The climate change debate continues.

[Methusala]

I am urked by a misconception being hawked in the current election campaign. That is that buying carbon credits from outside Australia is somehow avoiding the problem of carbon reduction. The fact is that there is 1 atmosphere. No "Australian atmosphere" nor a particular piece of the atmosphere that belongs to, say, Africa. Therefore if carbon pollution can be more cheaply reduced in another economy, then it makes sense to apply resources there. Same as the ACT govt sourcing solar generated power for use in ACT by developing a site in Victoria.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Most of the built world is made of steel and concrete. Steel requires metallurgical coal in a furnace to convert the iron ore. Cement requires cooking the limestone using coal or gas. Sure, there are electrical alternatives but they cannot deliver the quantities and need a source of electricity which in turn would be coal or gas, we don’t have an abundance of high-density renewable sources...

 

...These are real issue that cannot be resolved in ten or twenty years...

Rash statements, PM, given the rapidly decling cost of renewables and the boom in their installation.

 

...Making cars out of plastic would help on the demand side, but it needs a vibrant petrochemical industry, which justifies its exploration and investment on the demand for fossil fuels...

Plastics can be made from a host of different feedstocks besides fossil fuels. Hemp, bamboo, seaweed, etc are just some of the renewable sources being developed right now.

 

 

[Yenn]

As P Mc states, most of the world is made of steel and concrete. I really wonder why the Qld government shut down the state forestry, except for the pine plantations and turned the eucalypt forests into national parks.

 

When forestry ran the area we could walk in the forestry, camp there and enjoy it. At the same time the forests were logged sustainably. Plenty of great big trees to see and very little weed growth. Now national Parks let us walk and also camp in certain designated areas. They don't have enough money to look after the parks, so they are disappearing under lantana. Some areas that were grassy grazed paddocks when Forestry ran it are now impossible to walk through without a machette to cut the lantana, but to the great joy of National Parks, there are no cattle. They have even shut down the apiary sites where it was possible to keep bees, because Apis Melifera or the honey bee is not a native.

 

National Parks is run by a load of greenies that have no idea of how the world works, just an agenda to push, and it is not even anything like sensible.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Thread title. 'Climate change debate'

 

The real debate is.....

 

How can we deal with this risk to humanity?

 

And then the fight starts.

 

Instead of rational debate about trying to keep our environment livable.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

The real question is, is there actually a climate risk that we have created and that we can mitigate? I am far from satisfied, on the evidence, of either point. The proposed cure is worse than the disease.

 

I am in favour of wind farms, and solar farms, and electric cars. It’s all great.but the real issue is too many people on a small planet. A pandemic is one solution. Massive sea level rise would be another. In rebuilding higher up we might fix the problems of our existing cities.

 

 

[octave]

The proposed cure is worse than the disease.

What is the proposed cure?

 

 

[nomadpete]

Well, the probability of a pandemic increases as the population increases.

 

So that is an increasing expectation due to overpopulation.

 

Is that one of your proposed cures?

 

Most climate change 'deniers' seem to accept that climate change is a fact (even they might say it's a natural change).

 

Either way it's bad news for our way of life.

 

Regardless of whether the climate change is anthropomorphic or natural, it is in the interest of humanity's survival to avoid aggravating it by adding pollution of any type to the planet..

 

 

[spacesailor]

. "Whilst this may seem like big money for you or me it is cheaper than at 60k to 80k "

 

BUT

 

The EV 's are priced up to $130,000. Enough change to fuel your $ 60k to 80k car for as long as you keep it.

 

"Most of the built world is made of steel and concrete. Steel requires metallurgical coal in a furnace to convert the iron ore."

 

NOT any more it's all oil fired furnaces.

 

AND

 

it shows as the old "high carbon" (from coal) rust's less than the high sulphur content steel, (Wiki: "Sulfur is normally regarded as an impurity and has an adverse effect on impact properties when a steel is high in sulphur"'

 

that sulphur comes from Oil.

 

"The real question is, is there actually a climate risk that we have created and that we can mitigate? "

 

Have a picnic under the trees on a hot day, instead of running that air-conditioner, Amazing how cool the ground is under the tree canopy.

