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 > Giving up on climate change? > Comments

Giving up on climate change? : Comments

By Mike Pope, published 14/1/2009

The Rudd proposals on climate change will fail to achieve a meaningful reduction in carbon emissions.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Why are we messing around with carbon credits? Why not just write an Australian Standard for carbon emissions and give an implimentation date (or series of dates)?
Australian standards are great because they can be written when nobody has any idea how they will be met. But as soon as the problem is out there the designer/engineers find a way of conforming. Why not just have an AS giving a sliding scale of permissible emissions per kilowatt of energty produced and let those who have the ability solve the problem get on with it? Politicians, accountants and business leaders don't have a clue on technical matters so give it to those who do. No argueing over taxes or credits. No argueing over who recieves excemptions. No new layer of government to oversee it. Just write the AS and solve the problem.
Posted by Daviy, Wednesday, 14 January 2009 9:19:50 AM
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
The capacity of increased atmospheric CO2 to increase temperatures, from whatever the source (natural or anthropogenic), is very limited above 300ppm. From around 300ppm to well over 800ppm the warming effect of atmospheric CO2 declines to about 1ºC or less increase in temperature. Additional atmospheric CO2 makes virtually no difference to temperatures.

To all intents and purposes there is no molecular difference between natural and anthropogenic CO2 in terms of heating behaviour and estimated lifetime in the atmosphere (around 12 years by the way) before reabsorption by oceans, photosynthetic organisms or plant life.

If an emission trading scheme (ETS) is successful in reducing anthropogenic CO2 levels back to a proportion of that emitted in the year 2000 (the yearly level most widely quoted) the effect will be very minor (if, in fact, it makes any difference at all) as this reduction pales into insignificance when compared to natural variations in atmospheric CO2 levels such as those caused by oceanic outgassing (approximately 91 billion tonnes compared to anthropogenic CO2 output of 7.5 billion tons).

In other words a fully implemented globally-applied ETS is likely to reduce atmospheric CO2 by only several parts per million.

Mike Pope, how is this going to make any difference?
Posted by Raredog, Wednesday, 14 January 2009 9:37:54 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
It is time you figure out that Rudd is a populist. He likes saying the popular things, Grocery watch and Fuel Watch are prime example, even if they really do nothing. His aim is to do what he can to get re-elected next time (which politician isn't)

He will do what it takes to not cost any Australian job, not give people a reason to kick him out. So it is not the Senate, it is not that he does not care about the environment. It is just very low on his priority list.

He is a politician afterall
Posted by dovif2, Wednesday, 14 January 2009 9:41:29 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
Not only is Rudd weak by caving in to vested interests but he has broken a core election promise. Apart from the incentive of nontrivial carbon charges the ETS also created a funding mechanism for a shift to green technology. It seems to me for all his flaws Howard actually took some positive steps like a rapid rate of wind farm building. Not having to appease frequent flier greenies Howard also proposed nuclear baseload, a concept that that doesn't sit well in Rudd's ecotopian vision.

I disagree that Australia is a bit player in the global emissions scene. Emissions from exported coal are higher than domestic. Anecdotal evidence suggests a drop in coking coal exports, offset by Chinese attempts to buy a Rio Tinto subsidiary. The Chinese want to burn 3 bn tonnes of coal a year in which case we should either carbon tax our coal exports or goods imported from China. The absence of an early domestic carbon cap has lead to results like an increase in brown coal burning, boosted I believe by power exports to Tasmania via the Basslink cable. Meanwhile those Barrier Reef corals do it tough and may not adapt.

Re other mitigation suggestions I think technical standards should complement a carbon cap eg every new car to use less than 5L/100km. With feed-in tariffs overseas experience suggests the schemes are unaffordable and have limited success. It is better to increase capital subsidies to solar PV funded by...you guessed it, a tough ETS.
Posted by Taswegian, Wednesday, 14 January 2009 10:37:01 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
Define a 'meaningful' reduction. More than 1% of global emissions? Not even possible for Australia is it? I suppose we could stop all mining and exporting of any raw materials...
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 14 January 2009 2:04:38 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
If methane levels accelerate then it is all moot.
Permafrost is releasing methane now due to the warming that has already occurred. If this "tipping point" is actually reached then the GW denialists are right (but for wrong reasons): CO2 mitigation is useless.
It all depends on the data.
Anyone keen on funding an Ark project? :-)
Posted by Ozandy, Wednesday, 14 January 2009 3:25:01 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
"Scientists warn that unless greenhouse gas emissions are significantly and rapidly reduced..." etc etc.

And other scientists warn that the whole global warming campaign is about as credible as George W. Bush saying "Mission Accomplished." Neither you nor me nor Kevin Rudd is in a position to know for sure, but hopefully our PM is bright enough not to bet the farm on global warming until there is a little more evidence -- like the global warming models successfully predicting 2009's average temperature, for instance. Until the matter is really settled (and you don't achieve that just by saying 'It's settled') Rudd is right to take small cautious steps.

There are lots of good reasons to reduce our reliance on oil -- not being held to ransom by religious fanatics, for instance -- but global warming is not yet one of them.
Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 14 January 2009 4:40:27 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
Mike Pope, All my 61 years on this planet people have been tellimg me that we are all going to die. The world did not start when you were born Mike look at history people like you have been telling people like me that WE are all going to die! Except you always manage to make a living out of it. When you blokes drop superannuation and tax-free status then I will worry lol.
As for the postperson (?) who is worrying about the Great Barrier Reef he needs to look at the history of the planet. 15 thousand years ago one of the many ice ages ended and the GBR was there and is still there.
Don't worry, be happy no one believes you blokes and as soon as they realise you are buying waterfront land they will will be angry and watch what our PM does then, you will all be consigned to the dustbin of history ehrtr you all belong. Don't forget to read a bit of history Mike you are not the first and you will not be the last!
Posted by JBowyer, Wednesday, 14 January 2009 7:41:17 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
KRudd's policies will make little or no difference to the Earth's temperature (whether or not AGW is real), but will have two significant adverse effects - damaging the Australian economy and increasing the scope of government interference in the lives and economic affairs of Australians. Much to my surprise, I agree with Barnaby Joyce that KRudd's all-pain, no-gain ETS should be strongly opposed.
Posted by Faustino, Wednesday, 14 January 2009 9:03:26 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
JBowyer

Fifteen thousand years ago, this planet did not have to cope with 6.7 billion homo-sapiens – the greatest predators of all.

Our population has doubled from 3 billion to over 6 billion in the last 40 years. We currently have an annual growth rate of some 1.40%, which means in excess of an additional 78 million people born every year.

Most ecosystems in past centuries have had the ability to self-remediate – but thanks to man, this is not occurring. We, are hurtling towards the cliff’s edge – the sixth extinction has emerged where tens of thousands of species have become extinct in a very short period.

• Human overpopulation
• Decreasing biodiversity
• Pollution of air, water and soil
• Increasing extreme weather events
• Extinction of 10,000 to 100,000 species every year
• Loss of Rain Forests
• Livestock pollution (about 60 billion)
Desertification

And successive ignorant and avaricious masters!

The global energy cartel is imperiling the world's environment and economic stability in a greedy grab for profits that is empowered by a heavy investment of campaign contributions and corporate connections with media conglomerates. And Mr Five Percent is up to his eyeballs in it.

And this week in WA, thousands of dead birds dropped from the skies. Global warming or pollution? Of course that catastrophe does not compare with a mining company’s record in December 2007, a company responsible for killing 9,000 native birds with lead in WA. The media claims 4,000. The Parliamentary Enquiry report clearly states 9,000.

Daviy. Good suggestion. EPA Acts have incorporated guidelines for maximum emissions of toxic chemicals. They have been completely ignored since they were legislated. All that is needed is enforcement and conditions placed in each licence - and a CITIZENS' WATCHDOG! Unfortunately, EPAs, Environment Agencies and governments are sycophants to the big polluters. They continue to prostitute themselves at this nation's expense - one of the most arid and desecrated on the planet.
Posted by dickie, Wednesday, 14 January 2009 9:31:39 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
Mike Pope writes; “The Rudd Government justifies its 5 per cent target on the grounds that it represents a significant emissions reduction of almost 25 per cent per capita.”

So our fandangled PM is actually saying that the massive immigration rate that he has wrought upon us is just about enough to cancel out a 25% per-capita reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020!

“This is based on the assumption that Australia will have a population of more than 31 million by 2020, an increase of 45 per cent above the present population level.”

The sums don’t add up. With a population increase of 45% and an average per-capita reduction of 25%, we’d end up with emissions being 8.5% higher than they are now!

This massive rate of population growth “sits oddly with a government which, as part of its election campaign promised us a well reasoned population policy - a policy it has yet to publish or deliver.”

Not only has Rudd failed to deliver on this vitally important promise, he upped immigration enormously with no mention of it before the election and with no public (?or expert) consultation, very quickly after the election.

We’ve been enormously dudded by our illustrious PM folks!

So now we’ve got a situation where it seems that we are totally hooked into terribly rapidly increasing pressure on our environment and resource base, and which will make meaningful national CO2 emissions cuts just completely bloody impossible….and make us look like a pariah state in a world full of scientific experts, politicians and ordinary people that are desperate to get some significant progress happening on climate change.

We DESPERATELY need the formation of a sustainability party, which can go up against our ‘business-as-usual’ populist PM at the next election…..and relegate him to oblivion!
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 14 January 2009 9:46:12 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
Dickie
For Goodness sake have a Bex and a lie down.
Extintion of 10,000 to 100,000 speies a year? You are deranged.
Extreme Climate events? Try reading a little Australian History of the last two hundred years.
Livestock pollution? Oh I get it, you are one of the Green Nazi Vegans who think we all have to agree with you.
Look read some history and even a bit of biology and find out what all the microbes on this planet have been doing and are still doing. That biomas beats the heck out of us 6.7 billion predators. You have to read more, find out about what has happened and I agree with the post when this UN army can predict the 2009 weather then they can expect respect. Producing thousand of tonnes of printed reports and being paid handsomley for this is not going to cut it for the rest of us. I told you read history. We were all going to die in the nuclear war then starve to death (That is even making a come back) line em up and we will still show the resilence that defeats you tyrants.
Posted by JBowyer, Wednesday, 14 January 2009 10:04:05 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
“KRudd's policies will make little or no difference to the Earth's temperature (whether or not AGW is real)…”

Faustino, I believe good Australian policy would make a considerable difference. The difference is not to be made with the tiny fraction of global CO2 output that Australia contributes, it is to be made by way of setting a good example and working closely with other countries in order to implement real international change.

Australia’s position on the world stage is considerably more prominent than our tiny portion of the world’s population would suggest it should be.

Whether or not anthropogenic global warming is real, there are other huge advantages to be won from addressing this issue:

Getting off our addiction to oil and onto renewable energy sources, greatly improving energy use efficiency, and yet to be realised – winding back of immigration, developing an economic system that is headed towards a steady state instead of being based on never-ending growth and eventually, getting it through our thick numbskulls that sustainability has to be the basis for our existence.

If we follow Krudd’s path, which is just business as usual with a slight green tinge, none of this will happen or at best, a little bit of progress on the first couple of points….we won’t achieve a sustainable existence and the whole economic and social structure will come tumbling down.
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 14 January 2009 10:20:45 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
“For Goodness sake have a Bex and a lie down. Extintion of 10,000 to 100,000 speies a year? You are deranged.”

JBowyer. “Extintion” is spelt extinction and “speies” is spelt species. May I suggest that you take your hand off it long enough to provide literature to support your assertions – ignorant though they are?

And in addition, perhaps you could start with a basic manual on “Environmental Toxicology?” There’s a good one for ill-informed old codgers like yourself, where the general editors are Sir Alan Cotterell and Professor Southwood. Cotterell has also published on Environmental Economics - years ago!

In addition, I suggest you get hold of the WAEPA’s State of the Environment report – a very conservative public agency indeed.

Hopefully, educating yourself may mitigate your drongo rants and you'll manage to get a grip on yourself .....errrrrr well you know what I mean, Im certain of that!

