Old Koreelah Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 ... The depression Australia would face if the Coal industry were phased out the way Christine Milne would have it does not bear thinking of. To quote the ill-considered Ms Milne "do you want Death or Coal?" Well, for the moment I can live with Coal rather than embrace Death. I agree with much of your post Don, but many commentators have mentioned positives amidst their predictions of woe. The idea that atmospheric pressure systems will move a few degree towards the poles may be comforting for other continents, but much of Australia misses out, especially SA and the west. We may be lucky; nature may rebalance via increased cloud cover, or a big volcanic ash eruption could reverse the warming trend...but we'd better not bank on that. Coal or Death? (With apologies to Eddie Izzard) Many of my Greenie heroes are too uncompromising to achieve much in the reality of politics. We don't have to choose. If the world was fair dinkum about the dangers facing us we could quickly phase out burning coal and Australia could use it to produce super efficient materials like Carbon Nanotubes. Other countries have the vision to develop these new industries; Australia- the lucky country- will be left far behind because we're only good at digging stuff out of the ground.
DonRamsay Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 Thanks Nev. Serious stuff indeed. Not what I'd like to leave my grandkids as a legacy. I've long thought that, regrettably, the world will not act until there is a present emergency. It may be coming but it hasn't been recognised yet. Let's hope people are not right that it may already be too late. Nobody, especially the Greens, should underestimate the size of the task to get off coal as an energy source. Between the USA, China, Russia, and one or two others, the world currently burns approaching 5,000,000,000 tonnes of coal each year. The number of windmills you'd need to replace that is beyond reality. To power a city the size of Paris alone the number of windmills is in the tens of thousands. Solar has the possibility of delivering base load but we're a long way from that at this stage. I am a great believer in the promise of electric cars and what they'll do for the preservation of petroleum reserves and the reduction of emissions. Hard for me to see intercontinental being done by anything but jets for the foreseeable future. The charge to offset emissions for a Jetstar flight from Newcastle to Brisbane last week was $1.27 and that makes me think aviation is not the problem when it comes to emissions. The great hope is fusion for electricity generation and there are some non-stupid claims that it is within 20 years of becoming practical. I am a bit cynical about that but, without it I become fairly pessimistic.
Old Koreelah Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 ...Currents like the Humbolt move heat to Europe, which is kept much warmer than it otherwise would be by the currents from equatorial regions.. Nev I totally agree with your post Nev, but you probably mean the Gulf Stream. The Humboldt is a cold current moving up the coast of Chile, where it helps cause the world's driest desert. If the Humboldt failed it might finally rain in the Atacama.
facthunter Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 When you look at just how much money does go into the economy from mining it is not that much as a percentage, and not a lot of tax is paid. Glencore apparently, don't pay any. Most of the companies are foreign owned. You only dig this stuff up once, and just oxidising (burning) it may be a terrible waste. The damage done is not addressed. .Mining nations are 3rd world. IF we are in any way CLEVER we would be much more analysing of all this. The local gas supply is an afterthought if at all. Australia has an abundance of SUN. Solar is getting cheaper by the day and coal will only get more expensive. Despite the assertions to the contrary it is equal to coal cost now or even below. Technology is there for back of the clock and will get better. I've heard industry "experts" say the peak power cost might be over 8 times the "normal" rate . That has to be BS as there are plenty of ways at that level of pricing where current technology even, could cover it The actual cost of the electricity as only about 25% or less of what's on your bill. Nev
facthunter Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 Thanks OK . I though it was the one going up the coast of Newfoundland . Didn't have time to look it up and went on memory. It's getting late anyhow. Don Modern Jets are fairly economical at moving people especially when you take into account the construction of roads which use a great deal of energy in Cement and Tar. Bitumen... Nev
DonRamsay Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 Coal is a relatively small part of our total economy but it is an awfully large part of our export earnings. We currently have a situation of roughly 5% unemployment. The other way to look at that is that we have 95% employed supporting the 5% who don't have jobs. And that's doable. Change that to 15% unemployed being supported by 85% in work and it gets to be a strain. At 30% unemployed we have the Great Depression and the 70% with jobs buckle under the weight of tax and unemployment relief and people genuinely go hungry. I am not saying don't get rid of coal but be aware it will be very painful for this country, more so than for just about any other than Indonesia and South Africa.
bexrbetter Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 but given I live at the south end of a map of Tassie... You'd call her "Sis" to get excited?