 

Now go plant more trees.

 

LOOK at the AMAZON FOREST, I would say compere it with the BIG European forest, From Germany to the FAR EAST ( past Turkey),

 

BUT

 

It was burnt for the industrial revolution, !

 

spacesailor

 

 

[spacesailor]

While thinking about the concept of EV running cost it occurred to me !.

 

WHO NEEDS those cheap to run cars, !

 

Certainly NOT the rich & famous.

 

OR the One Million Dollars a week Bank CEO.

 

He could afford a petrol tanker to follow him around.

 

IT's the people on the lower end of the social ladder. They NEED a LOW COST EV Vehicle, that gets the kids to school without burning their meager pittance, in the city's traffic jams.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[octave]

The EV 's are priced up to $130,000. Enough change to fuel your $ 60k to 80k car for as long as you keep it.

$135 000 really??? where did you get that price from? As I said my son bought a second-hand BMWI3 for $35000 Brand new Leaf 50K, 2013 Leaf $23888. https://www.carsales.com.au/cars/nissan/leaf/ Space no one is urging you to buy an EV it probably would not suit you but to say that the average EV is $130000 is incorrect. Even a standard Tesla model 3 is $49500 and the Performance model is $76000. Yes a top of the line Telsa model S may be around that price but that is a luxury car and I am assuming you would not buy a luxury car.

 

 

[spacesailor]

NRMA magazine "new car prices"

 

I thought I said "UP to $130,000"

 

Yes It is a Tesla.

 

YES

 

I would buy a luxury car, AS a matter of fact a couple of my Grandkids are driving OLD Luxury cars, (Ford Fairlane Gia) Is one I like. Even the Pajero is the top model exeed. (heated seats for those cold winter mornings( that the Greenies seem to want so badly)).

 

Just a matter of curtailing the use to reasonable levels, on the fuel part.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[octave]

I thought I said "UP to $130,000"

So what are petrol driven cars "priced up to"

 

If you don't want to buy an EV then don't. Only you can decide what is a rational choice for you. For many, it is the rational choice. By the way, it is not yet the rational choice for me.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

As P Mc states, most of the world is made of steel and concrete. I really wonder why the Qld government shut down the state forestry, except for the pine plantations and turned the eucalypt forests into national parks.When forestry ran the area we could walk in the forestry, camp there and enjoy it. At the same time the forests were logged sustainably. Plenty of great big trees to see and very little weed growth. Now national Parks let us walk and also camp in certain designated areas. They don't have enough money to look after the parks, so they are disappearing under lantana. Some areas that were grassy grazed paddocks when Forestry ran it are now impossible to walk through without a machette to cut the lantana, but to the great joy of National Parks, there are no cattle. They have even shut down the apiary sites where it was possible to keep bees, because Apis Melifera or the honey bee is not a native...

Yenn that is pretty much the experience in my home area, northern NSW, where sustainably-logged native forests supported little timber towns for generations. Now all the mills are gone, towns are struggling and the surrounding National Parks harbour every weed and feral animal imaginable.

 

Don't blame the greenies. Blame governments which won't fund proper management.

 

...National Parks is run by a load of greenies that have no idea of how the world works, just an agenda to push, and it is not even anything like sensible.

There is much truth in what you say, Yenn. However, I must challenge your greenie-bashing, even though I do enough of it myself. The Green movement is a broad church and includes plenty of kooks, but what "agenda" are you talking about? Their main agenda is to preserve our planet.

 

Opposing them is the cashed-up development lobby, who would tear up all that is fragile and precious to make a quid.

 

I know which side I sit on.

 

 

[facthunter]

Just a ton? It's more than that. The newer engines don't trail soot as they burn more efficiently (hotter) but probably make nitrous oxides. The CO2 is invisible. The flight tuel on a B 727 is 10,700 lbs/hour. as a quick accuracy check, for your fuel burn.

 

. At T/O thrust it's much higher for Approx 200 pax..FULL.load.. Newer stuff is more economical but still outrageous. really when you consider what has been burned to get you to Europe etc. IF the full cost was paid it would be much more expensive than the market is paying.

