The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The Road to Durban: Australia’s 5% Pledge Tops the EU and USA > Comments

The Road to Durban: Australia’s 5% Pledge Tops the EU and USA : Comments

By Michael Hitchens, published 5/1/2011

Australia is committing to higher emissions targets at higher cost which should put a ceiling on our pledge.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Emissions are certain to drop more than 5% by 2020 regardless of any policy decisions. My guess is 10%-20% cuts with no intervention whatsoever. A key reason is that global oil production has peaked and will either decline or remain on a plateau. Either way the 20th century style economy seems to need increasing oil production to grow coherently. As parts of the economy unravel it will take coal demand with it. Secondly China (now the world's biggest emitter) will soon be unable to increase domestic coal production and will scour the world looking for new supplies.

Gas will steadily replace coal and this will reduce emissions. However even without carbon taxes this will mean much more expensive electricity. In general terms the high price of energy will dampen the world economy. Therefore it is a waste of time holding conferences to achieve 5% emissions cuts which will happen anyway. The bigger question is how to transition early and permanently to a low carbon economy.
Posted by Taswegian, Wednesday, 5 January 2011 7:57:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Would gas make power dearer, Coal is mined, Gas is delivered by pipe.
There will have to be a carbon tax to keep the ball rolling, and eventually get off coal and oil altogether.
The earlier this comes in the more incentive there will be to look for alternative means.
Posted by 579, Wednesday, 5 January 2011 8:18:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just so readers are clear, AIGN includes aluminium, coal, petroleum ...

So this benign-sounding group is the polluters. They want emission reductions to sound like crashing the economy.

The reality is we could reduce emissions cheaply and quickly if our politicians stopped listening to (and accepting money from) this mob.
Posted by Geoff Davies, Wednesday, 5 January 2011 10:03:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Very succinctly put Taswegian.

If you are correct on peak oil, your analisis makes it so obvious why only a radical ratbag greenie would want to waste gas, a quite good transport fuel, to replace coal. Coal which can be converted to a transport fuel only at considerable effort.

Not only an important transport fuel, gas is going to be a very important industrial feed stock, if peak oil is reached.

I wish all those dreaming of a coal, & car free world would spend a few minutes thinking about how their dream world would work.

The modern city, in which most Ozzies [& the western world, & increasingly the eastern world] now live can only work if each individual has extensive personal mobility. Even the food they eat requires considerable mobility.

The fact that fool planners think they can move the people from where they live to where they work, or are schooled, & back, by public transport, only reinforces the belief that most of them are fools

To change this would require massive demolition of private housing, & the erection of hundreds of places of employment, close enough to the dormitory areas, to allow walking to work.

Have you ever noticed that these same planners come back from a trip [tax payer funded of course], to some old world city, which developed when everyone did walk to work, & immediately want to put us on bicycles.

I can't see our Julia, who's long term plans only last until the next poll, undertaking any such project.

So please help her out. Tell us how your dream can become reality now, rather than after WW111.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 5 January 2011 10:30:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I say Geof Davies is Right on. The only ones talking rubbish is the deniers, like Hasbeen. Don't they carry on, no cars on the road now.
Auto makers will fix that.
The deniers are the polluters, i bet that is right on. They are more likely to be liberal as well. [they treat politics like a football match ] You need to look outside your skin, and make a truthful decision, and not politically biased BS.
Posted by 579, Wednesday, 5 January 2011 12:10:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Taswegian makes a lot of sense.

Michael Hitchens doesn't explain why getting emissions down is so much more expensive in Australia than in the US or Europe. Much of the reason is population growth, which has been deliberately boosted by government policies on immigration and subsidies for children. Nor are increases in emissions in Australia due to immigration balanced by reductions elsewhere in the world, due to our very high living standards and high use of fossil fuels compared to most of the source countries. The link below leads to a paper in People and Place which suggests that 83% of the forecast increase in greenhouse emissions to 2020 is due to population growth

http://www.population.org.au/index.php/publications/spa-articles/climate-change/408-population-growth-and-australias-2020-greenhouse-gas-emission-commitments

Here is a summary

http://www.population.org.au/index.php/publications/spa-articles/climate-change/473-rudd-government-commitments-on-greenhouse-emissions-are-just-gestures

"The Government is aware of the role of population in increasing greenhouse emissions. This is the reason why it adopted the -5 per cent target rather than the -20 per cent target chosen by the EU."

I am no climate sceptic, but it is quite understandable that people might be unwilling to accept ultimately meaningless sacrifices so that the politicians can posture on the world stage and create the illusion that something is being done.
Posted by Divergence, Wednesday, 5 January 2011 2:06:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Michael, this all sounds like urging Australia to do the least it can get away with rather than the most it's capable of or the minimum that is necessary. Certainly you seem to be keen to make this a case of 'if they don't do enough we shouldn't either' - another variation the 'too hard, don't bother' excuse for failure.

A look at The Australian Industry Greenhouse Network seems to reveal an organisation that makes noises about achieving emissions reductions but limits itself to criticising and opposing policy to do so - without presenting any serious alternative. Mostly in the form mentioned above. It fails to recognise export coal as part of Australia's contribution to global emissions and clearly sees no problem with the expansion of the use of Australian fossil fuels, only with policy that might limit this.

I cannot see The Australian Industry Greenhouse Network as being genuinely about solutions; an Industry PR and lobby organisation dedicated to minimum action on climate change looks more accurate. I would have to second Geoff Davies assessment - they want dealing with emissions to sound like economic disaster, whilst downplaying or ignoring the irreversible economic disaster that failure to deal with emissions will be.
Posted by Ken Fabos, Wednesday, 5 January 2011 4:23:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is a country that
1) is the OECD's highest per capita emitter
2) is the world's largest coal exporter
3) lectures other countries on the need for carbon cuts
4) has a huge swathe of countryside under flood water.

If climate change is not that country's problem then whose is it?
Posted by Taswegian, Wednesday, 5 January 2011 5:23:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Would all commenting warmists please advise what changes they have made in their lifestyles, so as to reduce CO2 emissions.
Posted by Raycom, Wednesday, 5 January 2011 11:35:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raycom - people who seriously embrace and promote energy frugality get accused of wanting to take modern civilisation back to the stone age. (Not what I want or have ever promoted). Or face arguments that their solar panels make no difference to overall emissions from power stations or that the money they save on power bills ends up being spent on stuff that produces more emissions. All the personal efforts of people like myself will not earn a shred of respect or see what they say taken any more seriously; on the contrary those most determined to reduce their own carbon emissions will be seen as fanatics who should be ignored.

The problem of reducing emissions requires a complete makeover of our energy supply sector and much of my personal efforts, under policies to date, have been used by that sector as a way to get around their obligations to introduce renewables. Compromised and flawed policies have been developed by mainstream politics in attempts to sound like it's taking the problem serious whilst not seriously changing anything - that kind of greenwash has been the order of the day. Opponents of serious policy want to use that failure as evidence that all policy is futile or even accuse those who want action of not really wanting policy that really works and having some kind of hidden agenda - complete nonsense of course.
Posted by Ken Fabos, Thursday, 6 January 2011 6:52:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy