Climate Change and that dirty little word ‘carbon.’
sue August 1st, 2008
In response to andrewbolt4eva who raises questions about climate change.
I think we all agree that our planet has experienced climate change over time. The Earth used to be both hotter and at other times colder than it is now. The question that we are still slightly unsure about is what makes the climate change. From my readings I have learned that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is more than likely a big factor in changing our climate. During cycles or periods of time, different events have meant that there has been more or less CO2 in our atmosphere. Ages ago things that probably altered the CO2 levels were volcanic activity and possibly meteor strikes. When our planet had lots of CO2 in the atmosphere we had a greenhouse climate and there were no ice caps. We had dinosaurs etc also. All the plant matter that grew in those times in the huge tropical forests eventually decayed and settled and was compressed which locked in CO2 in the form of carbon. This rotten vegetation was compressed and over time became the oil that we are rapidly using today. Because we are burning up all this locked up carbon we are releasing it back into the atmosphere thereby increasing the amount of CO2 (carbon) in the air. From wikipedia re carbon “Carbon is one of the few elements known to man since antiquity.[8][9] The name “carbon” comes from Latin language carbo, coal, and, in some Romance languages, the word carbon can refer both to the element and to coal.”
So in my simplistic view we are burning carbon which is releasing gases into the air that used to be solids. This extra CO2 in the air results in global warming. We are probably now heading for another ‘greenhouse age.’ From other tests on ice cores etc it is now thought that sunspots don’t cause climate change. Water also plays an important part in this cycle when in its solid (frozen), gaseous (water vapor) and liquid (water) state.
Lastly I think we tend to take for granted how fragile our atmosphere is. It is only 12 kilometres deep I think. Within our atmosphere the height or depth of breathable oxygen is less than the height of our tallest mountains. In other words our breathable air doesn’t even cover the total surface of our planet. We are so used to travelling kilometres around our planet that I think we forget just how thin and vulnerable our atmosphere is. Move from the sun into the shade and we experience a change in temperature. We live balanced on a knife edge of distance from the sun and a balance of gases surrounding our planet which enable us to live here.
I believe we fiddle with our atmosphere at our own peril! But please read Tim Flannery “We are the Weather Makers’. This is an easy to read and eye opening account of climate change and I recommend it. Also here is the link from wikipedia that I think makes good reading especially when you click on the associated links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
I am sure I have errors in my explanation so feel free to correct me. Lastly I believe that doing nothing about climate change is simply not worth the risk. If we are wrong at least we have made the planet a cleaner better place.
- Environment & Sustainability
- Comments(46)
Late breaking news.
It’s official.’The Great Global Warming Debate” has started in the U.K and Australia. Bring it on.
I am trying to figure out why you use “That dirty little word carbon.” Now lets scientifically explore what the actual pollutant is. It can not be the lump of coal just sitting there.The burnt carbon at the power station emits carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring, colorless, odorless gas that makes up less than one-tenth of one percent of the Earth’s atmosphere. It is also a man-made by-product of fossil fuel combustion. (burning of coal, not oil)) Carbon dioxide is one of a number of chemical compounds in the atmosphere along with water vapor, methane, nitrous oxides, and others that are known as “greenhouse gases.”
CO2 and carbon are 2 different substances. One is a gas and one is an element. Co2(carbon)=No
Greenhouse gas consists of 98%. water vapour and 2% Co2 along with the other trace gases. The only pollutant I can think of is the burning of fossil fuel oils in the car which emits CO (Carbon Monoxide) It is wrong to tell the public that cars contribute green house gases because they dont so why will Rudd up the price of petrol if cars have nothing to do with this. So you believe that there was a hotter period between 800 - 1300 called the medieval warm period. Funny I dont think that there were cars or power stations around that period so I am wondering what drove up the heat. Either the heat was driven up by natural causes or the Church turning non-believers into firewood. The Church still hasnt owned up to that one so I guess the culprit was Mother Nature herself. After the warm period there was the Maunder or Dalton minimum between 1400 and 1790 which was a total disaster with millions dying from the cold. Here we have a natural warm and cold cycle. We have reached the warm phase which peaked in 1998 and since then the climate has plateaued and since 2002 it has dropped. From Jan. 2007 to April 2008 the global Temp. has dropped .774 which was the fastest drop since instruments were used. These figures that show a drop in Temp are from the global warming guru himself James Hansen at NASA GISS. His own website contradicts this with an upward trend. You look up Wiki global warming and what you see is his doctrine and nobody else’s and the Global Temp charts that you see is his doctored version. He should be jailed for falsifying taxpayer funded NASA GISS Global Temp charts. James Hansen is also personal advisor to Al Gore. It was good to see in the U.K. that Al’s film “A Convenient lie” was withdrawn from all schools because it was classed as a piece of fiction, had no value as an educational tool and was classed as an Ideology piece.”The question that we are still slightly unsure”. What has happened. You people were so sure about this. Another quote of yours “If we are wrong.” So that is 50-50 now which are much better odds than 100% sure. So you are saying that Rudd and Wong Inc. should go ahead with the E.T.S., C.R.A.P (Carbon Reduction Altering phase) or whatever they call it next week and send our country down the toilet for absolutely no gain at all. Global Warming hasnt been proven yet with a cost of over $80 billion over a period of 18 years. According to CSIRO we will lose something like 3 million jobs which would be catastrophic. Our children and grandchildren will have no hope of a job or a future under an E.T.S. but hopefully this wont happen because scientists, people and the media are starting to wake up to what is actually transpiring regarding the great global warming swindle. I am waiting on a copy of “The Weather Makers” by Tim Flannery as I look on both sides of the argument. In one of the book reviews he states that if the Govt does not agree on an E.T.S to do it yourself. Is he saying to take the law into your own hands. If that is the case this is dangerous Ideology and his childrens book “We are the Weather Makers” should go by the way of Al’s in the U.K. What is happening here. This Global Warming is freezing me to death.
Andrewbolt4eva,
A well constructed piece, but you missed one truism. Matter can be changed but it can’t be destroyed. We are minning millions of tonnes of coal and burning it. Where doe the gas go? Are we not changing the atmosphers balance? If at the same time we are reducing vegetation, what is the end result Andrewb? Don’t tell us the air is as clean today as it was in yesteryears. Or the water is as pure. Is smog a natural phenomenon?
Yes I agree with sadman. It is the percentage of CO2 in our air that is the problem. On page 25, Weekend Inquirer in the Weekend Australian (Aug 9-10), there is a good article that explains why climate change skeptics are questioning data etc. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24148862-11949,00.html
It appears that by examining some data in isolation and looking at a short time frame eg 10 years, it is possible to argue that climate change isn’t happening at all or in fact the planet is cooling. I don’t agree with this view as the more I read on the subject the more it looks likely that humans are impacting on our climate. In any case Carbon Trading should not be seen as a threat to our economy but an opportunity. Times change and if we look at jobs in the short term and not at what is good for the planet, in other words us, in the long term, I believe we do our descendants a huge disservice.
PS Tim Flannery is simply asking us to take care in how we use carbon. He is NOT preaching that ‘we take the law into our hands.” He is simply encouraging us to ‘do the right thing’ and live our lives in as sustainable way as we can. He does not encourage anyone to break the law!
Cheers, Sue
Hi “Global Warming Alarmists”.
Mainstream media have finally woken up. Thanks for the reference to the article in the weekend Aussie. I have got to hand it to you Sandman you beat me to that one. If you read the article for the first time in history a “skeptics” story has finally seen the light of day. What a lot of “guts” for an associate editor of a mainstream media to come up with the truth. Of course the associate editor
Cameron Stuart doesnt have a blog. I wonder why. Spot all the catastrophic stories on doom and gloom that followed that article but it is too late as the cat is out of the bag. I have 100 pages of evidence which will eventually be turned into book form. It will be called “Global Warming - The greatest scientific fraud of recent history” Is there anybody else in this forum that can see through the smoke and mirrors of this “Travesty of Justice” or am I the lone crusader fot the truth.
I actually had a reply from “emma-kate” in “bringbackstrewth” who said “And to ‘Andrewbolt4eva’: if you disagree so passionately about what everyone is saying on strewth, I suggest you save yourself some money and get offline!” Whatever happened to Democracy and free speech. I have just as much right to be on the forum and balance out a P.O.V. Judging by “bringbackstrewth” my reply to “emma kate” has been censored like all the “skeptic’s” stories up until now. Congrats Cameron Stuart you have just well and truly opened up the debate. I guess there wil be a lot more stories to follow the “domino theory”. I believe that we should embrace sustainable energy so why is the Goverment spending billions of dollars to tax us dry and control our every move on a non-event if the earth is cooling and not investing it straight away into these renewable technologies. Here is a link to the story thanks to Sandman.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24148862-11949,00.html
Its always amazed me how people love to argue the obvious. So for better of worse, here’s my little contribution to the global warming debate.
In my work I come across many people who strongly support or fiercely debunk global warming. While I can not argue my personal view at work, I have found that presenting a few simple facts avoids arguments and answers most questions.
First of all, forget the global warming debate. Let’s talk environment and climate change. We all know climate changes naturally. The seasons change every few months and on a larger scale we know the earth warms and cools as part of a natural cycle e.g. the warming and cooling between the ice ages. When climate changes, temperatures rise or fall as do sea levels and rainfall patterns. If the earths climate can change dramatically between the last ice age and now, it’s reasonable to assume climate can and will continue to change naturally, regardless of our impact on the environment.
But what of our impact on the environment? An easy way to gauge our environmental impact is to imagine what it would be like if we didn’t have a rubbish bin. How long would it take for our houses to fill up with rubbish? The simple fact is that we generate lots of rubbish and that it all had to come from somewhere and use material in its processing, manufacture and transportation.
