- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,306
- Reactions
- 17,546
That sums up my thinking on the whole issue.I don't have the answer to that but I find it hard to believe it's totally inconsequential
That sums up my thinking on the whole issue.
All the coal, oil and gas burned ultimately ends up as heat added to the atmosphere. We also add heat to the atmosphere from other sources such as nuclear fission and primary electricity (hydro, wind etc - electricity that wasn't obtained from a heat source).
Now that might seem inconsequential at the level of your own house but even in a city the size of Adelaide there's a measurable local effect in the CBD versus suburbs versus country areas. Needless to say that phenomenon is more pronounced in larger cities.
So we know we can alter the climate in cities. Then we need to consider that much of the heat isn't released in cities because things like large factories and power stations are typically located somewhere else, often a very long way from any actual city. The largest point of heat release in Victoria for example is 150km away from Melbourne and the situation is similar with most cities.
Then there's things like aircraft, ships and ground transport all of which are mostly or at least substantially releasing their heat well away from cities.
Now that's heat not CO2 but all up there's a hell of a lot of it. I won't claim to know the effects but I very much doubt it is zero.
The same basic concept applies to everything man puts into the air. Added up there's a lot of it and the effects aren't going to be nothing at all and that's true whether it's carbon dioxide or if it's dichlorodifluoromethane.
Global emissions of carbon dioxide mainly from fossil fuel burning will rise 2.7 percent in 2018
http://www.thebull.com.au/articles/...-2.7,-world-'off-course'-to-curb-warming.html
I agree that it would be very wise to reduce emissions and indeed pollution in general but please don't anyone tell me that the rest of the world is doing so and Australia is the odd one out. Very clearly that isn't the case.
There's also the question of efficiently operating what we've already got.Technology is advancing so rapidly in the energy space....surely there is no need to build any new coal-fired plants. Sure, keep what we have until they reach maturity, but there are so many cleaner options for new power generation.
Hi BasilioThe effects of global warming on the Arctic and Antarctic are stark. Raising ocean temperatures by a couple of degrees tales HUGE energy input. The consequences however are the accelerated undermining the ice caps which regulate our current weather patterns.
An Upheaval at the Ends of the World
Two new reports find that the North and South Poles face an “unprecedented” climate future.
.... On Monday, a new NASA report warned that ancient glaciers in Antarctica are “waking up” and beginning to dump ice into the sea, which could eventually raise sea levels.
The following day, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released its new Arctic Report Card, which finds that the top of the world is also thawing, melting, and breaking down. The Arctic is undergoing a period of “record and near-record warmth unlike any period on record,” the report says.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science...nprecedented-climate-future-nasa-says/577915/
On the constructive side of this discussion.
A proposal on using a carbon tax that would leave most households better off. Not a bad idea for a tax is it ?
Fresh thinking: the carbon tax that would leave households better off
Today, as part of the UNSW Grand Challenge on Inequality, we release a study entitled A Climate Dividend for Australians that offers a practical solution to the twin problems of climate change and energy affordability.
It’s a serious, market-based approach to address climate change through a carbon tax, but it would also leave around three-quarters of Australians financially better off.
It is based on a carbon dividend plan formulated by the Washington-based Climate Leadership Council, which includes luminaries such as Larry Summers, George Schultz and James Baker. It is similar to a plan proposed by the US (and Australian) Citizens’ Climate Lobby.
How it would work
Carbon emissions would be taxed at A$50 per ton, with the proceeds returned to ordinary Australians as carbon dividends.
The dividends would be significant — a tax-free payment of about A$1,300 per adult.
The average household would be A$585 a year better off after taking account of price increases that would flow through from producers.
https://theconversation.com/fresh-t...that-would-leave-households-better-off-107177
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?