1. Earth has finite resources, if at all possible, reducing or eliminating consumption of the non-renewable ones is a good thing eh? Saving water, power, etc. saves you money- so why not? It's the hidden stuff that gets us as westerners. We think of what comes out of the power socket but the cost of a beef steak or even an orange to the environment is where it really hurts. How much power did it take to build your TV, then how much power did it take to build the machinery that built your TV. Then how much power did it take to research the technology that went into your TV and the equipment that built it. Every year we use 3% more energy on average. Just like compound interest you'd be astonished at how quickly 3% a year becomes dire.
2. Carbon trading is an idiotic way of appearing to do something while actually wasting stupid amounts of money (A trillion dollars in the case of Australia or a year of our GDP) doing nothing at all. Unfortunately, actually building and maintaining something that works has been too hard for any government in Australia since the 1950s. Our political system is incapable of conceiving and executing a long term plan. I can buy certified carbon credits in Australia NOW for $9 per ton- they come from China and India. Isn't that ironic? So much for $23 per ton. Furthermore, increasing business costs in Australia, which has excellent environmental and emissions controls will drive more business to China, whose energy intensity is significantly worse than ours as are their pollution laws. Burning fuel to ship raw materials there and finished products back here further exacerbates this problem.
4. Did you know that there are natural gas fields offshore vietnam and china. They intersect very similar high CO2 gas reservoirs. The Vietnamese re-inject the CO2 into depleted reservoirs. The Chinese vent their CO2 straight into the atmosphere. Millions of cubic feet of it per day just from that one tiny operation. You want to do something meaningful about carbon emissions? Jolly good luck!
5. I know now why we have anti-globalisation people going insane. I may not agree with them totally but I can understand their point. Westerners are still living on a diet of about 4 times what the Earth can sustain and globalisation hides this from us. In the first three decades of this century, global population will increase by 50%. We just made our fastest billion people in history and are on track to make the next two in 9 years each. Even if they are all the poorest of subsistance farmers we are still in deep trouble. Increasing global population 50% AND holding emissions to 2000 levels or 1990 levels? Please give me some of what you are smoking.
The fact so far as I'm concerned is that all of these things, should you think they are a problem, stem from the number of humans on the planet. Solve the population problem and just about everything else either goes away or at least becomes manageable. Now, where I'm from you don't solve a problem (AGW if that's your bag baby) by addressing one of the symptoms (carbon emissions). That's like taking an asprin if you have leprosy- it makes you feel better temporarily but is actually achieving nothing at all with respect to the disease. All it does is cost you an asprin.
If you can suggest a reasonable and achievable solution to carbon emissions I'd love to see it. If you think we only have 5 years left to implement that solution (as one of the earlier posters commented) you better start preparing your grandkids for the worst now.
If you think we only have 5 years left to implement that solution you better start preparing your grandkids for the worst now.
Opinions are not nearly as important as the harsh reality of action and consequence.
Nature is absolutely non-negotiable on this. The terms it impose, simply stated are;
'Pull your (collective) heads in, or learn to live with the consequences' - period -
Now, make your choice.
Last edited by clive milne; 16-02-2012 at 10:38 PM.
Already done....a detailed, costed blueprint for an afordable transition to a completely decarbonised Australian economy by 2020,
Offsetting Australian carbon emissions by 2020 IF the blueprint could achieve it (which I sincerely doubt) would have a negligible effect on total carbon emissions given that Australia generates .25% of those emissions. Energy consumption rising at 3% a year, global population 50% higher in 20 years... tick tock.
In particular, a quote from the energy consumption article:
More than half of the energy has been consumed in the last two decades since the industrial revolution, despite advances in efficiency and sustainability.[7] According to IEA world statistics in four years (2004–2008) the world population increased 5%, annual CO2 emissions increased 10% and gross energy production increased 10%.[8]
Limiting global temperature rise at 2 degrees Celsius, considered as a high risk level by Stockholm Environmental Institute, demands 75% decline in carbon emissions in the industrial [notice it doesn't say western] countries by 2050, if the population is 10 mrd in 2050.[13] 75% in 40 years is about 2% decrease every year. - and really... good luck with that because...