In the last few hundred years we have built our farms, towns and cities to take advantage of a relatively recent climate and no matter where we live, we affect our environment.
Is climate change linked to our environmental impact? That’s for each of us to decide. If it is, we need to reduce our impact and start living sustainably as soon as possible. If it isn’t, then unless we want to exhaust the earths resources we need to start living sustainably as soon as possible.
I guess they had to appease the bleeding hearts, do-gooder “alarmists” by putting the polar bear in the story in the Aussie on the week-end. Contrary to belief the polar bear
population has increased 25% and the Alaskan Govt is suing the U.S. govt about spinning the story that the polar bear is close to extinction. The actual ice sheet that you are looking at has expanded so we dont have to listen to the
Global Warming propagandists any more. There is a lot at stake here in fact billions of dollars invested by big business
so they will not give up without a fight. I am wondering who is the winner in all of this. Certainly not the enviromentalist
movement who I think have been taken on a ride and conveniently used by the big end of town who really dont care about the environment as long as they can stuff thier pockets with lots of environmentally unfriendly “Greenbacks”.
I have to agree with Paul. I have nothing against
renewable energy technologies. We can not make the change overnight. The solution is for the Govt. to invest in these new technologies and not spend billions of dollars
on new and inventive way of taxing us and controlling our every move. EPA Queensland Govt have 1.2 billion dollars
that goes into researching climate change. If Global Warming has taken time off now is the time for Govt’s to act A.S.A.P. in funding these new technologies. At the moment solar energy is way too expensive for the average Australian family who are just managing to keep thier heads above the water but according to the “doomsters” we should have all drowned already in the “Global Warming” 24/7 spin in the Mainstream media. If we hit struggling families with this new Tax there will probably be a depression the likes we have never seen. According to C.S.I.R.O. 3 million jobs will be lost and in the U.S. something like 10 million jobless. If there is anybody out there with a broad mind interested in the 4 global Temp charts that say the earth is cooling I will only be too glad to send them to you.
As Paul said renewable energy technology is the answer
so why is the Govt. not investing in this?
Andrewbolt4eva, please re-read my post and try to address the questions if you can?
This is not about “doom and gloom”, it’s about revisiting our impact on the environment.
Sorry # Sadman on 09 Aug 2008 at 9:02 pm for ignoring your question as I seem to have got sidetracked somewhere along the line. It is good to see that you call it a “gas” and not a “pollutant” you asked.
“Where does the gas go? Are we not changing the atmosphere’s balance? If at the same time we are reducing vegetation, what is the end result Andrewb?” The gas (Carbon dioxide) which is released into the atmosphere, is very beneficial to plant-life, but as far as I can see I can not tell you about the atmosphere’s balance or the end result as there are 2 conflicting figures and until the 2 sides of the debate come up with a consensus and balance I would only be clutching at straws.I have to agree that we are reducing vegetation
but what is the alternative. I cannot tell you about the air, water or smog as I have not done enough research on those topics as yet. Debate aside do you think that the earths temperature at the moment is warmer than 1998 or has it plateaued? According to the 4 charts that the Govt dont want you to see since Jan 2007
and now the temp has dropped .77 degrees. According to James Hansen, who has been guilty in the past of
massaging Temp. figures there has been no drop at all which conflicts with his own NASA GISS temp. figures.
The only device that has not been “hansenised” is the NASA Aqa satellite where we get the 3 out of 4 official temp data readings. Look up “Global Warming” in Wikipedia and you will see the end result of Hansen’s propaganda. This is dangerous when you only have 1 point of view and you see it everywhere in the mainstream media. The only way you can access the other side of the story is the internet. I call it “doom and gloom” because that will be the state of our economy in the future and if the earth is cooling and
Global Warming has stopped for the time being what is the point of an E.T.S. as there will be no gain whatsoever just pain and blame on the consumer when it was the fault of Govts with no foresight. Just imagine how far ahead we would have been in 2010 if the Govt. invested in renewables and not in thier own self interest.
Andrewbolt4eva,
Personally I don’t see temperature (up or down), as a problem. Air pollution, I do see as a problem.
Water pollution I also see as a problem. The air we breathe is a combination of gases and water vapour,
if the balance changes eg top of a mountain, we have trouble breathing. So it stands to reason if the air’s
balance is significantly changed mankind is in trouble.
Unlike you Andrewb, I don’t see “climate change” and money in the same context eg I would rather be alive
and poor, than rich and dead, but to each his own.
First of all Sandman I will answer your query about the air quality and the amount of pollutants in the air and at what proportion.
When a carbon fuel is burnt it is helpful to consider the emissions as being of two types , viz., toxic and nontoxic. By far the greatest proportion of emissions to the atmosphere are nontoxic and consist of the life-giving gases CO2 and water vapor. In fact, CO2 is an essential plant fertilizer. No atmospheric CO2 and no water, means no life on Earth! The small amount of toxic components of combustion are by definition pollutants which are harmful to the environment and mankind. These include particulate matter, aerosols, CO, and oxides of nitrogen and sulfur which may cause acid rain and smog. The correct approach to the problem of potential or actual toxic emissions is to remove them before and/or after combustion. This is what is done at thermal power stations and now with catalytic converters on car exhausts when such pollution is a problem.