Cheers
Posted by dickie, Wednesday, 14 January 2009 10:53:33 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
We bought a cleared hundred acres of farmland a decade ago and have allowed it to regenerate to native bush, rather than pine or a monoculture blue gum forest.
Under the current proposed system I receive no credit for the thousands of tonnes of carbon that have been sequestered and continue to be absorbed each year by the native forest I am responsible for.
In carbon footprint terms I am a long way in credit!
It makes more sense for me in a monetary sense to doze this forest and re-plant with pine or blue gum.
Pretty stupid system, is it not, designed by people who live in concrete canyons in the cities.
I think I will burn the lot and run methane belching cattle just to spite the idiot carbon warriors.
Posted by Little Brother, Thursday, 15 January 2009 5:33:03 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
Ludwig’s comments on population are right. The really stupid thing about people, including our politicians, who slavishly follow the human cause propaganda about climate change, is that they are the same people who think that the world and Australia can bear more people. They are the big ‘immigrationists’, the fools who don’t know that Australia is two –thirds dust and heat – uninhabitable. They are also the people who feel good by barely keeping alive unsustainable populations in countries like Africa, when the poor, ignorant souls barely living (but still breeding) should be left to die so that a better standard of living for fewer people could be provided.

Rudd’s ETS plans are stupid, costly and meaningless. They are also cynical and hypocritical, given the penchant for Rudd’s Government’s and the Opposition’s mania for high immigration when anyone other than a complete idiot can see that Australia should be reducing population, not increasing it.
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 15 January 2009 8:26:37 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
I used to say that the thing we needed to do to go green was to show the the Americans that there was more money to be made out of being green instead of dirty (Australia would follow as it always does). It seems that in the last six months massive amounts of venture capital in the USA has switched to alternative energy sources. If this continues greed may yet save the day.
Posted by Daviy, Thursday, 15 January 2009 8:44:11 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
We have just had solar panels installed and they look beautiful.
It cost us just over $2000 and the Federal Government paid a further $8000 towards them. All political parties supported this generous rebate. So climate change isn't political. We first read about the Sustainable House 10 years ago. Finally, we can have the satisfaction of using sunlight to produce electricity rather than contributing to pollution. What's to lose?
Posted by WendyPage777, Friday, 16 January 2009 10:15:14 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
Rudd's climate policy at the last election was premised on one thing: getting green votes.

He promised to ratify Kyoto (no cost) and put off setting emissions targets (potentially costly) based on need to wait for the Garnaut report. When the Garnaut report appeared, he ignored its recommendations on emissions targets. At least the Howard government was honest in its rejection of the science. Rudd claims to accept it, but fails to act on its consequences. Garnaut said a target below a 25% cut would doom the Great Barrier Reef, which obviously that implies we should be pushing the rest of the world for such a target. If the government has other information that shows Garnaut is wrong, they should say so. Failing which, we can only conclude that they consider the Reef fair collateral damage for giving coal a few more years of rapid growth.

Mosey over to political web sites in Queensland, and you'll find the big parties are talking green in the lead-up to the 2009 state election. As soon as the votes are counted, the thin layer of green paint will start flaking off. Why am I not surprised?
Posted by PhilipM, Friday, 16 January 2009 10:21:15 AM
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
The craziest thing of all here seems to be that Rudd HAS apparently committed us to a 25% per-capita reduction by 2020 in order to achieve a 5% national reduction while maintaining very high immigration!

So if he was to quickly wind immigration right back (and abolish the absurd baby bonus bullsh!t), we could actually come close to achieving a 25% reduction, even with his very strong pandering-to-big-business attitude!

Why is Rudd soooo intent on maintaining an absurdly high immigration rate…..for which he has absolutely no mandate? Would he really offside his big-business buddies if he cut it right back? There has been some discussion of cuts to immigration in light of the economic downturn. But any such cut would be nothing more than tokenistic.

Isn’t it possible for Rudd to appease the all-powerful business sector while at the same time weaning us off of this extraordinary future-destroying rapid and endless continuous growth crap?
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 16 January 2009 1:13:06 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
I had an idea I considered completely silly, an unbaby bonus.

Abolish the baby bonus and pay people for every year they don't have a baby. I thought this would be seen for what it was when I told people about it in jest, a parody of a silly policy, but I had people very keen to vote for me if I ran on that policy.

Sometimes it's instructive to come up with parody to illustrate how ridiculous the real thing is, but in some cases it's hard to actually come up with something more ridiculous.
Posted by PhilipM, Friday, 16 January 2009 3:41:49 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
Everybody: Thank you for your comments. All are informative. I offer a few short responses.

