The climate change debate continues.

[pmccarthy]

• To think the world is doing "all it reasonably CAN" is pure BS.. There's NEW possibilities Not despair and end of profit (except for Coal powered  generators eventually)  NEW ones are NOT economic. Old ones are unreliable. .Rockefellers got out of oil ages ago and even the Saudi's are selling out of it.. It's NOT the end of the world at all. Tourism employs about the same as mining does in Australia and mining will be increasingly mechanised and use robots. and off site control. Any extra oil we get should only be used here. 
   
        Foreign companies are the majority and renowned for paying no tax and doing a great deal of environmental damage they will never rectify. REAL costs of using carbon are NOT paid  Yes we are a joke and derided around the world and deserve to be. Per Capita we are second in the world as polluters of Carbon. Pulling your weight and. being fair counts. We all live on the same planet.  and Australia is known for it's standard of living  but HOW it's achieved is also of interest to the rest of the world IF it's done by unpopular and damaging means we will suffer. There's no avoiding it. Nev
   
  

  The Mining Equipment, Technology and Services (METS) sector in Australia is thriving, dynamic and world-leading. Generating over $90 billion annually in revenue, employing around 400,000 people and exporting to more than 200 countries globally.
   
  See http://www.austmine.com.au/
   
  

 

 

[onetrack]

We are not in the same boat as the U.K., where Tourism is their biggest gross earner and employer. Here, Mineral exports make up 9% of GDP, Tourism in Australia only makes up 3% of GDP.

 

We produce very little oil by world standards, we are a major net importer of oil. Most of our oil comes from the declining Bass Strait oilfields, the rest comes as condensate from Natural Gas wells.

 

We have just passed Qatar as the worlds largest producer of Natural Gas. We currently produce about AU$50B worth of it.

 

This is likely to increase, and it will be earning money for several decades yet, due to the amount of investment in the NG industry. One gas plant on the NW Shelf of W.A. cost AU$75B to set up.

 

Iron ore and coal battle it out for primacy in leading values of exports, around AU$60B worth, or 3% of GDP, for each.

 

Agricultural products is right up with iron ore and coal for national income - around AU$60B annually.

 

Gold is another big earner for Australia, at around AU$20B annually, and we are the worlds second largest gold producer, behind China. But our production is slated to decline over the next 5 years.

 

Lithium, rare earth elements, Cobalt, and other minerals needed for batteries, are increasing in value, up to a couple of billion annually, and forecast to increase.

 

It grieves me to see so much of the "renewables" input, such as solar panels, wind turbines, and associated equipment, constantly being imported. But the upside is, installing all this is a booming employment business, and increasing.

 

We do earn quite a bit from Australian technology and innovations, particularly from the CSIRO. Their inventions such as plastic bank notes, Wi-Fi, and improved battery technology are bringing in good money.

 

Defence technology is another good little earner. We've sold a couple of hundred Bushmasters to overseas forces, as well as the 1000 that the ADF has ordered.

 

Boats and Ships bring in some substantial income. Luxury yachts, big Ferries, Patrol Boats and Littoral Combat Ships bring in more than AU$2B in earnings. Then there's Marine services as well, servicing oil and gas rigs and foreign shipping.

 

I don't see us changing the makeup of our earnings anytime soon, but we can probably find less-polluting ways of doing things.

 

 

[Yenn]

We used to process those minerals and produce things such as Iron and steel, boat building thrived and we exported steel.

 

Now all we do is export the raw materials and buy back the product, which is of poorer quality than what we used to produce.

 

We are in the position of exporting vast amounts of LNG and not having enough for our own use. How good is that.

 

 

[old man emu]

We are in the position of exporting vast amounts of LNG and not having enough for our own use. How good is that.

 

Great - if you have lots of shares in the mob doing the exporting. Otherwise BOHICA.

 

>

>

>

>

< BOHICA: Bend Over, Here It Comes Again

 

 

 

[nomadpete]

Where can I get a pencil sharpener like that?

 

I've just gotta have one!!!

 

 

[old man emu]

They are Government Issue.

 

 

[onetrack]

Get one from your nearest bank.

 

 

[Methusala]

We have just passed Qatar as the worlds largest producer of Natural Gas. We currently produce about AU$50B worth of it.

 

Although we are the world's greatest exporter of LNG we do VERY POORLY from it. Because the powers that where during the developments stage did such a pxxs poor job of negotiating royalties we get around 10% of what Qatar makes.