 

. As other writers have said the OIL companies Know what damage is being done and are concerned that their records indicate that fact and are concerned at potential law suits, in the future. ALL responsible insurance Companies are taking it into account also in their Calculations for premiums etc.. Rockefeller's got out of oil years ago. They are the original BIG Oil people.. The USA Defence planners know about it also.

 

. The "Don't trust the Scientists" push is an organised vilification thing to discount their Views and it's little short of disgraceful and fraudulent.. In all other walks of life we rely on the ones who make the particular"expertise" their business. Science is not opinion.or simply a belief.. It's fact based and looks for more information constantly. It's by nature conservative. It's not in the nature of Science to be sensationalist.. Blame the Media and vested interests for that. Those who wish to make more money out of fossil fuels don't want to stop doing it. Its sensationally profitable and an industry with a generally dark history where the environment and people's lives are concerned.. Nev

 

 

[old man emu]

Without even taking into account the environmental aspects of the burning of carbon fuels, it makes economic sense to pursue efficient high energy density batteries for use in personal transport vehicles in urban areas. I'll come to personal transport vehicles for rural areas later.

 

If you experience, or observe traffic in urban areas, you will see that the majority of journeys are made by a single person per vehicle. These vehicles are up to 4 metres long. If you allow 1 metre clearance front and rear, then each vehicle is 6 metres long. That means that you can fit about 165 vehicles per kilometre. If each car was 3 metres long and allowing 1 metre clearance each end, you can fit 200 cars in a kilometre length.

 

Either 165 or 200 cars per kilometre is traffic congestion, which means a lot of time is spent with the car stopped. Traffic lights cause an average 120 seconds stoppage for the traffic approaching them. Therefore an internal combustion engined vehicle will be using fuel without useful purpose for 2 minutes every time it faces a red traffic light. Sometimes congestion of the road ahead means that a vehicle could be held at controlled intersection for several cycles, burning fuel and going nowhere. An electrically powered car uses no energy for motion during the same time, thereby reducing its carbon output. Further, unless the driver is trained in proper engine management, every start from a set of traffic lights uses more fuel than cruising.

 

The next factor is the average distance per trip. Let's say that the distance from the outer residential suburbs to the geographic centre of an Australian metropolitan city is 50 kms. Currently electrically powered cars from Kia and Hyundai are priced around $55K. We'll forget about the Teslas, Jaguars and Audis which are out of the working man's price range. These to manufacturers advertise average ranges of 450 kms per charge. That gives four trips to work and back on a single charge. Since the charging can be done at home, you could start with a fully charged battery every day. These cars are about 4 metres long, so they wouldn't pack more cars per kilometre.

 

Personal transport for rural areas.

 

Having driven short wheel base and long wheel base vehicles over long distances, I would opt for a liquid fuel vehicle for rural driving. This is because the longer wheelbase makes for a smoother ride. There are no traffic lights on rural roads, therefore no fuel wasted waiting to pass traffic lights. That's why your fuel consumption of a highway run is so much less than urban driving. It's like flying. Throttle to the wall to take off, and then pull back to fewer revs for cruising. Another advantage of the larger car is that a larger car is going to come out the winner in a head butting contest with roos or stock. Even an Old Emu can knock a small car around a bit.

 

Finally, it is urban over-development that is causing the increase in vehicle emission levels. On a 16 kilometre stretch of Camden Valley Way, in Sydney's expanding southwest, there are 14 intersections controlled by traffic lights. Since many of these sets control traffic coming out of residential areas, it is not unusual to have to stop at about five of these intersections.

 

What this country needs is a reasonably priced Voltswagon.

