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 > Coal mining will outlast green hysterics > Comments

Coal mining will outlast green hysterics : Comments

By Jeremy Gilling, John Muscat and Rolly Smallacombe, published 29/5/2007

If we want to have a real impact on stabilising atmospheric carbon, we should think about expanding our share of the world’s coal supply.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
How much does the NSW Minerals Council pay you to write this tripe? May your children forgive you.
Posted by carlos103, Tuesday, 29 May 2007 5:00:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course MIT will put a positive spin on coal sequestration. They are after funding. Unfortunately it’s a dicey idea and won’t be available for a long time if ever. Storing carbon dioxide underground is more difficult than storing radioactive materials.

The only sensible way is to (A) put our money on wind and solar and to cut down on energy dependence eg building windows orientation.

If we don’t do anything, then we can’t expect China and India to do anything. The alternative to A is catastrophe.
Posted by reason123, Tuesday, 29 May 2007 8:39:03 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
To be honest I am not surprised how narrow most people’s views are on OLO. They seem to think that if Australia stops mining coal tomorrow it will be some sort of silver bullet and that we won’t have to worry about climate change from then on.

But the majority of readers at OLO continually prove that they can’t grasp even the most simple of subject.

The article was overall quite acute in pointing out that if Australia changes its use from coal power to other sources of energy it will be mealy a drop in the ocean with regards to reducing global CO2 emissions.

Australia’s best form of attack when it comes to reducing the emissions from coal power are to work on “clean coal technology” and thus once a break through is made pass the new technology onto lesser developed countries, so that globally CO2 emissions can be reduced not just in Australia.

The Australian government holds a very logical view on this topic and should be congratulated for standing strong in the face of those who come up with ridiculously simple solutions to complex and difficult problems.
Posted by EasyTimes, Tuesday, 29 May 2007 9:33:42 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
A common misunderstanding with the issue of climate change is that mankind actually has the ability to influence the situation. The fact is that mankind's contribution to the cause of climate change is insignificant compared to natural occurrences and any change that can be made my mankind in an attempt to influence outcomes can be cosmentic only. There are many references to this and all you need do is keep an eye on non-mainstram media. Open your eyes. Keep a clear mind.
Posted by father of night, Tuesday, 29 May 2007 10:45:26 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
At the outset, I am an environmentalist. I am definitely not a ‘green’. Being an environmentalist does not have to hold you to any particular political party.

I agree we should develop, utilise and export “clean coal technology,” but I tend to differ from EasyTimes perspective that this is “Australia’s best form of attack”.

We can develop and implement geothermal base-load power now.

The Australian government is not pursuing this technology as a measured response and strategy to curbing GHG emissions. Why not?

One; it appears our government would rather take us down the nuclear path, and two; there are powerful and well resourced vested interest groups that have the ear of the government to maintain the status quo.

"Scorcher, the dirty politics of climate change" – a disturbing read for us in OZ.

Throw in some R&D grant dollars and a few more for a tax-payer funded advertising campaign and everything is sweet, NOT.

Solutions to complex and difficult problems are there. However, they do require vision and leadership from the highest levels of society, specifically our business and political leaders.

I can vouch for the former, but where has the latter been these last 10 years in tackling the issues of climate change?

I must therefore disagree with EasyTimes – “The Australian government DOES NOT hold a very logical view on this topic and should NOT be congratulated for standing strong in the face of those who come up with ridiculously simple solutions to complex and difficult problems.”
Posted by davsab, Tuesday, 29 May 2007 11:00:01 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
Father of night is probably almost right when he says that "A common misunderstanding with the issue of climate change is that mankind actually has the ability to influence the situation."
The truth of the matter is more likely that mankind no longer has the ability to influence the situation because the degradation of the environment has actually gone past the point where it can be retrieved without the intervention of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse.
Posted by VK3AUU, Tuesday, 29 May 2007 11:12:24 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. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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