Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Wysiwyg]

The end of the Industrial Revolution?

The world in unison has to stop burning hydrocarbons. Lubrication should be the only requirement for crude oil to be extracted. It might take longer to get around without the various fuels but I'm sure the planet could slow down and be a much happier place.

 

[sydboy007]

The end of the Industrial Revolution?

The world in unison has to stop burning hydrocarbons. Lubrication should be the only requirement for crude oil to be extracted. It might take longer to get around without the various fuels but I'm sure the planet could slow down and be a much happier place.

To achieve that goal population growth would need to stop and start a fairly steep decline. Fromw hat I've read roghly 3B is the sustainable maximum population.

Food transport and production consumes a lot of oil these days. Possibly we need to encourage people to start having a veggie patch again as well. Actually get fresh food and eating what's in season rather than shipped 2000KM or more.

 

[So_Cynical]

A couple of interesting TED talks.

Michael Specter: The danger of science denial

http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_specter_the_danger_of_science_denial

Bill Gates unveils his vision for the world's energy future, describing the need for "miracles" to avoid planetary catastrophe and explaining why he's backing a dramatically different type of nuclear reactor. The necessary goal? Zero carbon emissions globally by 2050.

http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates

 

[noco]

An interesting article by Patrick Moore disclaiming the alarmists science on climate change.

But will anyone take any notice of him due to the fact that he is a skeptic like millions of others around the world?

The alarmist say the discussion is over....they must have their own way and the opinion of anyone else does not count.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...dioxide-not-less/story-e6frg6zo-1227132351356

By its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years. We don’t understand the precise workings of the natural causes of climate change any more than we know if humans are part of the cause at present. But if the IPCC did not find that *humans were the cause of warming, or if it found that warming would be more positive than negative, there would be no need for the IPCC under its present mandate. To survive, it must find on the side of the apocalypse. *Either the IPCC should be reconstituted with a larger membership of UN bodies (it is now a partnership between the World Meteorological Organisation and the UN Environment Program), and its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled.

 

[Smurf1976]

Lubrication should be the only requirement for crude oil to be extracted.

Drugs, plastics, chemicals....

Agreed with your basic point, but the uses of oil and gas extend far beyond that of fuel and lubricants.

Just about everything you own, involved oil in its' production in some way. In some cases a lot, in some cases a trivial amount, but oil was involved nonetheless. There's the equivalent of about 8 litres of petrol in an average sofa for example.

Modern society is completely and absolutely stuffed without oil. Gas is also used for more than is commonly realised too - its' use extends beyond that of just being a fuel and is used to make, amongst other things, fertilizer.

Burning these resources, especially for electricity where we have workable alternatives, is just silly.

 

[sydboy007]

Gail Tvberg sums things up nicely witht he challenges we face

http://ourfiniteworld.com/2014/11/18/eight-pitfalls-in-evaluating-green-energy-solutions/

The name of the game is “kicking the can down the road a little.” In a finite world, we are reaching many limits besides fossil fuels:

1. Soil quality–erosion of topsoil, depleted minerals, added salt
2. Fresh water–depletion of aquifers that only replenish over thousands of years
3. Deforestation–cutting down trees faster than they regrow
4. Ore quality–depletion of high quality ores, leaving us with low quality ores
5. Extinction of other species–as we build more structures and disturb more land, we remove habitat that other species use, or pollute it
6. Pollution–many types: CO2, heavy metals, noise, smog, fine particles, radiation, etc.
7. Arable land per person, as population continues to rise

 

[basilio]

That was a very sad little story from Gail Tyberg...

I have a lot of respect for her work. She thinks clearly and researches well. I just havn't visited such challenging scenarios for a little time now and I was feeling better...

Oh well back to reality.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Gail Tvberg sums things up nicely witht he challenges we face

Can someone tell Gail to stop contributing to the problems she identified.

Smurf1976
Drugs, plastics, chemicals....

Yes those things too. The technology changes are so rapid present time that people are throwing away old technology, i.e. computers, printers, televisions, machines and mobile phones on a massive scale. It gathers momentum. The Chinese leader speaks in Parliament about growing China to prosperity and that will include a lot of technological pleasures and comforts so we can expect a massive consumption of new technologies that create new technologies.

