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 > Australia's natural absorption of CO2 exceeds its man-made emissions > Comments

Australia's natural absorption of CO2 exceeds its man-made emissions : Comments

By Alex Stuart, published 15/7/2011

In reality, far from being a net emitter, Australia abates all her own emissions, plus some of those of her neighbours.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 12
  10. 13
  11. 14
  12. All
I think Alex told his readers exactly what he was going up to in his hackneyed Mark twain quote as the first line.
Posted by Bugsy, Friday, 15 July 2011 2:12:04 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
If we are buying offsets from overseas for countries to simply have territory/forests etc. then I completely agree that that is useless, because that is not an offset that somebody is responsible for creating (any more than our deserts are). Having said that, my expectation is that international offsets are for people to actually do things, e.g. reforestation, but I don't know - I'm happy to admit that international offsets are useless if they aren't effecting change.

However the figures in the article are not the increased CO2 offsets that we can effect ourselves, (e.g. through sequestration or forestation) they are merely about latent land and water mass.

The figures in the argument are reasonable/defensible, but they are irrelevant to the broader debate about what we should do - what the article is suggesting is crazy.

I don't know about the figures bandied about about us being the biggest per-capita emmitter, but I do know that they are an indicator the impact that we have control over, and that they should NOT include calculations of the latent impact of the territory we occupy.

I said I wouldn't likely object to propaganda if it supported my perspective, I didn't say there's nothing wrong with it - I think all propaganda should be objected to (or refused to be published, if it is bad enough) if it is blatantly misleading and does not contribute to debate, and that includes stuff I might agree with. I think this is one of those articles that is bad enough.
Posted by JSB, Friday, 15 July 2011 2:12:15 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
Another version of the bonmot trolling technique

"So the internet AGW believer catstropharian sites have not yet responded to this angle on CO2 and man made emissions

No wonder bonmot has no response."

The article discusses an interesting angle, worth a look, as a skeptic I always consider new information before consigning it to this or that dustbin or shelf.

For some, anything new or challenging is a threat to their state of denial that there may be other ways to look at things, hence their head in the sand attitude at the mere mention of new information.

Clearly "the science is settled" types need not read anything at all, since they will be told by their masters and handlers if something is required, e.g. "oh wait, trolling needed over there ... assign one of the minions to make some smarmy comment immediately, we don't know if it means anything, but hey, why wait".

Then again, the math is not beyond me.

If you're looking for fruit loops, clearly bonmot has an edge over us all, it is interesting that he knows, that the Dept of Climate Change ignores fruit loops, first hand knowledge I assume?

Do you work at the Dept of Climate Change bonmot? What do you do?
Posted by rpg, Friday, 15 July 2011 2:55:28 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
The whole premise of this article is misleading and the logic false because it ignores the fact with natural absorption/emission levels of CO2, there is a natural balance that has seen the natural fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures over millions of years.

The fact is that it's the unnatural, man-made introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere that disturbs the balance.

Australia's natural absorption of CO2 offsets the natural release of CO2, so can't then offset again additional unnatural release of CO2 by man as well.

e.g. I can't spend my savings on a new tv and then spend the money again on a holiday too...

Weren't you people taught critical analysis at school?
Posted by TrashcanMan, Friday, 15 July 2011 3:35:44 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
The science:
"We begin by figuring1 annual net absorption of CO2 over land by natural processes, mainly vegetation and soil". From this simple premise, the author constructs a story which is meant to be iconoclastic. Unfortunately the author does not include any empirical data. A convenient oversight.

The politics:
Yes, Gillard's carbon tax is not a serious attempt to reduce Co2 or methane emissions within Australia, as Government modelling anticipates targets will be met mainly by buying credits externally. Gillard also has a slush fund for polluters, but then Abbot has a cynical plan to give polluters even more. But you can't explain any of this using conspiracy theories or claims that stupidity or ignorance drives government policy. Making ordinary people to pay for an economic system that is destroying the planet is not a new or uniquely Australian idea.
Posted by Langenstrass, Friday, 15 July 2011 4:06:15 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
Sorry GrahamY but in my opinion this is a wrong call.

There are often arguments around climate change from some sectors of the environment movement that I would deem absurd. This has a good chance of topping the worst of them.

To following the logic if a volcano was to start erupting in Australia and it forced our total CO2 contributions, as a continent, into positive territory, we should then be reducing our man made emissions?

I think Alex Stuart might be channelling David Singer.

I remember Kyoto where John Howard's government embarrassed the heck out of me. Not only did they play hard ball and negotiate to be the only country that was allowed to increase its emissions over 1990 levels but we got to credit halting land clearing in your state of Queensland, something that was occurring at a greater rate than the loss of Amazon rainforest in Brazil. After securing all these concessions we got up and left, refusing to sign.

The question is how, as a nation of heavy per capita emitters, can we contribute to a world wide effort in stabilizing of CO2 levels? Our actions will determine how the rest of the world regard us. This type of argument does us little credit even if it was tongue in cheek.
Posted by csteele, Friday, 15 July 2011 4:25:16 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 12
  10. 13
  11. 14
  12. All

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