Resisting Climate Hysteria
- Thread starter Mickel
- Start date
FWIW - the following was sent by someone called Mark Blair. I have no idea who he is or what qualifications he has, but it makes for interesting reading.
Opinion letter to Ballina Shire Advocate, Thursday Nov 5 2009
It`s Stupidity.
Where to begin with the global warming stupidity?
In all my years, I have never seen so many people who are willing, even
eager, to believe in a media-hyped myth in preference to hard scientific
facts.
Yet I live in hope that there are some rational people left. Here are
some
of the facts. Anything I say below can be verified with a quick internet
search.
Fact 1: The polar ice caps are not melting. The British Antarctic Survey
and NASA have confirmed that the sea ice surrounding Antarctica has grown
300,000 sq km since 1980. Let me repeat: grown. Arctic ice, which did
shrink two years ago has since largely rebounded and is within the normal
range of variation.
Fact 2: The seas are not rising abnormally. The seas have been rising
slowly for the past 10,000 years. This is part of a long natural cycle.
There is no sign that the seas are rising faster than usual. For the past
three years there has been no detectable sea rise, according to satellite
data monitored by the University of Colorado.
Fact 3: No record continental temperature has been set in the world since
1974. The NSW high was set some 70 years ago. South Australia 37 years
ago and Victoria 103 years ago. Europe`s high was set 128 years ago.
Fact 4: The world as a whole is not getting warmer. The world did get
warmer from 1975 to 1998, but since then it has got cooler again, as both
Hadley and NASA have reported. It is normal for the world to get warmer
and cooler in natural cycles that span decades and centuries. According to
data from Greenland ice cores, the world was several degrees hotter over the
past 10,000 years than today. Let`s get that straight, because it is very
important: the world has been warmer in our recent pre-industrial past,
with no cars, no coal burning power stations and no factories.
Fact 5: The last 1000 years have been unusually cool, in fact, well below
the 10,000 - year average. The recent warming trends are typical of
trends seen many times in the past as the temperature naturally reverts back to
somewhere nearer the 10,000 year average. There is nothing in the recent
slight warming to suggest that the rate of reversion is abnormally strong.
Fact 6: We are not getting worse droughts than ever. From1870 to 1890
Australia saw a series of severe droughts, including Australia - wide
droughts which were severe enough to cause native trees and animals to
die.
The Federation drought killed half the sheep in Australia (50 million) and
it took 20 years for the sheep industry to recover. That was a hell of a
drought.
Fact 7: The claim that the science is settled and there is a consensus
about global warming is untrue. Many well qualified scientists disagree.
Google search US Senate Minority Report on global warming. You will find
an up-to-date report containing an astonishing amount of anti - global
warming evidence from well-known scientists that is not reported in the general
media.
Fact 8: Climate change is normal and has been going on through-out the
world`s entire history. It is not something to panic about and use as an
excuse to introduce expensive new taxes (as Rudd is planning).
If you are in the mood for calm and intelligent analysis of the global
warming issue, I recommend Googling William Happer 2009 testimony US
Senate.
Happer is a distinguished professor of physics at Princeton University.
He is one of the world`s top experts in the physics of heat and gas and he is
not worried about global warming. So why are we?
Mark Blair.
Ballina
Opinion letter to Ballina Shire Advocate, Thursday Nov 5 2009
It`s Stupidity.
Where to begin with the global warming stupidity?
In all my years, I have never seen so many people who are willing, even
eager, to believe in a media-hyped myth in preference to hard scientific
facts.
Yet I live in hope that there are some rational people left. Here are
some
of the facts. Anything I say below can be verified with a quick internet
search.
Fact 1: The polar ice caps are not melting. The British Antarctic Survey
and NASA have confirmed that the sea ice surrounding Antarctica has grown
300,000 sq km since 1980. Let me repeat: grown. Arctic ice, which did
shrink two years ago has since largely rebounded and is within the normal
range of variation.
Fact 2: The seas are not rising abnormally. The seas have been rising
slowly for the past 10,000 years. This is part of a long natural cycle.
There is no sign that the seas are rising faster than usual. For the past
three years there has been no detectable sea rise, according to satellite
data monitored by the University of Colorado.
Fact 3: No record continental temperature has been set in the world since
1974. The NSW high was set some 70 years ago. South Australia 37 years
ago and Victoria 103 years ago. Europe`s high was set 128 years ago.
Fact 4: The world as a whole is not getting warmer. The world did get
warmer from 1975 to 1998, but since then it has got cooler again, as both
Hadley and NASA have reported. It is normal for the world to get warmer
and cooler in natural cycles that span decades and centuries. According to
data from Greenland ice cores, the world was several degrees hotter over the
past 10,000 years than today. Let`s get that straight, because it is very
important: the world has been warmer in our recent pre-industrial past,
with no cars, no coal burning power stations and no factories.
Fact 5: The last 1000 years have been unusually cool, in fact, well below
the 10,000 - year average. The recent warming trends are typical of
trends seen many times in the past as the temperature naturally reverts back to
somewhere nearer the 10,000 year average. There is nothing in the recent
slight warming to suggest that the rate of reversion is abnormally strong.
Fact 6: We are not getting worse droughts than ever. From1870 to 1890
Australia saw a series of severe droughts, including Australia - wide
droughts which were severe enough to cause native trees and animals to
die.
The Federation drought killed half the sheep in Australia (50 million) and
it took 20 years for the sheep industry to recover. That was a hell of a
drought.
Fact 7: The claim that the science is settled and there is a consensus
about global warming is untrue. Many well qualified scientists disagree.
Google search US Senate Minority Report on global warming. You will find
an up-to-date report containing an astonishing amount of anti - global
warming evidence from well-known scientists that is not reported in the general
media.
Fact 8: Climate change is normal and has been going on through-out the
world`s entire history. It is not something to panic about and use as an
excuse to introduce expensive new taxes (as Rudd is planning).
If you are in the mood for calm and intelligent analysis of the global
warming issue, I recommend Googling William Happer 2009 testimony US
Senate.
Happer is a distinguished professor of physics at Princeton University.
He is one of the world`s top experts in the physics of heat and gas and he is
not worried about global warming. So why are we?
Mark Blair.
Ballina
Well your concern the environment is plausible however we dont know that reducing CO2 emissions will have any impact.
Some of the scientist who have acknowledged that CO2 is the cause feel that it will take centuries for the planet to rollback. In other words the horse has bolted.
As for your concern about peak oil and resource extermination, mans greed for prosperity will resolve this.
Oil companies made sure that mans inventions to alternative resources were squashed, so the intellectual property is out there.
Its only a matter of time.
Rudd however couldnt careless about our emissions. He is only after being president of the New World order at the UN.
What Rudd fails to see is that no one wants it and countries like the UK who have lived with an immigration explosion that meant locals losing jobs and paying higher taxes for welfare for foreigners are starting to rebel.
- Joined
- 23 September 2008
- Posts
- 919
- Reactions
- 174
Another interesting read....
http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/the-un-ipcc-climate-change-numbers-hoax/
The UN (IPCC) climate change numbers hoax
By Tom Harris and John McLean – Monday, 30 June 2008. mail updates!
It’s an assertion repeated by politicians and climate campaigners the world over: “2,500 scientists of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that humans are causing a climate crisis.”
...
....
An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that “hundreds of IPCC scientists” are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years”.
In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”. Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60 per cent of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.
Two of these seven were contacted by NRSP for the purposes of this article – Dr Vincent Gray of New Zealand and Dr Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada. Concerning the “Greenhouse gas forcing …” statement above, Professor McKitrick explained “A categorical summary statement like this is not supported by the evidence in the IPCC WG I report. Evidence shown in the report suggests that other factors play a major role in climate change, and the specific effects expected from greenhouse gases have nt been observed.”
....
http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/the-un-ipcc-climate-change-numbers-hoax/
The UN (IPCC) climate change numbers hoax
By Tom Harris and John McLean – Monday, 30 June 2008. mail updates!
It’s an assertion repeated by politicians and climate campaigners the world over: “2,500 scientists of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that humans are causing a climate crisis.”
...
....
An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that “hundreds of IPCC scientists” are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years”.