Guest Captain1 Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 I totally agree with your post Nev, but you probably mean the Gulf Stream. The Humboldt is a cold current moving up the coast of Chile, where it helps cause the world's driest desert. If the Humboldt failed it might finally rain in the Atacama. Cold current/warm current, global warming/global cooling it is all the same to the Climate Change proponents so let's not get too much into the real issues. As Don said, the buzz is now "Climate Change" as the all encompassing gender neutral pc terminology. But what it REALLY means is that these people are PRESERVATIONISTS who want to keep everything as it is now, (or as it was 25 - 50 years ago when they were in their prime), because they are so spooked by change. If we were in the middle of an Ice Age, these Preservationists would want it kept exactly like that. The incontrovertible fact is that Climate has always been changing and populations have always shifted as a result if necessary. If you accept that well proven fact from the geological record and other historical reporting, it is simply impossible to preserve the present climate mix and it is foolish in the extreme for Milne & Garrett & FT et al to think that they can chuck our money at this issue and stop one of the key aspects of nature ... being change in the earth's circumstances ... the climate mix. The key issue for me is how much effect are humans having on the underlying change of climate that has gone on for millions of years. And given that there was a mini Ice Age in the 17th and 18th century and a heating cycle in Roman times about 1500 years before that, there must be mini natural swings/heat & cooling cycles between the major natural swings highlighted most dramatically by the major ice ages. Considering those facts and that experts who I respect are saying that we are most likely in the early stages of another cooling, I haven't yet seen incontrovertible evidence that goes anywhere near justifying turning the major world economies on their heads to reverse what appears to me to be primarily the earth's normal climate cycles. Although there are ratbags out there who are dissatisfied with the world economy and leading democracies and their thinking appears to align with the Greens and some in Labor. And what happened to the hole in the Ozone Layer that was going to kill us all a couple of decades ago? It seems to me that it has been decided by the Climate Change ring-leaders & acolytes that it is no longer marketable with which to frighten people to death. And a final dire warning from me. If you are in Canberra at any time be careful not to get yourself accidentally between Sarah Hanson-Young and a TV camera or you'll be trampled. How would you like to be Christine Milne .................... with Sarah H-Y watching your back?