Daviy: It is true that an AS could prompt R&D into ways of producing competitive clean energy but, unlike an ETS, it would not generate money to help pay for it or provide subsidies to prevent companies leaving Australia rather than have to comply with reduced CO2 emissions required by an AS. The other important difference is that an ETS sends a price signal to energy users encouraging them to use less energy produced from fossil fuels, thereby reducing CO2 emissions. In your second posting you not that there is money to be made out of clean energy and going green. Indeed there is. Lots of it!

Raredog: The view that increased anthropogenic CO2 emissions make no difference to temperature are not supported by science nor evidence of their effects – some of which have serious implications for the human environment. Mike Raupach of CSIRO provides some interesting material on emissions at
http://www.csiro.au/GlobalCarbonProject-PNAS.html which you may care to look at. Where did you get 90 billion tonnes/annum for natural CO2 emissions?

Faustino: You agree with Barnaby!? My understanding of his position is that he agrees with the Opposition on the need for action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but is opposed to that action being applied to food production.

Dickie: I think you might be a bit harsh on EPA’s but I agree that you make some good points

Ludwig, Leigh and others: Thanks for comments on population and its effects on the environment. I agree that this is another area where the government needs to seriously rethink it position.

J.Bowyer: The tourist industry worries about the Great Barrier Reef. As for buying waterfront land. Definitely a no-no, unless it is at least 50m. above the present king-tide watermark.
Posted by Mike Pope, Saturday, 17 January 2009 9:44:25 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
Hello Mike Pope

Thank you for your response.

I regret that you view my opinion as "harsh." However, this is a result of obtaining information from official emissions' reports and viewing the many "Conditions of Licences" for pollutant industries. These are public documents of which few citizens are interested. I rarely allow myself the luxury of providing information, borne from "assumptions" or "wild guesses."

Rather than boring you with these technical documents permit me to quote from the most current report released by the Department of Environment in WA on the lead poisoning of Esperance:

“The marine samples collected showed lead readings between 3600mg/kg and 29,000mg/kg, which are well above environmental levels,” Mr Atkins.

“The environmental levels for lead under Australian guidelines are set between 50mg/kg and 220mg/kg.

“The samples also returned elevated nickel levels, with samples showing readings between 3300mg/kg to 6600mg/kg.

"Mr Atkins said environmental levels for nickel were between 21mg/kg and 52mg/kg. The environmental levels are taken from the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (2000)."

http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:xqGlKSEM4ikJ:https://www.dec.wa.gov.au/news/department-of-environment-and-conservation/esperance-initial-results.html+department+of+fisheries+WA+esperance+lead+contamination&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=au

In addition, when some 300 Australian citizens have resorted to litigation and have had to resort to employing Erin Brockovich because the EPA and the DEC have permitted a large pollutant company to desecrate the environment and poison the people in the town of Yarloop WA, then it's fairly evident that the environment and the people in that state are being used as cannon fodder. Guidelines have been completely ignored and companies are breaching their conditions of licence (if any) with impunity.

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24594868-5017007,00.html

One must ask, "who is regulating the regulator?"

WA is now officially recognised as one of the most ecologically threatened on the planet and it has been reported that this country has the highest rates of extinction in the world - not surprising.

The myriad of documents on "global warming," I have concluded are mere red herrings, persistently raised by eco-vandals, who wish only to detract from the real situation and who wish only to maintain the status quo.

Cheers
Posted by dickie, Saturday, 17 January 2009 12:35:53 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
Mike Pope
The Tourist Industry worries about Global warming? What? This is nonsense they are just saying that to pick the taxpayer's pocket like you and your scientific mates.
As for waterfront land being a No No, well the chief scientific scaremonger in Melbourne was proudly filmed with his wife by the ABC standing in front of their Yarra side apartment block. I think that speaks enough about any rises in sea levels.
Hey water seeks its own level and yet with all the melting ice I have not seen any rises in sea levels?
No like all the other "scares" I have successfully faced it will come to nothing.
If we had a decent journalist in the world there would be a story on all the reports about us running out of oil but that was said in the 1970's. I was confidentially told it would all be gone by the end of the 20th century? Well?
Oh Dickie, check some other posters spelling and punctuation rather than victimise me! Help! help! I am being repressed (With apologies to the pythons).
Posted by JBowyer, Saturday, 17 January 2009 6:59:30 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
dickie,

You say, “I rarely allow myself the luxury of providing information, borne from "assumptions" or "wild guesses."” Directly above you give the figure of 10,000 to 100,000 species extinctions every year (not referenced, despite your attack on JBowyer). The huge range alone suggests something of a wild guess - they are the kind thrown about by non-scientific bodies such as Greenpeace.

