Global Warming Response - Wrong!

[Feral]

Well I am a believer that our pollution levels are contributing to global warming. I even supported the idea of carbon trading and penalties on heavy polluters.

What I dont believe in is whacking Joe Blow for systems put in to place by our beloved politicians in the past, charging the general public more for things they can not change!

My believe is that all penalties, levies, etc etc should apply to new processes etc immediately, and be phased in over time on old processes so people can have the choice to move to the newer technology without penalty.

IE Why should we pay extra for power because the successive state governments have built coal fired power stations? If I could use power from gas turbine or nuclear power stations for the same cost as what I current pay for power I would in a shot, but I dont have a choice, its coal fired or nothing (The so called green power alternates currently available are minuscule, your just paying extra for coal generated power)

The government should be putting a levy on any new coal fired power stations, not existing ones, that will encourage production of less polluting power stations, without making Joe Blow pay once again for poor choices made by governments in the past.

I live on acreage with hundreds of trees, you can bet you bottom dollar that I wont be able to offset the carbon sucked up by those trees against the extra costs imposed for power fuel etc etc because I am "producing carbon".

[tomca]

what we put into the atmosphere is a drop in the ocean compared to China. They have no environmental management plans in place and are as bad a polluter as Europe during the industrial revolution. Maybe we levy the thousands of tonnes of coal we export by the shipload to the countries that have zero care factor for the environment, instead of targeting us.

Kind of makes our recycling bins look pointless when you look at the air quality in Beijing

[BrisBassMan]

I am undecided when it comes to this topic. Now don't lynch me for it, but for all the scientific information supporting the fact that Humans are causing the GW problem there is actually a lot of information from prominent scientists that don't point to that being the cause. The information is there for all to see. It's just that the economy behind the GW movement can't allow another point of view whether it turns out to be factual or not. Having said that I do think that no matter what happens we should clean up our act. We should be greener we try to do what we can to keep this world as clean as possible.

I worry that the Govt. just wants to put something in to look good both nationally and internationally. Feral you make a good point though. Why should we get slugged for something that we have no choice in.

Tomca I'm with ya on the big emitters. Bloody Big emitters are not getting the attention they should because other countries have too much money tied up with them. I'm looking at you China and India!!!!!

Am I sitting on the fence?...... Maybe but I'm allowed to :laugh: :laugh:

[Feral]

Well I'm not to sure how much contribution the crap we put in the air has, it may be 4/5ths of bugger all for all I know. The debate and science is all over the place. So I'm happy to take a conservative view and do something just in case, you know a bit like picking up a bit of rubbish, in the grand scheme your individual effort means nothing, but a lot of them together just might do something!

I just believe what they are trying to do is slugging us for their sins, (perceived or real doesn't really matter, the hip pocket part is real!), with no real possible return, I cant change to lower carbon production power etc - it doesn't exist. I cant (or dont want to) use less power, I paid all that loot for air con, big TV etc etc because I want to use them, not so they can gather dust! Now if they provided me with units that used half the power for the same result, I'd happily swap, but I sure cant afford to go out and buy them myself, because I need all that money to pay the power bill!

[HookedOnTackle]

there are scientists who will tell you smoking actually prevents cancer, exxon scientists will tell you that the end result of petrol cars is "life". biased science, like a tricky mathemetician, can prove virtually anything, it is the peer review scheme which turns a hypothesis into junk or pushes it to theory/fact.

a tax/levy is to make unclean industries more expensive and make the clean ones more cost effective, money being the driving force of our economy we will get absolutely nowhere if reduced polluting industries cost far more. then as the technology is fine tuned and has paid for itself (remember dvd players used to cost up to a grand, xbox/ps3 for those too young), then china, india, s america, will buy it cheap or be given it.

china and india are developing nations that have a huge poor population, they would not join any of these schemes if not included. you can debate the pros and cons but that is a black and white fact. the fact their emissions will rise before they fall doesn't make me want to stop caring. if my neighbours abused their water allotment, i wouldn't abuse mine. plus the air quality improvements here would hopefully be worth it and cause less problems/cancers/asthma for our health system.

side note, a study revealed rats became more aggressive after being exposed to petrol fumes, a reason for the increased road rage no doubt.

to touch on Feral's original point, the way our government system works, it would cost us all twenty bucks to save him ten they are so inefficient. people in apartments would scream and say they use less fuel and blah blah everyone would find a reason. unfortunate, but that is how it would happen.

so soon we will be one of the most expensive nations on earth to live in and brisbane will hold it's place as second most expensive capital in australia, after perth. woowoo

[Terry H]

NThere is considerable evidence out there that show Global Warming is not related to our Carbon emissions.

/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

Take this graph for example. There has always been considerably more CO2 in the atmosphere than there has been now. In the last 250 years the concentration of CO2 in the air has increased from 0.03% to 0.04%.

