I agree that lifecycle emissions analysis should be the main performance measure. While some people are clearly pleased with themselves driving around in a new Prius they might have done more good keeping a geriatric Datsun 180B on the road or taking the bus. Not so many conspicuous greenie points however. There are so many tradeoffs between agriculture, transport and electrical generation I think it is best to set an upper limit on an emissions time path and let the players fight over it. For example natural gas can be made into urea fertiliser or to drive power turbines with less CO2 than coal. Set a CO2 cap and let the market sort out the priorities. However there are ominous noises suggesting this may not happen without being politically undermined.

If emissions lifecycle comparison becomes the standard approach the next requirement is that it should not be based on fantasies such unproven technology and decimating some industries overnight.

Very interesting information. Given my lack of specialized technical knowledge I have to take your conclusions as correct besides which the ultimate (logical, non technical) conclusion is similar to my often stressed point. Our science isn’t yet up to the point of ACURATE prediction.

The flaw that underpins all sciences is the assumption that things happen in isolation or that our area of specialization is able to determine/measure all the inputs. Logically it isn’t so much of what we know that ‘bites’ us but what we don’t know.

Clearly this is amplified in those ‘sciences’ that rely on aggregation and ‘judgement’ particularly when it comes to human behaviours it that the further you refine from the generalized abstract the less accurate and applicable. They become a bit like trying to herd feral cats with a buggy whip. Good luck! And there is no way that it’s going to end well.

Notwithstanding that you article raises important issues all of which flow from the over riding point that no current method is absolute:
• Because of the inaccuracies should we then say “She’ll be right” and continue unabated…business as usual?
• Or as I suggest take the trend and assume the logical that
1. The earth is a limited environment/resource.
2. Implement harm minimization strategies.
3. Conserve resources.
4. Continually refine our lifestyles from the individual to global levels including Methods of wealth generation.
5. Continually work towards predictability.

Until we have the definitive answers our actions can only be matters of prudence and balanced judgement influenced by these inherently incomplete and improving theories. History shows that criticism with out a positive purpose tends to like ideological war always ends the same….Badly for all

Keep repeating anything long enough and people will believe it. The ‘wide acceptance’ of the carbon-burning theory could very well be one of those things.

Scientists ‘know’ about these things we are told. We should listen to them. But when well qualified scientists dissent from this easy, populous theory of man-made climate change, we are NOT to listen to THEM for some reason.

Given the divergence of opinion between groups of equally qualified scientists, the arguments usually boil down to two things: the dissenters are wrong (even if it’s just because their opinions don’t suit the media, and they don’t get much coverage) or ‘most’ scientists agree with the man-made theory. Perhaps it’s just a majority rules thing.

On the other hand, if scientists are supposed to know about such things, it would seem to be wrong not to listen to the qualified scientists who dissent from the theory of carbon, man-made climate change.

Perhaps the solution to the dilemma lies in ignoring all scientists. After all, none of them have experienced climate change of the magnitude we are seeing now. They are starting from scratch.

Australia’s biggest problem is water/drought, particularly in the Murray Basin. There is no evidence that CO2 has anything to do with it, according to Stewart Franks, hydro climatologist at the University Of Newcastle School Of Engineering. We are still suffering from the El Nino/La Nina phenomenon which has been around long before climate change and the CO2 theory.

It is rather premature to get excited over ‘alternative’ energy sources - most of which are not capable of being taken seriously yet – and handing out money to vested interests while we are in peril of running out of water.

We should be adapting to climate change, not pondering on more unproven theories

Another aspect of net energy analysis is whether it is actually better to just let the net energy output increase or strive to reduce it.

In other words; should the rampant and still rapidly increasing burning of fossil fuels continue unabated or should we make profound efforts to reduce it?

Is this a silly question? Not at all.

How do we know that the latter would be at all better than the former?

If we just burn the bloody stuff with gay abandon until it is essentially exhausted, thus creating a huge but short-lived atmospheric CO2 peak, we may very likely have a much lesser impact than if we manage to slow the rate of CO2 emissions down somewhat and continue pouring it into the atmosphere over a longer timeframe.

