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 cost of inaction on carbon emissions > Comments

The cost of inaction on carbon emissions : Comments

By David Leigh, published 19/7/2011

Australia needs to get on with the job of bilaterally tackling climate change and leave the politics out of the discussions.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Dear spindoc,

Glad to see that you do have a sense of humour.
You should have that framed and placed where you
can see it daily.
Posted by Lexi, Tuesday, 19 July 2011 4:53:18 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
You know spindoc, it is always refreshing to see how quickly the response comes back when I hit a raw nerve. They say the truth hurts. As for insulting my educational standards I say, do your research. All the facts published in my article and in my reply come from good sources. The EU and much of the world, is so far ahead of Australia we are in danger of becoming an international joke.

I agree with one comment, the 5% target is far too small to make any real impact but I also believe in the principle that if you put an obstacle in the way of business it will adjust to it. I also believe in the ingenuity of the Australian mind and know that this small obstacle will not impede progress in any way. The mining companies are not against carbon tax, the coal industry (the one I expected to be nervous) has accepted the tax as part of its daily business and is forecasting a massive growth despite it. Why are you so paranoid... Oh yes of course, you are paid to be by the Liberals. Oppose everything even it is something you proposed yourself, that's the nature of opposition right? Policies are for those in government right? That my friend is why you are in opposition.
Posted by David Leigh, Tuesday, 19 July 2011 6:09:16 PM
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
For anyone interested in some answers the following website may
help:

http://www.crikey.com.au/.../reality-check-the-narrowness-of-the-carbon-price-debate/
Posted by Lexi, Tuesday, 19 July 2011 7:16:19 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
<< That my friend is why you are in opposition>>

And this, my friend,is why you are government.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5pzSvSCUZo

And it’s also the reason why,you,will be in opposition, real soon.
Posted by SPQR, Tuesday, 19 July 2011 7:26:07 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
David Leigh overlooks the major mitigator of greenhouse gasses in his limp defence of the political inept Multi party committee on a carbon tax.

That Mitigator is sustainable forestry. In its fourth assessment report the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated:

“In the long term, a sustainable forest management strategy aimed at maintaining or increasing forest carbon stocks,while producing an annual substained yield of timber,fibre or energy from the forest, will generate the largest sustained mitigation benefit .”
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 – Chapter 9.

Yet David, with his hemp option (where do you grow it, either cleared agricultural land or cleared forested land) and the Multi party carbon tax committee ignore this major IPCC finding.

They even go further and remove the renewable energy credit for wood if its grown in a native forest and harvested as a residue of a higher value product such as a house or furniture or paper fibre.

For any who want to read a real paper on Carbon in Forests and their products written by a working scientist see http://www.fwpa.com.au/The-role-of-forest-management-in-greenhouse-gas-mitigation

The two key messages of this report are that when timber products are used instead of high-CO2 producing products (i.e. steel, concrete etc.) the ‘saved’ CO2 is permanently prevented from being released into the atmosphere; the second finding is that carbon stored in forests is not preserved in perpetuity and cannot be ‘locked up’.

Rather, forests are dynamic living systems that are able to sequester large amounts of atmospheric CO2 into biomass. Carbon can be stored either in forest landscapes or in harvested wood products. Carbon stored in wood products can slow the constant cycle of forest carbon being returned to the atmosphere, such as when trees naturally die and decay, or through bushfire.
Posted by cinders, Tuesday, 19 July 2011 9:27:40 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
I'm sorry David but this article is an absolute shocker and made worse by your attempt to defend it in the comments. I suggest you stick to saving the trees in Tassie.

In addition to the other comments made, I would like to point out:

• The UK carbon "commitments" have an exit clause – I cannot recall the exact details but they are null and void if the EU doesn't achieve similar cuts (or words to that effect)

• Yes, Australia is the largest exporter of coal on Earth but these exports amount to about 290 Mtpa compared to the global total mined of about 7,300 Mtpa (million tonnes per annum); about half of the total by China. This 4% hardly warrants the claim that "Australia responsible directly and indirectly for a much larger percentage of global emissions than any other country."

• Using 2009 figures, Australia exported about 260 Mt of coal of which about 125 Mt was metallurgical (coking) coal. The total of coking coal traded (ie. imported & exported) globally in 2009 was about 230 Mt, so Australian coking coal exports made up just over half of the global exports. But, the total coking coal produced in 2009 was 915 Mt, so the Aussie contribution is only 14% and not half as you have claimed. BTW, guess who mined and used the most coking coal in 2009? China at 560 Mt (61% of global total).

• As an aside, it should be noted that renewable power is not a substitute for metallurgical coal - metallurgical coal is used in steelmaking as a reducing agent (chemical reaction). But this process still produces CO2 as does burning steaming coal in a power plant.

Also, one of your dot points at the end suggest that fossil fuels will increase in price and make their use more expensive. But if the rest of the world is moving away from fossil fuels, basic economics suggests to me that coal-fired fuel will reduce in cost as global demand drops off. Hmm – maybe there is no economic cost to inaction?
Posted by Peter Mac, Wednesday, 20 July 2011 4:34:54 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. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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