When a report materialises that points toward a big dip in the economy you can be sure that John Howard will take notice. The Blair inspired Stern report http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm is written from a perspective that implicates global environmental damage as the main culprit for future economic downturns, it changes the current political ground around Howard considerably.

Today in federal parliament Howard warned his back benchers not to get 'mesmerised' by one report.

Perhaps the horse has already bolted?

Neo-conservative governments have comfortably gestured in the direction of environment issues in the past while being able to maintain their underlying contempt for its most ardent proponents of Green politics. Will maintaining this contempt be political suicide for the Howard Coalition? How will the Coalition sell its self as a Green champion to an electorate that is much more informed about global warming than it is about national security?

If there is a ground swell of environmental concern in the electorate come next year in the federal election it will be interesting to see how the Federal Coalition will craft their re-election pitch to an electorate who are already debating how to get out of drought conditions and water shortages. While the Labor Party may well be the alternative party, it has no real political history or mandate around environmental issues. Environmentalism is no longer a fringe issue. Will this be the greenest federal election we have ever had? What do you think?

Stern is an economist. He knows no more about global warming than I do.
He has merely added the numbers to the wildest GHG models. I must say, he appears to know how to get the most mileage from a report.
Making this one realy wild should get him a bit of on going work, from the right people.

If it were to be a political concern for the goverment they would have acted promptly. The Prime Minister made some very valid points in parliament today, which convey a solid grounding for the refusal to ratify Kyoto.

If the global warming issue is to be addressed there needs to be some internationality about it, and not selective sanctioning.

Why should we sacrifice our energy sector and related industries, if at the end of the day, any cuts to emissions that may occur are to be surpassed by increases in emissions by the 'developing nations' such as China and India. An illogical sacrifice in the face of growing economic challenges.

Refer also to my comments in the Carbon Tax thread..

Hasbeen,
I suppose if Stern had been a climatologist you might critique him about knowing nothing about economics.
You say Stern "knows no more about global warming than I do."
You really must know a damn lot about it then.

Have you even looked at the report?

Stern has made a VERY serious attempt at understanding the science (and the uncertainty) involved in climate change.

"Understanding the scientific evidence for the human influence on climate is an essential starting point for the economics, both for establishing that there is indeed a problem to be tackled and for comprehending its risk and scale."
(Stern pp. 2 http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/9A2/80/Ch_1__Science.pdf)

You claim "He has merely added the numbers to the wildest GHG models."

Read the report.
There is nothing 'merely' about anything he has done.
This is a huge amount of work.

simply adding numbers to the wildest climate change models will come out looking a lot scarier than this.

nationalist_conservative
You say,
"if the global warming issue is to be addressed there needs to be some internationality about it, and not selective sanctioning."

if ? IF ?
I would like to see how on earth (forgive the pun) the 'global warming issue' cannot be addressed.
Kyoto IS international. It is about the countries that can (ie are in a position to) begin to reduce emmissions, reducing them together.
Considering how lightly Australia got off with our targets (compared to EVERYONE ELSE who signed), mainly due to our landclearing loophole, allowing us to INCREASE our industrial and transport emissions, it is outrageous that we are claiming "not fair".

Why shouldn't China and India and other developing nations be allowed to increase their emissions? I would obviously prefer it if they didn't have to, but of course there raises the issue that Developing nations should have the right to develop to somewhere at least close to the level we enjoy.
Shouldn't they be allowed to catch up?

what seems 'illogical' to me, is how a rich developed country like ours can be so selfish and non-international about this whole thing.

Howard claims we shouldn't ratify Kyoto because it doesn't include the worlds largest emitters- that around half of the emissions of the world are not included.

Well, by joining with the USA in undermining Kyoto, we are hardly helping this. Instead we point to the pathetic non-binding 'Asia Pacific Partnership' which itself only includes half of the worlds emissions- in a non binding way!

What a joke.
The Howard government seems to want to reinvent the wheel. And this time make it square.
Kyoto may not be perfect, but if Australia and America ratify, then we (the international effort) can apply considerable pressure to those like India and China to come into the fold.

Right on the button, Hasbeen. Stern is basing his scenario for economic ruin on the global warming theory and the belief that it is man made; even though many scientists are still saying that the whole idea is piffle.

Economists rarely agree on their own subject, anyway.

Interesting to note that today's Australian editorial opined that global warming was now firmly a POLITICAL issue. It certainly seems more political than scientific.

yeah right on
why should those developing countries have any rights to improve their life style if it's going to upset good honest people like nationalist_conservative and hasbeen, bloody hell whats the world coming to.
They should all return their humpies and thank their gods that at least there are those with the wisdom and money to dig all this stuff up and make a profit that will eventually benefit them come tax dodging time.

Ryechus, thats right mate, I mean the Stern report is more political than scientific as someone has already said. We can't have politics interferring with environmental issues and science.

