Rudderless

[lasty]

By head of population, apparently.
Would it be glib of me here to mention out that despite all the wind and solar farms under construction in China at the moment, they are still building the equivalent of our entire coal-fired power industry every 4 months, and will continue to do so until 2020?


Perhaps that is the grand vision of Mr Rudd, and he believe we need a national ETS to start bargaining for international sanctions.
In any case, it is unlikely to match the mass land-clearing Australia has undertaken since federation so I'm sure there will be developing nations blocking any attempt to give Australia any meaningful trading credits until a huge tract of land is covered with plantation first.

I would like to know the amount of carbon sinks Australia has.
Know one seems to be able to tell me. How do you know we aren't carbon neutral ?
I have just seen a green advert on tv stating that our cattle industry emits more harmful than coal.
So what do we do now become vegans ?
With media influencing the minds of the gullible and little teens think that models aren't airbrushed the best thing to do is gather all the information before making judgement.
The EU is a disaster and it needs revenue. The ETS will bring it to them.

 

[Smurf1976]

NOCO - you presume that am anti - nuclear because I express pro conservation views. I have never stated anything regarding nuclear power and in fact feel that it can be apart of a raft of measures taken to effect CO2 reduction.

It's worth considering that the output from hydro and nuclear, which account for the vast majority of non-fossil fuel energy worldwide, now exceeds the entire generation of electricity from all sources 40 years ago.

In other words, the problem is not so much the source of energy but that we keep using more and more of it. Constant growth on a finite planet is an inherently flawed concept no matter how it's powered.

I'd suggest that anyone with an interest in the climate / energy issue, regardless of your viewpoint, takes a long hard look at this graph and thinks about it. http://www.iea.org/stats/PDF_graphs/29ELEC.pdf

Bottom line is we're burning through oil and gas at a rate that sees even the optimists conclude that production will peak and decline well within the lifetime of someone born today. Don't worry about changing the power source - NOTHING we have now, from coal to hydro to nuclear to geothermal to solar, is going to save us if we continue ramping up demand as we are. We'll end up nuking, strip mining, drilling and damming the lot and still wanting more. Look at that graph and think about it...

 

[Zird]

Climate change seems to be threatening the CO2 sinks (oceans).
Also Australia has hardly any vegetation covering, mainly saltbush etc so not much of a carbon sink. Plus we have cut down most of our forests.



Climate change weakens carbon sink
Friday, 18 May 2007
NIWA Science

The first evidence that recent climate change has weakened one the Earth’s natural carbon ‘sinks’ is published this week in the journal Science.

The results of the four-year international study reveals that an increase in winds over the Southern Ocean, caused by greenhouse gases and ozone depletion, has led to a release of stored carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere and is preventing further absorption of the greenhouse gas. The study involved researchers from the UK, Germany, Australia, France, Japan, New Zealand, South Africa, and the US.

Lead author Dr Corinne Le Quéré of the University of East Anglia and British Antarctic Survey said,

“This is the first time that we’ve been able to say that climate change itself is responsible for the saturation of the Southern Ocean sink. This is serious. All climate models predict that this kind of ‘feedback’ will continue and intensify during this century. The Earth’s carbon sinks – of which the Southern Ocean accounts for 15% – absorb about half of all human carbon emissions. With the Southern Ocean reaching its saturation point more CO2 will stay in our atmosphere.”

This new research suggests that stabilisation of atmospheric CO2 is even more difficult to achieve than previously thought. Additionally, acidification in the Southern Ocean is likely to reach dangerous levels earlier than the projected date of 2050.

The saturation of the Southern Ocean was revealed by scrutinising observations of atmospheric CO2 from 40 stations around the world, and combining this information with oceanic observations and high precision modelling.

One of the study’s authors, Antony Gomez of the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA), helped extract and analyse Southern Hemisphere CO2 measurements. NIWA’s atmospheric monitoring station at Baring Head, near Wellington, provides the longest-running continuous measurement of Southern Hemisphere CO2.

Mr Gomez said,

“The Baring Head measurements show that CO2 concentrations were rising steadily through most of the 1980s and 90s at a rate of about 1.5 ppm [parts per million] per year. But the growth rate has accelerated since then and is now at about 2 ppm per year. The study shows that this trend is caused not only by higher emissions but also by the weakening carbon sink. CO2 emissions increased by 50% since 1981 but the Southern Ocean CO2 sink remained the same.”

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution the world’s oceans have absorbed about a quarter of the 500 gigatons of carbon emitted into the atmosphere by humans. The Southern Ocean is the strongest ocean sink.
"

XXXXX

So who to believe - a group of people on ASF who are largely interested in profiting from sharetrading or scientists working collabratively from all over the world. I know scientists do get things wrong but I prefer their chances of being right

 

[So_Cynical]

I would like to know the amount of carbon sinks Australia has. Know one seems to be able to tell me. How do you know we aren't carbon neutral ?

Ok so our base line is year 2000 so imagine every bush and tree standing on Jan 1 year 2000 and now imagine is that tree/bush still there, you now have some idea of how our sinks are going.

In simple terms National parks are neutral, growing forests (plantations) are positive and harvesting native and plantation forests and land clearing is negative....as far as forestry sinks of all types goes we would be close to neutral if not slightly positive. (Guesstimate)

Add an ETS into the equation and we go positive in a hurry from a sinks point of view because the offsets will have a real dollar value.

I have just seen a green advert on tv stating that our cattle industry emits more harmful than coal.

Did you also know that our wonderful coal industry is also a major emitter of radio active waste.

