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 > An ethical and sustainable Australia makes sound business sense > Comments

An ethical and sustainable Australia makes sound business sense : Comments

By Simon Divecha, published 29/12/2005

Simon Divecha argues Australia needs clear policy leadership on greenhouse gas emissions.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
Regarding increasing scientific proof that climate change may end human existence as we know it within the next 100 years? As Australia and adjoining South Sea islands could be the first to go under, why do we have to follow the US political line, when big continents like America could be among the last to suffer?

Are we still suffering from the old 19th century colonial complex that we are still not allowed to think for ourselves?

George C, WA - Bushbred
Posted by bushbred, Thursday, 29 December 2005 6:12:07 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
George C, I think you have hit the nail on the head again mate, I do enjoy your posts, Regards,Shaun.
Posted by SHONGA, Thursday, 29 December 2005 7:32:43 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 problem with the whole Kyoto story, is that Australia burns quite a bit of energy for others, such as alumimium smelting etc. So its
how the figures are calculated that is part of the problem.

So to comply with Kyoto we could simply move the large refineries
to China, sell them the bauxite and let their energy consumption figures rocket, whilst ours will look dramatically better.

Will it solve anything? Absolutaly not, it will simply keep those
screaming about Kyoto happy.

Perhaps we should start by ensuring that every woman on the planet has access to family planning etc, despite the Vatican.
80 million extra humans a year do not help solve the climate change problem and is totally unsustainable.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 29 December 2005 9:16:09 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'd suggest that readers go to this site about greenhouse before committing themselves to this dubious proposition.

http://www.john-daly.com/

Greenhouse is dubious at best and we should not become like lemmings going over a cliff because a few "egg-heads" have made frightening predictions. Most supporters of greenhouse are social scientists. Clilmate scientists have pooh-poohed it.
Posted by gbyrneg50, Thursday, 29 December 2005 11:30:10 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 most significant observation here has been from Mickijo. If you want to “solve” the problem, attack the root of the cause not the consequences. Greenhouse gas emissions is a consequence the root cause is population growth.

gbyrneg50 makes valid observation to the credibility of the basic data.

Attempting to make projections and predictions of outcomes to the highly specific and fine variations promoted by so called scientists is as much a matter of spurious correlation and statistical skew as it is of anything approaching predictable accuracy (citing the multiple predictions of disaster from the oil and coal supplies being exhausted - such fatuous predictions being made regularly over the past 250 years and always proved wrong because they ignore "the natural inventiveness and ingenuity of individuals to develop solutions to problems and the capitalist economic system's ability to promote such solutions for the benefit of all").

Basically the models used are limited not only in the number of data collection points but by the quality and quantity of data as collected over time. That means no one knows if changes are the consequence of erratics, anomalies, real change or short cycles of change versus longer cycles.

Recovery – I would note the ability of the Earths natural processes to recover from manmade short-term problems seems very powerful. Forests grow back and once polluted rivers renew rapidly.

Oh and any idea that the “affluent West” is producing more than its fair share of greenhouse gases – wait ten years and see how that shifts to China and India with burgeoning manufacturing growth powered by “old-science” fossil fuels as energy intensive manufacturing shifts through the benefits of freetrade to those countries from “developed” countries.
Kyoto is not “the” ethical alternative to Australian government policy nor is it sustainable.
I doubt whether Kyoto, the science which underpins its imperative being based on lies and skewed supposition, is even an “ethical” pursuit and certainly destroying the means of wealth generation is not a “sustainable” proposal for even the simplest of national economies.
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 30 December 2005 1:01:49 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
There is no such thing as greenhouse gas warming. It is a THERMODYNAMIC impossibility on this planet at this time in geological history. Humans cannot change the trajectory of biospheric cooling and natural oscillations within that trajectory. See fig 1-6: http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/history_of_climate.html
for details of this trajectory over the past 3 million years.

The real problems are:

* Overpopulation. Why do governments have to grow electorates to meet economic targets and build power bases at the expense of the sustainability and health of existing populations? Iemma and his undemocratic desal moves so he can squeeze 1 million more rioters into Sydney? Howard and his 110,000 per year immigration of skilled workers to displace Australians who can't upgrade their skills because of HECS fees?

* Air pollution is degrading quality of life. Greenhouse gases can't cause climate change, but they and toxic associates are so concentrated in urban areas that they pose serious chronic health effects. We are living longer since leaded petrol was phased out, but quality of life is still questionable.

* A replacement for oil. Howard gets full marks for Carbon sequestration. It will have to do till serious geothermal and space based solar technologies can develop and mature. Ultimately, we are citizens of the SOLAR system, not the Earth, and future energy must sooner or later recognise this. Coal is abundant and IS the only serious replacement for the forseeable future.

* Climate change caused by mismanagement of wastewaters. The thermal heat capacity of large pollution plumes and dead zones off large cities and farm areas will be balanced by low entropy heat from tropical areas and from heated deserts. The ensuing energy shifts to address these imbalances are the direct cause of climate changes. Atmospheric heat redistribution and greenhouse warming are less than 10% of the problem.
Until we can make significant progress in cleaning wastewaters before dumping them at sea, droughts, storms, freezes and melts will occur across the planet as different energy zones equilibrate by the second law of thermodynamics. Kyoto does not address the wastewater issue and thus can never solve climate change.
Posted by KAEP, Friday, 30 December 2005 4:19:31 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. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

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