Such figures are in fact derived, like so much environmental data, from computer models and mathematical algorithms, and thus, being ‘virtual’ data, are the product of a variety of assumptions leading to what can only be termed wild guestimates.

These kinds of figures were initially derived from an empirical species/area formula developed by science/activist E.O. Wilson in the 1960s and tested on insect populations on small islands in the mangroves of Florida. Despite huge questions about the generalizability (eg. non-island environments) and predictive validity of the formula (it has appalling results in producing predictions of species loss), the mere mention of the extrapolated/hypothesized worldwide figures was sufficient to be pounced on by organizations like Greenpeace for their fundraising material, and subsequently entered the public consciousness. Indeed, Wilson’s figures tend to grow the further he gets from peer review - 4000 in Science; 27 000 in his book; 50 to 100 000 in the New York Times and Greenpeace material.

Given the many difficulties involved in measuring the number of species on earth (confirmation, taxonomy, etc.), and thus the “rates” of increase or decline, the actual “observed” rate of extinction is closer to one to per year (S. Budiansky). Something over 800 plant and animal extinctions have been “recorded” since 1500 when records began (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources).

Cont…
Posted by fungochumley, Saturday, 17 January 2009 9:42:30 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
The point is that these figures may very well be an underestimate, but to say that they are a fraction of the figures you give is an understatement (about 0.016% of your lower figure). But as you suggest, the public is entitled to something more than wild guesses based on the assumptions inherent in virtual data.

Perhaps to support the information you provide, you could list, or link to a list, of, say, just 1% of the species - that is, 1000 to 10 000 species - that became extinct over the decade of your choosing (eg. 1992 to 2002).

If you could spare me the insults and respond to what I have written, it would be greatly appreciated.

(See A. Kellow, Science & Public Policy)
Posted by fungochumley, Saturday, 17 January 2009 9:43:31 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
Fungochumley

There are a small coterie of known anti-environmental writers. Since there are so few of them, they tend to crop up over and over again in media circles. Journalists such as Stephen Budiansky have been promoting their right wing trash for years, so his views are hardly original.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2005/05/01/woodpecker-punditry-predicted-and-delivered/

Professor Kellow is a member of the IPA and Jennifer Mahorasy likes to cluck over him. Unfortunately for her credibility (and yours) he has no discernible experience in climate science or palaeontolgy. Furthermore, Kellow it appears is educated in the Arts. Astonishingly, he disputes the findings of credible palaeontologists and anyone else who doesn't fit into his grand plans.

In addition, Kellow was listed among Inhofe’s list of “scientists” debunking climate change. The list of "scientists" included economists, amateurs, TV weathermen , film stars and industry hacks.

It appears that you have had no interest in extinctions until today otherwise you would have known that extinction rates have not yet been catalogued and/or you would have provided evidence from credible sources.

If you peruse the papers I have provided, you would realise that I have presented a fair estimate with the information at hand.

http://www.well.com/user/davidu/leakey.html

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:RdLTd_zNrIcJ:math.ucr.edu/home/baez/extinction/+Permian+extinctions&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=au&lr=lang_en

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html

If you want to know the precise species extinction over a short period Fungochumley (though I doubt that you do,) I suggest you find out for yourself. I am not your hand-maiden.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources you quoted has estimated that the current species extinction rate is between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than it would naturally be so do your own sums. In addition, their interest is more on the “Red List” which concentrates on threatened species only.

OLO protocol dictates if you present information to start a bun fight, you should provide direct links which you have not. In addition when you copy and paste from an article, would you please use quotation symbols?

The figures provided by eminent palaeontologists are THEIR estimates, they are not MY “wild guesses” or "assumptions." Comprehend?
Posted by dickie, Sunday, 18 January 2009 12:56:40 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
In 2001 the world population was 6.1 billion. It is projected to grow by 50 percent, to 9.3 billion people, by 2050.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics recently projected that Australia's population could rise to 35 million people by 2056 at current net immigration levels and fertility rate. Melbourne and Sydney are expected to reach 7 million people each.