The single most coal using country is China. It s share of the world coal production was 28 % in 2000 and 48 % in 2009. Coal use in the world increased 48 % from 2000 to 2009. In practice majority of this growth occurred in China and the rest in other Asia.[26]
I could include one about the collapse of fish stocks by 2050 ... You're just up the road Clive. We should chat!
Offsetting Australian carbon emissions by 2020 IF the blueprint could achieve it (which I sincerely doubt) would have a negligible effect on total carbon emissions given that Australia generates .25% of those emissions. Energy consumption rising at 3% a year, global population 50% higher in 20 years... tick tock.
In particular, a quote from the energy consumption article:
More than half of the energy has been consumed in the last two decades since the industrial revolution, despite advances in efficiency and sustainability.[7] According to IEA world statistics in four years (2004–2008) the world population increased 5%, annual CO2 emissions increased 10% and gross energy production increased 10%.[8]
Limiting global temperature rise at 2 degrees Celsius, considered as a high risk level by Stockholm Environmental Institute, demands 75% decline in carbon emissions in the industrial [notice it doesn't say western] countries by 2050, if the population is 10 mrd in 2050.[13] 75% in 40 years is about 2% decrease every year. - and really... good luck with that because...
The single most coal using country is China. It s share of the world coal production was 28 % in 2000 and 48 % in 2009. Coal use in the world increased 48 % from 2000 to 2009. In practice majority of this growth occurred in China and the rest in other Asia.[26]
I could include one about the collapse of fish stocks by 2050 ... You're just up the road Clive. We should chat!
Just one comment. Thank god for someone finally making the point that whether global warming occurs, and what to do about it, are two separate issues. If you think carbon taxes are a bad idea, fine, (I'm dubious myself), but that has nothing to do with the science. If you want to argue the science, argue the science. If you want to argue the economics, argue the economics. Vocal people on both sides are prone to getting this wrong in my opinion. One tries to claim that the economics doesn't work and that this somehow invalidates the science too. The other claims the science is solid and then presents their preferred economic solution as a fait accompli.
Offsetting Australian carbon emissions by 2020 IF the blueprint could achieve it (which I sincerely doubt) would have a negligible effect on total carbon emissions given that Australia generates .25% of those emissions.
Australia could decarbonise its economy if the will to do it was there. Unfortunately the general public are labouring under the misconception that their lifestyle(s) are going to be less negatively impacted by pursuing a course of inaction. This is a fiction that has to be addressed before anything meaningful is done.
Also, our low percentage of global GHG emissions should not be used as an excuse to prevent us from decarbonising our economy. Perhaps we should look at it as an opportunity to lead by example. In that context, we could leverage far greater change (in others) than we actually effect by ourselves. The natural resources we have at our disposal puts us in an enviable position. If we lead the pack and put the infrastructure in place before the looming energy crisis kicks in properly, we could be positioned as the 'Saudi Arabia' of renewable energy. The idea that we can maintain our lifestyles without effecting fundamental changes in our energy currency is pure fantasy. The only question that remains to be resolved is whether we make the transition before we do irreparable damage to the real operating system of the planet, our biosphere, or not.
Quote:
Energy consumption rising at 3% a year, global population 50% higher in 20 years... tick tock.
Yep, there are two elements that we need to face, unrestrained population growth will precipitate an unmitigated disaster irrespective of what we do. There will be no better time to take action than now.
Quote:
I could include one about the collapse of fish stocks by 2050
I'd be surprised if they last that long.
Quote:
... You're just up the road Clive. We should chat!
Sure, any time mate...
Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money. ~Cree Proverb
Last edited by clive milne; 17-02-2012 at 11:27 AM.
I personally think it is flawed, but for what it is worth here is an explanation of the economic logic underpinning the carbon tax:
___________________________________ ___________
The price elasticity of household electricity demand is quite low, around -0.1, meaning that a 20% increase in price leads to a 2% reduction in demand. The addition of a carbon price into the cost of electricity is unlikely to have much impact on consumption unless carbon prices were to be very high. You might be wondering why are we doing this?