If the scientists don't tell us what we want to hear, sack them and buy ones that will tell us what we want to hear. We want them to tell us that there is no global warming, Australia is not suffering from drought and drastic water shortages, and we are not running out of food.

John Howard is right to fob this hysteria off as "hysteria" knowing full well that later successions of government that will pay the price of his ignorance and inactivity. Bugger the future, lets spend up now

the problem i have with these discussions is that after marshalling those facts which support your assertions, all of you are content with saying:" so there!"

as it should be, for none of you has any power to actually do things.

if australia were an actual democracy you would not be in the iraq war,you would have a sustainable national environment policy, and your hospitals and schools would be funded to raise competent and healthy future generations.

but you are not citizens of a democracy, no matter what lies you are continually plied with- you are political cattle, the taxpaying and consuming "subjects" of australian oligarchy.

just compare your role to that of a sheep in a paddock- not much difference, eh?

and the humor of it is, most of you identify with your masters like a housebred slave, saying: "we were right/wrong to go to war with iraq", as though anyone ever asked you.

It is odd there is now a panic about greenhouse gas which must be addressed.
It is an elephant in the next room, so why are people including pollies ignoring the elephant in this room ?

Peak Oil is literally upon us now, oil production rate is down over 500,000 barells a day from last years figures.
Demand is up so it could cross the production curve anytime.
Probably the fall in oil production will have a larger effect than any Kyoto agreement.
The measures that need to be taken to mitigate peak oil will also help with CO2.
Any depression caused by warming will be much later than the one caused by peak oil.
Measures to be taken should be;
Increase petrol tax & devote the funds to rail improvement.
Put a sliding sales tax on vehicles, better milage lower tax.
This will act faster than any Kyoto agreement.

Alas, the Stern report has not caught Howard with his pants down. With his usual astuteness, Howard will use this situation to his advantage.
On the one hand, Howard will downplay the urgency of climate change – saying that we need a gradualist approach. In this, he’ll call on that pathetic little grouping of 6 countries, led by U.S.A. to put up an alternative strategy to Kyoto, (with its 154 countries) and thus continue to promote the fossil fuel industries.
On the other hand, Howard will agree that climate change is real, thus gaining approval from the majority of voters. This will also allow him to promote the nuclear industry, selling it as an answer to climate change. A few token and showy efforts will be made to promote renewable energy, while pushing nuclear power, big projects, and steering attention away from energy efficiencies and decentralised renewable energy methods.
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com

I agree with you completely, I can see no reason at all why the chineese & indians should be expected to limit their economic growth, or their aspirations for a better life. I don't think I said they should.
What I said was that Kyoto was a way to limit ours, & thats a bit unfair to our younger generations. Just how much pay cut are you prepared to take to see Kyoto in place? Thats what it means, & your kidding your self, if you think it does not. Of course, you may be a public servant, & expect that government will provide. Well, thats what they are trying to do.
Without our mineral exports, were headed for the "poor white trash of asia", & its not what I'd like to see for my grandkids.
Without our competitive advantage, there is no way you can be paid more than your chinese, or indian, equivalent. Is that what you want?
I realy wish that, well meaning people would think their arguments, right through, to their logical conclusions.
We can have our standard of living, or sign Kyoto. You can'y have both.
We are going to have a large drop in our living standards, due to chinese, & indian competition, with out tying our hands behind our backs to start with.
Just what do you want to leave to your grandkids?.

Hi Christina,

I unfortunately agree that Howard will bury it as you have stated.

But don't you also feel that this time it’s different? My gut feeling (or is it my last drop of weary hope) is that 'ordinary ostrayans' will demand more than just the bandaids you speak of. How to demand a longer term vision?

Suzuki recently said that this needs to be a debate in the community and not confined to what leaders think.

For this debate to happen I feel there needs to be a much tighter and focused coalition of groups than what is offered by the splinters of environmentalist movements that currently exists.

If environmentalism is no longer a fringe issue, its greatest agitators must recognise that its own fragmentation is a part of the problem and contributes to the blind apathy you speak of.

I don’t have the answers to this conundrum; I’m just putting it out here for analysis.

But I also reckon (as I’m sure you would agree) that is our last chance to change the big picture or the big picture will change us.

`•.. ><((((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><((((º>¸¸.•´¯`•.¸.

Reva NXG Electric Car

http://www.tomw.net.au/technology/transport/reva.shtml

There is one in Australia that the Federal Govt. has just ordered to be crushed or the importer will face a $166,000 fine.

The car is legal in all EU countries, but not Australia.

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,20661953-2682,00.html

This is ridiculous.

Humans have changed the Earth's eco systems more rapidly and extensively in the past 50 years than in any other period of human history. These changes have degraded almost two thirds of the ecosystems on which humanity depends and have resulted in a largely irreversible loss in the diversity of life on earth. (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment 2005).

