Resisting Climate Hysteria

[macca]

As usual, they never explain how putting a price on ag emissions will cut the emissions, unless they expect a lot of farmers to go broke or at least cut the size of their herds.
Mick

They seem to forget that people need to eat.

I have read that certain wealthy people in the USA are pushing artificial meat made from cereal crops

How ridiculous, the amount of pollution created to plant, fertilize, water, harvest, transport, process, package before shipment is far more than a cow eating grass.

Can't get a monopoly on cows though can they

 

[Sean K]

This is the stuff that causes people to ignore the whole CC thing.

A cow eats grass, it digests the grass, farts, burps and poops while it makes milk or beef.

In the meantime, the poop fertilizes the grass, the farts are CO2, the grass also absorbs this so that it can grow again

It is basically, a closed cycle IMO

There used to be billions of herbivores before humans starting building houses etc, I think there would be less animals now than there was then so I don't see how they are part of the problem.

I watched a non-scientific opinion piece on sequestration of CO2 recently that surmised that Australia is already net zero due to our size and the amount of CO2 absorbed by the land and our sea compared to emissions. Not sure if a peer reviewed study has been done on this, but there should be. Perhaps Australia is already producing carbon credits and we can keep the lights on?

 

[macca]

I watched a non-scientific opinion piece on sequestration of CO2 recently that surmised that Australian is already net zero due to our size and the amount of CO2 absorbed by the land and our sea compared to emissions. Not sure if a peer reviewed study has been done on this, but there should be. Perhaps Australia is already producing carbon credits and we can keep the lights on?

I read that if we include the territorial waters off our coast line we are actually CO2 positive, I will try to remember where I read it...................

It does help that we claim a huge area of ocean being an island.

 

[mullokintyre]

Ah you guys are forgetting the fact that because we export coal , oil. gas and meat etc, we export emissions, which are included in our output.
And its not the amount we emit, its the amount per capita.
Thats the way they demonise OZ, but let of China scott free.
Mick

 

[Sean K]

Ah you guys are forgetting the fact that because we export coal , oil. gas and meat etc, we export emissions, which are included in our output.
And its not the amount we emit, its the amount per capita.
Thats the way they demonise OZ, but let of China scott free.
Mick

Yep, and I read somewhere recently that we're not accounting for our methane emissions correctly. NZ is going to start including them shortly which is going to significantly affect them. Maybe they'll catch the farts with little plastic bags tied to the sheep.

It's an interesting one the issue of coal, oil, gas we export. We don't count that as our emissions do we? Surely the country that burns the fuel is the emitter and has to account for it?

 

[wayneL]

Yep, and I read somewhere recently that we're not accounting for our methane emissions correctly. NZ is going to start including them shortly which is going to significantly affect them. Maybe they'll catch the farts with little plastic bags tied to the sheep.

An absurd action, which can only have nefarious goals IMO.

It's an interesting one the issue of coal, oil, gas we export. We don't count that as our emissions do we? Surely the country that burns the fuel is the emitter and has to account for it?

Would it be cynical of me to suspect it is double counted

 

[mullokintyre]

t. We don't count that as our emissions do we? Surely the country that burns the fuel is the emitter and has to account for it

From Climate analytics

When emissions from Australia’s current coal, oil and gas exports (3.6% of global total) are added to domestic emissions (1.4% of global total), Australia’s contribution to the global climate pollution footprint is already about 5%. That’s equivalent to the total greenhouse gas emissions of Russia, world’s fifth biggest carbon dioxide emitter.

Full report: Evaluating the significance of Australia’s global fossil fuel carbon footprint

Australia is the world’s top exporter of thermal and metallurgical coal, accounting for about 29% of global coal trade in 2016, and will soon be the world’s largest natural gas (LNG) exporter. As a consequence, Australia’s global carbon footprint is very significant, with exported fossil fuel emissions currently representing around 3.6% of global emissions. In 2017, Australian coal and gas exports produced around 2.9% and 0.6% of global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion respectively.

The folks who do the demanding are the same ones who put out and quote the statistics.
Mick

 

[PZ99]

So our overall total is 5% which means little unless they subtract it from the countries burning the fuel.

Can't see that happening so I'll stick with the 1.4%. If we export coal to fund renewables that's good enough for me.

 

[Sean K]

From Climate analytics

The folks who do the demanding are the same ones who put out and quote the statistics.
Mick

So, as @wayneL intimated, surely it's not double counted then and the country actually burning the fuel doesn't include it. I think there should at least be some shared responsibility there, but my gut actually says they emitter should account for it. Who makes the rules on this, some UN body?