In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”. Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60 per cent of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.
Two of these seven were contacted by NRSP for the purposes of this article – Dr Vincent Gray of New Zealand and Dr Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada. Concerning the “Greenhouse gas forcing …” statement above, Professor McKitrick explained “A categorical summary statement like this is not supported by the evidence in the IPCC WG I report. Evidence shown in the report suggests that other factors play a major role in climate change, and the specific effects expected from greenhouse gases have nt been observed.”
....
Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
Prof Ian Plimer makes this same point in his book "Heaven and Earth".
He further says that these 'scientists' were not actually all scientists at all, but rather simply environmental activists.
They certainly appear to have been successful in their endeavours.
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,102
- Reactions
- 16,892
Time is what worries me. Based on all the info I have, we've got only until the economy (globally) grows more than a few % to have the alternatives rolling off the production line since oil production capacity today is almost certainly below actual consumption levels 18 months ago.
The oil industry needed to run flat out to maintain flat production, then along came the GFC and a lot of projects were cancelled or delayed. It thus seems reasonable to assume that production capacity now is less than it was, a situation hidden only by GFC-induced falls in demand.
Time will tell but I'm not at all confident that we'll actually implement alternatives in time. "In time" meaning basically until the economic downturn ends and growth resumes - that's likely to be measured in months or at most years rather than decades or centuries.
Time will tell.
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,102
- Reactions
- 16,892
13 degrees in Hobart at the moment but a few days ago it was nearly 33.
Does this mean I can claim an imminent ice age because it's dropped 20 degrees in just a few days? No, it's just normal variation in the weather.
It's nothing new to have a heatwave in Adelaide or for it to get cold in Tasmania. Likewise it's nothing new to find humidity in Brisbane or drought in most of the country.
One thing we forget is that Australian cities and weather records haven't been around that long - after only a couple of centuries, considerably less for most weather monitoring locations, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that we have not seen the extremes that will occur.
Just because Adelaide hasn't officially recorded anything higher than a bit over 47 doesn't mean that it didn't get to 48, 49 or even 55 degrees at some point in the past before the city was built and we started recording temperatures. We just haven't been recording the weather for long enough to have experienced the full range of what nature can throw at us.
- Joined
- 14 March 2006
- Posts
- 3,630
- Reactions
- 5
13 degrees in Hobart at the moment but a few days ago it was nearly 33.
Does this mean I can claim an imminent ice age because it's dropped 20 degrees in just a few days? No, it's just normal variation in the weather.
It's nothing new to have a heatwave in Adelaide or for it to get cold in Tasmania. Likewise it's nothing new to find humidity in Brisbane or drought in most of the country.
One thing we forget is that Australian cities and weather records haven't been around that long - after only a couple of centuries, considerably less for most weather monitoring locations, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that we have not seen the extremes that will occur.
Just because Adelaide hasn't officially recorded anything higher than a bit over 47 doesn't mean that it didn't get to 48, 49 or even 55 degrees at some point in the past before the city was built and we started recording temperatures. We just haven't been recording the weather for long enough to have experienced the full range of what nature can throw at us.
Exactly what Dorothea Mackellar was talking about in 1904.
A Sunburnt country
The love of field and coppice
Of green and shaded lanes,
Of ordered woods and gardens
Is running in your veins.
Strong love of grey-blue distance,
Brown streams and soft, dim skies
I know, but cannot share it,
My love is otherwise.
I love a sunburnt country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of drought and flooding rains.
I love her far horizons,
I love her jewel-sea,
Her beauty and her terror
The wide brown land for me!
The stark white ring-barked forests,
All tragic to the moon,
The sapphire-misted mountains,
The hot gold hush of noon,
Green tangle of the brushes
Where lithe lianas coil,
And orchids deck the tree-tops,
And ferns the warm dark soil.
Core of my heart, my country!
Her pitiless blue sky,
When, sick at heart, around us
We see the cattle die
But then the grey clouds gather,
And we can bless again
The drumming of an army,
The steady soaking rain.
Core of my heart, my country!
Land of the rainbow gold,
For flood and fire and famine
She pays us back threefold.
