I am a little more than confused
I perceive we are in danger but not sure how and when manifestation of problem will become catastrophic
I don't fear change ...major cities needing relocation above higher ocean level but I fear for example loss of food production regions if others don't appear..
Hopefully humans will adapt because I am not sure anything will change as to consumption and clearly population will increase
Easter Island tells me humans will witness their demise whilst supporting life styles that would have been best abandonded
... the rest of the world is moving (slowly) towards limiting carbon pollution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renato1
Hi Andy,
I think you would be extremely hard pressed to back up that statement - even the "(slowly)" part.
Certainly, none of the politicians and greenies who continuously make it have ever backed it up with facts - and it should be so simple to do so.
Connie Hedegaard of the EU:
“The European Union regrets the repeal of Australia's carbon pricing mechanism just as new carbon pricing initiatives are emerging all around the world,”
Former Conservative Environment Secretary John Gummer:
“Conservatives around the world are taking action on climate change, including Britain and Germany. It’s in the DNA of conservatives to hand on a better world to your children and I hate that Australia is letting down conservatives around the world.”
Heck, even the Australian Government's own webpages:
"99 countries have pledged to limit their emissions. These account for over 80 per cent of global emissions and over 90 per cent of the global economy."
So really, no problem at all in supporting that statement. Although you might not read about that in the pages of The Australian!
The carbon price was working in that emissions, especially from the targeted electricity sector, had dropped over the period it was in effect, while Australia's growth was the 4th largest in the OECD. So there was no economic calamity. And it was revenue neutral to the vast majority of ordinary Australians thanks to the (still remaining) tax break.
And despite the ostriches in government and elsewhere, global heat content continues to rise, with the largest rise in the past 15 years. Surface temeperatures (the tiny purple bit of the energy balance in the attached graph) follow where overall heat content leads, whether or not the great El Nino of 1998 is used as a cherry-picked starting point to claim that global warming had suddenly stopped.
Connie Hedegaard of the EU:
“The European Union regrets the repeal of Australia's carbon pricing mechanism just as new carbon pricing initiatives are emerging all around the world,”
Former Conservative Environment Secretary John Gummer:
“Conservatives around the world are taking action on climate change, including Britain and Germany. It’s in the DNA of conservatives to hand on a better world to your children and I hate that Australia is letting down conservatives around the world.”
Heck, even the Australian Government's own webpages:
"99 countries have pledged to limit their emissions. These account for over 80 per cent of global emissions and over 90 per cent of the global economy."
So really, no problem at all in supporting that statement. Although you might not read about that in the pages of The Australian!
The carbon price was working in that emissions, especially from the targeted electricity sector, had dropped over the period it was in effect, while Australia's growth was the 4th largest in the OECD. So there was no economic calamity. And it was revenue neutral to the vast majority of ordinary Australians thanks to the (still remaining) tax break.
And despite the ostriches in government and elsewhere, global heat content continues to rise, with the largest rise in the past 15 years. Surface temeperatures (the tiny purple bit of the energy balance in the attached graph) follow where overall heat content leads, whether or not the great El Nino of 1998 is used as a cherry-picked starting point to claim that global warming had suddenly stopped.
Problem is Andy, you can argue till you're blue in the face, deniers are just that, deniers, pure and simple like fundamental creationists they will grab esoteric pieces of psudo-evidence and misrepresent them or their political allegiances are so rusted on it severely clouds their view of the strong evidence in front of them, to a point where they will find a flimsy "oh yeah? well" statement and bang on about one single tit bit because they think it must be the smoking gun, re: supposed Carbon14 dating anomalies that must disprove our geological dating methods ...maybe don't waste your time .
Mis-redirection again. Nobody denies the science facts. We're just saying that a stupid tax has been scrapped. That's all. If we are to limit emissions so maybe we should use smaller cars, stop coal exports that end up being burnt O/S anyway, stop breathing so hard, the 20 millions of us and that would still not make any difference.
Mis-redirection again. Nobody denies the science facts. We're just saying that a stupid tax has been scrapped. That's all. If we are to limit emissions so maybe we should use smaller cars, stop coal exports that end up being burnt O/S anyway, stop breathing so hard, the 20 millions of us and that would still not make any difference.