 

[macca]

So, as @wayneL intimated, surely it's not double counted then and the country actually burning the fuel doesn't include it. I think there should at least be some shared responsibility there, but my gut actually says they emitter should account for it. Who makes the rules on this, some UN body?

I believe it should be like GST, whoever is the end user pays the full bill or in this case, is responsible for All of the CO2.

We start the ball rolling by digging it out, the business that buys it adds the freight CO2 and then the processing CO2.

The wholesaler/end user is billed for all the CO2 created to get this far

Works for me, watch Europe and the USA scream then

 

[Sean K]

I'd really like to know exactly how we account for our CO2 emissions and how much we actually absorb. There seems to be some conflicting information about.

Not sure what sort of scientist Bill is, and he may have an agenda, like most other scientists I guess.

Renowned scientist says Australia could already be at “net-zero”​

Eric Barker, 16/05/2022

A WELL-KNOWN Queensland scientist says there is emerging evidence that Australia has already reached its goal of net-zero CO2 emissions and would require little effort to maintain it beyond 2050.

Dr Bill Burrows is a former senior principal scientist with the Queensland Department of Primary Industries (now Department of Agriculture) and served the State Government for more than 40 years. He has long been known as an expert in vegetation management.

Lately, he has been studying the Federal Government’s target of reaching ‘net-zero emissions by 2050’. He says it is likely the government has already reached that goal when it changed its wording about climate targets about 18-months-ago.

“In December 2020 Australia’s Department of Industry, Science, Energy & Resources advised an Inquiry on two Climate Change Bills instigated by the House Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy that ‘for the Paris Agreement (PA) all net emissions from all lands (in Australia) will be accounted for – without restriction – using the independent monitoring systems of the national inventory’,” Dr Burrows said in a recent report.

“By way of contrast, for the Kyoto Protocol only about 1pc of Australia’s land mass was actually taken into account in determining net emissions.”

Earlier this month, a group of scientists in Tasmania discovered that the state was already carbon negative through a significant drop in native forest logging. Dr Burrows said if all of Australia’s rangelands were included in the accounting, the entire country would show similar results to Tasmania.

“Australia is the 6th largest nation in area in the world (and in the main has a land mass covered by CO2 absorbing perennial vegetation), yet it has far fewer people living in it than live in a single world ‘super’ city (e.g. Tokyo),” Dr Burrows said.

Detailed report here:

Australia is already a net zero CO2-e emitter – thanks to our forests and rangelands

 

[wayneL]

I'd really like to know exactly how we account for our CO2 emissions and how much we actually absorb. There seems to be some conflicting information about.

Not sure what sort of scientist Bill is, and he may have an agenda, like most other scientists I guess.

Renowned scientist says Australia could already be at “net-zero”​

Eric Barker, 16/05/2022

A WELL-KNOWN Queensland scientist says there is emerging evidence that Australia has already reached its goal of net-zero CO2 emissions and would require little effort to maintain it beyond 2050.

Dr Bill Burrows is a former senior principal scientist with the Queensland Department of Primary Industries (now Department of Agriculture) and served the State Government for more than 40 years. He has long been known as an expert in vegetation management.

Lately, he has been studying the Federal Government’s target of reaching ‘net-zero emissions by 2050’. He says it is likely the government has already reached that goal when it changed its wording about climate targets about 18-months-ago.

“In December 2020 Australia’s Department of Industry, Science, Energy & Resources advised an Inquiry on two Climate Change Bills instigated by the House Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy that ‘for the Paris Agreement (PA) all net emissions from all lands (in Australia) will be accounted for – without restriction – using the independent monitoring systems of the national inventory’,” Dr Burrows said in a recent report.

“By way of contrast, for the Kyoto Protocol only about 1pc of Australia’s land mass was actually taken into account in determining net emissions.”

Earlier this month, a group of scientists in Tasmania discovered that the state was already carbon negative through a significant drop in native forest logging. Dr Burrows said if all of Australia’s rangelands were included in the accounting, the entire country would show similar results to Tasmania.

“Australia is the 6th largest nation in area in the world (and in the main has a land mass covered by CO2 absorbing perennial vegetation), yet it has far fewer people living in it than live in a single world ‘super’ city (e.g. Tokyo),” Dr Burrows said.