Over the thirsty paddocks,
Watch, after many days,
The filmy veil of greenness
That thickens as we gaze…
An opal-hearted country,
A wilful, lavish land
All you who have not loved her,
You will not understand
though Earth holds many splendours,
Wherever I may die,
I know to what brown country
My homing thoughts will fly.
13 degrees in Hobart at the moment but a few days ago it was nearly 33.
Does this mean I can claim an imminent ice age because it's dropped 20 degrees in just a few days? No, it's just normal variation in the weather.
It's nothing new to have a heatwave in Adelaide or for it to get cold in Tasmania. Likewise it's nothing new to find humidity in Brisbane or drought in most of the country.
One thing we forget is that Australian cities and weather records haven't been around that long - after only a couple of centuries, considerably less for most weather monitoring locations, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that we have not seen the extremes that will occur.
Just because Adelaide hasn't officially recorded anything higher than a bit over 47 doesn't mean that it didn't get to 48, 49 or even 55 degrees at some point in the past before the city was built and we started recording temperatures. We just haven't been recording the weather for long enough to have experienced the full range of what nature can throw at us.
Exactly....thank you Smurf for bringing some sanity to the climate debate by pointing out a simple fact that so many people just don't consider.
It's completely ludicrous to automatically assume that the most extreme weather events we've seen in the last two hundred or so years are the result of man-made climate change. Yet that's the sort of claim made by Kevin Rudd and other fools when Adelaide copped a heatwave recently, when cyclone Larry hit North Queensland a couple of years back, and when the heatwave and associated bushfires devastated parts of Victoria earlier this year.
You'd have to be stupid in the extreme not to realise that the last few hundred thousand years have almost certainly produced stronger cyclones, bigger floods, longer droughts, colder cold snaps, and bigger tsunamis than any we've experienced in the last few hundred years.
Below is an article that outlines some interesting findings from Dr. Jonathan Nott, a highly credentialed researcher from James Cook University in Cairns.
Super Cyclone
(04/10/2001)
Topics: Natural Disasters
Comments
Reporter: Paul Willis
Producer: Louise Heywood
Researcher: Robert Hodgson
North Queensland regularly suffers under the onslaught of cyclonic winds and driving seas, but scientists don't think Australia's top end has seen how big and bad a cyclone can be.
Could cities such as Cairns withstand the ferocious attack of a 'super cyclone'? A geological dig through a 6,000-year history of cyclones in the region reveals that the worst is yet to come - and it's time to batten down the hatches.
TRANSCRIPT
Narration: North Queenslanders beware - a supercyclone, bigger than anything you've seen before, is coming your way. And Cairns may not be able to cope with a cyclone from hell.
Jonathan Nott: Generally Europeans haven't been in north Queensland since the last super cyclone but one is definitely going to occur in the future.
Narration: Cyclones are regular visitors to Cairns. Cyclone Steve hit in 2000 causing extensive damage. It was one of the strongest storms recorded in the area. But this is not the worst that can happen.
Steve was a pup. If a small cyclone can cause this much damage, imagine what a really big cyclone could do. Dr Jonathan Nott from James Cook University at Cairns has been looking into the geological record to figure out how often cyclones hit the North Queensland coast.
Today he's taking me to one of his study sites on Fitzroy Island, just off the coast from Cairns.
Jonathan Nott: Out there is the Great Barrier Reef so the beaches here are not made of sand, they're made of broken coral. This coral shingle is washed onto the beach during storms.
Narration: Cyclones create storm surges and these walls of water push the shingle into ridges at the back of the beach. The bigger the cyclone, the bigger the storm surge, the bigger the shingle ridge it leaves behind.
Jonathan Nott: We have a small ridge here that is deposited by a relatively moderate size cyclone. A ridge behind that what was deposited by an earlier cyclone that was bigger again and then back into the rainforest we have another deposit that was deposited by a very large or very intense cyclone.
Narration: By measuring shingle ridges Jon's been able to build up a 6,000 year history of cyclones in North Queensland. He's found dozens of super cyclones - enormous storms the likes of which have not been seen within historic times. The last big cyclone seen in Cairns hit in 1920. It had a storm surge of just 2.5 metres.
