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. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
gbyrneg50, This John daly, is he a lib/lab lacky. Just for interest, I live near Port Arthur and spend a lot of time at sea. Our tide range is from 0,35 to 1.9m. Five years ago at king tides, the local wharf deck was 1m above the water line. Yesterday, not a king tide, the deck was 10cm above. Our beaches are disappearing. Over the last year or so, boats have had to be moved when we have rough weather as the tidal surges are getting bigger and in the next couple years we may lose our wharf.

Look at the recent ice core taken from the antarctic, that give co2 levels going back 650000 years. This showed that we have at least 27% more co2 in the atmosphere than at any time before. Add that to the thawing tundra and permafrost peatbogs throughout the nth hemisphere that are now releasing methane at alarming rates and you only need half a brain to see what is happening. Add the ice shelf that is slipping of iceland at an alraming rate, that is revealing ground that hasn't seen the sun for millions of years and we have a problem

Be as politically correct and stupidly blind as you like, in your illusionary city worlds, but reality is about to catch up with you. A friend on the E coast of the US tells me last night that they are building huge sands barriers around LA because the seas are rising and sending 4-6m wave onto the shores. They have no idea what will happen when the summer storm season hits.
Posted by The alchemist, Saturday, 31 December 2005 10:42:21 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
"""KAEP: Are now saying that there is climate change but that because it is changing so quickly global warming isn’t happening? What?"""

I said that due to thermodynamic considerations, greenhouse gas warming is an impossibility on THIS planet at this period in Geologic history. The Muller diagram I presented shows the expected trajectory of Earth temperature and it's basic declination correlates strongy with internal Earth actinide depletion.

I also stated that wastewater mismanagement across the globe is creating thermodynamic imbalances off populated, farmed and mined coastal areas of the planet. And that the second law of thermodynamics
predicts rapid equalisation of these imbalances and this is responsible for ALL climate change manifestations. Atmospheric effects are purely secondary as the atmosphere does not have the heat capacity of the oceans.

Also, as the Earth cools, what happens to the crust? Yes it shrinks. And what happens as it shrinks? It emits heat and ENERGY which rapidly finds its way to ocean surfaces. And what happens after 100 years or so of this cooling? Yes, a mini ice age. And that is where we are headed yet again. So If you want to believe in global warming based on a few unrelated measures in an extremely inhomogeneous biosphere, go ahead. But nature is going to give you a big wake up call and very soon. Starting with another fun hurricane season unleashed upon Nth Australian mining towns and followed by a dreadful 2006 US hurricane season as tectonic heat increases hurricane frequency and high ENTROPY US wastewaters attract the LOW ENTROPY hurricane formations right into their biggest cities.

Now I can repeat this yet again but it is up to you to first comprehend it before commenting.

And remember, greenhouse warming depends on the notion of a homogeneous biosphere and a smooth transition in its effects. It clearly is not homogeneous and CC effects are NOT smooth or gradual. Further, increased tectonic heat can escape quite happily despite any CO2 or other gas increases precisely because the biosphere is NOT homogeneous. The second law of thermodynamics will and does, find a way.
Posted by KAEP, Saturday, 31 December 2005 1:11:44 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
Wharf man,

One of the effects of tectonic ocean surface heating is that more heat is being transferred to and held in the roaring forties by ocean and atmospheric circulations. This is part of the inhomogeneity in the biosphere of which I speak. Tassy is smack bang on the edge of this and consequently will experience some temporary fluctuations (O~100Yr), both up and down in tidal levels. This is not the end of your world.

""""Look at the recent ice core taken from the antarctic, that give co2 levels going back 650000 years. This showed that we have at least 27% more co2 in the atmosphere than at any time before.""""

It is worth noting that due to natural processes like compaction and due to strong inhomogeneity within the biosphere, CO2 ice core records of our era in a million years time will NOT show anything more that what we see in the muller diagram (fig 1-6)now, no matter how spruiked out we have become by myopic politicial pundits in scientific expert's clothing.

And keep count of those QUAKES. That might be more problematic. Tasmania is on the Pacific Ring.Its going to be a BUMPY ride!
Posted by KAEP, Saturday, 31 December 2005 1:23:16 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 is getting all countries to undertake reasonable emissions cuts"

Martin that simply isn't going to happen. As economies like India
and China are exempt from Kyoto, energy intense industries will simply be moved there, so Kyoto achieves absolutaly nothing.

The best thing that could happen is for oil to hit 100$ a barrel.
Then people will use it more sensibly and more sustainable energy
sources, which have a nett zero affect on c02 will evolve and be developed.
Not one magic cure, but many different potential energy sources.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 31 December 2005 1:33:12 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 Totally agree with Yabby. We are just simply not going to get all countries to undertake reasonable emissions cuts. How on earth could we expect such a thing? Even if China improved its efficiencies (in per-capita usage of fossil fuels and hence emissions) at an extraordinary rate, it would still continue to rapidly increase its overall greenhouse gas emissions, because of the enormous growth rate in the number of users. Same with India. And with those two countries facing that sort of a scenario, the rest of the world needn’t bother tightening its belt.

It would take the most enormous global effort just to stop the growth in emissions, let alone lead to any sort of decline.

We are beaten on this one. Peak oil will hit us like a ton of bricks (actually many billions of tons of bricks). Humanity will adapt, but not without massive upheaval.

As far as the environment is concerned, and the long-term health of humanity; the quicker this happens, the better.

As far as climate change is concerned, the same applies. The quicker we exhaust this amazing fossil fuel resource, the better.

Unfortunately, any efforts to halt this momentum will only succeed in drawing it out and prolonging the pain. So as whacky as it may initially sound, I reckon the best thing we can do is to just go for broke – and consume as much as we can while we still can
Posted by Ludwig, Saturday, 31 December 2005 1:56:17 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
Yabby,

I understand your skepticism. But as big as the task is to get developing countries to reduce their emissions, the obligation, the necessity, for them to do so is even greater and is growing.

You’re partially right about India, China and all the developing countries. They were not obligated by the initial round of emission reduction targets that the Kyoto Protocol set out in 1997. The developed countries, who have by far the greatest wealth and who by far have emitted the greatest amount of greenhouse gas (per capita and per volume) were to make a start, to lead the way. So that efficient mechanisms (eg. market mechanisms, cooperative partnerships), policies, understanding and technologies were available to enable developing countries address climate change along with the rest of their humanitarian and development needs.

Sadly, due to the concerted spoiling of certain interests, this start has barely been made, 8 years later. Sadder still is that lack of progress itself is being held up as a reason not to bother. And yet the adverse impacts of climate change continue to grow.

Under what conditions do you think Australia will loose either exports or any of its energy intensive industry? - I can’t see this happening, except if we continue to refuse to participate with the rest of the world, ie. Kyoto.
Posted by martin callinan, Saturday, 31 December 2005 2:38:22 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