Hey Buzz, I'm not against the newer technologies in our transportation - in fact I'd like a Rivian Dualcab. At least the price is coming down.
Our council is up in arms that Twiggy Forest chose Gladstone for his Hydrogen City & not Townsville. I don't know what Gladstone uses for its water supply & while Townsville has access to the mighty Burdekin Dam (when the govts sort out the methods of getting the water into our Ross Dam), we have crisis' from time to time with severe water restrictions & the Ross down to 3% capacity. Taking H2 out of H2O, means that making hydrogen doesn't leave water. Politicians act impulsively without checking out the ramifications!
A question - why didn't Twiggy choose his WA? Or don't they have enough water?
I don't know. Maybe he's testing all locations to find out the best deal?
I think that there was something proposed in the Pilberra but there were some cultural issues?
dogbox said
12:31 PM Nov 17, 2021
Buzz Lightbulb wrote:
I see all these questions/arguments as to NOT use new technologies that are better for the planet. The point is that we have to do something or our children will be the first generation that is NOT better off than their parent's.
Yes, it will take time to switch. There will be hurdles to overcome. But we must start investing in the technologies and solutions rather than the status quo of fossil fuels.
Australia is in a unique situation where we have unpopulated 'huge tracts of land'. Here we can have massive renewable energy developments that can export to the world via HVDC cables or hydrogen technologies. As long as we can consider the environmental and cultural impacts of those areas before development then all Australians will benefit.
However, federal governments that won't step on the toes of their masters and who still have their heads in the sand will only inhibit this possibility.
i don't see that we (or most of us) are going to save the planet for our kids , my kids are all grown up and have kids of their own and some of their kids even have kids. they are the ones who will have to make the changes , some of the things we do/use to day were beyond our imaginations 20-30 years ago so there will be thing that happen in the near future that we can't even imagine at this point in time.
if we were still to be here in 50 years what changes would we see ? will future generations still be using the SAVE THE PLANET line ? my thoughts are that global warming / climate change is a natural cycle, humans in the last 100 years may have contributed to influence the rate of the cycle but i still think population growth being a large part of the problem ,an what ever we do it will never be enough .
Peter_n_Margaret said
12:57 PM Nov 17, 2021
Rob Driver wrote:
Peter_n_Margaret wrote:
Plenty of water in the ocean. Just takes some more electricity to make it pure. Cheers, Peter
The hydrogen option offered better fuel security and range, and allowed the company to produce its own hydrogen.
In the future, green hydrogen fuel will be produced at its depot in Emerald, 270 kilometres west of Rockhampton, with rainwater captured onsite with a renewable-powered electrolyser
That is a clear trend. Significant or remote organisations will produce their own electricity from renewable sources and that can then either consume it directly or make hydrogen with it. And it can (and will) all happen very quickly, because it makes economic sense NOW.
Cheers,
Peter
Rob Driver said
03:48 PM Nov 17, 2021
Peter_n_Margaret wrote:
Rob Driver wrote:
Peter_n_Margaret wrote:
Plenty of water in the ocean. Just takes some more electricity to make it pure. Cheers, Peter
The hydrogen option offered better fuel security and range, and allowed the company to produce its own hydrogen.
In the future, green hydrogen fuel will be produced at its depot in Emerald, 270 kilometres west of Rockhampton, with rainwater captured onsite with a renewable-powered electrolyser
That is a clear trend. Significant or remote organisations will produce their own electricity from renewable sources and that can then either consume it directly or make hydrogen with it. And it can (and will) all happen very quickly, because it makes economic sense NOW.
Cheers,
Peter
Hi Peter,
Yes, quite often there does exist a problem for every solution.
The people suggesting a solution are reluctant to research other problems.
Collecting water for this project on site in Roma raises a red flag.
Who gets the job of winding the big key on top of the bus when water supply becomes a problem.
As you and I are typing, Roma is on water restrictions.
If this bus company has to truck water in to operate their vehicles are the trucks diesel powered. If they are, then the green claim is negated.
If local water from the water authority is sourced to make hydrogen fuel then how does Roma and surrounding towns survive in times of low storage levels.
This is only one problem
There is just not enough thought going into this big rush on using Electric Vehicles within limited time frames.
Then over to our political representative Buzz Mightvote.
Buzz,
Your detailed reply to my post above says nothing constructive.
All you have done is provide an opposite view to mine. Not a problem on an open forum.
So to add my opinion to your view.
I am happy for you to write a cheque and send it to the EU but I am not happy for any government in Australia to send my families hard earned money to some organisation, to give to any country that is already being propped up by others. To force Australia or any country to pay a tax so that another country can use our coal is bordering on insanity.
It doesnt stop the mining of coal, it doesnt stop the use of coal and it does not encourage the recipient country to adopt less polluting methods of using that coal.
My suggestion is that the taxes the EU are suggesting to impose is going to line the pockets of the ones who most least deserve it and at the expense of our children. This is one reason why all this has to happen so quickly as it is just a snow job to trick the gullible.
The doom and gloom you are calling *climate change* was known for centuries as *the weather and the seasons*
You can ignore reality but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality
-- Edited by Rob Driver on Wednesday 17th of November 2021 03:56:43 PM
peter67 said
06:39 PM Nov 17, 2021
Top post.
bomurra said
11:11 PM Nov 17, 2021
The conversion to EV's, as problematic as it may seem and will be, may not have the immediate beneficial effect that many perceive.
New EV manufacturer Polestar released Carbon Impact Data on its new Model 2 - due 2022, compared, to a Petrol Powered ICE Volvo XC40.
Polestar has revealed the "whole-of-life" climate impact of its latest Polestar 2 electric vehicle (EV) variants, from production to disposal and is calling on the wider automotive industry to do the same. Their Life Cycle Assessment Carbon Footprint of the Polestar 2 is available here - www.polestar.com/dato-assets/11286/1600176185-20200915polestarlcafinala.pdf.
This is no airy fairy, gloss over the real facts BS, but a real recognition by an EV Manufacturer of the true facts.
Polestars Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) consider a range of factors tracked through a cars life cycle from the production phase, through the use phase, and to the end of life recycle phase. These factors are expressed through a single easy-to-comprehend 'CO2e' (carbon dioxide equivalent) number.
Calculations reveal that Polestar 2 has a much higher carbon footprint through the "production and disposal phases" than petrol-powered, internal-combustion engine (ICE) cars, but has lower CO2 output over the course of the use phase, if the re-charge is performed from renewable generation like wind.