Jonathan Nott: In the early 1800's we had a storm surge which was more than 4 metres high and that would have been at least a metre over my head as I sit here now.
Narration: As you can see Cairns has changed quite a bit in the last 80 odd years. As the city has grown and developed, the building regulations have been tightened to account for the strongest cyclones on record. But, if Jon's right, they ain't seen nothing yet.
Cyclone Vance was Australia's biggest recorded cyclone. It hit the North Coast of Western Australia in 1999 with 267 km/h winds. Homes and buildings built to withstand cyclonic winds were no match for Vance. More than 240 were damaged, half beyond repair.
Destruction came from both the extreme winds and a ferocious sea. The storm surge was a 6 metre high wall of water. It ploughed up to a kilometre inland stripping bare everything in its' path. Is Cairns ready for a Super-cyclone? Built to withstand smaller cyclones, the 300kmh winds of a super-cyclone would leave half of Cairns uninhabitable. A storm surge greater than 4 metres would devastate the waterfront and shopping districts.
If the city is evacuated there should be no loss of life but the damage bill could run into many millions of dollars.
Jonathan Nott: These events occur every two to three hundred years and it has been a couple of hundred years since the last one hit this region here around Cairns. So we know that they're going to occur in the future. We don't know when they will occur, but we know that one will definitely occur in the relatively near future."
Narration: Jon's findings have only just been published in the journal Nature, so the authorities haven't really had time to take on board his warnings. It may well mean that building regulations have to be tightened even further and development close to sea level stopped altogether.
But the take home message is BEWARE: killer cyclones will hit north Queensland.
Story Contacts
Dr Jonathan Nott
James Cook University
Cairns, Queensland
wayneL will find this one interesting
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/global-warming-religion-modern-day.html
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/global-warming-religion-modern-day.html
- Joined
- 2 July 2008
- Posts
- 7,102
- Reactions
- 6
Nigel Lawson yesterday launched "The Global Warning Policy Forum" for those people interested in rational debate;
www.thegwpf.org
www.thegwpf.org
I have told this true story before, but I will tell it again.
My dear mother was born in Port Douglas in 1897. In 1911 a severe cyclone hit Port Douglas and my mother, her three sisters and their mother huddled under the very strong kitchen table for shelter. The house collapsed on top of them and the kitchen table saved their lives. That was the same cyclone that sank the Yongala. The house was totally destroyed. To the best of my knowledge they did not have categories of intensity in those days, so it is difficult to compare with what has happened since then.
I personlly worked on sheep stations in the late 40's and early 50's and experienced severe drought, fire and floods, being marooned on one property for two weeks on an island surrounded by water. There was no panic in those days, no helicopers to the rescue, no bitumen sealed roads. Most property owners had been through all before and made adequte preparations in advance.
So tell me what's new today? The only thing new today is the BS being put out by politicians; the hysteria that we must have an ETS and a CPRS to save the world, from what?
My dear mother was born in Port Douglas in 1897. In 1911 a severe cyclone hit Port Douglas and my mother, her three sisters and their mother huddled under the very strong kitchen table for shelter. The house collapsed on top of them and the kitchen table saved their lives. That was the same cyclone that sank the Yongala. The house was totally destroyed. To the best of my knowledge they did not have categories of intensity in those days, so it is difficult to compare with what has happened since then.
I personlly worked on sheep stations in the late 40's and early 50's and experienced severe drought, fire and floods, being marooned on one property for two weeks on an island surrounded by water. There was no panic in those days, no helicopers to the rescue, no bitumen sealed roads. Most property owners had been through all before and made adequte preparations in advance.
So tell me what's new today? The only thing new today is the BS being put out by politicians; the hysteria that we must have an ETS and a CPRS to save the world, from what?
Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
Noco, I doubt it will make you feel better to know that the amended scheme includes additional benefits for the coal and electricity industries, funds for which will be taken from the assistance to ordinary householders.
Garpal Gumnut
Ross Island Hotel
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Posts
- 13,348
- Reactions
- 9,466
The University of East Anglia should be ashamed for fiddling data and denigrating those scientists who did not agree with the Al Gore led Weather not Weather argument.