Do we really think that we’ve got a snowflakes chance in hell of reducing the burning of fossil fuels down to a level that allows CO2 emissions to stabilise, let alone drop considerably? No way mate! Not within the timeframe that is necessary to prevent major climate change.

Could it be that the best environmental strategy with climate change is to just give up and let business as usual run its course?

Should we be putting all our energies into adapting to it rather than trying to prevent it or reduce its impact?

Interesting Ludwig,
There have been suggestions that rather than spend considerable lots
of money trying to stop global warming it would be a lot cheaper to
just mitigate the effects as they occur.

I don't think anyone could put a dollar figure on that, but it might
be possible to put a ratio onto it.

If it turns out that the Chinas and Indias of this world do not apply
the suggested emission controls then really mitigation is the only
path available. Of course the peaking of oil & coal may make the
whole debate redundant.

there is a real problem [a problem of belief]

all science ISNT in agreement [most scientists ARNt studying the co2 problem ,thus wouldnt DARE to speculate for or against] this use of most is a buzz word.
#
5 years ago it was global WARMING warnings[then when the past 5 years numbers reveal COOLING so the buzz new word becomes climate CHANGE ,

at least if 'most' agree define if they agree

its getting WARMER or COOLER [you that want a NEW global TAX must get this most that agrees to reveal what they are agreeing to]

so now we get to where the earth is passing through a cycle [noting the sun pours more energy INTO the earth in one day that all the fossil fuels do in a year [huh?]

How come usa [the global warming DENIER passed the carbon tax in its recent bail out legislation !

[thats right usa ALLREADY passed the carbon tax [big buisness future cash cow]

look at europe [it has had the tax for years now]
it hasnt worked

[the buisness 'carbon reductions ' are because buisness was CLEVER enough to over state their carbon OUTPUT in applying for carbon-credits
[thus cleaned up big time by SELLING their over generous allocation [gift] of carbon credit on the market ,while getting the peoples carbon credit to build bigger buisness
[the carbon tax acts like a huge EXTRA tax on the con-sumers]

so we move the bases again [over 100 of our biggest POLUTERS get exemptions ,HUH?]

the lie of peak oil is farcicle ,[russia and indonesia just found huge reserves [and it seems the oil wells are refilling [empty is a relitive term]

but i see the sheeple keen to join the green [sold out left] who now are selling us out by self intrest for buisness intrest[just as the real poluters arnt poluting co2

its all a new tax [that will have its price set by the market forces]
its treasonous and clearly special intrests are being not only served but serviced

This is not a new concept, but is difficult for most people to comprehend.

For example the life cycle emissions of the prius most likely exceed that of the corrolla, whilst the damage to the environment due to the lead acid batteries far exceeds that of most other cars.

like wise, electric cars are responsible for nearly double the emmissions of CO2 due to the inefficiencies of generation and storage.

Renewable fuels require considerable farming resources that starve people in developing countries.

Whilst all these solutions being pushed by the greens have a attractive face the unseen consequences are generally far worse.

As the general populace is not technically trained, in depth challenges to the greens' sound bite sloganism passes over their heads and public opinion is thus superficial and uninformed.

I would thus strongly support any environmental claims to be forced to publish the net life cycle energy analysis.

Mr Right, Ludwig
I wonder is your views aren’t a little short sighted.
The accuracy of the explanation for global warming maybe moot but is that the real issue? The article is primarily about the methodologies of measuring anthropomorphic carbon released into the atmosphere.
Ignoring the scientists (I assume you mean only on GW) is an overtly short sighted approach ‘GW’ (a catch phrase) is a small part of the real topic Global Climate Dynamics. If we consider the PROVEN affects of changing landscapes we get the following rough equation.

Less trees/ vegetation changes= changes in heat over land = air pressures changes +changes in wind = changes in cloud formation= El Niño, La Nina intensities= changes in rain patterns= equal drought no water in the Murray.
This is the chain for ONE aspect of weather there are many more. Climate has many weathers.

