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?

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.

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

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.

"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.