Well actually they do deny the science... and on the other tax thing, well, you are just..plain wrong, simple, t'was the best way forward, clear and simple and most non political experts agree 100%, sorry
Well actually they do deny the science... and on the other tax thing, well, you are just..plain wrong, simple, t'was the best way forward, clear and simple and most non political experts agree 100%, sorry
Well you sound very sure of yourself again. Time will tell.
Mis-redirection again. Nobody denies the science facts. We're just saying that a stupid tax has been scrapped. That's all. If we are to limit emissions so maybe we should use smaller cars, stop coal exports that end up being burnt O/S anyway, stop breathing so hard, the 20 millions of us and that would still not make any difference.
A couple of nights ago on 720 ABC radio John McGlue was interviewing the state minister for mines.. He was hawking the idea of using nuclear power in Australia. He made two statements during the course of the interview which I think are worth sharing:
1. Nuclear energy does not have a carbon footprint at all. (Implicitly, the mines run on sunshine and fairy dust apparently)
2. Natural gas as an energy source has close to zero emissions... the only carbon dioxide released is that which is brought up from the well.
I do not believe for a second that someone could get to his position of office with that degree of ignorance, which begs the question of his (and his political party's) honesty and priorities. It also says something for the quality of commentary in the main stream media that these statements passed without comment or correction, let alone the intellectual flaying they deserved.
Incidentally, the same individual a couple of weeks earlier stated that there has never been a single incidence of groundwater contamination as a result of fracking...
I might be so bold as to posit that the 'mandate' the budgie smuggler cloaks his agenda in is nothing more than consent manufactured by an utterly corrupt collective of malefactors masquerading as the ghost of the fourth estate. However, even with the spin doctors beavering away like trojans, an increasing number Australians are beginning to sense the true nature (and magnitude) of the finely polished coprolith we were sold last year.
Clearly, our country was traded like sacks of wheat and buckets of rocks (both red and black) for temporary privileges accorded to the few local misanthropes who facilitated the negotiation.
I am trying not to invest emotionally in the outcome.
Last edited by clive milne; 21-07-2014 at 10:44 PM.
It was nothing more than a wealth re-distribution tax, high income earners were hit with increased power bills, lower income earners & welfare recipients etc. were given subsidies to carry on as usual.
Billions of $ were given to energy producers in the form of subsidies...which were overly generous and they are now bleating about....
Don't get me wrong...I think climate change is real and burning fossil fuels is having a big impact.
The problem for Oz was we were acting like a bunch of vegetarians running an abattoir. Taxing local coal fired energy producers, while they very same coal was being shipped to places like, Pakistan, who claimed their "new" coal fired plants were "cleaner", then claiming a carbon credit to burn the same australian coal !!
A stupid tax. Glad to see it gone.
Peter we actually agree on this one. Interestingly AGL just reported a reduction on their years profit due to the removal of the Carbon Tax. Apparently the Carbon Tax makes renewable energy more valuable. What a load of rubbish, we as the end user pay the tax and not the generators or the retailers so the tax is actually cost neutral to a company like AGL. Oh I have forgotten about the other Carbon/renewable energy/ tradable item. The REC system which does make Green energy more valuable but also more expensive to buy and use. I would have thought the idea was to make renewable energy a more widely used commodity not to price it higher than the coal based energy. Funny with the addition of a REC renewable energy is still dearer or more expensive to buy than the same unit of electricity from a coal fired generator even with the addition of a carbon tax..
I suppose it was just the Labor Party doing what it does best, Spend up big then tax the hell out of us and still leave a huge debt for the next Government to bail out. History seems to prove this.
It was just another tax we didn't need and now it's just a wait to see how much it is really going to cost us all.
Funny with the addition of a REC renewable energy is still dearer or more expensive to buy than the same unit of electricity from a coal fired generator even with the addition of a carbon tax..
Renewable energy may be more more expensive to buy (from your fossil fuel energy distributor) but it is actually cheaper to produce than the energy they derive from fossil fuels... and has been for over a year. The trend has been diverging progressively in favour of renewables since then.
Now that is one hilarious article and paper that you have linked to
"including by some members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - that models overestimated global warming."
"the team found that models actually generate good estimates of recent and past trends".
Out of all the major models, only 2 are still in contention in not having overestimated global surface temperature, given this 17 year pause. The other 95% have way overestimated in their predictions with the observed global surface temperatures below the models' predicted lower bounds (and obviously nowhere near their upper bounds, and well below the best estimates).