However if the re-charge is performed as we do in Australia mainly powered by fossil fuel/renewable co generation mix, then the two vehicles need to travel 112,000 klms before breakeven of CO2 emissions is achieved between the two vehicles. Only after that is the EV a better environmental choice.
So EV's will pollute like hell in the production phase and recycle phase (if they can work out a cost effective solution to recycle the batteries), ICE's pollute less during manufacture and recycle, but more during their use phase.
Seems we are damned if we do, and damned if we don't, but EV's may not be the quick fix to our CO2 emissions many think.
-- Edited by bomurra on Wednesday 17th of November 2021 11:14:31 PM
-- Edited by bomurra on Wednesday 17th of November 2021 11:28:30 PM
-- Edited by bomurra on Thursday 18th of November 2021 11:36:59 AM
Buzz Lightbulb said
10:10 AM Nov 18, 2021
dogbox wrote:
i don't see that we (or most of us) are going to save the planet for our kids , my kids are all grown up and have kids of their own and some of their kids even have kids. they are the ones who will have to make the changes , some of the things we do/use to day were beyond our imaginations 20-30 years ago so there will be thing that happen in the near future that we can't even imagine at this point in time.
It's NOT up to the children to make the changes. The changes HAVE to happen now otherwise those children will suffer. The general consensus is that we MUST start reducing CO2e emissions before 2030. The decisions to do that MUST happen NOW. We can't wait for this generation to die off. It's tjis generation that determines the future of the following generstions.
if we were still to be here in 50 years what changes would we see ? will future generations still be using the SAVE THE PLANET line ? my thoughts are that global warming / climate change is a natural cycle, humans in the last 100 years may have contributed to influence the rate of the cycle but i still think population growth being a large part of the problem ,an what ever we do it will never be enough .
Yes, they will have to because this generation failed to stop the problem and so the future generations will have to pay more to fix it for their future generations.
Yes, the best thing anyone can do is NOT have children but THAT is a political nightmare. More people consume more and hence contribute to climate change.
Humans have never before suffered the climate we are facing but it seems fine to some that the innocent should suffer.
Rob Driver said
10:53 AM Nov 18, 2021
Buzz,
You certainly are very passionate as are some others.
There are several links in this topic that highlighted the other side of your passion.
Did you read that information?
bomurras post above has some quite relative information in it.
We should all start by re instating the true records of information relating to the earths temperature and not using a condensed version which favours the warming argument, then once the true information is back in place we should then begin to question why we have to pay a tax to achieve any change and when we realise that a tax wont fix anything but the bank balances of a few we could then encourage the varying methods of more efficient and economical personal and industrial transport.
New methods could and are being explored now and while Twiggy and the likes are financing the R and D that is fine, but to stand on your pulpit constantly demanding that we Australians should all throw money at a committee consisting of elected representatives from countries of which some are bankrupt is not a good business decision for our future generations. The EU is selling nothing, because they have nothing to sell.
Running out and buying an EV because ithe advertising says we should is not a good reason to make that purchase. It is threads and topics and posts like this that may provide a true and accurate exposure of the downfalls that we appeared to have glossed over.
Leave a good inheritance to your children and let them make a decision with new information that may more accurately indicate their current weather and seasonal status.
Buzz Lightbulb said
12:02 PM Nov 18, 2021
Rob Driver wrote:
Buzz,
Your detailed reply to my post above says nothing constructive.
All you have done is provide an opposite view to mine. Not a problem on an open forum.
So to add my opinion to your view.
I am happy for you to write a cheque and send it to the EU but I am not happy for any government in Australia to send my families hard earned money to some organisation, to give to any country that is already being propped up by others. To force Australia or any country to pay a tax so that another country can use our coal is bordering on insanity.
It doesnt stop the mining of coal, it doesnt stop the use of coal and it does not encourage the recipient country to adopt less polluting methods of using that coal.
My suggestion is that the taxes the EU are suggesting to impose is going to line the pockets of the ones who most least deserve it and at the expense of our children. This is one reason why all this has to happen so quickly as it is just a snow job to trick the gullible.
The doom and gloom you are calling *climate change* was known for centuries as *the weather and the seasons*
You can ignore reality but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality
-- Edited by Rob Driver on Wednesday 17th of November 2021 03:56:43 PM
Your arguments are similar.
You dint appear to understand the situation. The EU will apply a varbon tax on Australian products when sold in the EU.
Our children, and children's children, will have to pay gor our generation's inability to take responsibility for our contribution to climate change and they will pay more to fix the problem. Its simple economics. It costs more to extract CO2 than to prevent it being dumped into the atmosphere.
Again, the IPCC says:
"It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred."
That is FACT and yes:
You can ignore reality but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality
The consequences of ignoring climate change IS, not will be, devastating.
Buzz Lightbulb said
12:22 PM Nov 18, 2021
Rob Driver wrote:
Buzz,
You certainly are very passionate as are some others.
There are several links in this topic that highlighted the other side of your passion.
Did you read that information?
bomurras post above has some quite relative information in it.
We should all start by re instating the true records of information relating to the earths temperature and not using a condensed version which favours the warming argument, then once the true information is back in place we should then begin to question why we have to pay a tax to achieve any change and when we realise that a tax wont fix anything but the bank balances of a few we could then encourage the varying methods of more efficient and economical personal and industrial transport.
New methods could and are being explored now and while Twiggy and the likes are financing the R and D that is fine, but to stand on your pulpit constantly demanding that we Australians should all throw money at a committee consisting of elected representatives from countries of which some are bankrupt is not a good business decision for our future generations. The EU is selling nothing, because they have nothing to sell.
Running out and buying an EV because ithe advertising says we should is not a good reason to make that purchase. It is threads and topics and posts like this that may provide a true and accurate exposure of the downfalls that we appeared to have glossed over.
Leave a good inheritance to your children and let them make a decision with new information that may more accurately indicate their current weather and seasonal status.
Yes of course I'm passionate about climate change. It is making our planet unlivable for human beings and causing the loss of biodiversity due to human activity. Who wouldn't be worried?
I listen to the experts, the IPCC, not to some opinionated, uninformed, so called information. All the arguments against climate change have been mostly debunked. People hang on to old articles that support their own point of view. I listen to those who are experts in the fueld.
The EU, and other countries', tax is coming. Rather than our businesses having their products' costs increased when sold overseas, isn't it better for an Australian government to implement the tax here and keep that money in Australia to be spent on Australians? Seems like common sense to me, although common sense isn't that common. We accepted the GST, although it didn't do what it was supposed to do. We still pay many of the taxes it was supposed to replace.