 

 

[facthunter]

A good train service works. I've spent quite a bit of time in Europe and not used a car. It's a relief not to have the worry of it. (and I like driving flying and riding). the REAL cost of owning cars is prohibitive. (That is roads built on square kilometers of GOOD land) hospitals ambulances injuries and deaths on the roads, Bridges insurance pollution etc... the WHOLE gamit). The MAJOR cost in a lifetime are Houses and Cars often owned as a conspicuous sign of wealth rather than a necessity. Makes you wonder "is that ALL there is?" as the song goes. Somewhat depressing as an aspiration. Paying a "b" house off for most of your life doesn't seem like a life's purpose to me and. coupled with Cars that halve their value in two years. And WE have it (relatively) easy here (unless you are at the $#1t end of it due to circumstances, where you have Buckleys). Nev

 

 

[spacesailor]

"Finally, it is urban over-development that is causing the increase in vehicle emission levels"

 

I think if you stand "Offshore" to See the pollution over our cities,

 

the big smoke is Melbourne, followed by Brisbane, then Sydney. I can't speak of the other capitals, as only sailed the eastern seaboard.

 

What's the difference, The dome of pale brown is in proportion to the number of Aircraft takeoff's, & big airports.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[old man emu]

Facthunter, one can't establish a "good train service", or any kind of train service for that matter where the land has already got houses built on it. Australian cities developed post-WWll in response to the availability of private cars. You live 50 kms from Docklands, as the Jabiru flies. How often do you venture past Tullamarine and get into the urban sprawl? We are seeing vertical development in Sydney along the railway corridors, but the people who seem to accept living there are wealthy Asians and Indians. If you don't want to live in a situation where you have to synchronise your breathing with your neighbour's, yo have to build your home away from rail corridors.

 

 

[facthunter]

Sydney's railway was a good % of underground from the start.. That doesn't require houses to be removed. "Houses" only have a real life of about 50 Years then they are failing and obsolete. Houses/properties are purchased and demolished to "up grade" to multi story. GRADUALLY maintaining the existing inadequate road system, sewerage and powerlines. How can THAT provide anything like an optimum result? ALL structures have to eventually be knocked down with all the disruption that entails. Nev

 

 

[old man emu]

Sydney's railway was a good % of underground from the start..

WRONG!

 

Sydney's rail system originated from Central Station in 1855. It was all surface track until the opening of the eastern section of the City underground in 1926. The western section was opened in 1932 to make the link between Central and the North Shore line via the Harbour Bridge. The circle wasn't completed until 1956 when Wynyard and St James were connected via Circular Quay.

 

From Central, trains ran west to Strathfield before they headed off west to Katoomba and over the Blue Mountains; southwest to Liverpool and on to Melbourne, and north through Hornsby to the Far North Coast. Trains to the South Coast went through Redfern to Sutherland.

 

[ATTACH]50027._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

The rail system at the turn of the 20th Century

 

[spacesailor]

"Houses" only have a real life of about 50 Years then they are failing and obsolete. "

 

I hope your wrong !.

 

I grew up in a house that was over two hundred years old, & was condemned for it's last fifty years. Gone now but Not forgotten.

 

Now own a house that must be ageing to fifty,

 

Lots of OLD & I mean Bludi-OLD in Europe

 

spacesailor

 

 

[nomadpete]

That is true of the past, but have you looked at the way that modern McMansions are put together?

 

You know, the modern family home that has four bedrooms, theatre room, family room, multiple bathrooms, double garage, etc,

 

And all for a couple of hundred grand, on your land. That's about three years wages.

 

I'd give them a lifespan of maybe 30 years before destruction. If you're lucky. When they're falling apart, your hundred year old seasoned hardwood framed, or double brick, simple house will still be standing.

 

 

[spacesailor]

Blame the choice of "timber", Pine takes 30 years to grow to maturity, & last's (with chemicals) 30 years. OAK takes 300 hundred years, so no-one grows it as its past their lifespan.

 

Same for most hardwoods, except "Balsawood".

 

spacesailor

 

 

[facthunter]

OME perhaps I should have said since the war re the good % of it being under the ground.. In London It's called "the Underground" for the reason it mostly is. That's the point I'm trying to make. Out in the country there's no need to save money that way, so you don't do it.. Nev

 

 

[pmccarthy]

https://www.fpcs.es/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/climate-change-political-pollution.pdf

 

Worth reading if you still have an open mind.