 

[Calliope]

Can someone tell Gail to stop contributing to the problems she identified

There are so many hypocrites around.The greatest of all is Barack Obama. The mind boggles at the massive waste of natural resources involved in bringing Obama and his huge entourage out here for no other perceived reason than to lecture us on the dangers of pollution and to bolster climate hysteria in gullible UQ students.

Typical of their insolence;

.

THE US Secret Service wanted to bulldoze a major Brisbane roundabout ahead of Barack Obama’s University of Queensland speech on Saturday so his motorcade and armoured Cadillac would not be forced to slow down.

Police sources have told The Australian that Queensland authorities rejected the American request to fund the destruction and rebuilding of the troublesome traffic feature outside UQ’s St Lucia campus to smooth the path for the President’s car, known as “The Beast”.

 

[Tisme]

The name of the game is “kicking the can down the road a little.” In a finite world, we are reaching many limits besides fossil fuels:

1.Soil quality–erosion of topsoil, depleted minerals, added salt
2.Fresh water–depletion of aquifers that only replenish over thousands of years
3.Deforestation–cutting down trees faster than they regrow
4.Ore quality–depletion of high quality ores, leaving us with low quality ores
5.Extinction of other species–as we build more structures and disturb more land, we remove habitat that other species use, or pollute it
6.Pollution–many types: CO2, heavy metals, noise, smog, fine particles, radiation, etc.
7.Arable land per person, as population continues to rise

How would Sonny Hammond have handled this if it was happening in Waratah National Park?

 

[Smurf1976]

That was a very sad little story from Gail Tyberg...

Changing the energy source only shifts the problem to something else. Instead of running out of oil and gas and suffering the effects of CO2 emissions, we end up running out of phosphate rock and suffering the effects of groundwater pollution instead. Or pick any of the other problems.

As for solutions, well I'll put it this way.

A desk, to pick a random item, ought to last a lifetime. What can possibly go wrong with basic office furniture? Same concept applies to all sorts of things that last many years with little if any technological improvement. And yet us silly humans still keep throwing perfectly good things away in order to replace them with new items which are no better than the ones we threw away.

Now go to a certain big name hardware store and note that they're selling lawnmowers for as little as $130 at times and certainly under $200. That's for a petrol powered mower, not a manual push one. The petrol isn't the issue, someone mowing an average suburban yard isn't going to use that much fuel anyway, but building something as basic (no real room for technological improvement) as a petrol powered mower that falls apart after a couple of years and can't be repaired (because they don't sell spare parts) is just madness. From an environmental and resource perspective, buying a $500+ mower and keeping it for a couple of decades is far more rational (ignoring arguments as to whether or not to have a lawn in the first place).

Consumerism and activity for the sake of activity in order to make the financial numbers look good is the real crux of the problem with resources and the natural environment. Changing the power source doesn't fix it.

 

[Wysiwyg]

How would Sonny Hammond have handled this if it was happening in Waratah National Park?

 

[Julia]

Consumerism and activity for the sake of activity in order to make the financial numbers look good is the real crux of the problem with resources and the natural environment. Changing the power source doesn't fix it.

I so agree. Might cheer you a little, Smurf, to know that I have a refrigerator which I kept when my grandmother died about 33 years ago. She had used it for about five years prior to her death. It has never needed any repair. It's a little inconvenient because it has to be manually defrosted, but that's all.

Some people also just like acquiring stuff so buy new things when they don't need them.

 

[Smurf1976]

Some people also just like acquiring stuff so buy new things when they don't need them.

I've often thought that the practice of measuring human progress largely by the use of a single metric, GDP, is both silly and the cause of a lot of problems.

Building things which break, or replacing perfectly good items, does lead to an increase in GDP and makes "the numbers look good" but brings no real gain to society beyond economics. I could run around smashing windows tonight and that will boost GDP to produce replacements but that's clearly not actually creating any wealth as such. We had a good window, broke it, and now have to make another one - that's a loss not a gain.

