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 > Targets for failure > Comments

Targets for failure : Comments

By Mike Pope, published 25/9/2009

Given the inadequacy of the carbon emissions targets Kevin Rudd has adopted, neither he nor Australia can be seen as setting a good example.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
The RET could complement a stringent ETS since there is no guarantee renewables will displace a gram of coal. Since non-hydro renewables were only 4,000 in 2006 I'd say there is buckley's chance of getting 16,000 hydro + 29,000 non-hydro = 45,000 Gwh in 2020. There would need to be solar panels on every square inch and a wind farm in every suburb. Since politicians are a predictable bunch I think what will happen is that medium sized combined cycle gas plants will spring up like mushrooms. That in itself could displace some coal baseload but also will back up a number of 'show' wind farms and solar plants. The next trick will be to deem the gas backup as 'honorary' renewable. Voila less CO2 more 'renewables'. Since domestic gas will be LNG parity priced Australian electricity tariffs will probably double to be more like Germany.

On the question of per capita emissions I think it is time to say that some countries have too many people. Why should Bangladesh have 150 million people not 15 million? Lord Stern points out that most Chinese emissions can be attributed to the middle class minority not the rural poor. There is just not enough fossil fuel for a billion more people in both China and India to achieve Western middle class lifestyles.

To sum up
1) politicians will probably fiddle the numbers on the ETS and RET
2) a global per capita CO2 standard is unachievable.
Posted by Taswegian, Friday, 25 September 2009 9:34:53 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
The problem with global warming is that we will all boil to death unless governments do something now. We are destroying the planet and there will be nothing left for our grandchildren. Ordinary human beings are imperfect, but government can be presumed to be all-knowing and omnipotent. Anything governments do is self-evidently ethical, so that disposes of any ethical concerns in executive action.

Government should order the army to shoot any human being using carbon. This will will stop the sin of humans using natural resources, which will be better for the environment, which will make the world a better place.

There is no excuse for anyone dissenting from this line, since it only means they are the stooges and shills of evil multinationals, intent on causing pollution by supplying human wants. Therefore they should be shot first.

However anyone jetting around the world to climate-blather conferences, or using electricity to publish their opinions on the internet in favour of totalitarian control of production for climate purposes, is in a privileged moral class and their use of fossil fuels is sacrosanct.

"I am sir Oracle, as who should ope his mouth, let no dog bark."
Shakespeare
Posted by Peter Hume, Friday, 25 September 2009 10:16:54 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
Does anyone seriously believe that our planet differentiates between greenhouse gas emissions made per capita or in absolute terms? Wong is wrong if she thinks so and irresponsible if she thinks implementation of her policies will make the slightest difference to an increasingly bleak future for the human species.

Not even the weasel-words of Rudd or Garnauts political slight of tongue make the slightest difference to the fact that stupid, willful homo sapiens is pushing 40 million tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere per annum. Does anyone seriously believe that emissions on this scale can continue or, as proposed by many countries (Australia included) be increased with impunity?

Can there be any doubt that pollution on this scale spells a very bleak and much shorter future for our species than most people imagine? Scientists repeatedly alert us to the dire consequences of doing what we are doing. Others warn us of the potential for dangerous climate change, water wars, famine and mass movement of people in search of dwindling areas able to support them.

We ignore their admonitions because it is not happening yet – well not seriously or continuously. We are assured things will be OK for at least the next 50 years – and by then things might get better. But if we keep on doing what we are doing, “things” will not get better.

Over the next 50 years, once in a century events such as heatwaves, draughts and tidal surges will become more common, causing increasing strife and loss of life. Then we will start to get worried, really worried. But by then it will be too late to take the corrective action which we could now be taking but choose not to.

‘Relax’, people like the Queensland Premier tell us. ‘Out coal exports are important to the State budget and anyway, there is nothing we can do to change climate change. We must have to learn to live with it.’ The problem, which Anna Bligh and Rudd choose not to talk about, is that many of us may die trying to do so.
Posted by JonJay, Friday, 25 September 2009 11:21:58 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 all comes back to the same point.

