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 > Mission impossible > Comments

Mission impossible : Comments

By Alan Moran, published 25/2/2008

Professor Garnaut barely scratches the surface in recognising the enormousness of the task needed to reduce CO2 emissions by 90 per cent.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All
Is not the real problem that we want to achieve stable and sustainable CO2-e without any sacrifice?
The possibilities are:
1 reduce population, more realistically jettison those whom we do not need, more goodies particularly, oil for us.
Already with the current slowing of population growth rates in the west complaints that we will not have a work force to supply the tax to support our increasing proportion of older folk.
2 Reduce consumption
But we have an economic paradigm dependent on consumption which will collapse if we do not consume.
Our very reason for existing defined by ownership will be at risk. By how much can we impose frugality on the many whist saving the riches for the few. The same as now the hype about equality is sufficiently believed as to prevent civil disobedience.
3 Everyone of us maximise on energy efficiency,on the avoidance of need for energy. Makers of heaters and coolers become designers of housing. But the laid off workers?
They become the builders of decentralised alternative and current energy producing centres.
Or they become the many needed for biofuels, decentralised, and charcoal which part of the team bury on farms increasing the production of biomass for fuel. Buildings are made increasingly of wood etc and so on. We still suffer, two or three changes of clothes, walk or bike to work which is decentralised for biofuels can only provide so much without impinging on food resources.
Entertainment becomes local we produce much of own food. The rich no longer import out of season whatever. People of Africa suffer!

I am sure the picture is clear we have a number of tools at our disposal and a number of strategies but without sacrifice on the part of each of us_?
Will America have enough fuel to bring about control of all, energy stock and of all countries as their denial of ratification of many treaties shows they are inclined, so as to teach us the ways of democracy and living? Not if the third world pulls the plug on their borrowing and current get rich stupidities.
Posted by untutored mind, Monday, 25 February 2008 6:13:20 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
People are going to believe what they are told.

The "green" brigade now has huge bucks for spreading "the word". They are looked at as the saviors of the world and with about as much skepticism as newborn puppies.

The fact is that business has caught on very fast to the new green-washing techniques. The know where the big subsidies and tax breaks are. But....name me one coal plant that has ever been displaced by wind power. Impossible. Wind power has never proved itself yet you are a scum if you question anything about it.

These "solutions" preached by many are giant boondoggles and it's only a matter of time before it all comes to light:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080224/NEWS/802240324/1001/NEWS”
Posted by Mandy146, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 1:21:52 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
"In other words, to meet the level that Garnaut sees as necessary, Australia would be emitting less than quarter of its present level of CO2. That degree of self discipline is possible only by accepting returning living standards to similar as those currently experienced in the developing world.”

This is untrue in just about any scenario. The FACT is that with today's technology both solar thermal and geothermal power plants produce electricity at 24 hours per day for running costs of 1 cent per kilowatt hour versus 2 cents per kilowatt hour for coal fired stations. Go look at http://www.ausra.com/ and http://www.geodynamics.com.au/IRM/content/home.html and to see a new powerplant at http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/local/77596.php

The difficulty is that the price charged for energy is dominated by the capital cost which is about 3 times the cost of a coal fired power station, plus taxes (40%+), profits and distribution charges. It turns out that a Rate of Return of 4% per annum on capital makes renewables competitive. So the problem is an investment problem and in the way we calculate rates of return and tax energy. Running costs are a minor part of the 10 to 14 cents per kilowatt hour charged for domestic electricity.

We know new technologies of this type reduce in capital cost by 10% per year for the first few years of mass deployment. How much capital are we talking about? About 45 billion per year for 10 years will give Australia enough energy to replace ALL fossil fuel burning including heavy industry and transport. How much is $45 billion? Australians get loans of $240 billion each year just to buy existing second hand houses.

How many square miles of solar thermal plants do we need - about 50 by 50 kilometers worth for Australia. This is all doable and if we made a little more effort we could indeed create CO2 cleaners that would take CO2, CH3 a little bit of H2O, mix them together add a little energy and produce liquid fuel or plastics or carbon fibre products.
Posted by Fickle Pickle, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 3:14:34 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems to me that there is a significant discontinuity in proposed
action on CO2 and an expected result with global warming.
All discussion assumes a linear relationship between CO2 ppm and temperature rise.

However the system is not linear, and as it is logarithmic have we
already reached the point where the effect of CO2 has clipped ?
Can anyone refer me to a graph of CO2ppm vs radiation transparency ?

If we have already reached the point where very large increases in CO2
are needed to produce a noticeable temperature rise, then what the hell
are we arguing about ?

It seems to me that you all should read;

http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/3657

As far as Australia is concerned, we are arguing about the wrong problem.
How we manage the depletion of the export of oil of our suppliers
is our biggest problem as five years time is where we need to plan.

One correspondant here said we have hundreds of years of coal.
Not true, we have a lot but if we continue exporting peak will occur
in about 25 to 30 years.

Until I can see that the CO2/GW graph is near straight to at least
1000 ppm then I won't worry about global warming.
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 8:14:38 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
Garnaut is not qualified and in any case this whole carbon emmissions trding and the whole reduction strategy is based upon political correctness for socialist lefties who are out of work and have no ambulance to chase after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
For big business it represents a great stride in their corporate hypocrisy as the world does not face a crisis as Al Gore is saying.
It is all about cutting wages by closing down the West and moving industries to the third world.
New technologies in each generation will naturally improve the environment witout the need for Kyoto or emmissions targets and carbon trading schemes.
Posted by Webby, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 9:14:02 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
The situation with Garnaut is that in accepting the gospel from state governments and Fed Labour, he recognises AGW as a fact in his own mind. It is after all simply a mind virus which can only be found in the minds of infected unfortunates. Well his website says "The Australian economy must adapt to the impacts of climate change, and the existence of a price on greenhouse gas emissions." In effect he has been elevated to a position with remunerations coming from somebody's (taxpayer?) money to manufacture support for the faith and how best to fund this religion by projecting carbon sin and guilt on everyone ... punctuated with plenty of "the end is near" talk of course. Oh the horror of it.

As far as his "review" is concerned he makes some pretense at it being open and public, but in reality the non infected from little ol me to our giant ball of plasma, sunnyboy, will be deemed heretics, marginalized and punished. The Papal decree is that CO2 is a very dangerous pollutant and therein we have one of the most fraudulent concepts ever perpetrated by people.

Garnaut filled with the self-righteousness that facts can be bent or ignored to fit a theory, has a mission. There is no moral purpose here with this joker. In order to expiate your carbon sinfulness and thereby minimise your time spent in Purgatory, he will be planning for the guilty to engage in a monetary exchange with members of the AGW clergy to offset their sinful deeds. Very pre-Copernican I must say because it is all in the mind.
Posted by Keiran, Wednesday, 27 February 2008 10:28:56 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. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All

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