 

" The treasurer, Scott Morrison, announced a formal review of the PRRT regime in November following a rapid decline in revenues from the tax."( The Guardian, Thu 9 Feb 2017 14.48 )

 

"The petroleum resource rent tax has failed to collect billions of dollars in revenue and the Turnbull government should reintroduce royalties for natural gas projects off north-west Australia, a resource tax expert has said."

 

Why is Australia so reliably,"The dumb country?" The answer I think lies in the facts that a) Murdoch dominates the news delivery, b) We allow ourselves to be slaves to  western (mainly US) culture and finance, and C) We have an electorate which is heavily propagandised and enthralled by right wing reaction.

 

We are being forcibly reminded of the error of our ways watching the current federal government flounder in response to a national catastrophe.

 

 

[onetrack]

Yes, I believe you're right there, Methuselah. But this poor level of return is simply one of corporate bullying behaviour, caused the by simple fact that so many corporations (U.S. ones in particular) are so huge, and have so much wealth and power, they completely overwhelm politicians with their greedy negotiating stance. These corporations are often 10 to 50 times bigger than the Govts they deal with.

 

They use subtle threats such as promising to take away thousands of jobs, and multiple millions of income to countries, or specific areas of the country, if they don't get what they want - which is simply a level of unjust enrichment on a par with the banking sector.

 

We are not alone, there is a long list of countries who've been ripped off by corporate greed, and which in numerous cases, has led to demonstrations, violent riots, and even war.

 

Bougainville is a classic, and we'd be seeing the same in Papua with the Grasberg Mine, if the Papuans were as violent and organised as the Bougainvilleians.

 

As it is, Freeport-McMoRan simply use the Indonesians as a de-facto army to protect their mine and enormous income.

 

 

[Yenn]

Big business has the government by the balls, that is if they ever had balls.

 

State governments collect the royalties from coal and iron ore. Federal government told the states that if they raised royalties the GST would be withheld from them. In other words feds told states not to raise royalties.

 

The feds run the country with no thought about what is good for Australia, only how to get in again at the next election. Both parties have demonstrated their incompetence financially and that is the reason we are so poor at the climate change problem. The only way government can get the money it wants is to push for more coal and iron ore to be exported. Forget the media, we can all see what is happening without them. A good first move would be to do away with compulsory voting, then only those who think about the future would bother to have a say. No more donkey vote and maybe less donkeys in Canberra.

 

 

[spacesailor]

I agree, compulsory anything is a bad idea.

 

Including RAA, as the only licencing bodey outside of a full pilots licence.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[facthunter]

Compulsory voting is saving us from a worse fate. While it seems bad, it's stopping the restrictions that are put in front of "selected" people in OTHER countries, from happening here. VOTE while you still can to stop  a situation where you won't  be able to vote coming to pass. DEMOCRACY doesn't mean SOME of the people, or RICH bastards like Big Clive spending millions either.  It's a SECRET Ballot also. Look what goes on in other countries and be grateful you are HERE not there. (While it lasts)  I think I'd rather go to New Zealand though. THEY run rings around us in many ways.  Are they taking political refugees from Australia at the moment?  Nev

 

 

[Methusala]

  I think I'd rather go to New Zealand though.

 

You're right Nev. NZ has Hare-Clarke voting system which features multi-representative electorates so that if a mob gets,say 20% +1 vote, they get a rep into parliament wheras in OZ a person can be elected with much less than 50% of the 1st pref votes. Hello country party etc.

 

 

[Yenn]

I just had the following sent to me. It seems to be a sane and well considered summation of the bushfire problem.

 

Obviously a loss adjuster would know what he is talking about and also be advising the insurance companies.

 

The PM is putting forward the idea of a Royal Commission into the fires. Going on past performance of recent royal commissions I cannot see any good coming out of it. We had a Royal commission into the banking sector and that has done nothing. There are still the same old faces at the board meetings an the government has even suggested gong against one of the recommendations in an effort to make housing more affordable.

 

I am writing this because I am appalled at the amount of near hysterical reaction to the recent NSW and Qld. bush-fires. My reasoning is not so much about the fires or the people effected, but about whether “man made” climate change is the underlying cause. Before I go further, my stance is not so much a personal but rather a professional reaction.