The point of a carbon price is not to lift energy prices so high that we turn down our consumption. The objective of a carbon price is to restructure the economy to lower emissions. Changes in household consumption of energy intensive goods may be a secondary and perhaps intended outcome but it is not the objective. It represents one source of potential abatement, but it would come at a relatively high abatement cost.
The emission reductions come from much lower abatement cost sources. The well-known McKinsey Curve showed some of these abatement activities, stacked in order of cost. When a carbon price is implemented, the abatement becomes viable. The “tax” we would be paying is the pass-through of some of these costs into the goods and services that we buy.
That being said, it’s important to preserve the price signals on emission intensive goods such as energy. That’s why the compensation package for households is not embedded as a subsidy in electricity prices; that would remove any incentive to reduce demand. Rather, it’s designed as a lump sum or income adjustment. So the incentive to reduce consumption (eg by installing solar panels, replacing end-of-life appliances with new energy efficient ones, improving insulation etc) is preserved.
This is not economic rocket science; when the US was designing their ETS, household assistance was also delivered as a fixed income benefit (as part of the fixed charges in utility bills) rather than impacting on the variable cost of energy … a different way of doing it but on the same economic logic.
___________________________________ _
It might be a nice idea in principle, but I personally think it will be ineffective at reducing GHG emissions for the simple reason that people seldom respond to this sort of approach.
It is also dangerous in as much as it implies that if we return to 1990 level emissions, the job is done.
Last edited by clive milne; 17-02-2012 at 12:27 PM.
Lets not forget that modern living, cost cutting to increase profits and media driven consumerism has been the impetus for higher electrical consumption.
I mean really a new Apple Ipad every year and this is only I example (Yes I'm against new models coming out every year) where technology is being fed to the public in dribs and drabs to encourage tech heads etc to buy the newest latest device.
Electrical devices with standby modes (instead of rechargeable battery backup) who thought up the standby mode
Inefficient house designs, whatever happened to verandahs, high ceilings and open eaves that encouraged flow through ventilation, I'm surprised the double glazing isn't mandatory in house designs as well as building materials that provide up to 4 times more thermal insulation than brick.
Increased need for air conditioning, houses with mutilple TV's, computers etc
Yet Govt seem intent on screwing the man in the street by increasing electricity prices which do little to reduce consumption as this is lifestyle driven then remove incentives for people who go solar
Solar energy incentives should be at least 1 for 1 rebate on excess energy created but these excessive subsidies have only driven up electricity prices, and in some states tariffs have been axed.
Yet drive through any major city at night and see how much energy is being wasted lighting empty buildings and streets, you really must wonder if the Govt actually knows what they are doing if their intent is really to reduce our carbon footprint.
A sobering thought; The Earth's climate responds to a number of factors, Atmospheric CO2 being just one of them. There is however a certain amount of inertia in the process, so we are not seeing anywhere near the full impact of our actions, yet. So far the Earth's global average temperature has risen by 0.75 degrees in the last 100 years. A conservative estimate of the consequence of our actions to date, suggests that we will experience a rise of 2 degrees once the system reaches equilibrium over the next couple of decades. And this assumes that we radically decarbonise our economies in the mean time.
To lend some perspective on what that means to us, consider this quote from the CSIRO:
During the last major ice age, the global average temperature was only 3-5 ºC cooler than today and sea levels were more than 120 m (400 feet) lower than present.
About 125 000 years ago our ancestors lived through an inter-glacial period in which the polar regions were 3-5 ºC warmer than today, and sea levels were about 4-6 metres higher than in the 20th century.
This illustrates that even a few degrees change in global temperatures can create a vastly different environment.
Hey Trevor,
Yep, some good ideas there, but there is a fair bit more that could be said on the subject. I'll have a nibble on a few.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrevorW
Electrical devices with standby modes (instead of rechargeable battery backup) who thought up the standby mode
Just to put some numbers on this, standby power draw is typically somewhere between 4 & 40 watts depending on the device. It is not uncommon to see 100 watts total in an average home. This will cost you around $220 a year (@ 25c kWh) If you leave you PC on 24/7 add the same amount again. The total GHGe for this scenario is close to 2 tonnes of CO2 per year.
