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 !"

43% is a silly number, apparently the product of Bowen, who told us last election that if we didn’t like Labor policy, we didn’t 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 doesn’t 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Just by means of a hand calculator on todays 1300 hrs figures to
achieve 43% reduction by 2030 will need the existing renewables to
have twice the existing renewable capacity added to the existing renewables.
It would be interesting to do this calculation each hour during weekdays.
All the data is there to do it with a spreadsheet.
There might well be a suitable spreadsheet already available on the
web site that could be added to. Will look.

God you do talk garbage SR.

Even that green ratbag running the UK has realised that Sun & Wind are totally incapable of running a modern economy, & ordered nuclear generators.

Do you ever read anything but propaganda?

Yes the data is there, in fact there is masses of it, just finding the
one you want is the trick.
There are daily records in time steps I have not yet worked out what
they mean. They might be five minute intervals.
There are different records for each state that I have seen so far.
It would be a great job for a Raspberry Pi. It could just sit in the
corner grinding away.
All I would want to see is how short of demand are the renewables.
That after all is the crux of the argument, and can we afford to fill the gap.

And there are Claytons renewables as well Bazz. A recent audit found that diesel generator output was being included in the renewable tally. With the low hanging renewable fruit mostly picked the task will get harder. Germany is just following it's tradition of doing stupid things.

Bazz,

The way the 43% reduction works is that Labor realizes that the coalition will already exceed their commitments and adds 10%.

That Labor has absolutely sod all idea of how to do it matters nought. Labor has no problem making grand promises that they have zero intent to deliver.

Remember Rudd's promises to maintain fiscal responsibility and to maintain border control or Juliar's promise never to introduce a carbon tax?