to our key trading partners, like Japan and Korea,” he said.
 
It's a good story SP. In fact it highlights a significant element of the economic direction we need to take post COVID 19. Moving very quickly and very strategically to a zero emissions renewable energy based economy.

And also setting up the infrastracture to enable us to export bulk hydrogen produced from renewable energy.

Ross Garnaut has developed this scenario in a series of lectures now published as book.

Ross Garnaut: three policies will set Australia on a path to 100% renewable energy
This article is more than 5 months old
The economist’s new book, Superpower, sets out how the government can embrace low-carbon opportunities in this term
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...t-australia-on-a-path-to-100-renewable-energy
 
basilio said:
It's a good story SP. In fact it highlights a significant element of the economic direction we need to take post COVID 19. Moving very quickly and very strategically to a zero emissions renewable energy based economy.

And also setting up the infrastracture to enable us to export bulk hydrogen produced from renewable energy.

Ross Garnaut has developed this scenario in a series of lectures now published as book.

Ross Garnaut: three policies will set Australia on a path to 100% renewable energy
This article is more than 5 months old
The economist’s new book, Superpower, sets out how the government can embrace low-carbon opportunities in this term
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...t-australia-on-a-path-to-100-renewable-energy
Click to expand...

I did say the Morrison Government is moving along very rapidly considering the huge transition required, I think people will get a shock how rapidly Australia transitions from coal, it is a bit like the corona virus everyone said Morrison was a goose now they think hey maybe he was right.
People are way too quick to criticise in Australia, the transition from a mainly coal dependent generation system, to a gas and renewables system is a huge shift and as is being shown it will require a lot of technical input.
It isn't as easy as just throwing $&^t in and hopeing it works, lets wait untill 2030 and see how it is going IMO, by then the technical hurdles will be overcome and a lot more coal will be gone. Which will expose the critical path required to build a secure and reliable network, at the moment coal is the generator of last resort, when gas takes over that mantle coal will disappear very quickly IMO.
Talking about gas, the greenies are starting to arc up about that now, they are going to slow the whole process down unless they back off a bit IMO, all they are doing is giving the coal lobby ammunition.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/...estimate-think-tank-says-20200414-p54ju5.html
From the article:
"Gas is not a transitional fuel in the fight against climate change, it is part of the problem."
 
Mike Moores 'Planet of the Humans'...
At some point I'll get to the last third... And hopfully that'll get me somewhere past 2010...
Someone else do it for me please....
 
sptrawler said:
Talking about gas, the greenies are starting to arc up about that now, they are going to slow the whole process down unless they back off a bit IMO, all they are doing is giving the coal lobby ammunition.
Click to expand...

There's a very basic failing of logic in the argument of this so-called "think tank" since the question is not about burning gas, that was decided years ago, but about how to supply the gas which is going to be burned. It'll be burned regardless of where it comes from hence the reason that aspect was not considered in the assessments.

Now I do agree that burning so much gas is problematic, I won't argue there, but that debate was lost 30 years ago and is still lost today so long as one side of politics is in love with the stuff and the other side isn't exactly opposed to it either. That being so, we've locked in gas consumption, well then it needs to be supplied and the question is about the means of doing so not whether to do it. Nobody's going to accept just shutting off supply in a place where the law effectively bans the alternatives.

I don't hate the Victorian government by the way but I contend that they're somewhat closer to the gas industry than anyone in politics is to coal and that's saying something. I mean sure, there's a fair bit of support for coal from some that's true and it's highly publicised but if you look at Victoria and gas well that really is next level stuff. :(
 
As we said at the beginning of this thread, using gas to make electricity, may well be the worst move ever.
Unless we come up with a sustainable replacement for gas, before we use it all, we may well be taking one step forward that may end up as three steps backwards.
 
Interesting article on the Governments stance.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/aust...emissions-by-2050/ar-BB14hnwB?ocid=spartandhp
From the article:
Major business groups, including the Business Council of Australia and the Ai Group, say Australia should adopt the net zero by 2050 target. Earlier this month the Ai Group called for the two biggest economic challenges in memory – recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic and cutting greenhouse gas emissions – to be addressed together, saying it would boost growth and put the country on a firm long-term footing.

Every Australian state has signed up to net zero emissions by 2050, and these commitments are expressed either as targets or aspirational goals.

But asked on Tuesday whether net zero by 2050 was the federal government’s policy, Taylor said: “No.”

“Our approach is not to have a target without a plan,” Taylor told the ABC. He said technology improvements would drive significant reductions in emissions “and we’d love to be able to achieve net zero by 2050, but ultimately that will depend on the pathways of technology to deliver that without damaging the economy”.
 
On the one hand major business groups, the CC scientists , the economists and the environment groups see the opportunity and urgent need for a renewable energy based recovery.

And then we see what the government intends to prioritise we see this. $2b+ handout to big polluters with completely xxcked carbon capture projects that will never ever be viable. :eek:

Coalition reveals new emissions reduction measures, including paying polluters to stay under cap
Morrison government also plans to allow businesses to bid for carbon capture projects via the $2.55bn emissions reduction fund
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-including-paying-polluters-to-stay-under-cap
 

Similar threads

basilio
What does Lloyds think is happening?
2
Replies
22
Views
5K
springhill
springhill
2020hindsight
  • Poll
Which IPCC Scenario is your guess?
2
Replies
32
Views
10K
2020hindsight
2020hindsight
Top