Carbon tax scrapped

[xelasnave]

I can solve the problem.
It is so dam simple.
I awoke approx 3 an and sat by my window which enjoys a wonderful view.
I I can see to the mountains in the Southmont many kilometres..If I lean a little I can sky the sky scrapers on the coast...
In my hour a.nd a half I have seen no one not one single sole
Not even a drunk list in the street
And yet there are so many lights I need not count them to assure you their numbers are great.
The question arises ...
Why do we need these lights
I doubt any arguememt could present to me the sole witness of what I must call hideous waste is in any way justified and indeed sustainable
If we are to embrace the prospect of beingenergy efficient why why why are these unnecessary lights on
And multiply my observation around the country indeed around the world
What is our problem
Realistically it is no more than we need to turn off some lights
NOTHING more than that...
NO MORE

[xelasnave]

Looking around at lights close by I noticepi their unnecessary abundance..there I aee sixlights when three more than ample..One could do it ...
There are more to cruise but I say a 30 to 40 percent reduction would be easy to
I should stay up to see if these lights stay on as the dawn appears..I suspect they may well run over time.
Still no body not a single sole had seem these lights but me
How much coal have I uses looking out my window
This situation must change
As astronomers we haven missed the problem
Our selfish approach had been annoyance at light pollution where as our annoyance should be this observable stupid unproductive and unnecessary waste

[xelasnave]

Honestly I feel conned by the scare they put upon us when we could simply turn off some lights..we may not need a tax
How could we have a trading of energy when it is like this
Now how will I sleep ... Still no one out there

[xelasnave]

Let's help Tony
Direct action
Legislate to turn off unnecessary lights
Target can be reached without pain or inconvenience
I know you will hear of this..I know THEY watch me closely
Do it and I won't day it was my idea
All cudos I say can be yours

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by blink138

watching while rome burned perhaps mark?
pat

ha.. yeah. Well not much we can do now or feel miserable about it or keep pointing fingers. It's too late. But I like Trevor's approach. Enjoy life while it lasts. We'll get through. Only a few of us though. Well maybe not us. Still got a few good years left in me for imaging and travelling.

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by Amaranthus

Rom, does that include all the astronomy gear you claim to have in boxes?

Alas, my one downfall, but I balance that to a degree by buying a lot of second hand gear, bar the PME II. Even the observatory i am building will be primarily from second hand materials except for the dome ring and roller system.
I also recycle heaps of scrap I have dug up over the years. I do road side clean ups, cant imagine the number of tons of aluminum and glass I have recycled over the years. I also have 30+ acres of near pristine rainforest locked up and have planted many thousands of trees. Still, I acknowledge its a step backward.

[wulfgar]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Ok what I an getting at you output so much co2 how many trees do you need to say you are carbon nuetral .
So we can say simply plant x number of trees or you die..

At best very temporary. The problem is carbon is being released via fossil fuels and the refinement of various types of ores for industrial uses. Cement making for example is a large contributor. This becomes part of an increased carbon cycle in the Hydrosphere. It takes nature hundreds of millions of years to lock away the carbon. To really make a difference plant material has to be sunk into swamps were it turns into peat and finally into coal after 100 million years or so.
Anthropomorphic global warming became broadly accepted around WW2 when high altitude research revealed Angstrom's error. There wasn't so much concern at the time because industrial activity was much lower than today. For example the release of carbon via industrial activity is six times higher pa today than it was in 1950.
Arrhenius atmospheric CO2 figure of 560 ppmv will now be reached before the century is out rather than the 3,000 years he thought it would take when he first proposed AGW.
The greatest risk is when levels of 800 ppmv are reached in as little as two centuries. This is the end of healthy atmosphere for Man and other advanced mammals and increasing levels beyond 800 ppmv will lead to their extinction.

[Octane (Humayun)]

Alex,

In case you didn't notice, Mike was being sarcastic.

H

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by Octane

Alex,

In case you didn't notice, Mike was being sarcastic.

H

No was he..?
Yes I knew h
And he knew that I knew.
I therefore enlisted his sarcasm further to make a point
Thanks however for pointing it out I feel I know Mike I follow his adventures like I would a distant family member..as I do follow your adventures myyI friend

[xelasnave]

To Wulfgah
You don't fill me with hope as I strangely suspect you really do know what you are talking about..
My positive attitude is somewhat stalled
Still we must go on.
But will more trees help
Output won't stop so what do we do

[wulfgar]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

To Wulfgah
You don't fill me with hope as I strangely suspect you really do know what you are talking about..
My positive attitude is somewhat stalled
Still we must go on.
But will more trees help
Output won't stop so what do we do

I'm more pessimistic about mankind collectively addressing the problem. Humanity is greedy, dishonest and will bury truth when it is inconvenient. Some things are silly though, SUV's for example can have up to double the carbon footprint of the old style sedans that service the requirements of a general use vehicle quite well. Then standard family car is now a 2.5 tonne SUV rather than the old style 1.5 tonne sedan which by compassion is a frugal vehicle. Best remembered the Ford model T weighed 700 kg. All this extra weight emits carbon needlessly in the majority of cases.
The could preserve our environment and our lifestyle simply by being less careless.

Eventually after a few hundred years the industrial age as we know will come to an end when advances in technology can no longer cope with dwindling resources.

But will Mankind and other species survive it?

