If the author ever gets cancer he should take up smoking to calm his nerves. What helps short term may make the long run worse. That's a new claim that Australia's ocean surrounds absorb all our emissions; perhaps our seas need to absorb some from other countries as well. Coal-to-liquids has at least 80% more emissions than petroleum based fuel and in any case would take decades to develop. The emissions trading scheme if it ever happens would kill it. Gas is a lot better, either compressed or converted to petrol and diesel, and that's probably where Australia should go next. Then there's increased public transport, rail and electric vehicles. Again it probably can't be built in time to avoid an economic slowdown but all fossil fuels including coal will eventually run out as shown by recent price increases. Therefore we have to decarbonise sooner or later so let's make it sooner when the economy has some spare capacity.

Thanks for that Walter, a voice of reason from someone who has read the new reasearch, rather than listened to the rubbish comming out of our ABC.

Obviously Taswegian pays too much attention to our, not too trust worthy, green mouthpiece.

WE get the public transport myth trotted out yet again, despite the recent studies showing public transport produces more CO2 per passenger mile than private cars. Of course, such information doesn't make it on to ABC news.

Still, go for it mate, with the lack of sun spots, we had better hope that the extra CO2, from all those stinking busses, will help keep us warm, as it looks like the sun will be a bit weak for a while.

Is is possible that active intervention prevented possible adverse "Y2K millenium bug" outcomes? Is it also possible that concerted, intelligent intervention will help ameliorate damage from threats posed by excessive carbon dioxide?

I agree - it's a great opportunity.

I believe we must make the major decision to go electric.

1. Electricity is clean at it's point of use and it's pollution can be controlled at it's generation source.
2. It can be transmitted with minimum loss nationwide as we already have the national grid in place.
3. It can be produced by various techniques, geothermal, solar, wind, tidal, hydro, gas, coal and we have all of them in abundance.

Electric cars, public transport, railways, lawnmowers etc are all viable and The Tesla Motor Company has shown the way in the development of light, recyclable high storage non lead acid batteries. Further research by our scientists can only improve on them.

If we finally accept that there is no relation between CO2 and global temps we can immediately start building new power stations using coal and gas as we develop and bring the alternatives online leading to the eventual closure of all coal and gas systems.

A nationwide campaign could have us all electric within 20 years and the whiners about motorways and city pollution can put their complaints to rest as all transport would eventually become clean and green leaving our precious coal hydrocarbons for further development such as plastics and medical products and our remaining oil kept as a mainstay for our air transport.

Hasbeen,

You claim:

"WE get the public transport myth trotted out yet again, despite the recent studies showing public transport produces more CO2 per passenger mile than private cars."

Could you be provide links to these recent studies?

The material I have seen, which is by no means complete, suggests otherwise. e.g.,

"We have calculated that moving a person over a given distance by public transportation consumes, on average, half the energy of moving a person the same distance by private automobile, SUV, or light truck."
http://www.eesi.org/briefings/2004/Clean%20Bus/1.15.04%20Public%20Transit/shapiro%20remarks.PDF

"Compared to bus travel, travel by car produces 3x more global warming gases; 1.6x more common air pollution; 4.2x more toxic air pollution; 1.2x more water habitat alteration; 4.4x more land habitat alteration; 1.8x more common water pollution; 2.7x more toxic water pollution"
http://www.newcommunityproject.org/transportation.shtml

"A car occupied by one person produces on average 2.06 grams/passenger-mile (g/pm) of nitrogen oxides for work trips. A fully occupied transit bus, on the other hand, would produce 1.54 g/pm, while a fully occupied rail transit system would produce only .47 g/pm for the same distance. Similarly, the car occupied by one person would produce 15.06 g/pm of carbon monoxide and 2.09 g/pm of hydrocarbons. The bus would produce 3.05 g/pm and .2 g/pm of the same pollutants, respectively. From an environmental point of view, trains are the best form of transportation: a full passenger train produces only .02 g/pm pf carbon monoxide and .01 g/pm of hydrocarbons.

A bus with as few as seven passengers is more fuel efficient than the average automobile used for commuting. The fuel efficiency of a fully-occupied bus is six times greater than that of the average commuter's automobile, while the fuel efficiency of a fully-occupied rail car is fifteen times greater than that of the average commuter's automobile. A single person who commutes via a transit system instead of driving alone will save 200 gallons of gasoline per year. A 10% nationwide increase in transit ridership would save 135 million gallons of gasoline per year. This fuel efficiency results in personal savings and in a cleaner environment for all."
http://www.cas.usf.edu/philosophy/mass/Stephanie.html

Hasbeen

"...recent studies showing public transport produces more CO2 per passenger mile than private cars. Of course, such information doesn't make it on to ABC news."

Because the only news organ in Australia without a commercial vested interest is the ABC, that's what I listen to and watch. I certainly haven't heard about recent studies showing public transport produces more CO2 per passenger mile than private cars.

Now you have me worried because we sold our second car and having resolved to use only public transport unless absolutely necessary, clocked up only 3500 kms in our remaining car last year.

Can you please tell us all which studies you are referring to? Where can I read these studies? The Oil Industry Gazette? The Auto Manufacturers Bulletin? The United Used Car Dealers Monthly?