But too much Co2 in our very vulnerable atmosphere means we heat up. That is what I believe and temperature IS vital to our survival on this planet. Temperature means we live or die. To my mind it is that simple. Am I missing something?
Andrewbolt4eva,
You have missed the point completly. It’s not about whether CO2 is toxic, it’s about the volume compared to oxygen. Remember the mountain? All you people are hung up on global warming, when the real problem is global polution. Think outside of the square Andrewb, we are burning more coal, more oil and cutting down more vegetation. Don’t tell me that doesn’t impact on our air and water. Do you really think smog is natural?
Hi Sue,
Leading environmentalist Professor Tim Flannery has warned that Australia is now entering long-term climate change, which could cause longer and more frequent droughts. He also predicted that the ongoing drought could leave Sydney’s dams dry in just two years. But three years on, the Sydney Catchment Authority notes that the premise of Channel Nine’s latest “booga-booga” drama on “warmening” has been washed out. The available storage as at 3 p.m. Thursday, 7 August 2008 was 66.0 %. and, what’s more a Sydney desalination plant was started so that, when combined with dozens of other recycling and storm-water initiatives, the city will be drought-proof for 50 years. It was good to see “Sixty Minutes” begrudgingly give “not controversial” Dr David Evans a world expert on non-toxic “greenhouse gasses” a look-in which is a sign of things to come. Looks like our Tim, author of “The Climate Makers” probably will be heading for Centrelink in the near future and he should give back his “Australian of the year” award for causing undue stress and spreading “alarmism” when it wasn’t warranted.
Sandman you could say that I have missed the “tipping Point” completely. The volume of CO2 in the atmosphere at the moment is around 384ppm, which is a very minute amount compared to 78% Nitrogen and 21% Oxygen and 1% inert gases. The “Greenhouse Gasses’ in the atmosphere consists of 98% Di-Hydrogen Monoxide, 1.5% CO2, and .5% Methane and other dangerous gasses that are so small in percentage that there is no problem there. You are correct when you say the real problem is global pollution which is mainly caused by the slow combustion engine emitting CO. This is a highly dangerous pollutant, whereas CO2 is an important fertilizer which is essential for plant life. As a ‘skeptic” I always have to think outside of the square. How does the burning of coal impact on our air and water? As I said before the culprit is the car but we can not solve this problem overnight. The best example is in California where they are already driving cars with Hydrogen fuel cells and if the Govt. stopped spending billions on inventive ways to tax us and other controls by the “Greenshirts” and invested it in renewable energies maybe the $60 billion that will cost the industry could have been a lot less. Smog or Haze is not natural as it is the byproduct of millions of inefficient slow combustion vehicles on the road.
Andrewbolt4eva,
Your comments are like a re-run of TV, you never answer questions and you never seem to speak for yourself!! We just get what “he said” or “what they said”.
Come Andrewb, let’s hear what you think? Both Sue and I have asked you something, what’s your answer?
I think Dud and W(r)ong are in a bit of strife as I think Kevvy has got a whiff at what really is going on. Garnaut has gone in hiding and the Catastrophic Commercial has been pulled by the A.C.C. for breaking all the laws of advertising. Penny is in damage control because of the article in “The Australian” and now ”Sixty Minutes” and the “Alarmist” of the year Tim Flannery really should stay out of the predictions business, unless he’s just rehearsing a comedy act. Four years ago, there was his prediction for Perth: Speaking last night at the State Government’s Sydney Futures forum, Dr Flannery warned of a city grappling with up to 60 per cent less water. As temperatures around the world warmed by 2 to 7 per cent, Sydney could glimpse its future by looking at the devastating impact that global warming had already had on Perth… ”I think there is a fair chance Perth will be the 21st century’s first ghost metropolis,” Dr Flannery said. Instead: Perth’s dams have reached their highest July level in eight years, despite WA’s gas crisis causing the closure of the Kwinana desalination plant at the start of the month. Above-average rainfall in the major catchment areas since April has meant that the dams are about 34 per cent full… Weather Bureau spokesman Glenn Cook said that the high dam levels were due in part to good winter rain last year. Three years ago there was his prediction for Sydney: He also predicts that the ongoing drought could leave Sydney’s dams dry in just two years. Instead: The available storage as at 3 p.m. Thursday, 7 August 2008 was 66.0 %. Flannery’s latest city-scare? It’s for Adelaide, and given five months ago: The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009.Instead: Thereafter was delivered upon Adelaide a great downpouring: Adelaide had its coldest August fortnight in 30 years … It’s been damp in the city too. For 15 days straight from July 30 some rain fell, its longest stretch of rain-days since June/July 1891. Water levels in the city’s dams presently stand at 61 per cent. At current daily consumption rates, Adelaide won’t run out of water – even if no rain falls – until August 21, 2010. So I suggest you read “The Deniers” by Lawrence Solomon and I think our Tim might be heading for Centrelink in the future with predictions like that.