Shame, shame , shame.
gg
Shame, shame , shame.
gg
Wysiwyg
Everyone wants money
- Joined
- 8 August 2006
- Posts
- 8,428
- Reactions
- 284
Yes as a kid I remember walking the drying river beds looking for among other things goannas, lizards, snakes, crayfish, top notch pigeon, feral pigs and wild cats. Then at different times revelling in the mud slides on the banks of the Flinders River in flood from the rains in the Gulf. Truly normal climate but that was a long way from the industrial world back then.
Yes Julia, I am aware of the compromise made and who will suffer the most? You and me and lot lot more like us who, in many cases, are self funded retirees. Make no exceptions, everybody's hip pocket will be affected.
My area has experienced well below average rainfall for at least the last 12 years or so, with a number of these years being touted by the media and by various well-respected climate 'experts' as 'the worst drought on record' for this region.
During that 12 years my family and I have travelled regularly through a particular 50 km stretch of country on our way to visit my aunty and uncle.
In that 50 km stretch we cross a number of creeks that have had water in them during every one of these so called 'driest years on record'.
My uncle, who is in his eighties, tells me there's an old timer near him who is in his late 90's, and this man remembers riding his horse through this same 50 km stretch of country back in the 1920's when he was a teenager - on the entire trip he couldn't find one creek with water in it to give his horse a drink.
Conclusion? Back near the turn of last century there were drier years than some of the years in recent times that are being touted as 'the driest on record'.
And no doubt there were wetter years too than any recently, and colder years and hotter years, if not in the early 20's then before then.
And yet there's barely a week goes by without some imbecile like our Prime Minister pointing to some extreme weather event and claiming it's the worst on record and is proof of man-made climate change.
When, for 'God's sake when, are these stupid people going to get in touch with reality!
During that 12 years my family and I have travelled regularly through a particular 50 km stretch of country on our way to visit my aunty and uncle.
In that 50 km stretch we cross a number of creeks that have had water in them during every one of these so called 'driest years on record'.
My uncle, who is in his eighties, tells me there's an old timer near him who is in his late 90's, and this man remembers riding his horse through this same 50 km stretch of country back in the 1920's when he was a teenager - on the entire trip he couldn't find one creek with water in it to give his horse a drink.
Conclusion? Back near the turn of last century there were drier years than some of the years in recent times that are being touted as 'the driest on record'.
And no doubt there were wetter years too than any recently, and colder years and hotter years, if not in the early 20's then before then.
And yet there's barely a week goes by without some imbecile like our Prime Minister pointing to some extreme weather event and claiming it's the worst on record and is proof of man-made climate change.
When, for 'God's sake when, are these stupid people going to get in touch with reality!
- Joined
- 2 July 2008
- Posts
- 7,102
- Reactions
- 6
Once we we would have looked on the climate change alarmists as being harmless cranks. But now with Rudd and Turnbull's ETS we are confronted all to late, with the realisation that they have the upper hand, and they are dangerous.
As Terry Mc Crann said about yesterday's events;
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26397329-3122,00.html
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,102
- Reactions
- 16,892
There's not much point now in continuing the should / shouldn't debate since it seems there's a done deal. The rational focus now is on how to make the best of it personally and what the bigger picture consequences will be.
Amongst other things, REC's are now tradeable on the ASX so there's one possibility. http://www.asx.com.au/products/futures/recs/product_description.htm
Other things that come to mind are any company involved in the gas industry since that's likely to scale up across the board and, in the medium term, see significant price rises as its main competitor (coal and coal-fired electricity) is constrained.
Civil construction companies involved with the building of wind farms and, on a lesser scale, other large scale renewable energy production are another one. There are multiple large wind farms in various locations plus a few solar (large scale not house roofs) and hydro projects in the planning stages that are now more likely to proceed.
At the personal level, anything that reduces your fossil fuel use is likely to be more profitable in the years ahead than it otherwise would have been. What is a loss or break even today becomes profitable in this new carbon-constrained world. And even at present electricity prices, you can get a 12% nominal return on a 1.5 kW PV system on your roof (depending on how much you pay for it etc) so it's worth looking at.
