davsab

I read you, however I must advise you of only some of the "official" figures for air pollutants documented on npi.gov.au:

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

1998/99.......................................................2005/06

CO: 16,000,000 kgs.............................58,000,000 kgs

NOx: 280,000,000 kgs........................500,000,000 kgs

SO2: 430,000,000 kgs........................630,000,000 kgs

VOC: ....130,000 kgs................................3,200,000 kgs

IRON AND STEEL MANUFACTURING

1988/99.......................................................2005/06

CO: 42,000,000 kgs...........................570,000,000 kgs

METAL ORE

1988/99.......................................................2005/06

CO: 3,400,000 kgs...............................51,000,000 kgs

NOx: 10,000,000 kgs............................65,000,000 kgs

SO2: 45,000,000 kgs..........................250,000,000 kgs

VOC: 270,000 kgs...................................4,600,000 kgs

Mr Turnbull recently bragged to the nation over their accomplishment in reducing greenhouse gases though the 05/06 figures above have increased since 04/05.

Boaz, I'm disappointed in you. It appears your Christian charity does not extend to the need for a healthy environment, if only to improve air quality in a parochial sense.

Just because China pollutes, aborts every second child (due to their previous stuff-ups), and disregards the rights of human individuals, are you suggesting we adopt the same ideologies? Or should we be setting an example and cease being so nauseously sycophantic to our trading partners?

"It seems dangerous to ground a society on the value of trying to disadvantage others. That is exactly what market liberalism proposes, and the results are predictable. Since the entrepreneurs have no interests other than their own, they will not seek to protect others. When they benefit, they will seek to actively harm others - if they think they can get away with it."

Those words are indeed befitting of the ideological extremism which pervades the minds of those we chose to represent us at the APEC summit.

Apologies

Corrections required in last post. "Under Iron and Steel Manufacturing" and "Metal Ore":-

Should read 1998/99 - NOT 1988/99

The whole Global Warming caused by human activity debate at APEC was
a complete waste of time. They are simply unaware that the scientific
debate concensus is turning around 180 deg, pun intended !

Even the UK Wx Bureau is having second thoughts.
In any case there will not be enough oil,gas & coal available to cause
the projected IPCC rise in temperature, even if they were right.

They missed a golden opertunity to discuss a very much more important
subject, ie the Transition Protocol to alternative fuels.
Do a Google on it for Richard Hienberg and Colin Campbell.

We may get natural global warming that we can't do anything about but
we can certainly try to mitigate the coming energy problems if we start early enough,
although it may already be too late to make much difference.

Interesting numbers Dickie (and as they are large I have long preferred the conversion to metric tons, but that is no matter). Am well aware of your concerns about ‘pollution’ from other OLO threads and I agree with much of what you have to say, thanks for pointing to the NPI site.

Malcolm Turnbull is a successful businessman, and is learning to play the ‘spin game’ with aplomb, he has a good mentor in John Howard – but, would Rudd and Garret be any different? Politics is all about ‘spin’ so I believe the answers to our problems are ideological in nature. So, rather than the ‘us/them’ mentality (as expressed in some posts above) would it not be better to adopt a more centrist approach, particularly for big issues like global warming?

Bazz, I understand your reserve about scientists and the IPCC and would debate you about “the scientific debate consensus is turning around 180 deg” but I agree wholeheartedly with you on the subject of a transition protocol to alternative fuels.

Mitigating GHG is important, very important – and in tackling this, the world has an opportunity to ideologically shift to ‘sustainable development’ – we won’t get this from those with an agenda of ‘business as usual’ or those with a vested interest in traditional energy markets.

Boaz, are you out there? I am still interested in your response to my second post. The delay I have had is due to my travel to Europe and the UK, notwithstanding the change in time zone.

Cheers