# sue on 16 Aug 2008 at 5:42 am you said
“But too much Co2 in our very vulnerable atmosphere means we heat up. That is what I believe and temperature IS vital to our survival on this planet. Temperature means we live or die. To my mind it is that simple. Am I missing something?” Yes you are missing something Sue it is called originality.You say this is what you believe but you are doing what I have been accused of doing. All of your facts on climate are straight out of a piece of media called “The Weather Makers” by the “Alarmist” of the year and false Prophet predictist Tim Flannery. Who told you too much Co2 in our atmosphere means we heat up? Let me guess it wasnt Tim was it? I suggest you change your crystal ball as the rise in Temp. comes first and 800 years later you get a rise in Co2. At the moment the earth is cooling am I correct with that assertion. What I report on via the media is stories that the Mainstream Media and the Govt. dont want you to see and these blogs are the only outlet for some sort of balance and you never know it might give us the idea that we are being duped big time. You also refer to media stories like the story in the Australian last week-end. I should thank you for the link as I mistakenly accredited that one to Sandman.
I don’t understand why someone should be derided for stating an opinion. Being right or wrong doesn’t matter, it’s the discussion that’s important.
Decision makers use the ebb and flow of discussion to frame their own opinions and then apply them to the decisions they have been charged to make. Derision has no place in any discussion as its only effect is to devalue the opinion of the person employing derision as a tactic in the eyes of the decision maker.
In my previous post, I tried to show that sustainable living is the common denominator between climate change, environmental impact and resource usage. To put it bluntly, no matter what opinion you hold regarding climate change, the path we must take is sustainability.
It really doesn’t matter if there is more or less rain, if our dams are full or empty or if CO2 levels are high or low, we must learn to live with what we have, now and in the future. Change is inevitable, and we must adapt to it. Even if climate remained as it is now for 100,000 years, we will continue to use resources at an alarming rate.
Resource usage, environmental impact and climate change can be monitored using Carbon as a base, so it makes sense to initiate a Carbon Trading Scheme in any move toward sustainability.
A Carbon Trading Scheme will be expensive and could well impact adversely on our economy, but two things are apparent: 1. The longer we delay, the more expensive a CTS will be and, 2. As resources deplete, the cost of resources will increase.
So, do we debate who is right or wrong about global warming/cooling or do we acknowledge that both possibilities can have the same outcome and start discussing potential solutions?
As Sue said, “I believe that doing nothing about climate change is simply not worth the risk. If we are wrong at least we have made the planet a cleaner better place.”
Paul
Paul I feel that I have not derided Tim Flannery and being right or wrong really does matter regarding the Australian of the year 2007. Three years ago Tim made public announcements on the record about ”alarmist” and “controversial” statements regarding up and coming droughts and water shortages. The climate figures that he quoted came from the C.S.I.R.O who can not be trusted as the computer models that they use have been proven to be useless and can not even predict past climate. So I guess it is not all Tim’s fault. Tim should be held accountable and apologize for causing mayhem on the public and somehow I think he has lost the plot with his “seeding the air” with sulphur dioxide. I’m sure the environmentalists will let him do that. The failed C.S.I.R.O. predictions are the same climate figures that Penny Wong and Kevin Rudd use to promote their failed E.T.S. or is it C.P.R.S. I agree that we must move to a more sustainable future but it can not be done overnight and not at the expense of our economy. Instead of squandering billions of dollars on a failed E.T.S don’t you think it would have been a better idea to invest those billions in sustainable energy projects. It does matter to our whole economy that we get substantial rainfall to grow the crops that put food on the table and without the dams being close to capacity it would have been a disaster. I cannot believe you said you do not care whether Co2 levels are high or low. Isn’t this what the debate is all about? If the levels go up and Jim Hansen is correct then I suspect that we should be pushing the panic button. How can you say that you acknowledge that both possibilities can have the same outcome. I can not see the logic in this statement and your questioning.
Andrewbolt4eva,
If I read Paul correctly, he means whatever the global environmental outcomes are, we as a species must adapt to suit.
As I have said before global warming is a furphy, global pollution is the real name of the game. We cannot and never have been able to change the world to suit us. To survive we must change to suit the world, the greater the human population the greater the demands on the worlds resources. I could be a real s**t and say as I have no children, I don’t care, but those that claim to love their offspring need to give careful thought to the world they leave behind.
Hello Andrew,
I didn’t say that I didn’t care if CO2 levels are high or low, and my statement to the effect that global warming or cooling can have the same outcome was an effort to get you to think outside the box.
