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 > Gaping hole in greenhouse gas emissions > Comments

Gaping hole in greenhouse gas emissions : Comments

By David Leyonhjelm, published 4/3/2019

Australia’s commitments, no matter what anyone thinks of them, are quite pointless unless they are conditional on action by the world’s big emitters.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
Oh dear.
Higher incomes *used* to depend on how many slaves one had. Apparantly we got over that, so we’ll probably get over income vs wattage per capita too. Energy consumption at low efficiencies is not quite the same as productive use. I think there is more room to prosper by innovations improving efficiencies than in burning fossils more expediently.
As for our contribution, we are 100% responsible for our share, regardless. That somone else’s is bigger or smaller is an objection that only the most tiresome of squabbling schoolboys utilise, impressing no one of genuine character.
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Monday, 4 March 2019 8:31:38 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're right Rusty. The Greens are being so childish in worrying about our CO2 footprint being larger than other people's. I will remember this next time you run a similar argument. Hope you don't mind me fact checking them though?

And the lower energy innovations will be interesting. I guess someone is working on flying pigs somewhere. They won't need any avgas which will be a huge savings to the world. They should be able to be used instead of jet engines.
Posted by GrahamY, Monday, 4 March 2019 9:06:38 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
If we include the emissions of our exports, then as the largest gas and coal exporter in the world, we're responsible for as much as 40% of it and just plain dumb! I mean look how easy it is for China to bring its lame-duck servants to heels by just delaying or coal exports at the harbour!

Imagine how they would react if we just put a similar customs delay on everything we import from them?

We need to get off of this merry-go-round of subservient dependence. And chart a very different course. As a manufacturer of high tech exports, that we can export to the world along with clean green food grown in Australian owned and operated farms.

As opposed to farms the Chinese own here! Given we lose-lose in any such arrangement! Finally, let me conclude with the observation that thorium is the most energy dense material in the world.

The only thing denser? The moribund minds of the ruling class who've created our current ultra-dependance on coal, foreign investors and China!

On a final note, don't ever expect Labor to grow a brain and get out of coal, China or desert its cozy mates in big business, or even allow a few pilot nuclear power projects. That would be too rational for those union controlled, idiots!?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Monday, 4 March 2019 9:40:28 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
Fact check all you like Graham.
Our nation’s responsibility for it’s own share is 100% ours, putting it off just makes *our* catch up that much harder.
We won’t be able to just ship it to china like we do our plastic waste. Hell, they’re knocking back that *and* the coal right now, pointing out that we need to export more urgently than they need to import.
And yes, the innovations will be interesting. Some will be societal including our expected transit times, or the scale, location and ownership of generators. We waste half our output by having generators hundreds of miles away, thus wasting both the heat and the cold that could be reticulated to nearby suburbs, in turn reducing electrical loads. The energetics of high speed flight may be harder, yes, but the economics that allegedly justify it may not be so refractory.
What is almost certain is that innovation won’t be generated by the sort of sarcasm you just displayed, nor by the policy constipation of those who can’t get over being a generation behind the greens.
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Monday, 4 March 2019 11:17:38 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
Great Rusty, so now you reckon size does matter? Make up your mind. The only innovation that will limit CO2 emissions is nuclear. All the gobbledy gook about innovation won't change that. Trying to generate power to support a modern society won't be done using low energy dense sources like wind and sun. Or by living next to power generators.
Posted by GrahamY, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 11:29:11 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
Graham,
I reckon responsibility matters. Size arguments that seek to *dodge* rather than emphasise responsibility are just weak, like vanilla rape. Since our contribution is so small, it should be comparatively easy for us to address our share.
Funny about innovation: Some were all for it if it could save coal generation, even if the technology had not been invented yet. Yet on the use reduction side we have lighting that is an order of magnitude less load, and can be halved again with motion detectors. Generators and motors that have benefited greatly from better field strengths and closer tolerances. Storage losses are substantially reduced and small storage solutions are proliferating. Photovoltaic efficiencies advance annually. Nearby generation *obviously* reduces transmission losses and increases disaster resilience.
We aren't a modern society, we are a steam civilisation dependent on fuels we cannot replace, mistaking profligacy for mastery as aristocracies once did. No financial planner would congratulate the wisdom of a wild spending lotto winner who is simply setting fire to what he could not replace. I am not pretending that any single approach "or" another will solve the whole problem, but a raft of them certainly weaken the case for centralised generation and ownership. Consider how much the nighttime minimum is propped up by time-shifting - the same technique could favour the use of daytime solar peaks and transfer the costs of 24-7 generation to those that need it.
What scares the supply-side snowflakes is not being able to *force* demand.
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Tuesday, 5 March 2019 12:17:59 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. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

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