The world's population doubled between 1960 and 2000 to 6 billion people and continues to grow with a forecast expectation of 9 billion by 2050. To the denialists (mostly with vested interests) these figures are factual - get it? More population explosions - more pollution!

Scientific fact: Hydrocarbon emissions kill off humans, fauna and the environment and pollutes our drinking water and fresh produce with carcinogenic and immune altering chemicals. The denialists view this reality as collateral damage in their quest for profits.

"Nero" has now allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to the very industry which has knowingly and without constraints, polluted this planet - the coal industry! These wealthy polluters are to receive OUR taxes to lift their game - unbelievable! This industry has failed abysmally to allocate any previous budgets towards effective pollution prevention control and as a result, all coal companies should be collectively meeting the costs for a new technology towards cleaner production.

And I am yet to learn of any worthwhile funding allocations towards solar hydrogen power technology.

So while "Nero" is fiddling we must insist on implementing the Precautionary Principle, a principle which successive state and federal governments have ignored.

But how to do that? Well this little right winger is voting Greens at the next election. At least my vote may contribute to giving the Greens the balance of power in the upper house. And my "wooden leg" tells me that this time,the major parties are going to be caught with their pants down - big time! Abuse of public gullibility by both federal and state politicians no longer works!

It is a pity to see these debates decend into John Howard bashing instead of discussing trends, predictions and possible solutions.
You just make yourselves sound like Kim Beasley.
Not all do that of course but it does divert what could be a good discussion.
It is a pity about the Riva car, I would have bought one of those.
I have been waiting all my life for an electric car.
The later models do use lithium iron batteries.

Those that say we should not put money into co2 sequestration are not
looking into the big gap that will occur in electric power supply
unless we keep the power stations operating at least for the next20 to 30 years. I seriously doubt it.

There is a hue and cry for wind and solar power by those who seem
to know very little about how you get electricity from one place
to another. You cannot have more than about 15% of unreliable supply
connected to the grid, other wise you can end up with the grid
oscillating. You also have to have spinning reserves up and
running to take up the load. What that does is run the power stations
at a lower level of efficiency.
Wind and solar supply has never enabled the shut down of one base load
power station.
The only real hope is the distributed grid, ie where everyone generates their own power and feeds surplus into the grid.
However the catch 22 is (notice how catch 22s always seem to come up)
getting enough batteries, solar and wind systems for everybody.
There is doubt that there is enough material in the world to make
enough batteries and control equipment.
Then are there enough technicians to install repair and maintain such
an enourmous amount of equipment ?

"Why shouldn't China and India and other developing nations be allowed to increase their emissions?"

Well the problem is, that if they do, without some major new
technology happening, then we might be basically stuffed!

As David Suzuki pointed out, Australia's difference that it
can make is largely symbolic, thats about it. It might make
us feel better, to do this or that, but if you look at the
big picture, its meaningless.

If Australia wants to comply with Kyoto, easy, send the
largest energy users, aluminium smelters, to China or India.
We will then comply, keep the greenies happy about how they
feel, but it won't make a scrap of difference to the problem.

World population is still increasing by 80 million a year,
no thanks to the Catholic Church and others. Perhaps we
should start by offering every woman on the planet, decent
family planning. Ever increasing world population is making
things worse, not better.

Good one Baz.

Is there a gang associated with Stern? I seem to have some recollection that there should be. Or is this the Oldtimer's disease kicking in? I'm (almost) sure there was a Stern Gang that had something to do with establishing unpopular truths....or was it popular untruths? Damn! You can get so confused with this Oldtimer's disease! Don't think it had anything to do with boats. Was it something to do with the heads? The heads! That's it! Terrorism. A bomb in a toilet. That's where you'd be if you got caught with your political pants down!

Bazz - Firstly, two comments on your critique of wind & solar power in a centralised energy grid.

a) Australian capital cities have nowhere near "15% of unreliable supply connected to the grid" (Tasmania excluded) - perhaps we should try to at least get to that point before we worry about going further.

b) You've talked about supply side issues, which I agree with, however you haven't mentioned any possibility of demand management. Technology similar to that used by fridges to order milk via the internet, etc. could also be used to base energy usage on price, therefore decreasing use during peak periods & helping to align demand to supply. Of course, this technology isn't available at your local electrical goods retailer yet....

so...I agree that a decentralised grid is the best & most efficient option. In terms of the availability of materials, it is true that there is a limited global supply of silicon that can be used in photovoltaic cells. Research into alternatives to silicon is in its infancy.

I don't think this means we should give up on the idea altogether. Obviously, this would not be something that happened overnight, but over years or decades. Increased government funding into research in this area is vital.

In terms of availability of technicians, perhaps all those previously employed by the fossil fuel industries could be retrained....

Two extremely important elements at this stage are increased government action on climate change & an optimistic attitude!

Some good points there Viktor;

>a) Australian capital cities have nowhere near "15% of unreliable >supply connected to the grid"

Yes I agree, but many people do not know that there is a limit.