And maybe a carbon tax won't be so bad, especially if the government use the subsidies it pays the fossil fuel industries to contribute to the tax's introduction.
A unlivable planet is not a good inheritance for our children amd any money we leave behind will be quickly consumed to fix our generations lack of action.
Rob Driver said
01:38 PM Nov 18, 2021
Buzz,
Why dont we see any weather records that go back in history. The older records were either deleted or are not included to suit a climate change agenda.
We have university courses on climate change, brain washing at its best, particularly when the teachers are part of the groups that are not including the true figures from previous periods of time. Any study without all the facts available will never reveal the true situation.
We have governments who can see an opportunity to collect extra taxes from a gullible sector.
We have the EU which is imposing a tax, your words are, the tax is coming. Then in the next breath we have an Australian govt that is going to implement a tax here. Then *their* product costs wont increase despite the Aus Govt tax or the EU tax. I would like to see that..You have never ever been in business in my observation. Please outline how all of this will work in Laymans terms without costing us all.
It would be a very courageous government to *wrong side* the fossil fuel industry. In the same sentence you make a wild statement that a carbon tax may not be so bad. Run that out in any federal or state election campaign. When it comes to taxes and legislation, it is a very rare occasion that any government repeals what is in place to introduce something new, particularly when they stand to collect more money.
If, as you say the planet in the next generation will be unliveable, then tell us all how a paper bag full of money given to a group of people calling themselves the EU will fix this. Why does this all have to happen in 14 years and dont bring up global warming figures as currently, due to records being removed, or not included, they are not accurate.
Are you a politician? Current or maybe retired. Your other handle is not Bob Brown is it?
-- Edited by Rob Driver on Thursday 18th of November 2021 01:42:15 PM
Buzz Lightbulb said
04:21 AM Nov 19, 2021
FACT: We've known since the 1850's, by experiments, that increasing the percentage of atmospheric CO2 increases the atmospheric temperature. It's called the 'greenhouse effect'.
FACT: Burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere.
FACT: Humans have been burning fossil fuels at an unprecedented rate since the industrial revolution.
FACT SUMMARY: humans, burning fossil fuels, releases CO2 into the atmosphere, which causes the atmosphere to become hotter.
One may not believe these facts but that doesn't make the facts untrue. It's just makes one look ignorant and allows one to justify not to take action to fix the problem. One can clutch at ineffectual and trivial arguments of insufficient weather records, political beliefs, which way to implement carbon taxes, watch and see. The facts are that the climate is changing due to human activities and if we don't do something about it the earth will be uninhabitable by humans. Not to do so something is selfish, irresponsible and destroying future generations lives.
P.S. @Rob: I'm not Bob Brown and suggesting so, shows that you need to resort to insults to justify your arguments. I hate Bob Brown. He voted against the carbon tax during Rudd's era which made 'carbon tax' a political no no. He was a fool to do so.
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Friday 19th of November 2021 04:27:10 AM
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Friday 19th of November 2021 04:46:40 AM
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Friday 19th of November 2021 04:47:20 AM
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Friday 19th of November 2021 04:50:08 AM
Whenarewethere said
06:05 AM Nov 19, 2021
There are one or two with innate adroitness for ad hominem.
Rob Driver said
09:01 AM Nov 19, 2021
Good day Buzz,
It is with repeated monotony that I have asked questions of you with regard to reducing this so called global warming temperatures and with that same monotony that you have not provided one answer. You couldnt even provide a logical explanation as to how taxing Australians will reduce the days temperature.
OK you dont seem to be able to answer so for the sake of peace just let all my questions go except for one.
If, as you say the planet in the next generation will be unliveable, then tell us all how a paper bag full of money given to a group of people calling themselves the EU will fix this. ?
Please just answer this question thank you Buzz.
Peter_n_Margaret said
10:18 AM Nov 19, 2021
Does not matter if it is speeding or pollution, fees, fines and taxes influence peoples behaviour.
The money collected can be used to make other improvements to implement change.
Cheers,
Peter
Jaahn said
10:33 AM Nov 19, 2021
Hi Rob and others searching for information
How is this for another look at global warming ! Over millions of years before humans the sun shone on the earth and caused great forests to grow and eventually the trees fell into great bands of woody based material. By geological and other means these were buried beneath the earth and rock and with pressure and heat they transformed into what we know as fossil fuels, coal, oil and gas, trapped and buried. But in reality whatever the form they are stored energy from the sun that took millions of years to accumulate. A truly vast amount of energy even by earth standards. Any dispute of that simplified statement ?
Now man discovered the energy only some hundreds of years ago and after a time started the industrial revolution and started to dig, and pump this bonanza of wealth and power. In that short time of hundreds of years we have released possibly half of that stored energy that took millions of years to accumulate. That is scary enough for me in itself as a fact. That is a scale enough to cause serious warming IMHO.
BUT the release of that energy was achieved mostly by burning the fuel. This released the sequestered carbon, billions, trillions or more tons, vast amounts of CO2, and that causes a double whammy by creating a greenhouse effect on the earth trapping more solar heat than before . Bl**dy hell how hard is that to understand. Time to stop before it is too late. IMHO
Jaahn
Rob Driver said
11:17 AM Nov 19, 2021
Peter_n_Margaret wrote:
Does not matter if it is speeding or pollution, fees, fines and taxes influence peoples behaviour. The money collected can be used to make other improvements to implement change. Cheers, Peter
Hi Peter,
Yes a fine certainly encourages most people to detract from the action that caused the fine.
No one so far can explain how sending money (lets call it a fine tax) to the EU will stop pollution and global warming.
While many agree that we need to control or eliminate the burning of fossil fuels how will sending, paying, giving, money to some organisation overseas go in any way to help Australia achieve its goals?
No one on here so far can explain how money fixes this.
I said in other posts that I am not opposed to the introduction of alternative fuels to achieve a greener environment but the development of this technology in my opinion is being rushed.
Decentralisation of our cities populations would help in achieving a greener climate as would the restriction of building new subdivisions but we dont see this happening or even being mentioned.
How about the thousands of people that are living in hi rise or even multi storey complexes in cities and suburbs all move out to the country. In many cases these are the loudest protestors.
There are so many other areas where change will help to make a greener planet but so many of us seem hell bent on modifying vehicles and closing power stations.
I will ask yet again, how does sending money to the EU help Australia to achieve its anticipated goals.?
Peter_n_Margaret said
11:40 AM Nov 19, 2021
I understood that the money was to be spent assisting 3rd world countries to reduce their pollution levels.
We (the rich) can afford to do that and have an obligation to do so.
Cheers,
Peter
Rob Driver said
12:08 PM Nov 19, 2021
Jaahn wrote:
Hi Rob and others searching for information
How is this for another look at global warming ! Over millions of years before humans the sun shone on the earth and caused great forests to grow and eventually the trees fell into great bands of woody based material. By geological and other means these were buried beneath the earth and rock and with pressure and heat they transformed into what we know as fossil fuels, coal, oil and gas, trapped and buried. But in reality whatever the form they are stored energy from the sun that took millions of years to accumulate. A truly vast amount of energy even by earth standards. Any dispute of that simplified statement ?
Now man discovered the energy only some hundreds of years ago and after a time started the industrial revolution and started to dig, and pump this bonanza of wealth and power. In that short time of hundreds of years we have released possibly half of that stored energy that took millions of years to accumulate. That is scary enough for me in itself as a fact. That is a scale enough to cause serious warming IMHO.
BUT the release of that energy was achieved mostly by burning the fuel. This released the sequestered carbon, billions, trillions or more tons, vast amounts of CO2, and that causes a double whammy by creating a greenhouse effect on the earth trapping more solar heat than before . Bl**dy hell how hard is that to understand. Time to stop before it is too late. IMHO
Jaahn
Hi Jaahn,
You provide an alarming description of how we far we have come since the industrial revolution.
If all this is fact and is the actual cause of us having such a polluted planet then by all means, turn off the power stations, make the supply and sale of fossil fuels illegal and stop all industrial actions that are in any way connected to the use of fossil fuels. Stop the production of plastics and other materials that are potential pollutants. The list goes on. As a country, in theory Australia could do all of this within one election period of 4 years. The decision may not be favourable to all but it is what the people want and would be reflected in electoral promises at election time.
If we humans do this world wide we will achieve what many of us want and that is a green planet.
Unfortunately, in reality this wont happen for so many reasons so why are some of us just attacking motor vehicles (the subject of this topic).
Take a look at China India and the USA as main offenders. Strangely enough, these are the ones who will not commit to any plan of change and even if they do they are only telling the rest of the world what they want to hear. Nothing will change until it is economical for those countries to do so. The key word is economical.
Because money is the main influence to the decisions on both sides and extending to the economy of many countries, any half hearted change wont be enough to fix the planet. This is my argument about paying money to some cause when we cant possibly get a result. I can imagine the EU sending China a bill for the pollution they currently emit. Chinas answer would be, * bend over EU we will bring it to your next meeting.*
By all means have Twiggy and other entrepreneurs do their R and D, and if it benefits the bottom line of their industry and helps the planet then we all applaud.
The average Australian does not want to pay any more taxes or be fined for using their motor car or air conditioner or any other electrical appliance when the the majority of the population of the rest of the world wont be changing power consumption habits until it is economical for them to do so.
All this and no one has yet proven that the production, use, disposal and even the generation of renewable electricity for this new EV is totally green.
Rob Driver said
12:18 PM Nov 19, 2021
Peter_n_Margaret wrote:
I understood that the money was to be spent assisting 3rd world countries to reduce their pollution levels. We (the rich) can afford to do that and have an obligation to do so. Cheers, Peter
Peter,
I would consider that a very poor investment of Australian taxpayer money.
Sending money to India for example from Australia and asking them to stop their industrial manufacturing, power generation etc would work, how?
How much money would it take to buy Indias manufacturing economy? I wouldnt even have a guess at that one.
there is a big black line between being obligated and just throwing money away so we in Australia will feel all warm and fuzzy.
That kind of agreement where we give money to third world countries will cost our children and grandchildren and future generations a fortune.
Australia just wont afford it.
-- Edited by Rob Driver on Friday 19th of November 2021 12:19:35 PM
Peter_n_Margaret said
01:01 PM Nov 19, 2021
That smacks of a rich person's greed.
Not our problem, so we won't help?
One of the biggest problems in the world today.
Australia actually has a foreign aid program now. Relative to other rich countries it is very conservative. This is simply a part of it.
Cheers,
Peter
Rob Driver said
01:51 PM Nov 19, 2021
Peter_n_Margaret wrote:
That smacks of a rich person's greed. Not our problem, so we won't help? One of the biggest problems in the world today. Australia actually has a foreign aid program now. Relative to other rich countries it is very conservative. This is simply a part of it. Cheers, Peter
A comment that is a tad unnecessary,
Australia does participate in foreign aid and for the most is very generous but if you think for a minute that any country with a population of Australias will make India close there power generation and industry with a fine tax on everything we manufacture and sell, then really, you are dreaming.
You know, not one of you pro, tax the crap out of Aussies to pay some overseas country to stop polluting, has given this forum any explanation as to how this fine tax will stop them polluting.
No one has even given any proof as to the production, operation, disposal and the generation of renewable power for EVs is ACTUALLY GREEN, and will achieve saving the planet.
Peter,
I am as interested as you in the development of truly green sources of electrical power and its use, however I am not naďve enough to believe for one minute that the introduction of current technology will achieve everything I have listed in the sentence immediately above within the current time frame suggested.
If those conditions arent achieved then the reason to change to achieve a green planet is mute.
Peter_n_Margaret said
04:52 PM Nov 19, 2021
Australa's foreign aide programme is a long way short of "generous".
Your boat sinks 10km from shore.
It is too far so swim, so don't bother trying, just drown right where you are?
The difference with global warming is how hot it gets.
Do nothing and we are in deep trouble. If we try hard and don't achieve everything we need to, it will be much better than if we had not tried.
We need to try VERY hard.... until it hurts, lots.
There s no plan "B".
Cheers,
Peter
Whenarewethere said
05:00 PM Nov 19, 2021
As they say, if the money is right even the rosters start laying!
Legendts said
07:14 PM Nov 19, 2021
Some interesting information to add to the debate although off topic as it relates to marine applications.
It is with repeated monotony that I have asked questions of you with regard to reducing this so called global warming temperatures and with that same monotony that you have not provided one answer. You couldnt even provide a logical explanation as to how taxing Australians will reduce the days temperature.
OK you dont seem to be able to answer so for the sake of peace just let all my questions go except for one.
If, as you say the planet in the next generation will be unliveable, then tell us all how a paper bag full of money given to a group of people calling themselves the EU will fix this. ?
Please just answer this question thank you Buzz.
@Rob Driver,
All these questions have been previously answered or can be obviously inferred. You just ignore the truth. Climate deniers repeatedly quote reports that have been debunked time and time again but no matter how many facts and how logical the information is presented to climate deniers they just wont accept the truth. You will obviously not change your mind even though the facts have been presemted to you. You are a lost cause. One just can't be botheted bashing one's head against a wall. However, I guess I'll give it one more try. Just in the hope that it will sink in.
Burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere. As the CO2 parts per million go up in the atmosphere the temperature rises. This is called the greenhouse effect. There are other gases that also contribute to the greenhouse effect. Nitrous oxides have the short term effect 296 times more than CO2. Methane also has a greater short term effect than CO2 but CO2 has a much longer effect. The effect of each gas that contributes to climate change is given a value relative to the most destructive gas, CO2. This value is CO2 equivalent or CO2e. The only way to prevent the human contribution to climate change is to stop releasing CO2e gases into the atmosphere.
How can this be achieved? The general consensus is to discouraged the release of the CO2e gases. The fairest way is to have a global carbon trading system that rewards the industries that do not release CO2e and punish those that do. If one is charged more for one's products then one is less competitive and hopefully one will sell less and hence release less CO2e gases. This will encourage the biggest polluters to change their production processes to release less CO2e so that they can make more profit. This creates newer, cleaner technologies and globally less CO2e gases are released. As we see, some industries just can't compete with the new technologies, such as, renewable energy (solar power and wind turbines) produce cheaper electricity than coal powered stations.
However, it takes time to change to clean technologies from fossil fuel technologies, such as, building batteries and pumped hydro systems to meet demand when the renewables over produce power or can't match the demand.
Unfortunately, there is no global carbon trading scheme because many governments are too nationalistic and, as Sir David Attenborough says, can't see the bigger picture. Countries that do see the bigger picture know that they need to stop the release of CO2e gases and so tax the products and industries that pollute. It may cost at little bit more to produce clean products and these products should be encouraged because they are saving the world so the tax imposed on the polluting industries could be used to subsidise the non polluting industries or build infrastructure that helps reduce CO2e emissions.
For example, the carbon tax on coal powered stations doesn't need to subsidise renewable energy because renewable energy is now cheaper than coal powered electricity so that money could be spent on building batteries or pumped hydro systems that can replace the coal powered stations.
Another example is, let's say a green product costs a bit more to make but it reduces CO2e emissions so the carbon tax on the polluting products are used to subsidise the green product because overall, the greener product is better for the environment. This makes the green product competitive to the polluting product and so, climate conscious people, will buy the green product because it's better for the environment.
Another example is, let's say the EU has benefitted greatly over the past two hundred years but, in doing so, it has pumped tonnes of CO2e gases into the atmosphere. This could be said of any of the western, industrialised countries. Then there are the developing countries, such as The Marshall Islands, which have hardly released any CO2e gases. The underdeveloped countries may need to reinforce their shores against rising sea levels. The money to do this could come from the carbon taxes applied in the developed countries. Also, maybe the developing countries can't afford to implement green technologies. The carbon tax collected in the developed countries could donate or sunsidise the green technologies in the developing countries so that they do not follow the same polluting path of the developed countries and so the planet is better off. The donation to developing countries has been agreed at the COP meetings. Unfortunately, the developed countries are not paying their dues.
These are examples to show how we could address climate change if we had a global carbon trading scheme or every country had equivalent climate change policies and schemes.
Now consider that the EU has good climate change policies and has a well working carbon trading system. Some products cost more because a carbon tax has been applied to it's polluting process of manufacture. Then along comes the exact same product from a country that doesn't have decent climate change policies and carbon trading system. The product costs less because the environmental costs have not been applied to it's production. Should the locals be penalised because it's good for the environment? Should the imported product benefit because it's pollution wasn't accounted for? The only fair and sensible thing to do would be to apply a tariff on the imported product so that the local product is as competitive, the customers have a choice to choose the product that is better for the environment rather than the cheaper polluting product and the revenue could be used to benefit developing countries or build green solutions as previously mentioned.
Now consider that the polluting manufacturers let's say Australians, aren't happy with the tariffs because the Europeans aren't buying their products. What would be better for Australians and the environment? Pay the tariffs because we were warned about them and bad luck. Or, the government introduce decent climate policies that has a carbon trading scheme?
The latter means that the carbon tax revenue could be used to build batteries and pumped hydro systems that benefits, not only Australians but the world. Climate change is addressed, and our children may live better lives. The money that is no longer paid to subsidise the fossil fuel industries could be used to home the homeless, provide better education, a better health care system, better infrastructure, subsidise green technologies (such as EVs) and help save the world from climate change. However, the government decides to stick it's head in the sand and ruin future generations.
It is more complicated than 'a paper bag full of money given to a group of people calling themselves the EU' but maybe now you understand.
I've spent a long time writing this reply. You'd better appreciate it.
Buzz Lightbulb said
03:45 PM Nov 20, 2021
@Rob,
Now to address your question:
Rob Driver wrote:
Buzz,
Why dont we see any weather records that go back in history. The older records were either deleted or are not included to suit a climate change agenda.
This is a typical climate change deniers argument that has been debunked many times. We do have records going back hundreds of years and we have ice cores that go beyond the records.
We have university courses on climate change, brain washing at its best, particularly when the teachers are part of the groups that are not including the true figures from previous periods of time. Any study without all the facts available will never reveal the true situation.
We do not have every single record of every single moment but we do have enough to know that the CO2e ppm in the atmosphere is rising and the intelligent people, going to university and believing the specialists, know that there is a climate crisis happening right now. The only people being brain washed are those who clutch to debunked reports that support their uninformed views.
We have governments who can see an opportunity to collect extra taxes from a gullible sector.
Well our stupid government hasn't done anything to address climate change. The gullible sector are those who believe in false information and insist that there is no climate change.
We have the EU which is imposing a tax, your words are, the tax is coming. Then in the next breath we have an Australian govt that is going to implement a tax here.
Again and again, you misrepresent the context. Yes, the EU will apply a carbon tax on Australian imports if Australia doesn't implement decent climate polices and carbon trading scheme. The LOGICAL thing for the Australian government to do would be to have its own varbon trading scheme so that Australians benefit from the revenue.
Then *their* product costs wont increase despite the Aus Govt tax or the EU tax. I would like to see that..You have never ever been in business in my observation. Please outline how all of this will work in Laymans terms without costing us all.
It's so frustrating to deal with mentality like yours. It WILL COST US ALL IF WE DON'T DO SOMETHING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE! Does shouting get through to you? See my previous post explaining how carbon trading works.
It would be a very courageous government to *wrong side* the fossil fuel industry. In the same sentence you make a wild statement that a carbon tax may not be so bad. Run that out in any federal or state election campaign.