Immigration rates should be part of a population policy that takes into account population projections, natural resource limitations, climate change, and Australia's questionable ability to support exponential population growth.

People are now being considered as consumers for the benefit of the economy, not citizens! We are already multicultural enough so we don't need more foreigners.

Australia's agriculture is already under threat from vulnerability to climate change and drought.

Kevin Rudd has committed our country to a mere 5% reduction of ghg emissions by 2020 because of our "projected" or deliberate population growth of over 45% from 1990! Just how many people our country can hold without further compromising its life-supporting system - our ecology! How will increasing our population help address climate change and stop the damage to our already over-populated and spreading cities?
Posted by VivKay, Sunday, 18 January 2009 7:21:53 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
Just to Dickie I bet you are a vegan too! Full of yourself and determined to try and bully the rest of us. Western Australia I warrant would stack up very nicely against most states on the planet and as for all your worrying over heavy metals etc think on this. The people who are closest are the mining Company workers they do know what they are doing and the Australian legal system makes them accountable for what they do.
In the late eighties I was told by the Melbourne metrological office the weather has not changed since records had been kept. Now that is a fact and extreme weather events happen regularly so there is nothing changed including the Jeremiahs telling me I am going to die and we have to be charged for the air we breathe and the water we drink. I and many others do not believe you and the green nazis and will vote against you. Watch Kevvie change his tune if he looks like losing an election hahahaha!
Posted by JBowyer, Sunday, 18 January 2009 4:58:32 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
So sorry to disappoint you JBowyer for I am not a vegan. Pray tell me what is the inference? Since you appear to be an expert on all matters known to man please advise in which discipline you received your doctorate. Were you taught to provide evidence to support any assertions or are the sum of all your claims derived from covert and confidential meetings with the “metrological” bureau?

Do you know the difference between weather and climate JBowyer?

“Western Australia I warrant would stack up very nicely against most states on the planet”

Really?:

“WA has not enforced ecologically sustainable productivity on the management of its publicly-owned rangelands. Whereas the land-use managers - whether of pastoral leases or agricultural freehold - are culpable for the resource degradation they tolerate or have caused, society is culpable for allowing those who have over-cropped, over-grazed, over-cleared and are continuing to do so.

"The common public good seems to have been neglected by government in favour of private landed property ownership. The plea of government ignorance could once have been sustained, but certainly not at any time during this last quarter century at least:”

http://www.csu.edu.au/research/crsr/ruralsoc/v6n2p3.htm

“At a national level, Western Australia has 8 of 12 Australian biodiversity hotspots. *

“At a global level, the South West is recognised as one of the world's 34 biodiversity hotspots. *

“WA currently has 362 threatened plants, 199 threatened animals and 69 threatened ecological communities.

“Recovery plans have been developed for less than one-third of threatened species and ecological communities.

“There is ongoing loss and degradation of biodiversity in WA.

“Knowledge about many species and ecosystems and some threats to biodiversity remains inadequate.”

http://www.soe.wa.gov.au/report/biodiversity.html

* Hotspots are those which have lost 70% or more of its vegetation.

Since you appear incapable of sensibly addressing or acknowledging the issues in the posts of others and since you are unable to keep both hands on the keyboard, thus bombarding this thread with jabberwanky and ad hominens, I shall not respond to any future posts you may see fit to raise.

Cheerio
Posted by dickie, Sunday, 18 January 2009 8:58:16 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
Dickie
Invective and abuse is certainly your forte. Did you get a doctorate in this?
Like the spoilt child, you stamp your foot and will not address an argument but then the Green nazis are always right and you and some of the other posters think people should be allowed to starve and die out. Well you lot can lead that charge! I know us humans will all get along nicely thank you and you and your miserable friends can all go and have a good cry together.
Cheers pip pip lol
Posted by JBowyer, Sunday, 18 January 2009 9:49:53 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
No, dickie, I didn’t think you could. Strange that you consider it a “handmaiden’s” responsibility to back up your claims with evidence, yet demand so much of everyone else.