 

I begin by telling those of you who don’t know, for a period of some 40 years, my work as a loss adjuster was involved with natural disasters, ranging from Cyclone Tracey through to a lesser involvement in 2009. I was appointed as National Chief Loss Adjuster, an advisory role, to the Insurance Council of Australia on all natural disasters but particularly bush-fires. This role was interactive with all agencies and spanned more than 10 years. It was both proactive in planning stages and reactive after the event. I was heavily involved in the 1983 Victorian fires.

 

I acknowledge the advice of The Bureau of Meteorology and the Climate Council, is a reality to the effect the projected changes to climate, was derived from modeling, which strongly suggested change would occur unless man made contribution was reduced.

 

Somehow or other, sections of our communities, have taken control of the scientific argument about the future and have interpreted it to mean the change has already occurred. Not so. Records I have seen, actually show that the slight upward trend in temperatures on a global scale seem to be in direct line with the earth’s ever occurring ”natural” climatic change patterns. History shows numerous ice ages, when the planet cooled, to corresponding heating up periods, over billions of years. This has always occurred. It is the nature of our planet and cannot be influenced by what man can or cannot do. On the other hand, the impact of humans is a future projection, well founded on scientific modeling.

 

The true position, despite all the comments about what the current fires mean in a climate change scenario, is nobody can tell if there is any connection.

 

What I can tell you with absolute certainty is that these fires, as bad as they were, are no more intense, widespread, dangerous or unexpected in outcome, to many previous and historic events. There is no accurate method to measure such outcomes. However, it is possible to look at prevailing conditions and contributing factors to seek patterns or influential factors.

 

Take a look at the following comparative data, much of which has been ignored by the frantic argument to directly link man made climate change to the outbreak and effects of these latest fires. I detail some of the arguments I have heard go unchallenged or are simply ignored and unreported, particularly by the ABC who are the appointed official national disaster communications service.

 

This the first time such fires have been rated as catastrophic. True, but notbecause they were rated any worse than many previous fires. In 2009, following the bush-fire inquiry, the defined categories of fire were renamed. Catastrophic was introduced as the most severe warning. So this description was never intended to make people think they were the worst fires ever. I have heard many media reports entrench this mistake.

 

The fires are occurring earlier because of climate extending the summer risk. Can only be applicable in the North. However, NSW has a long history ofNovember and December bush-fires. In 1944, the Blue Mountains lost 27 homes and other property in November. Since then, I can recall at least 3 other similarly timed events in NSW. So this year was not unique, as has been strongly inferred by many reporters. In southern areas, January and February have historically been prone to outbreaks.

 

These fires are the most widespread and worst ever. They certainly weredisastrous. However, it is impossible to compare unless it can be based on raw data. Have more lives been lost than ever before. No, although 1 is far too many, in 2009, 173 people died. In 1983, 75 people died. In 1962, 62 people died. In that decade one of the victims in Eltham North was George Crowe, my Grandfather and Grandma’s father in law. In 1967, it was reported that 2,600 square kms of land was devastated in just 5 hours (Just try to imagine that ferocity).

 

In 2009 there were 2030 homes destroyed and in 1983 there were 6,000 homes and other buildings destroyed. Does this define which fire was the worst. NO. All fires are bad but to try and claim the current fires are the worst ever is a blatant disregard for historical fact. Worse still, it is a deliberate attempt to scare people into accepting the fanatical side of the global warming argument, by accepting radical changes to our economy, power generation and mining {let alone agriculture and transport} must occur right now and in a premature manner. The so called re-definition of the predicted changes into an emergency, is a way to virtually destroy our entire way of life.

 

The fires were started as a result of climate changed conditions. Clearly wrong. 80% of fires were started by people either deliberately or accidentally lighting them.  Dry lightning strikes have been long recorded and are nothing new.

 

What has our Media and ABC generally ignored. One of the most clear databased facts, reported out of the 2009 Inquiry, was the finding that fire intensity is proportional to and severely aggravated by fire loads created by undergrowth and forest floor debris accumulation. We can’t control wind and heat but we can control fuel load. Ask any active Rural or Country serving fireman what they think of this hazard. Then ask your Green Party representative, why they have influenced the management of National Park maintenance, as well as local government reserves, to leave far too much of the forest floor intact at any cost. Winter back burning, firewood removal and general debris clearance has been widely restricted by stupid laws. They argue it preserves natural ecosystems that rely on such decaying material. Well, systematic removal of this fuel load may well disrupt some Eco-systems, consider this;. A bush-fire positively destroys them all.

 

The only identifiable and recently introduced risk factor, is the environmental law changes that have impacted a fire’s intensity potential and capacity to burn faster and hotter.