We almost had a carbon trading scheme until Bob Brown didn't vote for it. Now the term 'carbon tax' is a political nightmare. Sensible people realise that a varbon trading scheme is the fairest way to control the release of CO2e emissions. That's why the majority of Australians believe that the government should do more about climate change. Unfortunately, the fossil fuel industries have more influence than the voters so we are bombarded by them with lies about how carbon trading will ruin our lives. You've obviously felled for them. Whereas, our lives are ruined if climate change is NOT addressed.
When it comes to taxes and legislation, it is a very rare occasion that any government repeals what is in place to introduce something new, particularly when they stand to collect more money.
Absolutely right. The states are reluctant to give up stamp duty and the other taxes that the GST was supposed to replace. If there was a carbon tax a government could do wonders for Australians and the world.
If, as you say the planet in the next generation will be unliveable, then tell us all how a paper bag full of money given to a group of people calling themselves the EU will fix this. Why does this all have to happen in 14 years and dont bring up global warming figures as currently, due to records being removed, or not included, they are not accurate.
The IPCC has said as much. How can I address this question if you're not willing to accept the facts. I've previously posted the facts but you have ignored them.
Are you a politician? Current or maybe retired. Your other handle is not Bob Brown is it?
Already answered.
Why should I waste my time explaining to you detailed solutions and answers when you won't even accept the facts. I'm not going to continuously educate you when you refuse to learn. What's the point? You are a lost cause.
-- Edited by Rob Driver on Thursday 18th of November 2021 01:42:15 PM
msg said
03:58 PM Nov 20, 2021
"All these questions have been previously answered or can be obviously inferred. You just ignore the truth. Climate deniers repeatedly quote reports that have been debunked time and time again but no matter how many facts and how logical the information is presented to climate deniers they just wont accept the truth. You will obviously not change your mind even though the facts have been presemted to you. You are a lost cause. One just can't be botheted bashing one's head against a wall. However, I guess I'll give it one more try. Just in the hope that it will sink in."
This is how climate control fanatics prove their argument.
Rob Driver said
05:25 PM Nov 20, 2021
Buzz Lightout,
Wow it certainly would have taken you some time to write your last post.
We can go around and around with all these points, but in real terms there is no real proven fact to support your climate change argument. My argument is that if there is not enough PROVEN fact to support your argument then why should we all be hell bent on taxing the wallets off of our children and grandchildren. There will be good quality development in the use of different fuels, different methods of production and dare I say it, CLEANING UP THE PLANET but to dive in blindly and hope it works, wont work because of countries like China, India, etc.
Should someone mention Uranium, NNNOOOOOO!!
The EU itself raises another caution
By their very conflict between countries they have had a very unsettling history and they still do. Although the union of some countries existed from the fifties the last formation of the group was only 18 YEARS AGO.
From inception there has been ongoing arguments and disagreements within the group. Not a secure environment to be trusted with the trillions of dollars that they wish to collect and give to the poorer countries.
The Maastricht Treaty and the European Union On Feb. 7, 1992, European integration moved another step further when the Treaty on European Union, known as the Maastricht Treaty, was signed. This came into force on Nov. 1, 1993, and changed the EEC into the newly named European Union. The change broadened the work of the supranational bodies based around three pillars: the European Communities, giving more power to the European parliament; a common security/foreign policy; and involvement in the domestic affairs of member nations on justice and home affairs. In practice, and to pass the mandatory unanimous vote, these were all compromises away from the unified ideal. The EU also set guidelines for creation of a single currency, although when the Euro was introduced on Jan. 1, 1999 three nations opted out and one failed to meet the required targets.
Currency and economic reform were now being driven largely by the fact that the U.S. and Japanese economies were growing faster than Europes, especially after expanding quickly into the new developments in electronics. There were objections from poorer member nations, which wanted more money from the union, and larger nations, which wanted to pay less, but a compromise was eventually reached. One planned side effect of the closer economic union and the creation of a single market was the greater co-operation in social policy that would have to occur as a result.
The Maastricht Treaty also formalized the concept of EU citizenship, allowing any individual from an EU nation to run for office in the EU government, which was also changed to promote decision-making. Perhaps most controversially, the EUs entrance into domestic and legal matterswhich produced the Human Rights Act and overrode many member states local lawsproduced rules relating to free movement within the EUs borders, leading to paranoia about mass migrations from poorer EU nations to richer ones. More areas of members government were affected than ever before, and the bureaucracy expanded. The Maastricht Treaty faced heavy opposition, only narrowly passing in France and forcing a vote in the UK.
I have hi-lighted some of the points of major concern. It appears to be based strongly around socialism. I could have hi-lighted the entire first paragraph.
Since this publication I believe that the UK has removed themselves from this organisation.
Under the regime of the EU is it your prediction that the Marshall Islands will be the worlds next superpower and that is how ridiculous your suggestions of sending money to the EU are.
Well Buzz Greenbulb,
You and I have with the help of some others from both sides run up three odd pages of *off the original topic* information but before I go I want you and the other supporters of throwing money at quite often, a wayward representative group of countries in the guise of fixing climate change would you like to read the information in the link below.
If you and your group do achieve that money being paid under this guise of how we as humans have ruined our planet as directed by your IPCC ( heaven forbid) and then find that it doesnt fix the planet as hoped, WILL YOU THEN CONSIDER AN EXPLANATION BY REPRESENTATIVES OF NASA as explained here.
-- Edited by Rob Driver on Saturday 20th of November 2021 05:28:05 PM
-- Edited by Rob Driver on Saturday 20th of November 2021 05:32:27 PM
Buzz Lightbulb said
06:32 PM Nov 20, 2021
Rob Driver wrote:
Buzz Lightout,
Wow it certainly would have taken you some time to write your last post.
We can go around and around with all these points, but in real terms there is no real proven fact to support your climate change argument.
And there it is. The typical response of someone who can't see the truth eben though it is rigjt before your eyes.
My argument is that if there is not enough PROVEN fact to support your argument then why should we all be hell bent on taxing the wallets off of our children and grandchildren.
This is BS. The FACT is that climate change is real but mo matter what is presented to you, you completed ignore it.
There will be good quality development in the use of different fuels, different methods of production and dare I say it, CLEANING UP THE PLANET but to dive in blindly and hope it works, wont work because of countries like China, India, etc.
Should someone mention Uranium, NNNOOOOOO!!
The EU itself raises another caution
By their very conflict between countries they have had a very unsettling history and they still do. Although the union of some countries existed from the fifties the last formation of the group was only 18 YEARS AGO.
