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. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. All
Every Australian can cut their emissions from today with minimal inconvenience. Just stop buying newspapers, especially the AGE, SMH and the Murdoch stable.

Of course, it won't show up in the IPCC accounting system for europe because the emission is deemed to take place when the tree is cut, not when the chip wrapper goes into the landfill. And that means that all europe's paper emissions are recorded in the 3rd world pulp exporting countries.

But here in Australia we export our pulp and then import the newsprint so you can all do your bit to help Rupert clean up his act. And the general public couldn't get any more ignorant, could they?
Posted by Perseus, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 1:10:56 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
Richard 42, I'm quite prepared and would find it a pleasure to discuss our children's less than helpful response with their "head in the sand" attitude to issues concerning the environment if you or the moderator can arrange it.
Posted by Wildcat, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 6:22:33 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
sir vivor, did a quick google, got 12 results, mostly govt spin. I suggest you are right, unproven. Only other source I can think of would be the oil and gas industry who have much experience in injecting various substances to increase production from dying oil wells. The process is energy intensive and expensive, whereas the Greenfuel approach is energy neutral and produces useful products from a waste stream and at the same time takes out some "climate change insurance" in case the CO2 climate change mob are right.

richard42
Posted by richard42, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 9:38:59 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
Richard42
re geosequestration " unproven ... and energy intensive and expensive, whereas the Greenfuel approach is energy neutral"

"Greenfuel" appears carbon neutral, but the energy and other materials inputs are not necessarily neutral. But I'm assuming the balances for greenfuels to be far better than for geosequestration.

And how do the geosequestrators intend to transport their CO2 from generator to sequestration point? More of the energy intensive and expensive bit, I'd guess, with the consumer picking up the expenses as the market will bear; directly through increased energy rates and indirectly through government subsidies and increased taxes.

And if there is no shift toward reduced national energy production and consumption, then, at the very least, there is no demonstration that reductions are possible and liveable. This is a sticking point for me, regarding cleanup technologies.

Cleanup technologies are likely to be seen by many as a means of avoiding the limits to growth, up to the point of catastrophic collapse following the depletion of some key (strategic) resource, or following the kick-in of some unexpected runaway feedback cycle. Cleanups are a stopgap measure at best, and no substitute for scaling down our patterns of excessive global energy consumption.
Posted by Sir Vivor, Wednesday, 15 November 2006 9:07:53 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
"And if there is no shift toward reduced national energy production and consumption, then, at the very least, there is no demonstration that reductions are possible and livable. This is a sticking point for me, regarding cleanup technologies.
Cleanup technologies are likely to be seen by many as a means of avoiding the limits to growth, up to the point of catastrophic collapse following the depletion of some key (strategic) resource, or following the kick-in of some unexpected runaway feedback cycle. Cleanups are a stopgap measure at best, and no substitute for scaling down our patterns of excessive global energy consumption."
So says Sir Vivor. And worth reinforcing by repetition.
And what sort of gormless ignoramus would attempt to rebut it?
Yet the world continues with somewhere about 1.3 per cent population increase: roughly 80 million extra consumers each year. Most of these are either in need, or expectation, of increasing their consumption rates to the same as those making contributions to this article. Who is going to throw the first stone against the idea that they have justification for proceeding towards such improvement: Taking those steps which bring them to our living standards of hospital care; education; housing; sharing our lust for ever increasing GDP rather than just an improving Genuine Progress Indicator?
It will be a great day when those gormless world and national leaders are replaced - unfortunately, unlikely! That would be the day when the "scaling down of our patterns of excessive global energy consumption" becomes possible. It will of necessity be accompanied by the cessation of unwanted fertility being foisted upon women, a foisting so cruelly fostered by the Bush administration, the Vatican, and such-like.
Posted by colinsett, Wednesday, 15 November 2006 10:20:36 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. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. All

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