In comparison, a 500-megawatt coal-fired power station produces almost 320,000 tonnes of toxic waste each year, including 2.6 tonnes of uranium and 6.4 tonnes of radioactive thorium.

http://www.ansto.gov.au/nuclear_information/managing_nuclear_materials/managing_nuclear_waste

Anyway once GHG offsets have a dollar value some serious research will begin into producing cattle and other live stock that emit less GHG, also this is where innovation comes into it, perhaps a pill or feed supplement will do it or a new variety of grass, who knows what will come with innovation, even thought this is not covered under the current ETS it will be included over time and is covered under Kyoto.

 

[Julia]

That's OK, so long as you accept the right of others to express their own disappointment with those who believe in the Goreist fallacy.

Zird, please accept Wayne's comment here as appropriate summary of what I would have said.

I lack the energy and interest to go round in circles which have already been covered a multitude of times. You believe what you want to, and so shall I.

 

[Zird]

Julia I accept but do not agree and visa versa.

In the interests of this thread I think we should get back to original topic of
our beloved leader sent to us from above as the new Messiah and how he is sorting out all problems in Austrlia for all people.

I will persue the climate change discussion with the hard nuts in Resisting Climate Change Hysteria forum. Apologises if I have caused any offense to anybody - no personal attact was intended. I am going to spend the rest of the morning in my vegetable patch which is going wonderfully after the rain.

 

[Mofra]

I would like to know the amount of carbon sinks Australia has.
Know one seems to be able to tell me. How do you know we aren't carbon neutral ?

Moot point - carbon sinks existing prior to 1990 are excluded from calculations.

More research is being done on the area anyhow so hopefully we can gain a better understanding of how much our net emissions are:
http://www.science.org.au/nova/054/054key.htm

 

[Mofra]

I have just seen a green advert on tv stating that our cattle industry emits more harmful than coal.
So what do we do now become vegans ?

Water is a more worrying concern - it takes 50,000 to 100,000 litres of water to produce a single kilo of beef.

On that measure, tonights dinner will have taken 20,000 to 40,000 litres to produce before I boil the veggies

 

[noco]

NOCO - you presume that am anti - nuclear because I express pro conservation views. I have never stated anything regarding nuclear power and in fact feel that it can be apart of a raft of measures taken to effect CO2 reduction.

Please withdraw and apologise for your unsubstantiated claim.

Wayne - why would I have a problem with freedom of expression and the right to speak and debate issues? When have i ever suggested anything else.

As above please withdraw and apologise for misrepresenting me.

Zird wtf do I have to apologise for? I was merely pointing out how some countries had reduced their CO2 emissions with the introduction of Nuclear power. Think you have a bit of growing up to do!!!!!!

 

[Happy]

Water is a more worrying concern - it takes 50,000 to 100,000 litres of water to produce a single kilo of beef.

On that measure, tonights dinner will have taken 20,000 to 40,000 litres to produce before I boil the veggies

Another good reason to have Sun - run desalination plant.

Water is not a problem, and rising sea levels even more compelling to bite into that body of water.

We are just being stupid, running around with debate to tax what and yet we have plenty of water to use.

Seems we just want to do it the hard way, through sacrifice.
(Surely shows too much Rudd Church time )

 

[lasty]

Australia maybe 2/3 desert but we have vast vegetation.
So far the measure of sinks has been mooted.
How much carbon emission do bushfires produce?
What about rejuvenation of these.
We have national parks bigger than some countries.
Water isn't a problem it's dispersement is.
Scientists have a hidden agenda it's called funding.
Opposing ASF members don't.

 

[Zird]

Noco you suggest that I should tell Rudd to start building nuclear power stations. Your implication is that I am a supporter of Rudd and that I am anti-nuclear. You have no basis for this. Your inferance is also that I am without knowledge of the use and benefits of world wide nuclear power. How can you infer this? I have never disussed nuclear power.

I was trying to add a little humour and so probably were you.

 

[Zird]

Lasty

You say scierntists have hidden agendas.

Does this mean all scientists in the world have hidden agendas or are biased or are faking data??

This is a wild statement with no factual basis..

Does ASF contributors have hidden agendas. Some do some dont.

International scientific research results such as those in the journal Science go through many processes of assessment, criticism and peer review on an international scale before publishing.

Most of ASFers (including myself) us have vested interests as we own shares in coal/oil/gas companies ie CO2 producers..

But not all of us have think one way or another.

I think that to lump all scientists together is totally wrong.

 

[condog]

The last time i said this thread was way off topic I got belted, so I reservedly say ...this thread seems to have got slightly distracted from its real issue which is the uselessness of our fearless and ruderless leader MR Krudd....

Blessed is he/she who knows when to take himself / herself too seriously.....its great to see passionate debate.....but lets all take a chill pill and remember we are here to hopefully enjoy each others company and debate / opinions, even when we disagree....

True wisdom is in knowing that there are 50 sides to an argument and that yours is only one opinion.........( I forget this often) but it is often very handy to see things with clarity when I am reminded.......

ITs no secret that I think Krudd is a terrible leader......doing an absolutely pathetic job, but I fully respect the opinions of those far less intelligent then I that think he is doing a great job..........

Zird relax bro - your obviously a seriously intelligent bloke if you dislike Rudd, but please relax and see tha some blokes are baiting you and you seem to be taking it hook line and sinker......breath in, breath out, relax......

a little more respect is needed in this thread for all opinions, even for the Krudd suporters........oh and a good sense of humour ay.......cheers to all... lol