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 > General Discussion > Exactly How Does the 43% Reduction of CO2 Work ?

Exactly How Does the 43% Reduction of CO2 Work ?

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
I have read a lot of comment in the papers and a lot on TV etc but
none of it explains how it is to work.
Said this weekend large companies will be, by law,required to reduce
their co2 emissions.
Does this mean that say a Bread manufacturer will have to reduce his
electricity consumption by 43% ?
If he bakes his bread in electric ovens, does that mean he must bake
43% less bread ?
I understand it is not THAT simple, his office electricity
must also fall by 43%.
Must his delivery trucks use 43% less diesel, but even if they deliver
43% less bread they will still have to cover the same route.

That is my impression of what I have heard and read.
I must have it wrong somehow.
To quote someone or other "PLEASE EXPLAIN !"
Posted by Bazz, Saturday, 4 December 2021 8:54:34 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
43% is a silly number, apparently the product of Bowen, who told us last election that if we didnít like Labor policy, we didnít have to vote for them. Most of us didn't. But the way the lefty Liberals are going with emissions nonsense, things could be very different this time round.

How does it work? Well it doesnít work. It will never work. I know it will never work. How do I know? I listen to and read people who know that carbon dioxide has nothing to do with climate change after the amount unavoidably in the atmosphere is increased. No matter how much its presence increases, it has no effect on climate or anything else.

But, as most of the poor, silly buggers who believe in the climate con are incapable of looking further than the main stream media for information, there is no point in trying to convince them that the global scam has nothing to do with climate, but all to do with power politics and money.
Posted by ttbn, Sunday, 5 December 2021 4:03:01 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
If the collective "we" reduce CO2 then we quite naturally reduce the growth of plants plants that rely on this trace gas, therefore reducing the amount that can be be sequestered, if "we" artificially sequester CO2 (as per UN suggestions) then plant life (growing ability) will be reduced even further.
Crop reductions anyone?
Slightly off topic, we had our wood fire going again this morning (it's summer for goodness sake), send some global warming my way, please.
Cheers
Ross
Posted by FireballXL5, Sunday, 5 December 2021 5:11:04 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
well ttbn & Fireball, I agree with you both, but aside from that I am
wanting to know how they would apply it.
There was bit more info in yesterday's paper and it appears if our
theoretical baker cannot reduce his electricity usage, bread is staff of life etc.
Then he can buy, what did they call them, err indulgences or something,
I can't remember the word at present.
Are they buying them on the EU market ? I think they have a market for
them, unless Mark Lutheran banned them.
Seriously though that market has been corrupted by the Russian oligarchs.
They cleaned up on the EU financiers and might be looking for a whole
new batch of suckers.
Perhaps the taxpayer is involved somewhere.
To those whom all that offended my querie is serious, but I do find it
hard to be hard to understand how it could work. So serious responds
will be taken seriously.
Posted by Bazz, Sunday, 5 December 2021 5:42:42 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
To ttbn & Fireball, to get to the real problem, some scientists at
Turku Helinski and Kobe Universities believe that the sensitivity
of co2 to temperature allocated is too high and that 0.1 deg C rise
since 1800 is due to human activity and the rest of the temperature
rise is due to Sun, Sunspots, Milankovitch cycles, Cosmic Rays and clouds.

Certainly the IPCC doesn't want to know, which is probably why
J Kappinen is retired from the IPCC committee.
BTW, did you hear that report that the GBR Institute (or similar)
has reported that the Great Barrier Reef is in the very best of condition.
I did not hear that on the ABC.
Posted by Bazz, Sunday, 5 December 2021 5:56:20 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
Dear Bazz,

Pretty silly question mate. Ultimately your bread manufacturer will certainly not be looking to reduce their electricity use by that amount. What a ludicrous thing to ask. The source of that electricity production will be different, that is it.

Even the Coalition accept that Australia will reach 33% reduction by 2030 with or without further intervention due to the work put in mainly by the States.

Retiring old coalfired power plants is well entrenched and given the falling in the price of solar and wind there is zero appetite for building new ones.

It is happening whether you like it or not and the sky will not be falling in.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 7 December 2021 10:29:28 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. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

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