 

Find this hard to believe? Go into a forest and try setting fire to a living gum tree with a match. Now stoop down and see if you get any better results from the dead and therefore dry undergrowth at your feet. This is the effect ember spread has on adjoining bush-land.

 

There is much more to say about bringing sanity back into discussions and I have my own opinion that if you believe the science of global warming, stick to the science and ignore the fanatical self professed experts, like some of the current crop of Green Party politicians and shrieking media, self appointed, experts. No, before it can be said. I was not self appointed in my former career positions.

 

I can only reflect that the handful of ex-firemen who were paraded before the media, may have had other agendas. The spokesman listed his current occupation as a “Climate Change Consultant”. Another said outright, on camera, that fires have always been linked to climate change. I prefer to listen to our Indigenous community who talk of bush-fire management over thousands of years. - oops before any hint of an industrial age, meat production or mining.

 

Les Crowe.

 

 Loss Adjuster

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

A useful contribution to the debate (and pretty much what my brother keeps saying) but at least some of it is worth challenging:

 

"The fires were started as a result of climate changed conditions. Clearly wrong. 80% of fires were started by people either deliberately or accidentally lighting them...."

 

Recent reports refute that idea.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/08/police-contradict-claims-spread-online-exaggerating-arsons-role-in-australian-bushfires

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-11/australias-fires-reveal-arson-not-a-major-cause/11855022

 

He certainly has a point about poor management of fuel loads, particularly in National Parks.

 

What he doesn't mention is the extraordinary weather that contributed to the ferocity of the fires.

 

Climate skeptics have been claiming that none of the predictions of climate scientists have happened.

 

Wrong!

 

Increased heatwave conditions and more bushfire events were among the changes predicted.

 

Other signs they were right are appearing almost daily.

 

 

[facthunter]

There's also a consistent method of analysis  and format of the argument and selection of "facts" in these well articulated presentations. Have you noticed?  That doesn't mean a lot in advancing the issue one way or another, except it very organised  and doesn't include the almost unanimous views of climate specialists (scientists ) which play a big part in most other issues  in our lives, but somehow wish to have disregarded in this one because we can't tell exactly which day a certain temp will occur.  Ie create uncertainty and confusion ..  You don't get the butcher to do your Heart surgery . .Nev

 

 

[spacesailor]

Climate change is a fact !.

 

Man made is wrong !.

 

From Snowball Earth to Mars landscape is a possible future. 

 

Man won't change the outcome.

 

Neither will all the praying by all the religion of this world will Fail.

 

We can slow it down but it is inevitable.

 

A big astoroid hit will of course bring back a Snowball Earth. 

 

Without humans, or perhaps all mamals,

 

spacesailor

 

 

[old man emu]

Perhaps we should consider making a major change in Australia's climate by attempting to restore the Inland to what it was about 60 million years ago. Could we start filling Lake Eyre to provide a source of moisture for the eastern half of the continent?

 

For many millions of years, the Lake Eyre Basin was well supplied with water and largely forested. About 20 million years ago, large shallow lakes formed, covering much of the area for about 10 million years. From that time on, as Australia drifted further north and the climate became gradually more arid, the lakes and floodplains started to dry. Only in the last 2.6 million years did the onset of the ice ages bring about the present climatic regime and the consequent fairly rapid desertification of the area.

 

The possibility has already been raised in the Bradfield Scheme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradfield_Scheme . The Bradfield Scheme was an ambitious proposal by Dr John Bradfield in 1938. It would use large pipes, tunnels, pumps and dams to divert water from the monsoon-fed Tully, Herbert and Burdekin rivers into the Thomson River, Queensland. The proposed benefits of diverting water from the eastern side of the Great Divide were examined in the mid-20th Century and, at the time were discounted. Bradfield had to use estimated values for river flow rates as no actual data existed. At that time, it was most likely that the scheme would not work due to the restraints of the Economy and Civil Engineering capabilities. It is worth revisiting the idea now to take advantage in advances in Civil Engineering.

 

Recently some politiicans  such a Joyce, Katter, Hansen and Beattie (unfortunately they are often called ratbags) have called for a review of the scheme in light of the drought and flood cycle Queensland has been through. If you ignore the first part of this piece https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-24/fact-check-bradfield-scheme-barnaby-joyce-drought/11029284 and read through it, you will get a better understanding of what Bradfield suggested.

 

The idea of creating an inland sea might in a slight way ameliorate the effects of melting ice caps on low lying coastal areas.

