Hasbeen..."Be careful what you wish for, the collapse may be closer than you think, & may be much worse than you anticipate." Not all that's green is crazy....and once fossil fuels become priced out of the consumer market...the old horse a cart just might not be that far off. MADMAX:)

But I wouldn't worry yourself too much..... the capitalists are starting seeing the light and believe it or not.....this century will have more turning points than a compass.

http://tinyurl.com/27mzn96

Bluey, bad farming practices, how unkind. What do you take me for, an idiot or something? Not at all hasbeen...but you said...

"Bluey, just what does the Franklin have to do with some hair brained idea of removing trucks from the road, in an urbanised society, where food has to travel often hundreds of Km to the shop.

Nothing I guess:)

"But while you mention it, how stupid are the greenies, who wants to stop generating power with coal, but also wants to stop dams for hydro power. Schizophrenia prevails.

Yes hasbeen...all environmentalist are in need of immediate medical attention:)

"But it gets worse doesn't it. You want to use mass cement to build almost useless wind mills, then dig huge holes to get the copper, to run your Micky Mouse power hundreds of Km to those awful cities you want to live in."

Oh I agree.....with all the insanity that goes on in the world, its any wonder why people like the greenies should be allowed to exists at all:) I don't have time to humour you today....hasbeen....however a world with trucks........interesting:)

BLUE

Alex, you criticise attempts at solutions but offer none. It's clear to me that you see no problem that requires solutions except the 'problem' of people demanding that emissions be curtailed. This is entirely contrary to findings of every serious scientific institution on the planet that studies climate and of every official report commissioned on the matter. Is there any reason to believe that you are engaged in anything other than a misguided attempt to prevent serious action on emissions reduction or to believe that you are anything besides a denier of science?

You are a member of an anti-environmental PR 'think tank' that brazenly declares itself to be a "membership-based environmental organisation having no political affiliation" that "take an evidence-based, solution focused approach to environmental issues". And argues against every bit of evidence based science that exposes damaging environmental practices. And denies the existence of the biggest of environmental problems - anthropogenic climate change . And engages in continuing efforts to undermine public confidence in our top scientific institutions and their findings.

The (deliberately) misleadingly named Australian Environment Foundation is an organisation that actively misrepresents science, misleads the public and distorts the truth. After reading your article it's clear that it holds completely to that unstated mission statement.

Alex, your dangerously irresponsible opinions are worth less than a plug nickel and would, if widely held, condemn us and our descendents to the most serious and dangerous change to our planet's climate possible - the maximum climate impacts with zero efforts to prevent them.

Q1 How come that in the Medieval Warming Period 1000 years ago, when agriculture thrived in Greenland, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were lower than at present ?
Q2 How come that peak temperatures which occurred at the end of past interglacial periods preceded peak atmospheric carbon dioxide levels by 800 to1000 years?

A It is cyclical variation in radiant energy received from the Sun that drives climate change on Earth. Elevated carbon dioxide levels are a consequence not a cause of global warming. As the planet warms, the oceans disgorge into the atmosphere some of the vast amount of carbon dioxide held in solution. (try heating a bottle of soda water and see what happens). The oceans warm more slowly than the land hence the lag effect.

On the proposed carbon tax:- “ Never before in the history of science have so many been conned so much by so few” Apologies to Winston Churchill but not the IPCC.

I wish people would do some elementary sums. An investment in renewables (wind, tide, solar thermal, geothermal) will return more profit over the lifetime of the plant than building and running the cheapest coal fired power station.

The reason why renewables are said to be more expensive is because of the way we do our calculations. We use discounted cash flow analyses and take into account the so-called time value of money. This means that a coal fired power stations will return more present value money than a renewable plant. Get rid of the time value of money and the sums show renewables are more profitable.

There is a very strong case for using total return over the life of the project as the measure for long term investment decisions. The time value of money is only relevant if we assume that we will invest all the profits to get the same rate of return. This as anyone knows is nonsense because that is not what happens. Profits are "consumed" and rarely reinvested.

If we use simpler methods for the calculation of cost/benefits then in the long term we will end up with cheaper energy and much much less pollution and much much more energy.

Super funds, in particular, who need income well in the future would do well to invest in renewables that will give a guaranteed return in kwhs when the fund requires money to pay pensions. We know that the price of energy is not going to go down and we know that the demand for energy will continue to go up so it is as low a risk investment as you can get.

Mistaya: so many conned by so few? The Australian Academy of Sciences represents the most senior of Australia's scientists, as does the Royal Society in the UK. Both have recently issued reports which strongly back the understanding of climate change summarised by the IPCC. I offer you a challenge. Find one national peak scientific body anywhere in the world that does not. I think you will find the few are many indeed.

I think that the AAofS are full of bull. They jumped on the climate
gate gravy train, that is about to be derailed. Coming out of a mini
ice age that ended in or around the mid 1850s the Northern Hemisphere
has warmed up but has not warmed up as much as that experienced during
the Medieval Warm Period. So now we are cooling again. And hopefully
won't cool too much that will effect our capacity to grow food and precipitation levels. The IPCC, Michael Mann, Jones, Al Gore should be
brought to justice on charges of crimes against humanity or fraud. Sustainability yes - I'm all for this. CO2 is 95% naturally produced and accounts for only 4% of Greenhouse gases. 95% is water vapour. Yeah, and cloud cover keeps the ground cooler or warmer depending on what season it is. And whether it is day or night.
That's why deserts who have no cloud or ground cover, go 50C during the day and minus at night. No clouds to trap the warmth or cool it. And why frost forms when there is no cloud cover but doesn't when there is cloud cover. You are being conned folks by people wanting to have a carbon tax to make money. And distribute wealth from developed countries to poor countries by charging us monies for destroying their environment. Bulldust. Atolls sink and disappear. Bangledesh
naturally floods, and they depend on it. (Don't we send enough aid already?)