>b) You've talked about supply side issues, which I agree with, >however you haven't mentioned any possibility of demand management.

Yes I am very aware that the supply authorities are looking at using
BPL (Broadband Power Line) to do that job despite all the problems and disadvantages involved with BPL.

>In terms of availability of technicians, perhaps all those previously >employed by the fossil fuel industries could be retrained....

Just think about it, a mine might employ 500 miners (not sure),
a power station perhaps 20 or 30 a shift. Pehaps a total industry
population of 20,000 of which probably 18,000 would have to be
retrained into electronics. Where are the Tafes & instructors.
How many homes and factories in Sydney, must be close to two million.
Presuming all those miners were able or willing to be retrained
how long would it take to install 2,0000 wind, solar and battery systems.
Don't forget some of these systems would be very large, eg
hospitals, factories etc etc.
They would need capacities much greater than older telephone exchanges
had and they had teams just to look after the batteries.
However as they work on it, some are being continually being peeled
off to do maintenance and fault finding on the ones that have been
installed.
So now they are finished in Sydney, they can now start on Newcastle or Melbourne.
It is the sheer efficiency people wise that makes our grid system sucessful.
I just can't see us getting enough people organised to do such a
mamoth task.
It is a typical Peak Oil/Global warming cath 22.

>Two extremely important elements at this stage are increased >government action on climate change & an optimistic attitude!

Fix Peak Oil and I think global warming will look after itself.

>Posted by Viktor, Friday, 3 November 2006 1:05:23 PM
Baz

Bazz

The same fears abounded when we computerised everything and everyone had to be retrained. Many feared they would be out of a job. It hasn't happened.

Solar hydrogen does not need to extract hydrogen from fossil fuels as is the current practice.

UNSW scientists advise that the catalyst for solar hydrogen is titanium oxide of which there is an abundance - more jobs!

The UNSW also advise that to connect solar hydrogen energy to 1.5 million homes will supply all the nation's energy requirements!

And maintenance of a solar hydrogen system is minimal.

We've had many black outs in my region!

The fossil fuel industry will not grind to a halt but rather there would be a phasing out of this industry with emphasis on a mandatory requirement to install pollution prevention control to immediately reduce emissions! People before profits! There are ample profits to enable polluters and governments to become more responsible!

The more delay, the more health and environmental damage.

Governments need to consider the potential of solar hydrogen technology and increase funding to expedite the results - pronto!

In the long run solar hydrogen energy will be far cheaper than the oil wars, the exorbitant health expenditure on diseases caused by fossil fuel emissions and the cost of attempting to restore an irreparably damaged environment.

The US government has committed 1.2 billion dollars to mitigating climate change and the Californian government, 3.2 billion dollars towards solar and renewable energy and so on. And BHP Billiton are contributing funding towards UNSW's solar hydrogen project.

I seem to recall that UNSW are looking for an additional, measly ten million dollars!

Could the Minister for the Environment advise me why they are ignoring this project? Oh I get it - heaps of revenue from the fossil fuel industry therefore, the status quo remains!

Dickie; So far the Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROEI) is not
very good. There are other problems with hydrogen. It is corosive and
rather expensive tanks have to be used to hold it.
Unless hydrogen is compressed, which makes the EROEI worse by a
significant amount. If it is to be used for transport then it has to be
transported to service points. These will require about 10 times the
the number of tankers than we now have for petrol tankers.
Vehicles would need tanks about the size of the noot of present cars.
Fuel cells with fed with hydrogen have a rather poor EROEI if you look
at it from solar cell to wheels.

The distributed network fueled from solar hydrogen and fuel cells to
electricity is probably the best bet if the fuel cells can be significantly improved.
The hydrogen could be used in stoves and ovens but they could be
dangerous as hydrogen flame is invisible.
There is a web site that talks about the hydrogen fallacy.
There are stacks of catch 22s with hydrogen.

I don’t know if John Howard has lost his pants , but I do know that someone better flush the toilet after reading such fraudulant and pseudo scientific garbage ; In reality , Toilet paper is all it is good for. It is testimonial to the total depravity and ineptitude now burdening us; That pile of Steaming regurgitated crap does more damage to the world of epistemology and ethics than any Mythical Green house effect or what ever mankind could ever conger up in a Physical Dimension.
In fact I would say it is 40% more virile than that other steaming pile of Kyoto Protocol post modern sewerage for fact dung.
The more frightening thing is that the accumulative effect of depraved morons far out number rational thinking and reality based scientific Hypothesis and minds in favor of pseudo Philosophical delusions;
Is this the new age Idiot Islamic Primititivism Effect model? Or is it just a whole lot of Useless idiots and witch Doctors looting the system? I would say it is both.
The greater crime is that that such a report could actually be thought up, let alone published, but thats how far into the abyss we have been shoved, and the philosophy of "Dont let a good lie get in the way of truth". Or the dosile Idiot effect of Twilight zoned Mystique Paredigm .

errrr all- or is that the text from one of those spam emails ?