You say that the IUCN “has estimated that the current species extinction rate is between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than it would naturally be so do your own sums.” Well, to take the role of your handmaiden, using their World Conference Union figure of approximately 1.6 recorded extinctions per year since 1500, my sums using their figures give a “natural” rate of extinction of about 0.0016 to 0.00016 per year, which is 0.08 to 0.8 (not even one) “natural” extinction in 500 years. 1000 to 10 000 times that gives 0.16 to 1.6 per year (about 0.016% of your LOWER figure). You can see why I might question the estimates provided, given the basis of these is the not yet "catalogued" data you refer to.

You also mention the Red List. It is surprising that so few, if any, of the species on their previous lists are now extinct in 2008 given the rates you provide. This clearly suggests that either:

- the 10000 to 100000 species per year is grossly exaggerated, as the Red List, according to the IUCN itself, consists of the MOST THREATENED species, where one would expect such huge losses to be significantly represented; or

- the IUCN is focusing on the wrong species, overlooking the many thousands that were obviously more threatened and becoming extinct every year.

I would ask you to resolve this glaring paradox, but there is little point debating with you further. If these arguments aren’t sufficient for you to even question the figures (in my world, the sky is blue), I am fighting the unwinnable fight against unreason. Your post is a dazzling display of smoke, mirrors and ad hominem, devoid of substance. So I’ll leave you to it.

And, btw, a direct link to a blog is not evidence, and “palaeontolgy” (spelling?) is the study of life in earlier geological epochs.
Posted by fungochumley, Sunday, 18 January 2009 11:32:54 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
"And, btw, a direct link to a blog is not evidence, and “palaeontolgy” (spelling?) is the study of life in earlier geological epochs."

Is that right Fungo?:

"Palaeontology is one of the two journals of the Palaeontological Association. It has been published yearly since 1957. (The Palaeontological Association Reg. Charity No. 276369)"

http://www.palass.org/

Errr...what was that about the spelling Fungo? And then you say:

"the IUCN is focusing on the wrong species, overlooking the many thousands that were obviously more threatened and becoming extinct every year."

Errrr...why would they be the "wrong species" Fungo? And where is the data you rant about on extinctions? Since you can't provide any, I must presume there isn't any which makes your pattern of argument extremely weak.

The IUCN website advises:

“In the future we will expand the scope of our species knowledge to include a far broader range of groups, thus informing and assisting policy makers in a hugely more objective and representative manner.

'In the future the SRLI will sample other lesser-known groups such as beetles, molluscs, mushrooms, lichens and plant species like mosses and liverworts, and flowering plants. Over the coming years this new approach, which could be considered the Dow Jones Index for biodiversity, will enable us to build a clearer picture of the status of all the world’s species, not just the furry and feathered.'

Current estimates of the total number of species on Earth range from 5 to 30 million, of which, the 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment notes approximately 2 million have been formally described.

The IUCN is currently managing data on a mere 45,000 species.

Why not take a cold shower and remove your foot from your mouth Fungo?
Posted by dickie, Monday, 19 January 2009 3:31:19 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
Palaeontology has three 'o's in it, dickie. Perhaps that's challenging enough for you today.
What are your academic qualifications exactly?

Yeah, yeah, take a shower, get my hand off it, take my foot out, yada yada yada...
Posted by fungochumley, Monday, 19 January 2009 4:36:49 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
Green House Gas Emissions Permits increase the price of emissions producing energy so making cleaner sources of energy price competitive so encouraging investment in renewable energy sources.

We can achieve the same result of making clean sources of energy price competitive by removing finance costs on renewable energy.

The financial costs (profits, taxes, repayments and interest) make up most of the cost of generating clean energy. By giving people zero interest loans that must be invested in renewable energy sources or in other ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and paying the loans back from taxes on the investments we immediately make renewable energy cheaper than burning fossil fuels. (We have eliminated all finance costs except profit and taxes)

Where do the loans come from? Stop banks producing new money by lending money they do not have (fractional reserve banking) and let the government create the needed new money by creating loans. Give the loans to the population who are frugal in their use of energy. Require the loans to be invested through a market place in ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

By making $20 billion available as new loans each year we can have zero emissions within 10 years. We will also have low cost energy and a booming economy.

We have designed a market place to enable this to happen and we are about to start to build it. Contact me if you would like to be kept informed or be part of the project by sending an email to cscoxk@gmail.com
Posted by Fickle Pickle, Tuesday, 20 January 2009 6:01:38 AM
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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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