Quote:
I'm surprised the double glazing isn't mandatory in house designs
Double glazing is a curious one, it certainly has its place, but if you do every window in your house the payback period (in Australia) is measured in decades. The best return on your money with respect to windows is to use double glazing on only the south side of the building, reflective film on the windows facing east and west and just standard panes on the north side with some way of shading them during summer. That gives the best balance of insulation/heat rejection whilst still giving you free heat energy from the sun over winter. Of course this does not apply to the tropics.
Quote:
as well as building materials that provide up to 4 times more thermal insulation than brick.
Yeah, you would think that that would be a no-brainer. Bricks are pretty much thermally transparent. The only reason that they provide a remotely tolerable living environment is that they have a large thermal mass (read thermal inertia) There are much better building materials available.
Quote:
Inefficient house designs, whatever happened to verandahs, high ceilings and open eaves that encouraged flow through ventilation,
Well yeah, although there are some builders who are switched on to efficient housing design, the majority of them do not have the faintest clue. The star rating system applied to domestic homes these days is an imperfect solution. There is no accounting for stupidity (or ignorance) and most of them pay only lip service to the building codes which were initiated to ensure sound design practice. Architects, even in the high priced commercial sector are often little better in practice.
Quote:
Increased need for air conditioning, houses with mutilple TV's, computers etc
In a climate as mild as ours, there really shouldn't be that great a need for air-conditioning or heating. If you see a large seasonal swing in your utility bills, odds on that there is thermal management issues with the building design or its operation.
Quote:
Yet Govt seem intent on screwing the man in the street by increasing electricity prices which do little to reduce consumption as this is lifestyle driven then remove incentives for people who go solar
Best solution to a rigged game is to either stop playing it or if you can't do that, limit your exposure to it. Solar is still a good idea, but there are much better ones.
Quote:
Yet drive through any major city at night and see how much energy is being wasted lighting empty buildings and streets,
You're preaching to the choir here.
Quote:
you really must wonder if the Govt actually knows what they are doing if their intent is really to reduce our carbon footprint.
Self preservation is their only priority. The trick to getting some meaningful action from a politician is to imbue them with sense that their survival depends on serving your best interests.
Australia could decarbonise its economy if the will to do it was there. Unfortunately the general public are labouring under the misconception that their lifestyle(s) are going to be less negatively impacted by pursuing a course of inaction. This is a fiction that has to be addressed before anything meaningful is done.
I agree completely. My beef is that the government plan achieves little, is poorly conceived and its implementation will be even worse. A trillion dollars could do a far better job than either side of politics is prepared to commit to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clive milne
Also, our low percentage of global GHG emissions should not be used as an excuse to prevent us from decarbonising our economy. Perhaps we should look at it as an opportunity to lead by example. In that context, we could leverage far greater change (in others) than we actually effect by ourselves. The natural resources we have at our disposal puts us in an enviable position. If we lead the pack and put the infrastructure in place before the looming energy crisis kicks in properly, we could be positioned as the 'Saudi Arabia' of renewable energy. The idea that we can maintain our lifestyles without effecting fundamental changes in our energy currency is pure fantasy. The only question that remains to be resolved is whether we make the transition before we do irreparable damage to the real operating system of the planet, our biosphere, or not.
Agree with most of that. Unfortunately renewable energy is largely not as exportable as fossil fuels. So the notion of Australia exporting it will need work. We're already exacerbating the food issue by wasting good arable land on biofuels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clive milne
Yep, there are two elements that we need to face, unrestrained population growth will precipitate an unmitigated disaster irrespective of what we do. There will be no better time to take action than now.
And this is the essence of my concern. Spending vast amounts of resources addressing a single symptom of overpopulation will mean those resources are not available to counter cause. Furthermore it will mean that all the nations of the world willing to do something are heading up the wrong path. Leading by example is no good if you are setting the wrong example. Unfortunately, addressing population is even more sensitive than getting people to change their lifestyles and comes with an even bigger conundrum: The best way to reduce burgeoning population is to increase affluence. Greater affluence results in greater consumption! Will the reduction in population be enough to offset that higher consumption?
If you ask me the best thing you could do at this point in time is kick the Catholic church until it gives up its anti-condom stance. A travesty which condemns millions to poverty and disease.