Its original Bazz,and you will see a lot more of it. I’m just winding up,absolute sick to death of these pig headed ignoramisus , and you should just do more studies in electro Magnetic spintronics , the way the world is now, with all the idiots and their protégées, Hydrogen is the last thing you would let a baby play with.
Have a nice day.

Bazz,

I think you're right. It looks like spam to me too. A brief glance at All- posting history will also show that it is not original, but seemingly just endlessly recycled vituperation from over 200 previous posts. I haven't been on this forum long enough to know for sure, but I suspect that this sort of spam is brought into play when something potentially revelatory has been, or looks like it may be about to be, said. Is it worth looking at where such posts have been made recently, just for what interesting points may have been made? Or should we hit the 'mark for delete' button?

Actually would be better to stuff the report down your throat All- and stop any more crap coming out your mouth.
You have just formed a new low level in humanity one below the sell your soul $6.00/week suckers and it seems it would well qualify you to become a politician.

Rainer,we make up less than 0.03% of the world's pop.What ever we do will be a token jesture.The Kyoto Protocol lets the really big polluters like China and India please themselves.It has to be a situation that includes all countries.Poor countries should also be taken to task on for not taking measures to control their populations.Too many people is one of the main reasons for environmental destruction.

It is no good leading the way by taking drastic measures if others don't heed the message.That said ,we should be doing much more,since environmental science technology can save us and bring a lot of export dollars into Australia.

Yes Arjay that is the response/ excuse that Howard et al use. I thought you might come up with your own original thoughts on this – alas its not meant to be.

Bringing pressure on those developing countries to conform will not be achieved by sitting on the fence and blaming them. It’s a cop-out by default.

When Russia ratified the Kyoto Protocol, that protocol became international law. By saying they weren't going to abide by the protocol or even sign it, the United States declared a long time ago under the Bush Administration that it was going to be an international outlaw but as usual we Australians will ape the Americans and say 'we're not going to be bound by this' – ie, pretend we are just another state of the USA.

I believe our nation, despite its size and population, despite not being a world 'power' is the best placed continent in the world to lead in environmental law and innovations.

If we are not, lets all just immigrate to the USA and forgo this uniqueness. Surely we can think and speak for ourselves?

Signing Kyoto should be a referendum and a decision of the people, not of the Howard/Bush administration here in OZ.

Well there is actually an economic theory on all this, called
the tragedy of the commons. It predicts that everyone will
act in their own short term self interest. Thats much what
humanity has done in the past and probably will do again.

So hang on to your seats and mother nature will have to sort
it all out the hard way.

Stop eating chocolate Forrest Gumpp; you seem to become worse than Hypo, verging into the psychosis of Schizophrenia.
I could substantiate everything I wrote, even just by preserving your response as a reference. Or your language ( Spam)
You have not read anything on the subject, you have not read the report, nor have you read anything about “The Kyoto Protocols”, and it is needless to respond to your comprehension on scientific models, out side of your Lego building block world, you just rave and rant like a good little Post-Modern Automaton; that is your subconscious job and what your mentors have programmed you to do.

“Ryechus”
Declaring violent outrage and retribution at computer generated text to wards an entity that is unknown to you, well, how long have you had this problem?
So get to work and stop being lazy and find out for your self what is happening around you.
Then report back with something that sounds like informed opinion.

We should not sign the Kyoto Protocol unless it includes all nations under the same conditions?For every Australian rainer,there are 3200 others who pollute.Australia accounts for less than 1% of the world's pollution.Yes per head of pop we do rank highly,however,China is building one coal fired power station a month.Their pollution will continue to accelerate as we beome the sacrifical lambs leading by example,as world pollution continues to worsen.

The US and Aust can do a lot in terms of smaller more fuel efficient cars,insulating buildings,and finding natural ways of heating & cooling our dwellings.These things can be done without damaging economic growth.If we weaken ourselves economically then teachers and public servants will have to suffer drastic pay cuts.

Poverty does not create a smart country that can come up with environmental solutions.The smart people will simply leave Aust and donate their expertise to a country with resources.John Howard was right about Kyoto,however wrong in not moving sooner on finding practical solutions to our dilemmas.

NB. Just a small point rainer;people immigrate to Australia,but we emigrate to America.

ALL-

You claim that you are: "absolute (sic) sick to death of these pig headed ignoramisis (sic)".

I too am not entirely in favour of ratifying the Kyoto agreement, however, whether climate change is anthropological or natural, we can not bury our heads in the sand (or is that the cracked earth?).

Nor can we continue to sook on about third world countries' carbon emissions. The subject is also a moral issue and greedy westernised governments should indeed be setting an example.

I have only perused excerpts of the Stern Report and so far I believe it makes sense and should indeed be heeded.