Global Warming advocates quite often selectively choose their data to parade about with, rather than show the full timeline.

Hurricanes in the states have increased a lot since the 1970s... but they don't show you the graph which shows the last 100 years, where before the 70s they had just as many as they do now.

It's all aboute using select data to scare people about Global Warming.

The key thing here is that many scientists have shown through various forms of evidence that it's a natural phase in the Earths climatic cycle that you or I cannot change. Our collective effects are minimal and wont halt it.

[Eug]

yes but what people don't realise is that with the atmosphere filled with CO2 we won't be able to survive. it's because of terrestrial plants and photosynthetic microbes (i.e. green algae, cyanobacteria, etc.) that are able to utilise the CO2 and CONVERT it to oxygen (O2) so that higher beings such as ourselves are able to exist.

it was around 475-500 million years ago that plants and animals began to inhabit the earth, this correlates to your graph there which shows the beginning of the decline of atmospheric CO2.

the point i'm trying to make is that while the earth may be able to handle high amounts of CO2, we as higher beings won't. who's going to provide our oxygen? if we keep up deforestation there's not going to be enough conversion of CO2 to O2.

some food for thought

[Eug]

oh and i think china/india produce less per capita than we do. although our co2 sequestration is much higher due to the presence of our forestry and coastline.

however to put some of it into perspective america and australia are large consumers of chinese and indian products so that indirectly makes us a large producer of carbon emission.

if we are demanding more products then they are simply going to supply more products.

[tomca]

Eug wrote:

oh and i think china/india produce less per capita than we do.

Here lies one of the key factors in the argument. Forget per capita. compare the total tonnes of emmisions rather than dividing it down to make a fudged fact.

Remember the last Olympics. Half the cars had to be taken off the road and some factories closed just so athletes could breathe?

Our government can control what comes in in imports. Giving tax concessions to factories that show environmental responsibility. All too hard, better slug the tax paying bunnies here as easy targets.

I just wish we had a effective opposition right now that could push for a better outcome.

[Do$tylz]

yeah its a bit of bollocks the way they are going about our efforts to assist with curbing "global warming".

There seems to be no option to make take initiative inhouse to make the difference. If they incentivised the scheme and the costs, I'd be a little more willing to swallow it without a whinge.

Example... any house that doesn't install solar panels will be charge at the more expensive rate. Or households that don't decrease their energy usage by 15% then get charged at the higher rate.... something like that. Something that gives you the option to do something about the cost. I think it'll also make each household feel more responsible for their efforts. Rather than the mentality of "they'll look after it" if there's no optino for the price hike.

[Eug]

tomca wrote:

Here lies one of the key factors in the argument. Forget per capita. compare the total tonnes of emmisions rather than dividing it down to make a fudged fact.

Remember the last Olympics. Half the cars had to be taken off the road and some factories closed just so athletes could breathe?

Our government can control what comes in in imports. Giving tax concessions to factories that show environmental responsibility. All too hard, better slug the tax paying bunnies here as easy targets.

I just wish we had a effective opposition right now that could push for a better outcome.

oh don't get me wrong, i'm one the same page with the passing down of taxes to the average joe - it's just plain BS.

but i'm also stating we have to compare apples with oranges on the global context. on one hand you have america who's a developed country and has already emitted CO2 in the past, and on the other you have developing countries who are now asked to reduce emissions whilst still maintaining supply to the rest of the world. i agree that they should be looking into alternative greener ways to go about it, and thats why i think they have set different targets to different countries.

either way at the end it's going to hit our wallets because that's where the money is from.

[rayke1938]

Iam a bit more sceptical on the subject.

Some bright spark has thought up a whole new scheme to make money on trading something that has no value and you cant even see it.

Whole lot better than GST as not only does the gevernment cream it off us it allows all the other vultures to start getting in on the act.

If the government was really concerned about the subject shurely the correct way to controll it would be just through legistation not about just raising more money through taxation penalties.

Makes me wonder how much of the money raised will be actually used towards reducing pollution etc.

Why are they promoting planting of trees when grassland produces more benefits to the athmosphere?

How much of our registration fees and fuel excises get turned back into the road network?

Dont forget do your bit for the enviorament dont kill the next brown snake leave it live and with a bit of luck it might bite a politician. ( Better still catch it and chuck over a pollys back fence.}

Cheers

Ray

[Yellow Peril]

I am firmly in the sceptics corner on so called man made climate change.

These are some figures and facts I came up with when I did some research a while back:

Many times people say that they believe that human activity is partly to blame. That may be true, so it would be good to break this down. It would go something like this......

