Foxy,

There's another thing I'm puzzled about:

The earth itself produces CO2, through volcanic activity, ground and ocean fissures, springs, etc., but on the other hand, all plant life sucks up CO2. That's been going on for a billion years.

Horticulturalists pump CO2 into green-houses because - up to a point, I suppose - the more CO2 that is available for plant life, the more is taken up, and the more3 plant life is encouraged.

So there has been a balance of sorts for a billion years - but since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, an imbalance.

So how much CO2 can the world's biota, plant life, soak up, compared to how much is being produced through industrial activity, air-conditioning, travel and transport, etc., to bring that production back into balance ?

Okay,

It's that difference that has to be dealt with, through moving away from the use of fossil fuels - as well as promoting long-term policies across the world to mitigate CO2, for example, tree-planting schemes - towards alternative energy-production sources.

A mixture of renewables, nuclear power generation AND limited amounts of fossil fuels - might do it :)

Cheers,

Joe

The thing is Joe people are ignoring the later science.
It has been shown that the CO2 is not having the effect that was assigned to it.
Google Hendix Svenmark and those following his original work.
Very interesting reading, perhaps summed up with the saying;
IT IS THE SUN STUPID !

"The word science seems to have lost all meaning in the climate debate. It is bandied around in much the same way pilgrims would use the word scriptures — why should I do this? Why is this so? Well, because it is written in the scriptures.

We can presume that when activists say “the science is settled” they are referring to a broad point that there is a consensus of scientific thought and data that says human-induced greenhouse gas emissions are the main contributing factor to currently observed trends of global warming, and that reducing emissions will limit it. Beneath that broad point sits an almost infinite array of variables in environmental impacts, localised climate patterns, and the costs and benefits of various policy responses.

“Guided by science, we can fight climate change and create jobs at the same time,” Albanese said. Yet a cursory examination of the scientific reality demonstrates this is nonsense.

With all the will in the world, there is nothing Albanese can do that will make the slightest difference to global warming. This point is so obvious that even when Chief Scientist Alan Finkel was asked in 2017 what difference it would make to the climate if we reduced global emissions by the equivalent of Australia’s total emissions (1.3 per cent) he had to reply: “Virtually nothing.”

The futility is even more stark because on current trends those reductions would be replaced by increases in China and elsewhere within months.

Yet when have you ever heard a politician argue that we must reduce our greenhouse gas emissions at considerable cost, for no immediate environmental benefit, for many years, in the hope that other nations will eventually do the same so that we can start to reduce emissions and slow global warming?"

Thank You all, for your well argued thoughts and
the valid points you've raised.

There's so much to still be argued.

For now I'm going back to do more reading and
research. Because at present I certainly don't
have any constructive answers.

Shadow Minister,

Are you suggesting that Australia does nothing
and carries on as usual?

Surely not?

How will change ever occur for the better if we
all decide to do nothing.

Perhaps we could take small steps, and lead by example?

Do nothing Foxy ? Yes, as nothing we can do will affect the sun.
The earth it appears may be just past the peak of warming.
It is three hundred years since the Maunder Minimum so we may well
be getting ready for the decline to start for the next minimum.