I have seen dozens of emissions reports from pollutant industries and it is clear that we are out of control. You should engage in the same exercise to better understand the damaging impact of chemical emissions.

Mr Downer claimed at a recent energy seminar that we have reduced our carbon emissions from 1990 which is simple rhetoric to appease Jo Citizen since emissions (carbon and non-carbon) have increased over the past four year period where I have taken an interest.

Perhaps you would like to access www.npi.gov.au to peruse the 2004 and 2005 national substance emissions for the coal industry. You may then realise that we are being duped.

2003/2004 (kgs)
CO.............. 18,000,000
Fluoride ...........120,000
NOX's....... ....36,000,000
PM......... ....130,000,000
SO2.......... ....1,900,000
VOC's............ 4,100,000
Benzene.............. 3,500
Chr III.............. 6,200
Chr VI............... 8,800

2004/2005 (kgs)

CO...............25,000,000
Fluoride............160,000
Nox's............49,000,000
PM..............170,000,000
SO2...............1,900,000
Voc's.............4,100,000
Benzene...............6,000
Chr III...............9,600
ChrVI.................9,400

The above figures I believe are conservative and are guesstimates only of submissions from industry and there are many other chemicals not listed above.

Don't forget to peruse other pollutant industries while you are at it, to obtain an overall picture of how irresponsible our governments are in their quest for revenue. These emissions could be reduced NOW with little fiscal damage to stakeholders!

Should you continue to deny that the above chemicals (and others)do not damage human health or the environment, then perhaps you should reconsider as to whom you are directing your description of "pig headed ignoramisis (sic)."

thanks dickie!

A lot has been said about securing alternative ‘sources’ for energy but very little attention is given to addressing this problem by approaching the other side of the equation, ie by minimizing energy usage in the first place.

Notwithstanding some progress in ‘Energy Efficient Air Conditioners’, this seems to be one area that is particularly neglected. Since most jobs in cities only involve manipulating information – the employees do not have to be present physically in their office to do their jobs. Yet for most people, they, and a tonne or more of metric steel travels for 90mins a day to do just this. Not only is this a huge usage of energy and producer of CO2 – it generates enormous amounts of soot, CO, rubber dust, etc.

We could move information-manipulation jobs (which most city jobs are anyway) to small office buildings local to each area – even close enough to be walking distance for most people. Work practices need to be developed to make this practical but if things like call centres and so on can move to India would it really be that hard for all office-work move to work-centres in the suburbs?

It would be quite different to working from home and all the problems that brings up for many people. There would be the camaraderie of work mates, formal start and finish times and there would be the structure of an actual building to go to and work in to keep it psychologically and physically separate from Home.

This structure would also serve a vital social function. Most people get to know people ‘through work’ this would combine the contact through work with residential proximity and help build residential communities. No faceless neighbors and friends at work who we can never see outside work hours because they live in the opposite direction. This strategy would not bring about a sudden change since these stations would be added one at a time, cities would adapt gradually and it seems to be a low-cost, comparatively simple solution to a number of problems.

Thanks Dickie, but does it not strike you to be Odd how they come up with these figures?
Considering that it is virtually a un measurable commodity.
And have you ever viewed a report that compounds the CO2 and toxins that are expelled when our Bush lands are on fire? then how about Geophysical events? No, but they can conger up some fictional numbers to fill a gap or two.
Can you give me the name of the Author of this report you posted and how much the Tax payer was looted out of?
There is technology in existence that alters the emissions; that is simple, it is used in construction whilst vehicles are operated in restricted areas, a simple catalytic converter; Well until some bumbling clown figures out it is a good idea to implement biochemistry and alternative fuels; As I do , I produce my own Fuel through titration. But even then the looters can’t keep their fingers out of my pockets.
There is no reason why CO 2 can not be captured and then to alter its anatomical structure and used for other purposes; this has also been achieved.
There are a great many things available to achieve these goals, but looting the Public accounts and stirring up dooms day reports is the way of Witch doctors these days.
Rob 51 has a very good point in regards to our own house hold energy, it would be advisable to learn new ways and methods to break away from dependency on the Looter factions and start thinking for our selves. That would be the best environmental policy for anyone and everyone.

ALL-

The figures I gave you in my last post are from the "National Pollutant Inventory". This is a website of the Department of Environment and Heritage and companies exceeding a certain limit with regards to productivity are required to annually report to the NPI.

I am unsure what you are referring to when you ask "how much the taxpayer was looted out of?" The point I am making is that these figures must certainly be guesstimates.

The industry is self-regulated and I have found that EPA's and DEC's will only audit when there is a community complaint and enforcement is rare! Given that most communities are apathetic and ignorant of the hazards of excessive emissions, the very few who speak out are generally described as "nutters". Though perhaps not for long!

The emissions' reports I have are quarterly, therefore companies employ an accredited laboratory every 12 weeks to assess stack emissions using the USEPA method or AS (Australian Standards).