Anyone who makes a new committment to ongoing high levels of fossil fuel use, relative to their income, is a fool in my opinion. Forget that new SUV and forget those halogen downlights. And needless to say, don't build a poorly insulated McMansion with no eaves and a black roof in a hot climate, an idea that always was absurd regardless of electricity costs.
Don't think you're being smart rushing to beat the electric water heater ban either - you'll end up going broke on a quarterly basis paying to run it for the next 15 years as electricity prices rise. Go solar, heat pump or at least gas instead (which is best will depend on your circumstances - a heat pump will suit me fine but it's not for everyone).
Now, I'm not overly happy with the situation but I've thought since the 1980's that this day would come eventually, the only question being under what circumstances - whether oil depletion or politics got there first. Politics it is - at least until oil whacks us over the head and everyone forgets about climate change (a scenario I'm fully expecting). But for now - make the best of it and base your decisions accordingly. RIP cheap energy.
The next open ended question is what government does next to ease the pain for voters? We've already got solar PV and HWS subsidies, energy audits (many of which are useless IMO but that's another story), free insulation and green loans. We've banned incandescent light bulbs, regulated building construction and are banning electric storage water heaters.
So what's next? Other than extensions to existing schemes, about the only obvious things government hasn't handed out already is a "cash for clunkers" program to get rid of old cars (and conveniently boost the car industry...) and free natural gas connection for houses. Given the political clout of both of those industries, the broader economic situation with manufacturing, and the roll-out of the National Broadband Network (which has synergies with installing gas pipes), I wouldn't be surprised to see either of those schemes eventuate at some point.
Amongst other things, REC's are now tradeable on the ASX so there's one possibility. http://www.asx.com.au/products/futures/recs/product_description.htm
Other things that come to mind are any company involved in the gas industry since that's likely to scale up across the board and, in the medium term, see significant price rises as its main competitor (coal and coal-fired electricity) is constrained.
Civil construction companies involved with the building of wind farms and, on a lesser scale, other large scale renewable energy production are another one. There are multiple large wind farms in various locations plus a few solar (large scale not house roofs) and hydro projects in the planning stages that are now more likely to proceed.
At the personal level, anything that reduces your fossil fuel use is likely to be more profitable in the years ahead than it otherwise would have been. What is a loss or break even today becomes profitable in this new carbon-constrained world. And even at present electricity prices, you can get a 12% nominal return on a 1.5 kW PV system on your roof (depending on how much you pay for it etc) so it's worth looking at.
Anyone who makes a new committment to ongoing high levels of fossil fuel use, relative to their income, is a fool in my opinion. Forget that new SUV and forget those halogen downlights. And needless to say, don't build a poorly insulated McMansion with no eaves and a black roof in a hot climate, an idea that always was absurd regardless of electricity costs.
Don't think you're being smart rushing to beat the electric water heater ban either - you'll end up going broke on a quarterly basis paying to run it for the next 15 years as electricity prices rise. Go solar, heat pump or at least gas instead (which is best will depend on your circumstances - a heat pump will suit me fine but it's not for everyone).
Now, I'm not overly happy with the situation but I've thought since the 1980's that this day would come eventually, the only question being under what circumstances - whether oil depletion or politics got there first. Politics it is - at least until oil whacks us over the head and everyone forgets about climate change (a scenario I'm fully expecting). But for now - make the best of it and base your decisions accordingly. RIP cheap energy.
The next open ended question is what government does next to ease the pain for voters? We've already got solar PV and HWS subsidies, energy audits (many of which are useless IMO but that's another story), free insulation and green loans. We've banned incandescent light bulbs, regulated building construction and are banning electric storage water heaters.
So what's next? Other than extensions to existing schemes, about the only obvious things government hasn't handed out already is a "cash for clunkers" program to get rid of old cars (and conveniently boost the car industry...) and free natural gas connection for houses. Given the political clout of both of those industries, the broader economic situation with manufacturing, and the roll-out of the National Broadband Network (which has synergies with installing gas pipes), I wouldn't be surprised to see either of those schemes eventuate at some point.
Similar threads