Detailed report here:

Australia is already a net zero CO2-e emitter – thanks to our forests and rangelands

IMNTBCHO, the amount of net CO2 is beside the point (and largely irrelevant). There is a larger political and financial game in play.

 

[Sean K]

IMNTBCHO, the amount of net CO2 is beside the point (and largely irrelevant). There is a larger political and financial game in play.

Wouldn't it be interesting though if this gains traction and the science proved we were already net 0. I wonder if countries around the Amazon basin include the CO2 sequestration of the rainforest in the net emissions score...Apparently France includes their total land area as a sink.

 

[Sean K]

Apparently France includes their total land area as a sink.

National Low-Carbon Strategy (SNBC)

This second edition of the SNBC puts into action the Government’s ambition, presented in July 2017 via the Climate Plan and enshrined in the law (n° 2019-1147 of 8th November 2019 relating to energy and climate), to accelerate the implementation of the Paris Agreement by setting a target of achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 within French territories, this being understood as achieving a balance between anthropogenic emissions and anthropogenic absorption of greenhouse gas, i.e. that which is absorbed by the natural environment managed by man (forest land, grassland, agricultural soils, wetlands, etc.) and certain industrial procedures (carbon capture, storage and reuse).


I guess this depends on if 'managed by man' includes a lot of our natural environment or not. Would that include the Daintree for eg? I think Tasmania include the SW national parks in its sink.

 

[Sean K]

On carbon sinks in The Fin.

So, if we just build the Bradshaw water scheme and put huge dams on the way from the Tully to the Murray, we could go net zero easily.

Although, the BHP thing has got something to do with magnesium in the tailing sucking out the CO2, not just the water.

 

[mullokintyre]

The "Blockade Australia" protests in the Sydney area highlight the usual hypocrisy of climate alarmists.
The woman from recently flooded Lismore who stopped her car across both lanes of the harbour Tunnel and then chained her head to the steering wheel said she was just so sick of the inaction.
Problem is she drove an ICE powered car, not an electric one, so contributed towards all the things that she and others say need to be curtailed to stop climate change.
Dumb as dishwater.
Mick

 

[mullokintyre]

According to The Guardian, the Eu have voted to treat both Nuclar power and Gas as renewable.

The European parliament has backed plans to label gas and nuclear energy as “green”, rejecting appeals from prominent Ukrainians and climate activists that the proposals are a gift to Vladimir Putin.

One senior MEP said the vote was a “dark day for the climate”, while experts said the EU had set a dangerous precedent for countries to follow.


The row began late last year with the leak of long-awaited details on the EU’s green investment guidebook, intended to help investors channel billions to the clean power transition.

The European Commission decided some gas and nuclear projects could be included in the EU taxonomy of environmentally sustainable economic activities, subject to certain conditions.


Under the plans, gas can be classed as a sustainable investment if “the same energy capacity cannot be generated with renewable sources” and plans are in place to switch to renewables or “low-carbon gases”. Nuclear power can be called green if a project promises to deal with radioactive waste.

So just like that , when the European way of life looks like it might become a little uncomfortable, just rewrites the definition to fix things.
I wonder if Oz will adopt the same rules, or even better, take the next step and say that Coal can be added to the new renewable list.
Mick

 

[IFocus]

According to The Guardian, the Eu have voted to treat both Nuclar power and Gas as renewable.

So just like that , when the European way of life looks like it might become a little uncomfortable, just rewrites the definition to fix things.
I wonder if Oz will adopt the same rules, or even better, take the next step and say that Coal can be added to the new renewable list.
Mick

Plenty of incentive to include coal it just passed iron ore as out biggest export earner.

 

[Sean K]

So, China have decided to stop engaging with the US on global warming because of Vodka Pelosis' Taiwan stop-over. What does that mean? I think it means China will give the middle finger to any planned decreases in overall emissions and build more and more coal and gas fired power stations, as if they weren't going to do that anyway.

Australia's annual emissions equate to just 2 weeks of China's yearly and that is reducing dramatically. Our total emissions might end up to be just 1 day of China's by 2030 at this rate.

We are global warming walking into geostrategic security disaster.

 

[Logique2]

"We are global warming walking into geostrategic security disaster....Sean K."

You see this Sean K., and so does WayneL. But we are now living in 'Adam Bandt World'.

And on the other side is the new Labor PM, that intellectual giant, who 3 months into office, has gone on holidays, poor lovey. Too much first class international travel, it's gruelling..