Joe,

I'm "not" pretending that their construction is emissions free.

Did I state that?

No.

Did I make a big deal about the costs in emissions of transporting people all around the country to plant the trees that won't be able to compensate fast enough for present and future emissions?

No I didn't.

But you seem to think that your fairytale idea of planting trees and keeping emissions at the present rate is somehow excused from those type of calculations...yet you're quite happy to shoot a hole in anything else.

You really do represent a disingenuous tack on this issue.... criticising one off construction emissions, but seemingly non-critical - and doubtful of the effects - of the "continuous" burning of fossil fuels directly for energy.

Not to mention being happy dissemble in an attempt to batter scientific data into submission on global warming denial.

Joe/Luce/Poirot,

Perhaps the major limitation regarding planting masses of trees is the question of where to plant them? (And how to maintain them.)
The logical location of course is on existing cleared land - which has probably been cleared for agriculture - and the maintenance of food production is probably seen to be more critical than forestry sequestration of emissions.
(Though more intensive use could possibly be made of existing aggro-forestry and timber plantations - perhaps with faster growing species.)

However, if solar thermal arrays could be established in otherwise arid regions in reasonable proximity to major centres, and supplied with sea water pumped from the ocean and 'grey' water from sewage treatment facilities (which could then be fairly easily distilled into potable H2O and solid fertilizer) not only could major greenhouse food production be possible on-site (and maybe also algal oil production) (contributing significantly to food supply and emissions capture), as well as contributing to the national electricity grid, but it might ultimately also be possible to 'rehabilitate' marginal land to large scale food and timber production - and for satellite human habitation.
(Though we don't really want ever more people stretching the planet's finite resources, reasonable populations could thereby have added security - and recycling could be moved to a whole new level.)

You never know, it might eventually be possible to add thorium reactors to such facilities to reduce overnight heat-storage requirements for continuous steam-turbine electricity production (and to boost overall base-load provision), and then to start creating 'new' coal and oil for future generations.

That is a good post salty.
We could plant many more trees if we truly wanted to.
But never the amount it would take to make Abbott,s unworkable plan work.
Some areas in this country grow only small stunted scrub, because the soil is very poor.
Some bush councils plant plantations, and use treated sewage to water them.
Great results are seen.
But if this country built three Nuclear plants just to start, we would not just lower our emissions but contribute in a big way to the worlds.
Plus we would, if exporting it, not for weapons, see that cut magnified

recall..that..million dollar..pollution/council

job description..><<providing expert..independent
information..about climate change..to the Australian public>>

here is an
example of where..that million..is going to

to..write stuff..like this link]..
sent to/me by a mate

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/10/03/08/57/september-hottest-on-record

i..will let..their link..speak for me

from/link

<<..If..the first month..of spring..had you sweating
like it was summer,..you probably weren't alone.>>

cause we have..change of weather[summer/winter..autum/spring
because we live in..a climate..where temp..can change.

it..always has..
it..always will..
[we live in..the land..of Drought's..and flooding rains]

further..those..who WERE-N0T sweating..
*clearly..had on..the air conditioner..running for free..on their solar credits

plus..drawing-on*..our gold plated..electrical power system..
[peak demand..we..[not they]..pay for..by ever higher power prices]

<<September..was the hottest/spring opener*..on record,
with the national..average temperature..a sizzling 2.75 C above usual.

NOTE the number

now compare numbers
[remember ol'mate..its a numbers game
[once too many WANTED the feed in*..tariff..it went away]

<<Australia
is experiencing..persistent heat..across the continent,
with temperatures..from October 2012..to September..1.25 degrees above..the long-term average.

<<Since 1910,..average temperatures have risen by 0.9 C,

<<The Climate Council said a 0.9 C temperature rise may not seem like much but even small increases could exacerbate the intensity of extreme weather experienced in Australia.

<<Professor Steffen..said Australia
was no stranger ..to baking days>>

i fully agree

<<..The council already has raised..nearly $1 million
in donations to continue..its work>>

yes near 1 million..to do its job

what is its job?
><<providing expert independent information
about climate change to the Australian public>>

great..yet more guilty articles
more tv adverts...more guest appearances

as if we dont got enough
hot air heads [experts]..telling us what to do..[donate*][give ema new tax..give em a job..someone needs to be boss../and they are it

in-dependent..my buttttt

Hi Poirot,

Oy. I'll repeat it slowly:

"Let's have wind-farms and solar arrays too. Thorium reactors too, if that technology is feasible.

"On the other hand, tree-planting is not only emission-free, more or less, but removes CO2 from the air."

In my admittedly tiny mind, I'm thinking of massive plantings of appropriate trees across the North, not on agricultural land (and, of course, no more de-forestation) wherever there has been a healthy increase in rainfall, for example, in the north of Western Australia.

Among other things like wind-farms, solar arrays and thorium nuclear power station in areas closer to cities.

As for fertilising those trees: if you check out Aboriginal communities on Google Maps, almost invariably they have sewage ponds a kilometre or so from their main villages. Treated, as Belly points out, that material could boost the fertility of the soil.

Lifelong Aboriginal labor + fertiliser + more water + trees = a contribution to reducing CO2 in the atmosphere.

And of course, when those trees mature, they would belong to and be processed by those Aboriginal communities. Say, a thousand square kilometres each. Genuine work and permanent income.

Win-win-win-win !

Of course, as well, a carbon tax could be devoted to "wind-farms, solar arrays and thorium nuclear power stations" in areas closer to cities.

So wind-farms, solar arrays, thorium reactors, oh and thermal energy too, as well as development of our vast, vast natural gas deposits, e.g., in the Canning basin - and tree-planting.

ALL of the above.

Do you have anything to add, Poirot ? Of course, even blow-flies have the right to just buzz around, annoying decent people. So keep buzzing.

Cheers :)

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Loudmouth,

"Do you have anything to add, Poirot ? Of course, even blow-flies have the right to just buzz around, annoying decent people. So keep buzzing."

Wondering why you insist on behaving like a cretin.....during a conversation. Still I haven't got the time to analyse your psychological deficiencies.

I'm not against tree planting per se.

I'm saying that Abbott's plan is a damp squib which on it's own will not address our emission's target and was only cooked up by an AGW denying Opposition Leader (as he then was) because he realised it was politically relevant.

You, on the other hand, comprehensively critcised wind farm technology in an earlier post....finding just about every ridiculous nit-picking fault you could with the idea.

Regarding your posts and me being a blow-fly.

Well, it stands to reason that they're attracted to....