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 > General Discussion > Reduce Global Warming-But at What Cost?

Reduce Global Warming-But at What Cost?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Putting aside the fact that there are many who agree with global warming and many who don't, can we really afford to stop producing our power from coal?

Sure, there are options such as solar, wind or, just consuming less, but how do we then replace the jobs that will be lost through the closure, or 'winding down' of the coal mining industry, an industry which is the driving force of our own economy.

In reality, can we afford this and continue to live somewhat of a reasonable lifestyle?

I know I have not worked hard all my working life to end up poor, or to live a retirement full of compliance laws and restrictions.

What do you think?

Can we afford it?
Posted by rehctub, Tuesday, 30 March 2010 6:41:40 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
It can be done.
The problem is, getting past the BS and political spin.
Posted by Simpson, Tuesday, 30 March 2010 2:16:00 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
Well *I* can afford living with Solar power quite easily- in fact, I might actually be able to afford a LOT MORE stuff from the money I'd be saving not being filleted by the electricity company's monthly bills despite the low amount of power I actually use, as far as rates are going these days.

Sorry, but it's the point when I'm getting ripped off by my service provider or seller that my compassion for their well-being falls apart.

And I should point out that we still require the use of coal to melt metal and convert iron into steel- so it's hardly going to collapse if Australian consumers turned to alternative sources of energy.
Posted by King Hazza, Tuesday, 30 March 2010 11:11:58 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
King Hazza
This is not about 'your power bill’, nor is it about 'Australians using fossil fuels’; it is about one of the major driving forces behind our economy, coal. It is about 'protecting jobs' and providing a future for generations to come.

Banning the use of fossil fuels won't address these issues.

It is fair to assume that if Australia omits 1% of the world’s emissions, then we also use 1% of the coal we mine, therefore, if we stop exporting the 99%, we are screwed. This is what I am talking about, we as a planet, not just a country.

Now as for 'making steel', well this requires 'coking coal', very different to the coal used to generate power.

The answer lies in finding ways to deal with CO2, as reducing it, while continuing to grow is simply not feasible in my view.
Posted by rehctub, Wednesday, 31 March 2010 6:31:42 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
What bull.

We have had proven by the shenanigans of the CRU, & all the others, that CO2 has no effect on climate.

Get over it.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 31 March 2010 9:32:42 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 suspect that even the greens are coming to the realisation that we
simply cannot shut down coal fired power stations in anywhere near
the time scale they would like.

There is no magic bullet that will replace the present electrical system.
A recent report from the UK indicates that many windfarms are only
achieving 17% of their nameplate output ratings.
The best are up over 25%. Some are at less than 10%.

Nothing is of value to you if you cannot afford it.
It might be best to refuse export of all our energy resources as we
may need them for the next few hundred years.
There is no guarantee that an alternative energy source will appear
and save our souls.
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 31 March 2010 10:30:34 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
Are the ClimateGate emails and documents significant?

Address to the Colorado Mining Association by Lawrence Solomon. Feb 25 2010

http://www.wopular.com/putting-climategate-perspective

Excerpt;

The ClimateGate emails confirmed much of what the sceptics had suspected.

• They confirmed that the peer review process had been corrupted, that scientists were arranging friendly reviews.
• They confirmed that the science journals had been corrupted. That journals that refused to play ball with the doomsayers faced boycotts and their editors faced the sack.
• They confirmed that sceptical scientists were being systematically excluded from the top tier journals.
• The ClimateGate emails confirmed that the science itself was suspect. That the doomsayers themselves couldn’t make the data work. That they were debating among themselves some of the same points that the sceptics raised and were privately acknowledging that they didn’t have answers to the issues that the sceptics raised.
• The ClimateGate emails confirmed that the doomsayers were so determined to hide their data from inquiring minds that they were prepared to break the law to hide it – and did break the law – by avoiding Freedom of Information requests.
• The ClimateGate emails confirmed that raw temperature data collected from around the world was destroyed. It appears the UK is missing raw temperature data going back to 1850.

The scientists at the heart of the ClimateGate emails aren’t fringe players on some periphery. They operate what’s known as the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University in the UK. This is the group that collects temperature data, massages it, and then feeds it to the UN and others.

The questions that have to be asked are;
1. If the science is settled and so many scientists agree that it is, why is there so much effort to stifle contrary views?
2. If it is certain that the planetary temperatures are rising, why is there a need to manipulate the temperature readings.
3 Why has it been necessary for the temperature monitoring stations to have been so carefully chosen that colder stations are ignored
where new stations in warmer climates have been introduced? http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Rate_of_Temp_Change_Raw_and_Adjusted_NCDC_Data.pdf
Posted by phoenix94, Wednesday, 31 March 2010 12:04:11 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
Indeed rehctub, you make a good point. I'm actually surprised there has been little effort into investigating how to collect carbon vapor and try to convert it back into a solid (possibly refinable as we use a LOT of carbon-based products).

(and my plan was to convert domestically but still sell the product as a power source abroad)
Posted by King Hazza, Wednesday, 31 March 2010 2:04:11 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
Does it really matter?

We're all doomed anyway. Soon the oceans are going to swamp us for ever, the glaciers are going to cover the remaining highlands, which are now low lands. Anyone left afloat will be blown away by huge typhoons. The moon is going to swell because the micro organisms responsible for all that green cheese are growing at an unprecedented rate due to the warming. The moon will grow so large it will touch the earth and look like a huge pimple just before bursting all over some huge galactic mirror in another galaxy, signaling to distant aliens something is up with planet earth.

We past the point of no return not to long ago and now there's no stopping the apocalypse that is almost upon us. Discussing a hypothetical now is just speeding our demise! I suggest all take their last breath in and not exhale, for to exhale would ensure instant death to us all. The longer we can hold on the more chance we have of the aliens arriving before our complete demise; hopefully saving us from the bumbling wannabees pretending to be our great rulers. Without these fraudsters being held to account by being left behind, humanity will not stand a second chance!
Posted by RawMustard, Wednesday, 31 March 2010 5:27:22 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 economic cost will have to be borne. To ignore the likely causes of climate change, because we think our economy is more important, is to miss the point that "our economy" won't survive to benefit the next generation if the present generation fails to make drastic changes to our resource use, now.

The risk assessment skills evidenced by some of the contributors to this forum don't augure well for their own personal wealth and health decisions. The cautious person thinks "what is the cost if I am wrong?" and takes the path of prudent change rather than risk a catastrophic outcome.
Posted by peggy, Sunday, 11 April 2010 7:00:20 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

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