Presently I drive a Ford BA Wagon so I can carry Astro stuff. The Falcon might be a tacky car but has amazing fuel efficiency for what used to be considered a large car and I have the dedicated LPG version a that. But these vehicles have been deleted and I'll be forced to replace it's capability with an idiot SUV. I drive about 66 km round trip to work but don't put my foot down either. I leave early for work so I drive easy, while watching idiot SUV's tear around at high acceleration.

[xelasnave]

You have my highest respect

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by wulfgar

Eventually after a few hundred years the industrial age as we know will come to an end when advances in technology can no longer cope with dwindling resources.

But will Mankind and other species survive it?

You would probably enjoy watching this lecture. I highly recommend it to everyone. Simple math with profound implications:

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/arith...nergy-lecture/

Makes you wonder why the morons who profess to lead us insist on garbage statements like "sustainable growth"

Rom

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

What is average carbon footprint of Mr Average any one have a figure

Ok what I an getting at you output so much co2 how many trees do you need to say you are carbon nuetral .
So we can say simply plant x number of trees or you die..
We go house to house. Occupants can comply or we grind them up for fertilizer
Seriously any one have an idea how many trees each person needs.
So we can see if a personal program could work.

Its more a problem of to many people than to much carbon. The average blog dumps around 20 tonnes into the atmosphere every year but that's a pretty difficult figure to prove I suspect and, of course, it varies wildly depending on the culture and the attitude of the individual.

How many trees to plant? Well, that's only a small part of the solution at best. The carbon has to be buried in fossil deposits (coal etc) The oceans actually outstrip the forests in terms of direct absorption and photosynthesis but we're screwing the oceans as well. We would need simply thousands of billions of trees to really make a dent.

We really need a multi-pronged approach to have any hope of success, decrease population, (good luck with that), clean up and renew the environment, (not while capitalism is the driver), divert massive resources into non-polluting technologies, (NOT in Au by the look of it), and live a hell of a lot simpler; something i personally am aiming at. Sick to death of the rat-race.

However, population is the biggie. That WILL be resolved one way or another over the next couple of decades and I can say that with 100% confidence. We do it ourselves or the planet will do it to us.

Rom

[xelasnave]

I am getting a grasp
I am an extremist so I respond
Why isn't more being done
War against those who do fall into line I day
Still at the moment I am so very happy
On way home
Well the x has taken me in..how kind
Daughter 16 the birthday and I am not in a wheel chair
Thanks for the guidance
I do appreciate you taking the time

[Renato1 (Renato)]

As Sinclair Davidson pointed out on the ABC news site two days ago,

"Then there is the lack of international direction on the issue of global warming. According to the International Energy Agency, only 8 per cent of global CO2 emissions face a "price" - after this week, that number will fall."

Plainly and unambiguously, with a carbon tax over three times greater than the next highest in the EU, we were the world leaders. And at the very same time, we were told that "we were being left behind" by everyone else in the world.

I cannot fathom the current breast beating, mea-culpas, guilt, shame and scaremongering about our Parliament's action in scrapping this rubbish tax, which unambiguously reflected the will and the mandate given by the electing public.

Regards,
Renato

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by Renato1

I cannot fathom the current breast beating, mea-culpas, guilt, shame and scaremongering about our Parliament's action in scrapping this rubbish tax, which unambiguously reflected the will and the mandate given by the electing public.

Regards,
Renato

Utter clap trap. Anyone who claims a mandate at an election is deluded. There were a of multitude reasons why the election resulted in a change in government, not least of which was the divisive political backstabbing in the labor party.

Any claim of a mandate is pure tripe. By all accounts, this joke of a government will be turfed out by the same people who voted them in, (probably for being unmitigated liars), and the next load of short sighted buffoons will also claim a "mandate"

[Hans Tucker (Hans)]

Originally Posted by el_draco

Its more a problem of to many people than to much carbon. The average blog dumps around 20 tonnes into the atmosphere every year but that's a pretty difficult figure to prove I suspect and, of course, it varies wildly depending on the culture and the attitude of the individual.

How many trees to plant? Well, that's only a small part of the solution at best. The carbon has to be buried in fossil deposits (coal etc) The oceans actually outstrip the forests in terms of direct absorption and photosynthesis but we're screwing the oceans as well. We would need simply thousands of billions of trees to really make a dent.

We really need a multi-pronged approach to have any hope of success, decrease population, (good luck with that), clean up and renew the environment, (not while capitalism is the driver), divert massive resources into non-polluting technologies, (NOT in Au by the look of it), and live a hell of a lot simpler; something i personally am aiming at. Sick to death of the rat-race.

However, population is the biggie. That WILL be resolved one way or another over the next couple of decades and I can say that with 100% confidence. We do it ourselves or the planet will do it to us.

Rom

I think never a truer line was spoken

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Na9-jV_OJI

[xelasnave]

Come on gentelmen I turn my sore back and it's back politics
Let's keep going and avoid breaking the rules.
Let energy focus on the issue not politics
moO

[wulfgar]

Originally Posted by el_draco

Its more a problem of to many people than to much carbon. The average blog dumps around 20 tonnes into the atmosphere every year but that's a pretty difficult figure to prove I suspect and, of course, it varies wildly depending on the culture and the attitude of the individual.

Rom

It doesn't matter how much carbon an entity emits, it's a question of where it came from. If came from the carbon sinks of fossil fuels and mineral ores, then the net amount in the hydrosphere will increase. If the net amount in the hydrosphere remained the same, one could consume and emit all the carbon they liked without making any difference.