Marty_d Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 My biggest problem with Climate Change Theory advocates is the shifty way they moved from "Global Warming" an apparent good thing for people who live in cold climates to the meaningless term "Climate Change". It is not even "Climate Change for the Worse". And I have never heard a statement from a Climate Changer that says there might be some good things come from Climate change. As the old saying goes, it is an ill wind indeed that brings no good for anybody. Is there nothing, not anything good that can come from climate change?" Civilisation has been hard on the animals in Africa but even that unfortunate thing has given us a few streets in a few towns in Africa where you are unlikely to be eaten by big cats or trampled by elephants. Not all bad? What drives me to distraction though are the people who equate a hot day or even a hot decade as examples of Climate Change happening NOW. By the time we can safely declare that the Climate has changed it could be 50 or 100 years. The same can be said for people who say it was cold last Tuesday as evidence that Global Cooling is happening. But, to be fair, they are usually only saying that as a counter to the people who declare climate change happened last Wednesday afternoon. Even Climate Changers would not be worried by a climate 4 degrees warmer and higher levels of CO2 giving the trees a better environment to grab carbon from the air. What they are reasonably concerned about is what happens when you put that much extra energy into the atmosphere leading to massive storms and alteration to weather patterns and to the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps raising seawater levels and inundating the densely populated, highly productive big river deltas. But, I think that they really don't know what the outcome of 4 degrees hotter will be and are just broadcasting their greatest fears in a lopsided prediction of only woe. The end is nigh! For all that, can anyone realistically deny that levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are higher than they have been for millennia (refer ice cores) and that they are increasing rapidly (as measured) and that a lot of that increase is coming from burning carbon based fuels? Would it be such a bad thing to move to conserving the world's petroleum reserves for making plastics and lubricants, and fuelling intercontinental air travel? Running the world's fleet of cars on electricity would go a long way to doing that and bringing CO2 emissions down to an acceptable level especially if the electricity was generated from solar. I agree with the Captain that smashing the Australian economy for a token gesture is stupid. We all know that if Australia ceased forever to emit a gram of CO2 that it would not make one rats bum of difference to the global level of CO2. Also, be very careful what you wish for. We've all seen the huge benefits Australia earned from the mining boom. That is what saved us from the great recession not the profligate spending by Kevin and his unco dancing partner. The depression Australia would face if the Coal industry were phased out the way Christine Milne would have it does not bear thinking of. To quote the ill-considered Ms Milne "do you want Death or Coal?" Well, for the moment I can live with Coal rather than embrace Death. Don, unfortunately for an average worldwide temperature rise of 4 degrees, you're looking at a rise of between 7 and 11 degrees at the Arctic, and between 5 and 7 degrees for most land masses. Yes, my little spot here in Tassie may become a bit more tropical; however when you're looking at summertime temperatures already in the high 30's and early 40's in many parts of Australia, add 7 degrees to that, and it starts getting scary. If the Arctic does warm that much, that's a sea rise of between 0.5 and 2.0 metres. Consider though the effects on the food chain. Not only sea creatures as Nev has talked about, but land crops too- I'm not a farmer so I don't know much about growing stuff, but surely most crops have an optimal temperature range and rainfall requirement, if the temperature goes up by 7 degrees then what does that do to food supply? Yes the Greens are too uncompromising, we could have already had a working ETS if they'd been prepared to compromise a little with Kevin Rudd. But they seem to be the only party taking this stuff seriously. Not sure I agree that the "profligate spending" by the Labor government wasn't what kept us out of the recession. Sure mining is our biggest export earner, but that wouldn't have kept tens of thousands of tradies and small businesses afloat, not to mention the downstream effects that had. Don't forget they gave Wayne Swan "Treasurer of the year" for that, and I don't think they hand that out for simply throwing money away.
Marty_d Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 You'd call her "Sis" to get excited? Not quite that Tasmanian!
Old Koreelah Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 [FLOATL][/FLOATL] Cold current/warm current, global warming/global cooling it is all the same to the Climate Change...The incontrovertible fact is that Climate has always been changing and populations have always shifted as a result if necessary. You are right, Captain. Change can bring much that is good. but have you really thought this thru? Past climate changes were gradual and populations sparse. Even without the hundreds of millions likely to be displaced by a small sea level rise, similar multitudes would be on the move due to droughts and famines to our north. With plenty of boats available, Australia would be inundated. Cold The key issue for me is how much effect are humans having on the underlying change of climate that has gone on for millions of years.... Yes Geoff, we know about the various climate cycles. They have been used by vested interests to muddy the waters. Cold And what happened to the hole in the Ozone Layer that was going to kill us all a couple of decades ago? ... The thinning of the Ozone Layer at the poles is still there, but there are signs we got to it in time. It seems to be declining. (You remember the Montreal Protocol, where most countries reacted very quickly to concerns of scientists and phased out CFCs). Shows what sensible humans can do. If only we could do that again.
