John Daysh,
What are some of the "renewables" we can lay our hands on now & where are they being used & how ? And, what is the percentage of emission & is there any indication which ones will come closest to the dreamers mark of Zero ?

Indyvidual,

I’d recommend solar panels. Here’s a supplier in your region: http://www.truenorthsolar.com.au. They’re being used all over the world. This is typically done by placing them on your roof.

The lifecycle CO2 emissions for solar PV are around 6% that of coal (i.e. 50g CO2-eq/kWh, compared to 820g CO2-eq/kWh.)

I hope this helps.

Dear John,

«How about “naturally replenishing energy”?»

Well the energy itself is not replenished: it's the source of that energy that produces more energy (for a while, until it dries up too), so how about "naturally replenishing energy sources"?

«but not enough to understand the reality of anthropogenic climate change.»

I really don't like to get into this topic, but since you asked:

Understanding should be based on evidence, but what to do when the evidence is inadmissible?

The notorious Nazi doctor, Josef Mengele, filmed the digestive systems of Jews with X-rays. They died with excruciating pains, but he made new discoveries about peristalsis.
Is it OK to use his findings in medicine?
Is it OK to use vital information that was extracted using torture?

The issue of "climate change" started off as political. It is well known that when it began, unethical efforts were made to extract at all costs "evidence" for it from scientists. I believe that a measure of that pressure on scientists still exists.

Whether that evidence is correct or otherwise (or anything in between) is irrelevant to the way it was extracted.

One side in this debate prefers to frame the issue as scientific, rather than political or ethical, but that in itself is taking a position on the subject-matter.

Since my personal choice is to refuse to study or rely on information that was extracted unethically, I don't know, nor wish to know, whether or not the climate is changing. I am not telling you what you should do when facing this ethical dilemma, I just hope that you can respect my choice.

«Governments already monitor and regulate fossil fuel use extensively.»

Yes, and this is a source of worry.
Not because I like or prefer fossil fuel, not even because I cared about greedy corporations and industries, but because monitoring and regulating by the all-powerful government, can trample over the helpless man in the street.

«You should actually be more worried about fossil fuel polices.»

Whenever government is about to declare policies, any policies, my back stiffens and my blood-pressure is rising.

Yuyutsu,

You may be concerned about government policies on fossil fuel industries, but I gave you good reason for hope so far as “naturally replenishing energy sources” technologies go.

This isn’t the only inconsistency either. You mention the work of Josef Mengele as a reason to reject his findings, yet you do this on a device that we wouldn’t have if it weren’t for a company that developed the punch card system for the Nazis in their attempts to systematically exterminate certain populations.

//The issue of "climate change" started off as political. It is well known that when it began, unethical efforts were made to extract at all costs "evidence" for it from scientists. I believe that a measure of that pressure on scientists still exists.//

This is a baseless conspiracy theory. There is no evidence for this.

//Since my personal choice is to refuse to study or rely on information that was extracted unethically, I don't know, nor wish to know, whether or not the climate is changing.//

The fact that it wasn’t and isn’t being “extracted unethically” aside, how did you get from this to referring to climate change as a “fable”? How did you determine that the science of anthropogenic climate change was a fable if you “refuse to study or rely on information that was extracted unethically”?

I don’t think you’re telling me the truth. All I think you’ve done here is switch from slapping a philosophical dress on run-of-the-mill climate change denial to slapping a morally indignant dress on it instead.

Dear John,

«yet you do this on a device that we wouldn’t have if it weren’t for a company that developed the punch card system for the Nazis in their attempts to systematically exterminate certain populations.»

I honestly didn't know about this, it is the first time I hear about that connection... after all the cards I punched in the 1970's...

So what are we to do about it?

«The fact that it wasn’t and isn’t being “extracted unethically” aside, how did you get from this to referring to climate change as a “fable”?»

I apologise for using the wrong word "fable", which can convey a stand about scientific facts.

The contents of a fable need not necessarily be false, however that is commonly assumed.
An example would be the concept of hobbits, which started off as a folk-tale, when Homo floresiensis was actually later discovered on the island of Flores.

«This is a baseless conspiracy theory. There is no evidence for this.»

As I said, I try to avoid this topic and have not updated my knowledge of it for many years, nor wish to, but looking at the origins of the concept of global warming, it started off as a political agenda and wouldn't be with us if not for the desire of Margaret Thatcher to quash the coal-miner's powerful union.

Scientists were financially enticed by Thatcher, later also threatened and cheated, into producing evidence for global warming. That is pretty much documented, but of course it says nothing about whether or not global warming itself independently occurs in the physical world.

Yep, and Australia, one of the world's biggest energy exporters, is about to start importing lng, thanks to the ideological zealots. And Andrew Forrest, protector of the environment and arguably responsible for more koala deaths than any other Australian, is spending a billion on a gas import terminal at Port Kembla. What happened to all the cheaper than anything low carbon wind, solar and green hydrogen? That's the thing about bs: Fantasies stay in the ether.