My objection is that heavy polluters should be obliged to implement continuous monitoring of hazardous stack emissions which should be capped! In addition, most companies don't even test for dioxins and furans and if so, one annual test may be submitted on a voluntary basis.

How the NPI deduces annual figures from one single 6 to 8 hour monitoring period is beyond me, particularly when many companies have availed themselves of the federal government's product stewardship to burn waste oil as fuel in their furnaces. This is a particularly nasty and very hazardous waste, especially when combustion is poor and apart from the degradation to the environment, it is extremely dangerous to humans.

The lack of regulation or reporting by companies using this compound is appalling to say the least. And the government couldn't care less since it's a cheap way to get rid of waste oil and companies are given incentives to burn this hazard over communities.

Contd............

Contd.......

All-

Then you have just one single smelter emitting 36,000,000 kgs of SO2 and one single oil refinery emitting the grand total of 1,800,000 kgs of VOC's into the stratosphere!

And you say that the Stern Report is "witchcraft" - a "Doomsday" account of this planet's dire situation?.

Perhaps you will be interested to access Dr Ray Kearney's excellent article on "Fossil Fuels - the new asbestos." OL Article 3861, 23/11/05. A very informative account of more abuse of public gullibility on the real hazards of unleaded fuels and where he expresses deep concerns over traffic related air pollution, particularly in NSW and the seemingly lack of insight by John Howard.

You give the impression you have read the Stern Report since you have described this paper as "fraudulant (sic) and pseudo scientific garbage". Which parts don't you like ALL-?

That is a unique way of stating your case;
In the first instance you agree that the study Is not Scientific, but Guestimations and without any scientific significance what so ever, it is only a blind shot in the wilderness.
There is no Model to de construct because the Guestimations are only a Philosophical hypothesis and based on fabricated and false assumptions, based on Pseudo science or better described as Science fiction; Sounds like witch doctors work to me; it is very rubbery, Elasticized and over inflated, designed to push an Emotional point; As you so described when you say you Believe, even armed with the knowledge that it is not Science and constitutes nothing other than a compilation of steaming dung, you still worship it?
You seem to have turned operational science into some sort of Erotica that works off emotions. How Odd.
Ps Dickie, please if some one close to you asks you to be a witness in a defense case, please for his sake decline. He may do better with just the prosecution on his case.

Yes, Speak to Professor Carney, learn how the N S W Government looters alter reports so they can loot more money and get away with killing you at the same time. You think I am joking; sorry No I am not.
“Infectious diseases” Now there is a man who knows his science.

All-

I'm reluctant to take a remedial class on Melbourne Cup day, however, I have concluded that your comprehension of the written word is elementary, therefore I have endeavoured to maintain a degree of patience and reiterate a few scientific facts to prevent you banging your gums further, which results in a disgorging of rant and piffle!

Conditions of licences vary, however, when monitoring is regulated, an instruction to the licensee may be to adopt a specific method of scientifically measuring flue gases.

For instance with the USEPA method where the licensee is required to measure for particulate matter then the NATA accredited and registered laboratory would implement USEPA 5. CO would require compliance with USEPA 10 while VOC's from memory is USEPA 18 and so forth. Volumes and flow rates of stack emissions are also important in obtaining an efficient scientific,analytical conclusion. I am quite confident of this method of measuring hazardous emissions.

Perhaps you also dispute scientific analyses of testing for anaemia, cholestrol, an overload of iron - or a scientific analysis of dioxins or PCB's in the human body?

I shall now attempt to reiterate my argument in the previous post.

If a company is only required to submit an emissions' report 4 times per year, or once a year, then the NPI can only estimate the total emissions for one year - catch on ALL-?

Operating conditions, efficient combustion and fuel quality all contribute to the measurements of hazardous wastes in flue gases and stack emissions, therefore, they can be drastically altered with poor combustion or shutdowns and startups. As a result, the NPI's reports as I have stated must have a certain degree of inaccuracy. However, it is better than nothing!

I suspect that your rants are referring to "computer modelling". I have no confidence in this method particularly when DEC's will drastically reduce a HAP to an ambient air level measurement! This reveals a total disregard for the upper troposphere and the stratosphere!

End of posts due to ALL-'s inane bleatings!

I did have my suspicions that you were an Employee of the State, Dickie, it is that obvious.

The Honeymoon is over for this government . these ragtag politicians(humans) who have stolen power in this country have no idea what they are doing. These guys have known about climate change 25 years ago and have done nothing. For ten years Howard has refused to listen and its ratbags like him who should be held accountable for the suffering we are all living through now and in the future. Lack of policy regarding the environment as a whole is a crime against humanity. they continue to put there head in the sand and say allways what about australian jobs. this responce is so childish and neglagent because as these guys f about the drought grips australia more and more and jobs start to disappear in the bush, next it will be the great barrier reef gone, costing more jobs in tourism. We need a government with balls and a vision of the future very badly not a government who is reactionary and in bed with the fossil fuel industry. Kim B should make Climate change his political platform as this is not just about us but about the globe and our future as a speices on on it. The most inportant issue in the history of humankind, we don't need right wing monkeys hanging about handicapping reaction to this issue. sorry you real monkeys out there.