The points here are:-
- Our science/models/methodologies (the latter is the point of the article) aren’t yet up to absolute accuracy
- The impact of specific elements on the equation (currently too complex).
- therefore trend level analysis is the safest
- If science tells us anything it is that everything is linked to everything else:-
1. Chaos mathematics,
2. group analysis,
3. Degrees of separation etc.
(Opposite to Mr Rights “in isolation” argument)

The world is undeniably a limited resource to ignore this is like jumping being adrift in unknown seas with 1000 litres of fresh water and showering or washing off the decks with the water. One scientist is telling you to conserve and the other is suggesting we’ve got heaps so be profligate with it (business as usual). (Cornucopia or Magic Pudding arguments Ludwig).
Add to that the vagaries/failures of economics, capitalism.
The above clearly indicate the inappropriateness of the ‘black or white’ approach. Considered conservation, increased effort in alternative sources of more efficient power and changes in profligate attitudes are clearly required. The impact would be minimal and leave us poised to ramp up depending on more scientific proof

try study of facts
http://www.prisonplanet.com/global-cooling-record-low-temperatures-hit-america.html/all-comments/#comments

know you are being played
http://au.youtube.com/profile?user=oneundergod&view=favorites

computers can model anything [rubbish in rubbish out]

Examinator,
I don't think anyone here, especially Ludwig is promoting
the magic pudding.
Here we are running around in a panic about GW and there is probably
nothing we can do about it, whether because it is not real or the
Chinas of this world will go ahead building their power station a
fortnight, while peak oil is upon us now.

I know, I know,
If you are not in a panic you don't understand the true situation !

Colin Campbell predicted that one of the earliest symptoms of peak
oil would be high oil prices and a financial crash.
This may well be it.
We can look in the rear view mirror in a year or two and confirm it.
However we are not talking about 2020 and 2050, we are talking about
the next two to five years, thats what the politicians should
be in a panic about, instead of refusing to even utter the words
peak oil.
There is only one government in the world that is taking peak oil
seriously, the Queensland government. It is at least trying to
understand what they might have to do in such a large state that
relies on transport oil to such an extent.

Having watched the renewable energy and energy efficiency scene for nearly twenty years I have seen most of the arguments spelt out, denied, spelt out again.

Two themes emerge from all that.

1. Being efficient with energy is the least cost and most effective way of reducing the carbon problem.

2. Coupling carbon free ( no fossil fuel usage) technologies with No 1 will take us a very long way forward.

No. 1 sounds easy but can be hard to sell even despite the fact that we all spend money on electricity we do not need. (Why pump water uphill at three am in an ornamental setting when no one is watch it?) Why stand in the bar of a pub and burn $100 notes from the takings? Both actual case studies I was involved with.

Is there any good reason why you dear reader have NOT done a simple energy consumption audit of your own home and figured why your bills are so high?

Bill

Examinator, I’m not sure how you could consider my ponderance to be short-sighted. The possibility of a quick peak in CO2 emissions being far less damaging than a long drawn-out emissions scenario seems to me to be anything but short-sighted or narrowly focussed. BTW, I’m only posing possibilities, I’m certainly not presenting the view that I think we should just give up and go with business as usual.

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand what you mean by “(Cornucopia or Magic Pudding arguments Ludwig).”

i understand that methane is ten times worse that carbon, yet greenies INSIST on home composting [home compost 'bins' are like having a cow [producing methane [no wonder veget-airians complain about cows ][to distract us from home composting methane issue]

we have these 'alternatives' but as people have stated these expensive 'envioronment friendly' cars take 5 years to recover the carbon THEIR PRODUCTION PRODUCED

also air travel seems to be favoured by a particularily low carbon debt [considering many are built over swamp land,s and recovered sea [leaching methane as well as environmental vandilism] not to mention their electricity consumption [and getting to or from them]

there is ALLWAYS a special intrest thinking how can we scare people into accepting a NEW tax [especially one we can get the average joe to pay] it is not enough the powers that be can deflate the worth of our dollar at whim [they now demand a global tax that pays WHATEVER the market prices these carbon credits at

like everything else the 'TAX' will be set low to get it in [from there we will have the market forces do the rest[wait till the speculaters DRIVE UP THE PRICE
[just like with bandwidth[or water rights] or our privatised bankers and their bank fees [or those who stole our other 'utilities'[and even our roads/bridges/airports [the list gets extensive but who cares what games po-lie-trick ians [polutitions] concieve then deliver to their pals.