From inception there has been ongoing arguments and disagreements within the group. Not a secure environment to be trusted with the trillions of dollars that they wish to collect and give to the poorer countries.
The Maastricht Treaty and the European Union On Feb. 7, 1992, European integration moved another step further when the Treaty on European Union, known as the Maastricht Treaty, was signed. This came into force on Nov. 1, 1993, and changed the EEC into the newly named European Union. The change broadened the work of the supranational bodies based around three pillars: the European Communities, giving more power to the European parliament; a common security/foreign policy; and involvement in the domestic affairs of member nations on justice and home affairs. In practice, and to pass the mandatory unanimous vote, these were all compromises away from the unified ideal. The EU also set guidelines for creation of a single currency, although when the Euro was introduced on Jan. 1, 1999 three nations opted out and one failed to meet the required targets.
Currency and economic reform were now being driven largely by the fact that the U.S. and Japanese economies were growing faster than Europes, especially after expanding quickly into the new developments in electronics. There were objections from poorer member nations, which wanted more money from the union, and larger nations, which wanted to pay less, but a compromise was eventually reached. One planned side effect of the closer economic union and the creation of a single market was the greater co-operation in social policy that would have to occur as a result.
The Maastricht Treaty also formalized the concept of EU citizenship, allowing any individual from an EU nation to run for office in the EU government, which was also changed to promote decision-making. Perhaps most controversially, the EUs entrance into domestic and legal matterswhich produced the Human Rights Act and overrode many member states local lawsproduced rules relating to free movement within the EUs borders, leading to paranoia about mass migrations from poorer EU nations to richer ones. More areas of members government were affected than ever before, and the bureaucracy expanded. The Maastricht Treaty faced heavy opposition, only narrowly passing in France and forcing a vote in the UK.
I have hi-lighted some of the points of major concern. It appears to be based strongly around socialism. I could have hi-lighted the entire first paragraph.
Since this publication I believe that the UK has removed themselves from this organisation.
Under the regime of the EU is it your prediction that the Marshall Islands will be the worlds next superpower and that is how ridiculous your suggestions of sending money to the EU are.
Well Buzz Greenbulb,
You and I have with the help of some others from both sides run up three odd pages of *off the original topic* information but before I go I want you and the other supporters of throwing money at quite often, a wayward representative group of countries in the guise of fixing climate change would you like to read the information in the link below.
If you and your group do achieve that money being paid under this guise of how we as humans have ruined our planet as directed by your IPCC ( heaven forbid) and then find that it doesnt fix the planet as hoped, WILL YOU THEN CONSIDER AN EXPLANATION BY REPRESENTATIVES OF NASA as explained here.
-- Edited by Rob Driver on Saturday 20th of November 2021 05:28:05 PM
-- Edited by Rob Driver on Saturday 20th of November 2021 05:32:27 PM
Just ask yourself, 'what if the experts are correct that climate change is real'. Why not do something about it? The world will be ruined if nothing is done. If climate change in NOT real then doing something about the rising CO2 emissions and temperatures won't be a bad thing.
Again, it costs much more to fix it than prevent it and your trivial, selfish, time wasting arguments just show how selfish and pathetic you thoughts are. You'd rather destroy our children's future rather than accept the facts.
For example, the NASA article that you show a link to has been known but the effect of the tilt of the earth's axis and the variation in the earth's orbit is trivial compared to the human contribution to climate change. Human induced climate change happens in decades whereas the NASA reports effects happen over tens of thousands of years allowing time for biodiversity to evolve.
These are the typical arguments of climate deniers, they've been debunked time and time again yet these pathetic climate deniers keep clutching at this rubbish just to show some sort of justification of their beliefs.
There are psychological reasons for climate denying. The brains of these people can't cope with the knowledge so they grasp at rubbish to make the problem go away. They just can't see the bigger picture and have useless trivial arguments to justify their denial.
Or, they are selfish people who realise the truth but want to make as much money as possible before they die and couldn't care less about those people who are left behind to suffer the consequences.
It's frustrating, it's stupidity. It's like watching someone drill holes into the bottom of a sinking boat to let more water out rather than patch the holes and bail out the water.
Have a look at this. You may see the reason why you can't see the reality:
I don't know. Maybe he's testing all locations to find out the best deal?
I think that there was something proposed in the Pilberra but there were some cultural issues?
i don't see that we (or most of us) are going to save the planet for our kids , my kids are all grown up and have kids of their own and some of their kids even have kids. they are the ones who will have to make the changes , some of the things we do/use to day were beyond our imaginations 20-30 years ago so there will be thing that happen in the near future that we can't even imagine at this point in time.
if we were still to be here in 50 years what changes would we see ? will future generations still be using the SAVE THE PLANET line ? my thoughts are that global warming / climate change is a natural cycle, humans in the last 100 years may have contributed to influence the rate of the cycle but i still think population growth being a large part of the problem ,an what ever we do it will never be enough .
What is the problem?
Who read this news article?
Australian-first as central Queensland's Emerald bus company ditches diesel for hydrogen - ABC News
The hydrogen option offered better fuel security and range, and allowed the company to produce its own hydrogen.
In the future, green hydrogen fuel will be produced at its depot in Emerald, 270 kilometres west of Rockhampton, with rainwater captured onsite with a renewable-powered electrolyser
That is a clear trend. Significant or remote organisations will produce their own electricity from renewable sources and that can then either consume it directly or make hydrogen with it. And it can (and will) all happen very quickly, because it makes economic sense NOW.
Cheers,
Peter
Hi Peter,
Yes, quite often there does exist a problem for every solution.
The people suggesting a solution are reluctant to research other problems.
Collecting water for this project on site in Roma raises a red flag.
Who gets the job of winding the big key on top of the bus when water supply becomes a problem.
As you and I are typing, Roma is on water restrictions.
http://www.romaforfamilies.org/tag/water-restrictions/
If this bus company has to truck water in to operate their vehicles are the trucks diesel powered. If they are, then the green claim is negated.
If local water from the water authority is sourced to make hydrogen fuel then how does Roma and surrounding towns survive in times of low storage levels.
This is only one problem
There is just not enough thought going into this big rush on using Electric Vehicles within limited time frames.
Then over to our political representative Buzz Mightvote.
Buzz,
Your detailed reply to my post above says nothing constructive.
All you have done is provide an opposite view to mine. Not a problem on an open forum.
So to add my opinion to your view.
I am happy for you to write a cheque and send it to the EU but I am not happy for any government in Australia to send my families hard earned money to some organisation, to give to any country that is already being propped up by others.
To force Australia or any country to pay a tax so that another country can use our coal is bordering on insanity.