To 'thehoneymoonisover'

I am in complete agreeance with you except maybe Id like to think that it is not too late.
That we still can make a concerted effort and bring pressure to bear on those who dont comply and make at least the minimal chamnges required, domestically and globally.

I have previously started 2 threads in relation to this very subject and barely a nibble.

It is amazing to me how timing is everything and how we are only ever giving any thought at all to the health of our planet when the media decides to make it a newsworthy issue.
If that is the case and our thinking on this doesnt come to the forefront of our daily lives..ie: wether to walk or cycle to work today.Wether we need to have all the lights on in the house at once.
Be more conscious of water wastage..recycling ,plastics,all fossil fuel emissions,and on it goes,....if this thinking doesnt become as automatic as brushing our teeth..
The end of our civilisation may well be nigh.We ignore at our own peril.

Lets not wait for politicians to guide us..start now, at the veryday level and be instruemental in saving our own plante...

Politicians DONT CARE....lets be clear about that.Believe it and move on.

"it is amazing to me how timing is everything and how we are only ever giving any thought at all to the health of our planet when the media decides to make it a newsworthy issue".

Indeed! 'the wag the dog' is a big problem.

I have an equally cynical take on how Hollywood cashes in on this 'WAG' with their regular role out of disaster movies that end in America saving the world or Americans being the only ones that survive.

John Wayne becomes a tree hugging hippie, role credits.

Rainer,your are not the first to make this observation.I've said a few times, "We are the Hollywood worshipers of image without substance" and there in lies our folly.

However,not all that is American is evil,as many assume.John Howard also,is not the evil meglomaniac that many of your ilk try to portray.The truth is often shades of grey and compromise that finds mutual effort and respect in a common goal.Just snyping from the sidelines without positive imput,does nobody any good.

Arjay, my apologies, I will endeavour to cite you (along with Noam Chomsky, Stuart Hall, Marshall McLuhan and Neil Postman) the next time I make any remarks about cross-overs and lending between Hollywood mythology and American nationalism.

I will also try my hardest to adopt your ideological purity of thought in all matters from now on. Please forgive me for any nasty things I have said about your beloved John or George. They are doing a wonderful job leading us all. Where they are leading us I do not know. Blind faith feels so good.

I was hoping someone else would have pointed out an obvious overview of dickies statement above; amongst the typical Bureaucratic wave length of cold meaningless garble not to mention questionable assumptions, the issue of licenses to pollute, “Or cash for trash, N S W Environmental protection Racketeering Charges; or if you want to pollute, give me some loot”.
Yes it does sound like some politicized form of prostitution, but is anyone surprised?

Although it is the inane attitudes of bureaucrats that could think up new ways to loot so they have perpetual trough of money to snort from; instead of applying science to alleviate an existing problem.
Don’t miss read that, I disagree totally that man has anything to do with global warming for a start, that problem emanates from cosmological forces engaged in their cyclic predictable event; A simple scientific fact that Mummy Nature spits out more Pollutants per day than mankind does in a century.

Unless some evolutionist is going to tell me The Neanderthal Farts were so vial, creating green house gasses to global warming to melt the Ice. Then it is good I still have a sense of humor.

Pollution is only killing us; I am thinking now, most politicians are indeed inept, it is seemingly obvious they are only a statistical vanguard out side of an N G O’s (Bureaucrat) comfortable commissar/Fascist who are and never become accountable;
While we choke to death, they immerse themselves in the ill begotten wealth of others by statutory theft and deception.
We might be able to sack a politician come election time, but the same old creepy sneaky overpaid unintelligent Looter- crat remains in place dithering and conspiring to find new ways to confuse and loot you of your contributions and your worth.

I must say, this link sound familiar; and here is how the science fiction and expounding the Philosophy espoused by Derrida’s deconstructuralism works wonders in emotional erotica. A bit of confusion and delusion and a bit of magical mystique; and POP, we have a Money supply to loot.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml

Have a look at a real science report on the link, it sounds nothing like the Stern report; but when 1+1=5 ; Yes , that’s how they do it .

Just a thought here..

Im thinking not really off topic, but I think it is generally agreed here and around the world that goverments generally do not care...to near sighted in the short term gain from the economy.

So would it be useful to perhaps try to do something at the community level..a drive by the people for the people?

To get the healing process underway now and not wait for goverments to lead us.

A grass roots type of publication that could be distributed with everything the community needed to know to know where to begin and just generally distribute information of updates and general news on community happenings by way of cleaning up our own commumities, one by one..throughtout the world.

If we all did it..

http://www.climateark.org/

F.Y.I