1. What are the 'greenhouse gasses'? Ie where does CO2 rank in terms of the greenhouse effect? Water vapour is the most abundant, followed by CO2 and methane. From the U.S. Department of Energy: Water vapor is present in the atmosphere in concentrations of 3-4% whereas carbon dioxide is at 387 ppm or 0.0386%. Ie there is 100x more water vapour than CO2. Here is some more "Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect"

2. How much CO2 is produced by human activity and how much is produced by other natural events such as volcanoes, bush fires etc? "Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 additions comprise (11,880 / 370,484) or 3.207% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor)."

That would be a start anyway and would go someway to putting a figure on human activity. (I am sure it has been done already).

So.....man made CO2 is 3.2% of 5% of the total greenhouse effect (ie 0.16%). Australia is responsible for about 1% of the man made carbon pollution each year. So for Australia to reduce its man made carbon output by 20% (or whatever) will bring this down by 0.1584% and will cost Australia how many billions?

So would that be worth a massive new tax which would cost thousands of jobs and make Australia a less competitive world economy? So much for precautionary principle.

Jeremy

[Gad]

I am not a sceptic at all.

marine fossils have been discovered imbedded in areas hundreds of metres above present sea levels.

When dinosaurs roamed the earth didn`t they belch and fart.

centuries before the Saxons were established in Britain,ancient chinese mariners were using the North West passage,below the arctic circle as an all year round trade route.

discoveries in Greenland of stone house ruins of Viking reindeer farmers where the so called permanent ice shelf has receded.

etc etc

How could I be a sceptic

[buzzid]

Here's a way to understand Mr Rudd's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere that we want to rid of human carbon

pollution. We'll have a walk along it.

The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.

The next 210 metres are Oxygen.

That's 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go.

The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.

9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre.

A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre.

The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre - that's carbon dioxide.

A bit over one foot.

97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It's natural.

Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left.

About half an inch. Just over a centimetre.

That's the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into

the atmosphere.

And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.

Less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a kilometre.

As a hair is to a kilometre - so is Australia's contribution to what Mr

Rudd calls Carbon Pollution.

Imagine Brisbane's new Gateway Bridge, ready to be officially opened by

Mr Rudd. It's been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers

till its 1 kilometre length is surgically clean. Except that Mr Rudd

says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted - there's a human

hair on the roadway. We'd laugh ourselves silly.

There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about. It's hard

to imagine that Australia's contribution to carbon dioxide in the

world's atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And I can't

believe that a new tax on everything is the only way to blow that pesky

hair away.

Micheal Smith - 4BC

[MOC]

Gad wrote:

I am not a sceptic at all.

marine fossils have been discovered imbedded in areas hundreds of metres above present sea levels.

When dinosaurs roamed the earth didn`t they belch and fart.

centuries before the Saxons were established in Britain,ancient chinese mariners were using the North West passage,below the artic circle as an all year round trade route.

discoveries in Greenland of stone house ruins of Viking reindeer farmers where the so called permanent ice shelf has receded.

etc etc

How could I be a sceptic

Thats crazy talk. Surely the world hasn't gotten hotter on average every year since the last ice age without my help. Here I was thinking it was all because of my methane emissions.

Mick

[ellicat]

buzzid wrote:

Here's a way to understand Mr Rudd's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere that we want to rid of human carbon

pollution. We'll have a walk along it.

The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.

The next 210 metres are Oxygen.

That's 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go.

The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.

9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre.

A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre.

The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre - that's carbon dioxide.

A bit over one foot.

97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It's natural.

Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left.

About half an inch. Just over a centimetre.

That's the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into

the atmosphere.

And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.

Less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a kilometre.

As a hair is to a kilometre - so is Australia's contribution to what Mr

Rudd calls Carbon Pollution.

Imagine Brisbane's new Gateway Bridge, ready to be officially opened by

Mr Rudd. It's been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers

till its 1 kilometre length is surgically clean. Except that Mr Rudd

says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted - there's a human

hair on the roadway. We'd laugh ourselves silly.

There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about. It's hard

to imagine that Australia's contribution to carbon dioxide in the

world's atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And I can't

believe that a new tax on everything is the only way to blow that pesky

hair away.

Micheal Smith - 4BC

What is our target reduction ? A poofteenth the width of that hair.

A glimmer of hope can be taken from today's successful challenge.

[Bommie]

how can you triple (or more if you believe some reports) the mass of a solid by burning it

[Terry H]

Hmm interesting.

Just thought I'd watch a documentary "The Global Warming Swindle".. apparently one of the key elements in Al Gore's and everyone elses evidence behind Global Warming?

We see both Temperature rising and CO2 levels rising...

Yes..

Did Al Gore tell you there was an 800 year lag between that Temperature rising and CO2 levels rising? Of course not.

Sure, there may be a global warming. The thing is, its certainly not man made. There have been much warmer periods than there are now, and much cooler periods. It all flows in cycles.

I'm not going to point it all out to you. There is far more scientific evidence out there debunking it than supporting it. Just sift through the media crap to get to the facts.