GDP has become an end in itself, rather than a useful measure of actual economic progress and activity. Not that I have an alternative measure to propose, but ultimately if someone fixes a chair and doubles its' lifespan well that's the same utility benefit, without the pollution of disposal and manufacture, as buying a new one.

 

[burglar]

... as buying a new one.

We have become accustomed to buying a replacement in favour of repair.
This is due to the high cost of labour.

When a wooly jumper costs less than wool, knitting is no longer an economical option.

 

[sptrawler]

Changing the energy source only shifts the problem to something else. Instead of running out of oil and gas and suffering the effects of CO2 emissions, we end up running out of phosphate rock and suffering the effects of groundwater pollution instead. Or pick any of the other problems.

As for solutions, well I'll put it this way.

A desk, to pick a random item, ought to last a lifetime. What can possibly go wrong with basic office furniture? Same concept applies to all sorts of things that last many years with little if any technological improvement. And yet us silly humans still keep throwing perfectly good things away in order to replace them with new items which are no better than the ones we threw away.

Now go to a certain big name hardware store and note that they're selling lawnmowers for as little as $130 at times and certainly under $200. That's for a petrol powered mower, not a manual push one. The petrol isn't the issue, someone mowing an average suburban yard isn't going to use that much fuel anyway, but building something as basic (no real room for technological improvement) as a petrol powered mower that falls apart after a couple of years and can't be repaired (because they don't sell spare parts) is just madness. From an environmental and resource perspective, buying a $500+ mower and keeping it for a couple of decades is far more rational (ignoring arguments as to whether or not to have a lawn in the first place).

Consumerism and activity for the sake of activity in order to make the financial numbers look good is the real crux of the problem with resources and the natural environment. Changing the power source doesn't fix it.

I keep going crazy when I see toasters, kettle, irons on sale for $7.
It just takes the mickey out of global warming, save the planet etc.

How can those products be made and sold for that price?
The raw materials, the energy required, the labour component, the shipping, the fork lifts, the delivery truck, the shelf stacker, the profit margin.
Is there any wonder we have global warming, when so little value is put on something.
In days gone, these articles were repaired, now it's to the tip and down the shop for a new one.
Waste, obsolescence and affluence, is the new name of the game.

 

[sydboy007]

Globalisation is much to blame for it all.

Supply chains shipping semi finished good thousands of kilometres for a little more processing at each step of the value add chain.

We need to move towards producing and consuming much closer to home.

We also need to take a whole of life cycle cost into account and maybe use more expensive materials that are easier to recycle.

We either start to make the changes willingly, or they'll be forced on us in the not so distant future.

 

[Wysiwyg]

I keep going crazy when I see toasters, kettle, irons on sale for $7.
It just takes the mickey out of global warming, save the planet etc.

Ask Christine Milne how her bling is made or where her clothes come from or what powers the plane she flies in or what energy source her office uses. I sincerely hope she is doing something practical besides rustling up the bandwagon.

 

[basilio]

It looks like we are all in furious agreement on the amount of STUFF we/everyone consumes as a prime cause of global warming/loss of resources/endless pollution/universal sickness.

If anyone is interested in a deeper read of the topic check out the reference. One of the saddest observations is

Guess what percentage of total material flow through this system is still in product or use 6 months after their sale in North America. Fifty percent? Twenty? NO. One percent. One! In other words, 99 percent of the stuff we harvest, mine, process, transport””99 percent of the stuff we run through this system is trashed within 6 months

.

http://storyofstuff.org/wp-content/uploads/movies/scripts/Story of Stuff.pdf

 

[sptrawler]

Globalisation is much to blame for it all.

Supply chains shipping semi finished good thousands of kilometres for a little more processing at each step of the value add chain.

We need to move towards producing and consuming much closer to home.

We also need to take a whole of life cycle cost into account and maybe use more expensive materials that are easier to recycle.

We either start to make the changes willingly, or they'll be forced on us in the not so distant future.

The elephant in the room is, the more we become sustainable, the more we populate.

It won't end well.