You may recall in an earlier post I mentioned that in my work I come across many people who strongly support or fiercely debunk global warming. The people who believe the earth isn’t warming happily argue, sometimes vehemently, that warming and cooling is a cyclical phenomenon and either quote the ice ages, alternate data sets or attempt to debunk so-called “alarmists”. Because I can’t argue with customers I simply ask them to think outside the box and consider what would happen if the earth was cooling. Would crop yields change? Would sea levels change? Would CO2 levels change? The answer of course is yes, and the net effect would be devastating.
Then I ask them to consider what would happen if climate wasn’t changing at all. Would civilization remain as we know it? What about the things most of us take for granted such as air, water, food and fuel? Can we continue to consume or pollute them at the current rate? The answer is no, and if we were unable to use any one of them for whatever reason, the effect would be catastrophic.
I had hoped that in considering climate change alternatives, even a self professed Global Warming skeptic such as yourself would realize that like it or not, our current impact on the environment is unsustainable in the long term and discussion on Global Climate Change, however relevant and valuable, is somewhat mute in its light.
At the moment, society isn’t geared toward sustainable living and it’s not just about investing in renewable energy, recycling or energy saving lighting. It’s an unfortunate fact that it’s easier to manufacture a product cheaper than a competitor if pollution legislation can be avoided. That’s why I think a Carbon Trading Scheme or Emissions Trading Scheme is a good first step toward a level playing field and sustainable living.
However, an emission trading scheme or carbon trading scheme (or whatever name it may go by next week) is fraught with danger. It has the potential to adversely affect our economy by disadvantaging our manufacturers in the world market - as if they don’t have enough to contend with already. To contend with pollution, we need to make sustainable changes toward a sustainable future, not a poorly planned quick fix.
I hope I’ve cleared a few things up for you Andrew.
Paul
Ok guys I think this debate is going around in circles but that you have ended up as close to the same space as you will get. I agree that pollution is a huge problem and I think that climate change is real also. If we forget the climate change problem and focus on just the pollution problem do we agree that burning coal to produce electricity is pollution? If so my recent post about how to go forward boldly into a new economy should find support.
I believe that we need to adjust and change as we did back in the days of the Industrial Revolution. Andrewbolt4eva how do you think all the workers that toiled making everything by hand survived when machines were invented? Then again we thought computers would eliminate many jobs not so many years ago didn’t we!
Throughout time we adapt and change. I think carbon trading is just one way that we may need to use to adapt and change. If not carbon trading what do you suggest? How can the government ensure that we all stop polluting?
Sue
Sue,
I don’t know if we can stop polluting in the broadest sense of the word. However, we can reduce it and at the same time cut back on global exploitation. Make recycling compulsary, make steel, aluminum, glass, plastics etc manufacturers use a legistlated amounts of recycled material in their processes. Increase the % over time. Charge for domestic waste by weight. Limit the size of automobile engines, switch from petrol to diesel. Recycle food scraps for fertilizer. Promote product longevity using the star system like we do for water and energy efficiency.
Sue,
I could go on all day, there is no limit to what we could do, all that is required is the will.
Regards,
Sadman
Paul is correct in his assumtion that E.T.S is too costly.
I suggest you read The Week-end Australian full page “Storm Warning” by the editor and “Warm and Fuzzy” full page “Case of the warm and fuzzy” by Jennifer Marohasy.
This is no suprise for the supporters of A.G.W. as they have already moved the goalposts in antisipation from “90% probability” to “we dont care either way”. Talk about a case of Kevin’s “Argy Bargy” and “heads in the sand”. Sue the solution is to scrap the E.T.S. and channel the funds into ”Renewable Energy Technologies”.
I am not joking when I say A.G.W. has taken a turn for the worst as it is starting to sound like a radical religion “Fundamental Enviroism” as the supporters dont care whether we “fry or freeze” and to carry out the “tenet” of the cause according to the phrophet’s “AlGore, James and the I.P.C.C. (International People’s Climate Church).
Sounds radical but so is The “Terrorist Bogeyman”,’Killer Bees”, “Bird flu”, “Sars”, “Acid rain”, “Y2k” “Global Cooling-1975″ and all the other hoax’s that Govt’s bring out in the name of taxing us dry and curtailing whatever freedoms we have left. Now this is thinking outside the square.
Kevin Rudd said on sixty minutes last Sunday that 12 of the last 13 years have been the hottest on record. Listening to the interview he doesnt have a clue. Global Warming has turned into a fanatical religion
Sue,
Congrats on over 2000 hits and 25 posts keep up the good and the healthy debating on probably the most important topic at the moment regarding a tipping point on our lifestyle.
# sue on 24 Aug 2008 at 6:09 am said “If we forget the climate change problem and focus on just the pollution problem do we agree that burning coal to produce electricity is pollution? No I dont agree as the end result is not pollution it is beneficial Co2. I would have to admit that the only pollutant that is released is Di-Hydrogen Monoxide which we will need a lot more of if we are going to keep the planet warm with the up and coming mini-ice age which will last at least 5 years.