eightyknots Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 My biggest problem with Climate Change Theory advocates is the shifty way they moved from "Global Warming" an apparent good thing for people who live in cold climates to the meaningless term "Climate Change". It's all about marketing Don. Global warming appeals to a smaller subset because it indicates a particular direction of predicted temperatures. However, many of the activists reside in temperate climates such as the USA, Canada, northern Europe, etc, and to them a bit of "global warming" is not a scary proposition and almost seems welcome. So, a little rebranding was in order, hence the increasing shift to "climate change" in the last 12-18 months. It is not even "Climate Change for the Worse". And I have never heard a statement from a Climate Changer that says there might be some good things come from Climate change. As the old saying goes, it is an ill wind indeed that brings no good for anybody. Is there nothing, not anything good that can come from climate change?" Of course, if global warming did come along, there will be some positive changes. Higher carbon dioxide levels will benefit trees, grass and farmers' crops. Warmer temperate places requires less heating by coal or other energy means. As the old saying goes, it is an ill wind indeed that brings no good for anybody. Is there nothing, not anything good that can come from climate change?" That saying is a perversion of the saying that was originally coined to describe the bagpipes: "an ill wind that no one blows good". What drives me to distraction though are the people who equate a hot day or even a hot decade as examples of Climate Change happening NOW. Me too! That is such a short-sighted thing to do but journalists imply this a number of times every year when recording anything of an extreme weather event, whether wet or dry, cold or hot. For all that, can anyone realistically deny that levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are higher than they have been for millennia (refer ice cores) and that they are increasing rapidly (as measured) and that a lot of that increase is coming from burning carbon based fuels? Air bubbles, trapped in amber, have been analysed and in some instances have shown carbon dioxide levels ten times the current rate. Can you imagine how lush the vegetation would have been then? No wonder we have so many good coal seams around the world. Would it be such a bad thing to move to conserving the world's petroleum reserves for making plastics and lubricants, and fuelling intercontinental air travel? Running the world's fleet of cars on electricity would go a long way to doing that and bringing CO2 emissions down to an acceptable level especially if the electricity was generated from solar. I would like to add to this 'a fleet of electric light aircraft'. I look forward to the day when battery technology has been developed to the point where it can safely take a light plane for a 4 or 5 hour endurance. Another advantage is that electric motors are lighter.
fly_tornado Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 Bex she is a hypocrite, is that cool or what
bexrbetter Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 Bex she is a hypocrite, is that cool or what I don't care, all I know is I would rather fantasise about her than Gough Whitlam.
dazza 38 Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 Bex she's not that hot Who Is the other blonde who sits to the right of Mr Abbot and one row back. She looks alright.
fly_tornado Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 that's why she sits there, makes up for the lack of women in the cabinet.
pmccarthy Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 I went on a delegation to Africa with Julie Bishop two years ago. She is a very fit and focused lady. She jogged up and down the airstrip every morning while the rest of us were still snoozing.
rankamateur Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 I went on a delegation to Africa with Julie Bishop two years ago. She is a very fit and focused lady. She jogged up and down the airstrip every morning while the rest of us were still snoozing. Great shame all the women in parliament were not the same quality as her, she doesn't need to be feminist to make an impact. She doesn't need to check out anybody's package either!
Marty_d Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 Today it was announced that the world's two biggest polluters have now signed an agreement to cut emissions. Just in case anyone missed the news... http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-13/china-us-deal-embarrasses-abbott-government-analyst/5889190 So... are the presidents of the worlds two superpowers totally misled by those lying 97% of climate scientists, or do you think it might actually be real?
rankamateur Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 the presidents of the worlds two superpowers totally misled by those lying 97% of climate scientists, or do you think it might actually be real? Just sucked in!
skeptic36 Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 So... are the presidents of the worlds two superpowers totally misled by those lying 97% of climate scientists, or do you think it might actually be real? In the case of China, they will sign it, then do as they please anyway. In the case of the U.S it is not about what the president knows, it is about what will get his party re-elected
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now