And out comes a paper, hidden behind a $199 paywall, saying that the models are good, and that even IPCC scientist are wrong in saying that the models are overestimating temperatures.
Well, I won't be wasting $199 to read the article to see how they turn black into white.
Regards,
Renato
Renewable energy may be more more expensive to buy (from your fossil fuel energy distributor) but it is actually cheaper to produce than the energy they derive from fossil fuels... and has been for over a year. The trend has been diverging progressively in favour of renewables since then.
Funny, every financial newsletter I've read has said that wind is around three times dearer than coal, and solar is around six times dearer.
So, who's right Bloomberg New Energy Finance or other financial analysts?
Well, we can look at real world examples to see how it has worked out.
South Australia has the highest percentage of renewable energy in Australia, and it has the highest power prices in Australia, and close to the highest in the world.
UK has heaps of wind farms and last year was saved from a total breakdown in the grid only because a coal fired power station that was due to have been closed by EU directive, came to the rescue. So now they are managing this problem by putting back-up diesel generators in sensitive places like hospitals and the like all over the country, which cost ten times the amount of coal fired energy. And they're paying industries to shut down when needed.
Spain should be going great guns with all it's enthusiastic investment in renewables, but instead those seem to have been duds, and they aren't spending much on them anymore given they are close to bankruptcy.
And how dumb are the Germans and the Japanese? They've gotten scared about nuclear, and are building these supposedly very expensive coal fired power plants in huge quantities, instead of the cheap renewable ones that Bloomberg are telling us about, and which Germany had previously been a champion of.
Dumber still - by a longshot - must be the Chinese. They build most of the solar and wind generation which is exported to the rest of the world. But instead of using this fabulously cheap form of energy they foolishly, for unfathomable reasons, every three months put up new coal fired power station capacity that equals Australia's total generation capacity. They could be saving a mega-fortune if they only followed Bloomberg's advice and used the equipment that they manufacture locally.
Pardon my scepticism, but if non-hydro renewable electricity generation were cheaper than coal fired generation, one wouldn't need the legislated mass cross subsidies that currently exist through the renewable energy targets that the Coalition brought into law under John Howard, and the prices wouldn't be going through the roof.
But, this is all a scam anyway. All the billions of dollars invested in wind farms in Australia, haven't actually stopped any coal from being burned. The coal fired power stations can't be turned off when the wind farms dump a heap of energy into the system. The coal fired stations have to keep burning and shed their excess energy (though they can presumably be turned down to their night generation rate). Gas fired stations can be turned off and on more easily, but curiously, in Australia they haven't been turned off when the wind farms have a big output - presumably because the operators expect more problems turning them off and on than from just leaving them on.
So, when Bloomberg " found that new wind farms could supply electricity at a cost of $80/MWh –compared with $143/MWh for new build coal" ,
even if these figures were accurate, they leave out the part where in practice the cost that has to be paid for is more like $80+$143= $223/MWh.
Regards,
Renato
And how dumb are the Germans and the Japanese? They've gotten scared about nuclear, and are building these supposedly very expensive coal fired power plants in huge quantities, instead of the cheap renewable ones that Bloomberg are telling us about, and which Germany had previously been a champion of.
Nuclear power remains expensive is one of the reasons. If nuclear power was as good as people claimed, then France that generates higher percentage of its power from nuclear than any other nation wouldn't be broke.
Conventional nuclear power it seems will always remain expensive. Other than that there fast breeder technology which as of now has never been economically successful. There's several programs in the latest fast breeder around the world, but it will 15 or 20 years before it is known that these will produce anything of merit.
The idea that nuclear power produces endless cheap power has so far proven to be only the old propaganda of the Cold War.
I seem to average one sleep per post
I was of the belief years ago when I would rant here against the validity of global warming that it was the sinister nuclear lobby who introduced global warming to the world so it could promote neuclear power as a clean alternative to coal
Was I right I don't know but it seems to me many use the prospect of climate change promote a specific.adgehda
These says I am wise enough to question myself when I find I am moving to settle on either side of an argument
And now back to bed for sleep 4 or 5
I am so tired I could cry
Renewable energy may be more more expensive to buy (from your fossil fuel energy distributor) but it is actually cheaper to produce than the energy they derive from fossil fuels... and has been for over a year. The trend has been diverging progressively in favour of renewables since then.