So you are giving the climate change problem a miss. First of all 100% certain, then 90% probability, then dont care either way and now give it a miss. I suggest you give up reading the bible “The Weather Makers” who’s false prophesies of “doom and gloom” never eventuated and read “The Deniers” by Lawrence Solomon. What is the rush with the E.T.S. The 30 year global satellite graph images on Temp. show us the earth will be cooling off for the next five years. Why cant we wait until then. I am sorry I am not going to sit idly by and watch our economy flushed down the toilet by a fanatical political Ideology.
A “Propagandic” piece supporting the “Global Warming Alarmist” crowd will be shown this Sunday night on Ch9 entitled ‘”Scorched”. If the producers of the program do not acknowledge that it is mainly a work of fiction it should be classed as “Not based on a true story or future predictions” and stamped as “Climate Porn” which is “sexed up” scenarios to alarm and instill fear on the populace when it is not warranted. It is going to be very interesting to investigate the source of funding for this project. It sounds like something Professor Tim Flannery would have ‘cooked” up. I will see how far off I am with that one. What is more scarily plausible is that the producers of the program didn’t bother to speak to Sydney Water or the Sydney Catchment Authority before going to air. They would have discovered that even in the worst-case scenario, Sydney already has enough water in its huge network of catchments to meet demand until 2014. The city’s new desalination plant will come on line by 2010 and will be able to supply 15 per cent of Sydney’s demand, but has been designed to quickly double its capacity to a half-billion litres of water a day. I suggest anyone with a broad mind not to watch this “Climate Porn”. This work of fiction should also be banned from schools if it is used as an historical piece to lecture students on climate related issues.
Look out extreme eviromentalists Vice President of the U.S. Sarah Palin is on your case and if McCain carcks it
she could be President and nemesis of the “Loony Left”.
As Governor of Alaska she successfully sued the U.S Govt.
for lying about the polar bears being on the endangered list. Good on you Sarah give us the ‘Good Oil”.
Can we take Andrewbolt4eva seriously? His latest contributions to debate are full of pearls of wisdom - “Propagandic”, “Global Warming Alarmist”, “Climate Porn”, “sexed up”, “cooked”, “Loony Left” and “Good Oil”.
I feel like responding with “Zam”, “Pow”, “Wham” and “Godzooks”. Tell us Andrewb, do you wear a mask & cape?
Come on Sue dont hide behind “Sandman” or are you one in the same. Yes Sandman I do wear a cape and mask and I
have the power to tell the future. The U.S will have a female “Veep”. “Skeptic” Peter Costello is our trump card
and will assume the leadership of the Liberal Party. The “skeptics” now have an ally in the editor of the “Australian”
which is bounding ahead with sales as in the near future
a “Mother” of a story “Global Warming has ended” and there will be another story about “Dudd” and “Henny/Rooster” Wong having to step down for misleading the taxpayer regarding E.T.S. and the true motives behind it.
Sorry to disappoint you but I’m not the sadman and am a bit bored with this debate. I don’t enjoy listening to endless opinion that isn’t backed up with some facts. While we cannot predict the future we can hazard an educated guess. I think we do need to mitigate carbon usage and worry that while we keep using up natural resources we inevitably damage our planet. Economics must adapt to sensible use of natural resources. My opinion and I am sticking to it. Sue
It was great when the “alarmists” had the upper hand. Now that there is pretty well a level playing field coming up
they are taking their marbles and going home.
The deck of cards at the I.P.C.C. is about to collapse.
You said “While we cannot predict the future we can hazard an educated guess”. Why dont you tell that to the
I.P.C.C./E.P.A./C.S.I.R.O with their useless computer models. Game set and match to the “skeptics”. I wont bore you any longer with my endless educational opinion.
Hi Sue, Firstly I would like to congradulate you on your new page. Now my comment is that if you check the weather patterns back through the ages they go in cycles and we think it is global warming. I don’t think so. These so called scientists think so but I think it is a load of bs. Scare tactics to put another tax on us for carbon emittions. Ok I agree we have to clean up our act and stop polluting our planet but thing can go too far the other way as well being too clean.Cheers Bev
Bev,
How can we be “too clean”? If you watched the Olympics you saw the smog.
You have read about the increase in Asthma, the decline in frogs, the marine life
that dies as a result of plastic bags, why go on. Just tell, how can we be “too
clean”?
Sadman
I have to agree with Bev. The politicians and the mainsteam media are starting to also wake to the bs (Big
Stink) as this A.G.W. hypothesis is starting to be on the nose. It was good to see the colourful Reds disguised as Greens under brown being put in their place by the skeptics friend Ross Garnaught. The new Minister for the Environment in N.I (Northern Ireland) also thinks that it is a natural occurence. The joke of the week comes from the W.W.F. with the Nature missing. I wonder why? We blame Global Warming on obesity, farting cows, every conceivable kind of bad weather and now we have to include that the W.W.F. has blamed the cooling earth on G.W. At last common sense has prevailed and they will be mining in Cape York and it was good to see Mrs. Irwin having to pay court costs. Victoria got their Desalination Plant and the protesters from some unknown fringe group were sent packing. I have to agree with Sue regarding the dying whale. I cried when I watched the proceedings as this was initiated by the failed policies of “Parks and Wildlife” under the E.P.A. which has far too much power and funding in our Govt.
