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 > After the climate backflip, what next? > Comments

After the climate backflip, what next? : Comments

By Chris Harries, published 13/11/2006

Climate change - there has been a painstakingly long lag time between postulation, scientific proof, political acceptance, then corrective political action.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
I'm a tad skeptical about the Stern report. See http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12i.pdf
or perhaps http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

The first report, done by climate change "experts," was commissioned by the Blair Government before the Stern report. Blair didn't like the lack of votes or taxpayers money in the experts report and so commissioned Stern, an economist not a scientist, to do another more favorable study, however I fully agree with Chris Harries with regards to the rest of his article. Thanks to rapid population growth which in turn makes obscene amounts of money for big business and Howard/Bush/Blair type Governments, we continue to merrily sing and dance our way down the road to Armageddon. What to do about it is the big issue. With Western society addicted to fast credit and an unimagineable amount of toys to spend it on, it will be very difficult to change the mindset in a hurry. I spoke to my youngest son about such issues. The response was pure hostility from an otherwise level headed 27 year old. People his age and younger won't give up their lifestyles for a better World environment and in the end, plain old human greed will make sure we reach the end of Armageddon Road. I personally try to do my bit for sustainability, but with the attitude of much of the population today, all I can hope for is that I'm dead of old age before oil, climate change, over-population or whatever becomes a major issue. Unfortunately, I believe a massive calamity is waiting just around the corner.
Posted by Wildcat, Monday, 13 November 2006 4:58:16 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
Most people now believe climate change is a reality, even Little Johnny Howard and Rupert Murdoch. Those who have had a careful look at the history of the earth's climate change are sceptical to say the least of some of the predictions in the Stern Report, and the wilder alarmist views expressed in the media. Do see lord Monckton's second piece in the UK's "Sunday Telegraph" yesterday, included was a link to a .pdf of 77 pages of reader responses to his first piece the previous Sunday "Apocalypse cancelled", I have not read them all, but many concerned scientists appear to agree with his views.

Have a look at today's "Age" Business page 5, where the Victor Smorgon Group has secured the exclusive rights to some NASA technology developed by Green Fuel Technologies Corp link: www.greenfuelonline.com. Basically they have taken the CO2 from power station emissions, and using biomimicry, ie, algae and photosynthesis have converted it into biodiesel, ethanol and stockfeed. All with no power consumption, expensive pumping and pipelines, instead doing something useful and profitable with a waste product. Better than expensive and unproven geosequestration, and it is operational right now, not 10 years away.

Richard 42
Posted by richard42, Monday, 13 November 2006 5:32:11 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
Richard 42. Read the site you mentioned and I've got to say I'm certainly amazed. I've heard of such technology, but it really does seem too good to be true. If it's as good as they suggest, why isn't everyone jumping up and down to get the message across to our Government? Maybe there's not enough money in it for those large parasitic businesses such as oil companies. If the Australian Labor Party has heard of Green Fuel technology, then why oh why aren't they using it as a major election platform? If it works as well as the site suggests, what a boon it would be to apply it to our State electrity suppliers! Oh dear. I feel a conspiracy coming on.
Posted by Wildcat, Monday, 13 November 2006 6:24:56 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
Murdoch had the news, its time for his ilk to 'take control of the issue'. Standby for greenhouse to be used to justify more corporate appropriation of the Commons (see carbon offset plantations), more bleeding the state dry (see recent $35mil fed.gov grant to ?toyota to reduce engine emissions) and more 'sustainable growth'(fundamentally moronic phrase).
Emissions trading without caps is just another market toy for the big end of town, expect it to be the first feast of 'climate-responsible capitalism'.

Not to worry, we're nearly out of natural capital and Empires are thirsty beasts. There is hope, but not for those who think consumer capitalism has anything positive to offer the future.
Posted by Liam, Monday, 13 November 2006 9:43:04 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
Interesting post and link, Richard 42.

I've been curious to know whether there are any results whatever from geosequestration trials at any scale (but bigger and more practical than, say, burying cases of charged Soda Stream bottles). I ought to Google it myself, but am hoping someone else is more directly propelled than I. Any results out there? I'm thinking Geosequestration is unproven and impractical. Why do we not hear about scientists disputing this strategy? Is it because there are no results worth disputing? My guess is no results at all!

So that geosequestration is, in the present milieu, impractical and untimely; far more so than electricity from wind or tidal flows, or clever applications of efficiency, or use of home and corporate information feedbacks (computerised, wired, wireless)and passive solar applications.

Some related points are to be found in "A Stern review", Forum link: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5091

As for "What next", the balance must be found between innovation, rapid deployment, evaluation and regulation.

J O'M Bockris, in his comprehensive and detailed survey, "Energy Options" (Australian and New Zealand Book Company, 1980), remarked in his critique of US energy policies of the '70's, that:

"The affluent world has to pass through a difficult period of adjustment ... this cannot be done voluntarily, and an organisation ... should be set up as an analogue to the Department of Defense." (p129)

My hope is that we are able to choose our difficulties in as humane a way as possible: not a choice I see being given in other parts of the world.
Posted by Sir Vivor, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 9:08:08 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
I would back Victor Smorgon's judgement any day of the week, the group is putting it's hard earned on the line here, and deserves to reap the rewards. Little Johnny Howard is I suspect still very much under the influence of the ex unlamented Chief (part time X Rio)Scientist Dr.Batterham.
It is interesting to note that the Chinese signed an agreement with Greenfuel back in Sept 2005, about the same time as the first commercial customer (a power plant) commenced a year long commercial pilot trial, the results should be due anytime now. Tests have shown 86% reduction in NOx and 40% in CO2 emissions, the Chinese are interested because the air quality in Beijing and Shanghai and elsewhere is really toxic (Olympics..).Also note that hard headed Venture Capital firm Polaris has invested in two rounds of funding totalling $US17.8million, and are represented on the Board of Greenfuels by Dr.Metcalf, the inventor of Ethernet. None of these people are lightweight dreamers. I have a daughter of 33 who is environmentally aware, but also like your son, not prepared to sacrifice lifestyle, perhaps the moderator can put us in touch.
Posted by richard42, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 9:14:43 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. All

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