Nuclear.

Note that France has 70% less GHG emissions per capita than Aus, and produces about 75% of its electricity from nuclear. No coincidence.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 25 September 2009 2:01:38 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
Just a minor (?) quibble JonJay

We are spewing 8,000 million tonnes (8Gt) into the atmosphere (although the GFC did have an impact on that figure) - not 40 million.

_________

Peter Hume

In case you didn't notice, your post consists entirely of
a) personal argument, and
b) appeal to absent authority (apologies to William S)
Posted by Q&A, Friday, 25 September 2009 3:35:25 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
Q&A

If global GHG pollution is as you claim, only 8,000 million tonnes per annum, how come global emissions were recorded by reputable authorities as being 28,000-31,000 million tonnes in 2006 ?

Could it be that they are all wrong and that the problem with carbon pollution is nowhere near as bad as we think ? So, where did the annual emissions figure of 8,000 million tonnes come from ?
Posted by JonJay, Saturday, 26 September 2009 9:44:29 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
JonJay

Try here; http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.html

While you're there, have a browse.

Where did you get your 40 million from?
You seemed to have omitted any of the reputable sites you alluded to.

Give me 1 or 2 links and I'll check out.
Posted by Q&A, Saturday, 26 September 2009 10:33:26 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 has done an amazing job of convincing an uncritical media that he's serious about climate change, when his actual measures are business as usual models. The CPRS won't reduce industrial emissions at all before 2030 and while the RET may encourage the solar and wind industries, it will not encourage important developing technologies such as geo and solar thermal. In addition, individual effort and expense to reduce emissions will have no effect except to free up free permits for the big polluters. Rudd's steps are perverse schemes, designed to appear to set up market mechanisms, while ensuring that big coal doesn't have to change anything.

And to Peter Hume, do you disagree that it is appropriate for governments to act in times of emergency? And in times of crisis do you support some rights being suspended so a greater good can be achieved? And that the failure of governments to protect its citizens is when the real conditions of fascism are created?
Posted by next, Saturday, 26 September 2009 11:14:59 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
Q&A

http://www.abareconomics.com/publications_html/climate/climate_07/technology_pre.pdf shows about 40 Gt CO2-eq. Abare is very reputable
But, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/emissions.html which I think may (?) be more accurate, does not predict 40 billion tonnes until 2030. So on that point I stand corrected.

Estimated 2009 emissions are 30-31 billion tonnes. However, EIA does show emissions of 29 billion tonnes in 2006, so I have emailed CDIAC with a request that they explain their very much lower figures.
Posted by JonJay, Monday, 28 September 2009 2:10:05 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
Q&A

It appears that the measures you cite (from CDIAC) record the estimated movement of the element Carbon, whereas the measures I refer to relate to the movement of CO2-e. CO2-e includes the CO2 equivalent of other GHG's such as methane.

I asked CDIAC two questions: 1/ why their estimates differ from UCS and 2/why bunker emissions are not included in their total?

CDIAC advice is as follows

“First question: UCS uses carbon dioxide, which includes the oxygen molecule of molecular weight 32.
We just include the carbon atom, atomic weight = 12.

(12+32)/12 is the conversion factor = 3.67.

That is, multiply our numbers by 3.67 and you should be close to theirs.

We just track the carbon atom, which changes molecular partners from hydrogen in the fuel to oxygen after combustion, and back to hydorgen and oxygen in sugars produced by photosynthesis, etc.

Second question. International bunker fuels are fuels used in international commerce.
For example, a ship leaves New York, taking passengers or goods to London. To which country is this carbon charged? At present, they are not charged to any country, but are still tracked as a source of atmospheric CO2.”

So we are both right but are citing measures of quite different things which are therefore not directly comparable even using the conversion factor cited by CDIAC since it does not address the other GHG's included in CO2-e.
Posted by JonJay, Tuesday, 29 September 2009 10:02:06 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

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