I had hoped people could move beyond who’s right and who’s wrong and discuss the carbon issue and sustainability i.e. how carbon trading would affect us and what we as individuals can do about it.
On a slightly different tack, I would be very interested in peoples view of local tip fees. Do residents consider them an imposition, a necessary evil or, an encouragement to reduce waste? (Bear in mind that recyclables are accepted free at Fraser Coast tips). And, does anyone consider a carbon trading scheme differently to tip fees? i.e. an imposition, a necessary evil or, an encouragement to reduce waste?
Cheers,
Paul
I agree Paul. I would like to know where all the money raised from a proposed ETS will go for instance? Will it be like taxes raised from petrol for instance. Do all the petrol tax dollars raised end up spent on improving roads? Sue
Congrats Sue for 3000 hits.
If they pass the E.T.S. the Govt. will be laughing all the way to the treasury piggy bank, the Power utilities will be laughing all the way to your wallet, and we the consumer will be crying all the way to despair in the increase of 25% on everything, plus ‘green” “initiatives” that control our use of anything that uses oil or electricity.
Why are they taxing the Power producing Utilities for
emitting DiHydrogen Monoxide (Condensate Water Vapour) when the main polluter is not the black piece of coal, but the car which does not emit Co2, but emits Co.
(Carbon Monoxide). This is a deadly mix so we must introduce Electric, Hybrid and Hydrogen powered vehicles as soon as possible. I believe this is our main priority and it sets precedence over everything else.
With the E.T.S. there is absolutely no gain whatsoever as their is no climate crisis according to Alan Whetton, Dundathu and according to L. Gallagher, Howard writing in Opinion, F.C.C Sept 13 “Research shows climate is cooling, not warming”. This is a first for the biased Australian Mainstream media.
It is good to see Nancy allowing this letter and balancing
out the debate a little towards the “skeptics” where no other newspaper dares to go in questioning our Govt.
with this very important issue which will effect every man, woman and child in Australia. So lets at least have a debate to see where we stand and let the truth be known before we go down this very slippery slope.
Andrewbolt4eva,
Alan Whetton and L. Gallagher are entitled to their opinions, as are you and I.
However, I doubt they know any more about climate change than I do, so you might
just as well qote Donald Duck and Olive Oil. Get real Andrewb, yes there is a
division of opinion. Having said that, the bulk of informed people accept global
warming as fact and the cause? Burning fossil fuels.
Sadman
It seems the idea of carbon trading here in Oz has devolved into a tax opportunity. If managed properly, carbon trading could have spawned new and innovative technologies attracting development funding from industries seeking to gain carbon credit.
To add insult to injury, I hear the tax appears destined for general funds. Hopefully I’ve been given some bad information and would love to hear if anyone has heard differently.
Paul
My concerns exactly. I will try to find the time to research and discover where the ETS income is to be directed. Sue
Sue,
I thought it was common knowledge that a large part of the Carbon Tax was going to compensate people
for the additional costs associated with it’s implementation eg electricity, petrol,food etc. Also it’s
supposed to be aiding research into ‘clean coal’, sola power, wind power research etc.
Whether in fact this occures is another matter, would our pollies lie?
Regards,
Sadman
Sadman,
Pollies don’t lie, they promote “positive” aspects
A “large” part of the tax could be 30% or less… Maybe I’m a dreamer, but I’d like to see some transparency i.e. Total collected vs Total distributed and to where.
Cheers
Paul
# Sadman on 15 Sep 2008 at 8:50 am said, “The bulk of informed people accept global warming as fact.” And I say the bulk of informed people accept global warming as fiction. Namely 31,027
scientists who have signed a petition saying just that. Andrew Denton certainly put the alarmist Tim Flannery in his place. Tim should be held responsible for spreading false mayhem and alarm about Sydney’s water supply running out by now when it is 2/3’s full. Tim covered himself by saying that he said it might. Yes Tim the sun might not come up tomorrow. Then again it might. Why do we have to listen to someone who espouses such “propagandic bile”. How did this same person receive Australian of the Year 2007? Give it back Tim along with Al Gore’s Academy Award and the I.P.C.C.’s (Idiots Pretending to Control Climate) Nobel Peace Prize.
Andrewbolt4eve,
You covered all this ground 3 or 4 posts ago, how about something new?
Andrewb, do you really believe mankind has not changed the environment?
Do you not believe ALL creatures evolved to create a balance and by
exterminating them we have changed the balance?
Andrewb, even in your own lifetime, have you not noticed a change in the
country side?
I have been lucky to have covered a very large part of this land and the change
between the 60’s and now is very marked and not for the better. Tell me I’m
wrong Andrewb