 

 

[facthunter]

 Nearly all Dams end up silted eventually. As well as water deficiency, Australia has a big problem with SALINITY and having a large land mass can get very hot as the winds travel a LOOOONG distances over Hot dry sparsely watered and  tree'd land. It also has no really HIGH mountain ranges to cause rain to form. Those who think MAN cannot cause/change anything should realise how little of the atmosphere there really is and how much more acid we are making the oceans. Glyphosate is turning up everywhere from much lower quantities. We burn an enormous amount of carbon and are releasing it from a place where it's been stored for Eons.  Some say we are up ourselves to think humans can affect anything. What about the plastic and cigarette filters leaking landfill, acid rain etc ? There's enough of US to do extensive damage and we ARE  because we are wasteful, selfish, greedy, frightened and DIVIDED.  Nev

 

 

[old man emu]

Australia's salinity problem is mainly the result if inconsistent rainfall patterns, or maybe one should say regular patterns of flood and drought. There are two other causes which are related to agriculture. 

 

In areas that receive a lot of rain, the large amounts of water infiltrating soils, entering and discharging from groundwater, and leaving the catchment through streams and rivers provide a flushing effect, such that the soil and groundwater salinities stay relatively fresh.  However, in drier areas with natural vegetation, there is not so much flushing and a larger proportion of the water that falls on a landscape is lost through evaporation and transpiration from plants. When vegetation is cleared, as happened extensively in the wheatbelt, the amount of water lost from the landscape through plants is drastically reduced. Instead, more water enters the groundwater and groundwater levels rise. As groundwater levels rise, they bring with them the salt that is in the groundwater, and also dissolve the salt in the previously unsaturated part of the soil profile. As these saturated areas dry out after the wet season, salt crystals can be left behind, causing a salt scald. 

 

So, if we alter the landscape to cause Lake Eyre to constantly maintain water, then the presence of a lot of water would allow cloud formation and increase rainfall to the est of the Lake. This would cause the soils to be flushed of salt. Since the alterations to the landscape are man-made, then we could control the water levels in the Lake to prevent excess rainfall, and control the salinity of the Lake.

 

Once you create a permanent lake, you open up once unproductive areas to aquaculture, and tourism. Also assuring constant river flow in the rivers east of the Murray-Darling would permit the establishment of population centres, making the Far West similar to the Mid_west of the USA. The presence of a large heat soak in the centre of the continent might also prevent extremely high temperatures in Western Australia. 

 

 

[Yenn]

We had a scheme to build a big dam which would be used for irrigation and also would lead to populating the area. The dam was built and a lot of rice planted. Result was an explosion in the numbers of ducks, which overwhelmed the rice growers. Resulting in very little agricultural build up for years, but there has been a big mango growth I believe lately and also vegetables. Sugar was tried but the growers on the east coast were against it. They said it would result in disease from Indonesia getting in to Australia and they were correct, so that idea died.

 

There has even even been talk of pumping that water to an area further South for agricultural use. They assume ducks can' t fly?

 

Anyway The Ord River scheme looked good in theory, but it didn't work.

 

Bradfield wanted to fill Lake Eyre with water from the ocean, using explosives left over from WW2 to dig a channel there. If he had gone ahead I reckon we would have had enough salt to provide the world with all it needs and more.

 

 

[Bruce]

There was a time not so long age when there was significant water in Lake Eyre. ( 30 years ago?)

 

There was no increase in rain to the east of Lake Eyre. This was a big disapointment to me, but looking at weather charts, it is obviously true. Bugger huh.

 

 

[Methusala]

I think that you are right about that Yenn. I grew up on the Snowy Scheme and I still think that it was the correct thing to do. But there is no simple solution to make the Earth conform to our "progressive" ideas.

 

 

[Bruce]

But I still like Bradfield's main idea, and so what if the water will cost more than it's worth. Better than those stupid submarines, say I.

 

 

[old man emu]

Yenn,

 

Bradfield delivered his plan before WWll, so your saying that hesuggested using left over explosives from WWll can't be correct. His idea was proposed before we had the mega-machines that we use to dig out coal and iron ore  in 50 cubic metre bites. We also have massive tunneling machines that can cut through hills. The civil engineering task is no longer beyond our capabilities, unless I've been fooled by false news about the Suez and Panama canals, and the canal systems of England.

 

If Lake Eyre was filled, significant rainfall changes "won't happen overnight, but it will happen".