While I agree with most of the points John raises, this one caught me off-guard. How on earth did he come to the conclusion that because XYZ renewable power source COSTS the same as coal, it therefore emits as much carbon? Isn't it that case that renewables could — for the sake of argument — cost a thousand times as much, but still not represent the same amount of carbon?

However, the overall energy cycle is a very, very important discussion that the modern world needs to have, and will help illustrate why a hydrogen economy is not viable. It is simply not economically and energetically viable to take expensive, lowish ERoEI renewable ELECTRICITY and waste MOST of that electricity splitting water to make hydrogen to then compress, run through a fuel cell, only to turn it back into.... electricity!

That's like taking 10 units of expensive, low ERoEI electricity and turning it into 2 or even 1 unit of forward motion.

It would be far better just to use the electricity directly. And there's the rub. In a low ERoEI world, we need a national electric rail transport system, and yet 97% of our freight is driven by truck. It's time to get cracking building trains, trams, and trolley buses... as fast as we can, and then rezoning our city planning laws to encourage New Urbanism around the railway stations. Over the next generation a surprising percent of our population could be living modern lifestyles that are "more European than European" in trendy New Urbanism streets, yet not needing cars in the first place. And that, my friends, will go a good way towards solving both peak oil and global warming, as well as many social isolation issues.

To "Under One god"

The physics of Co2 are standard and easily verifiable.
http://tinyurl.com/ywneqb

Lots of scientists study absorption spectra of various molecules. They do this in labs using a spectrometer, and employ the long established science of spectroscopy. I understand this science also gave us other "conspiracies" like microwaves and the fiber-optics which power the internet. ;-)

Then there's the Radiative Forcing Equation which analyses how much extra Co2 creates how much extra energy in the atmosphere.

This stuff is fairly verifiable, testable, repeatable physics... it's not as if they've committed "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc" with some bit of historical information.

Your reference to the world "Cooling" since 1998 ignores the facts.
http://eclipsenow.blogspot.com/2008/10/uk-met-office-on-1998.html

The world is hotter now than it has been for millions of years. Measuring JUST from 1998 is called "Cherrypicking data" and ignores the fact that 12 of the last 13 years have been the hottest on record.

You would want to dumb down climate science so that CO2 increases ALWAYS equalled temperature increases exactly. I call this the "Exact Correlation Strawman". Climate science doesn't work that way... you can't rule out El Nino and La Nina as having an impact, or a dozen other forcings. If it's too complicated for you to take in, try reading the comics but don't display your ignorance here please.

The start of the article is promising in that it discusses the need to assess the consequences of investment and purchase choices across the supply chain, but are net energy analysis concepts such as Input-Output analysis really a sensible or particularly useful choice of tool for such policy choices?

As EclipseNow wrote
"Isn't it that case that renewables could — for the sake of argument — cost a thousand times as much, but still not represent the same amount of carbon?"

I would agree with this line of argument and suggest it might be more worthwhile expending more public funding on developing life cycle analysis (LCA) expertise in Australia and gathering accurate life cycle inventory (LCI) data.

But still, there is the problem even with LCA (which if done properly with a good understanding of appropriate systems boundaries is a reliable way of assessing quantitative environmental impacts). Although giving more useful information than analysing economic I-O tables, neither does it measure non-quantifiable impacts such as on biodiversity (except very indirectly through climate change, eutrophication, sulfur dioxide emissions).

Example would be: clear-felling a native forest then using the land for biomass production in plantations instead of running a coal-fired powerplant might be calculated to be better for carbon-dioxide emissions, but worse for eutrophication, better for acid rain etc. But neither LCA nor I-O tables can tell you that you would make x species extinct.