Here you go again Clive, moving your mouth without saying anything. I have read the documemnt you linked to and unfortunately it is wrong as an all encompassing statement. It does state NEW coal fired power station. It also fails to address all forms of renewable energy. I worked in the industry for 40+ years, I have priced and sold energy on the wholesale market for many years and I can assure you To build and operate a hydro power station and a wind power station without REC or the uplift the carbon tax implies on paper coal fired base load generators can produce energy at level which are half of that of hydro and without REC's which incidentally are valued and trading for around the $35 - $39 mark, still about double the cost of existing coal stations.
As has been said in the past it is easy to grab one snippet of information and manipulate it to suit yourself. Try powering your home after dark with solar or with wind when it is still outside. To effectively use renewable energy it is always a battle against the natural forces as well as a battle for the dollar due to the market. Go out and purchase guaranteed green electricity and see what it cost's you. The wholesale price of electricity does not even look like reflecting the cost of generation these days but is only part of the equation that makes up the final price. Energy is bought and sold several times before a final price is formulated.
The average wholesale price is below $40 a MW yet most of us pay something like 30 cents a KW, do the math.
I just read Renato's post above and I can tell you all that the day Australia turns the lights off is getting closer. I know a lot of the engineers working in AEMO and have worked with a lot of them over the years. I have been involved in system Black scenario simulations. Wind power is very unstable, enters the grid in some very unusual manners for a generator, actually implies a cost and the requirement for big base load stations to stay on line unloaded as a precaution.
Lets look at SA. Wind farms produce a huge percentage of the states energy but requires the 2 big generators to stay on line to cover any fault or failure. When storms move across the state the wind turbines are either shut down to manage system loading stability or they just shut down because the wind is to strong. On days of high temperature when wholesale electricity is at it's highest demand the wind usually stops blowing. I have managed and controlled many different power stations for a lot of years now and Clive you are just wrong. WRONG.
Typically with controversial threads this one has also gone down paths that only create arguments from generally ill informed people.
Does anyone know what carbon dioxide is?
- a colourless ordourless gas that is the result of animals combining hydro carbons and hydrocarbonates with oxygen to create warmth and energy.
Luckily this process is fully reversible with the action of the energy from the sun along with water in the chemistry of vegetables in conjunction of a catalyst called chlorophyl that converts the carbon dioxide back into carbohydrates (and eventually hydrocarbons) and giving off oxygen in the process.
This in my day was called the carbon cycle that governs all life on earth.
A tax on carbon therefore was a tax on ones right to live and breath unmolested.
Maybe over simplification but never the less the basis of life.
Yes Barry folk fall into the trap of making things personal
And yet there in no need in my view
Present a conflicting argument with the introduction...There are those who suggest that ""such and such" is a defendable position.
Also no need to name call..
Give a compliment extend respect...Thank you for offering your view I am not sure I agree but it's great to know the alternate views in the world.
Because finally there is no point arguing against a held belief...In fact it is unwise and borders on stupid...A belief will never surrender to a hail of facts ...
Name calling hurts both sides and achieved nothing
Pointless social style
Nuclear power remains expensive is one of the reasons. If nuclear power was as good as people claimed, then France that generates higher percentage of its power from nuclear than any other nation wouldn't be broke.
Conventional nuclear power it seems will always remain expensive. Other than that there fast breeder technology which as of now has never been economically successful. There's several programs in the latest fast breeder around the world, but it will 15 or 20 years before it is known that these will produce anything of merit.
The idea that nuclear power produces endless cheap power has so far proven to be only the old propaganda of the Cold War.
The reason France is in diabolic troubles is that it has it's population out on the street whenever it tries to raise it's ultra generous retirement age with ultra generous benefits - most people are on a fantastic scheme which is even better than the old Australian Public Service CSS scheme (which I'm on) which the government closed back in 2000 because it was way too expensive for public servants alone. Imagine the whole country on that Public Service scheme? (But God bless Gough Whitlam for introducing it).
Same story in Italy, though there the Government had to act and raised the retirement age from 55 to 65, and it is unlikely to stop there.
The French nuclear generation industry is what makes all the renewable energy in surrounding countries viable. When they run out of power, they just get it from the reliable French plants.
Regards,
Renato
:
...maybe don't waste your time 
.