It doesnt stop the mining of coal, it doesnt stop the use of coal and it does not encourage the recipient country to adopt less polluting methods of using that coal.
My suggestion is that the taxes the EU are suggesting to impose is going to line the pockets of the ones who most least deserve it and at the expense of our children. This is one reason why all this has to happen so quickly as it is just a snow job to trick the gullible.
The doom and gloom you are calling *climate change* was known for centuries as *the weather and the seasons*
You can ignore reality but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality
-- Edited by Rob Driver on Wednesday 17th of November 2021 03:56:43 PM
The conversion to EV's, as problematic as it may seem and will be, may not have the immediate beneficial effect that many perceive.
New EV manufacturer Polestar released Carbon Impact Data on its new Model 2 - due 2022, compared, to a Petrol Powered ICE Volvo XC40.
Polestar has revealed the "whole-of-life" climate impact of its latest Polestar 2 electric vehicle (EV) variants, from production to disposal and is calling on the wider automotive industry to do the same. Their Life Cycle Assessment Carbon Footprint of the Polestar 2 is available here - www.polestar.com/dato-assets/11286/1600176185-20200915polestarlcafinala.pdf.
This is no airy fairy, gloss over the real facts BS, but a real recognition by an EV Manufacturer of the true facts.
Polestars Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) consider a range of factors tracked through a cars life cycle from the production phase, through the use phase, and to the end of life recycle phase. These factors are expressed through a single easy-to-comprehend 'CO2e' (carbon dioxide equivalent) number.
Calculations reveal that Polestar 2 has a much higher carbon footprint through the "production and disposal phases" than petrol-powered, internal-combustion engine (ICE) cars, but has lower CO2 output over the course of the use phase, if the re-charge is performed from renewable generation like wind.
However if the re-charge is performed as we do in Australia mainly powered by fossil fuel/renewable co generation mix, then the two vehicles need to travel 112,000 klms before breakeven of CO2 emissions is achieved between the two vehicles. Only after that is the EV a better environmental choice.
So EV's will pollute like hell in the production phase and recycle phase (if they can work out a cost effective solution to recycle the batteries), ICE's pollute less during manufacture and recycle, but more during their use phase.
Seems we are damned if we do, and damned if we don't, but EV's may not be the quick fix to our CO2 emissions many think.
-- Edited by bomurra on Wednesday 17th of November 2021 11:14:31 PM
-- Edited by bomurra on Wednesday 17th of November 2021 11:28:30 PM
-- Edited by bomurra on Thursday 18th of November 2021 11:36:59 AM
Yes, they will have to because this generation failed to stop the problem and so the future generations will have to pay more to fix it for their future generations.
Yes, the best thing anyone can do is NOT have children but THAT is a political nightmare. More people consume more and hence contribute to climate change.
Humans have never before suffered the climate we are facing but it seems fine to some that the innocent should suffer.
Buzz,
You certainly are very passionate as are some others.
There are several links in this topic that highlighted the other side of your passion.
Did you read that information?
bomurras post above has some quite relative information in it.
We should all start by re instating the true records of information relating to the earths temperature and not using a condensed version which favours the warming argument, then once the true information is back in place we should then begin to question why we have to pay a tax to achieve any change and when we realise that a tax wont fix anything but the bank balances of a few we could then encourage the varying methods of more efficient and economical personal and industrial transport.
New methods could and are being explored now and while Twiggy and the likes are financing the R and D that is fine, but to stand on your pulpit constantly demanding that we Australians should all throw money at a committee consisting of elected representatives from countries of which some are bankrupt is not a good business decision for our future generations. The EU is selling nothing, because they have nothing to sell.
Running out and buying an EV because ithe advertising says we should is not a good reason to make that purchase. It is threads and topics and posts like this that may provide a true and accurate exposure of the downfalls that we appeared to have glossed over.
Leave a good inheritance to your children and let them make a decision with new information that may more accurately indicate their current weather and seasonal status.
Your arguments are similar.
You dint appear to understand the situation. The EU will apply a varbon tax on Australian products when sold in the EU.
Our children, and children's children, will have to pay gor our generation's inability to take responsibility for our contribution to climate change and they will pay more to fix the problem. Its simple economics. It costs more to extract CO2 than to prevent it being dumped into the atmosphere.
Again, the IPCC says:
"It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred."
That is FACT and yes:
You can ignore reality but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality
The consequences of ignoring climate change IS, not will be, devastating.
Yes of course I'm passionate about climate change. It is making our planet unlivable for human beings and causing the loss of biodiversity due to human activity. Who wouldn't be worried?
I listen to the experts, the IPCC, not to some opinionated, uninformed, so called information. All the arguments against climate change have been mostly debunked. People hang on to old articles that support their own point of view. I listen to those who are experts in the fueld.
The EU, and other countries', tax is coming. Rather than our businesses having their products' costs increased when sold overseas, isn't it better for an Australian government to implement the tax here and keep that money in Australia to be spent on Australians? Seems like common sense to me, although common sense isn't that common. We accepted the GST, although it didn't do what it was supposed to do. We still pay many of the taxes it was supposed to replace.
And maybe a carbon tax won't be so bad, especially if the government use the subsidies it pays the fossil fuel industries to contribute to the tax's introduction.
A unlivable planet is not a good inheritance for our children amd any money we leave behind will be quickly consumed to fix our generations lack of action.
Buzz,
Why dont we see any weather records that go back in history. The older records were either deleted or are not included to suit a climate change agenda.
We have university courses on climate change, brain washing at its best, particularly when the teachers are part of the groups that are not including the true figures from previous periods of time. Any study without all the facts available will never reveal the true situation.
We have governments who can see an opportunity to collect extra taxes from a gullible sector.
We have the EU which is imposing a tax, your words are, the tax is coming.
Then in the next breath we have an Australian govt that is going to implement a tax here. Then *their* product costs wont increase despite the Aus Govt tax or the EU tax. I would like to see that..You have never ever been in business in my observation.
Please outline how all of this will work in Laymans terms without costing us all.
It would be a very courageous government to *wrong side* the fossil fuel industry. In the same sentence you make a wild statement that a carbon tax may not be so bad. Run that out in any federal or state election campaign.
When it comes to taxes and legislation, it is a very rare occasion that any government repeals what is in place to introduce something new, particularly when they stand to collect more money.
If, as you say the planet in the next generation will be unliveable, then tell us all how a paper bag full of money given to a group of people calling themselves the EU will fix this. Why does this all have to happen in 14 years and dont bring up global warming figures as currently, due to records being removed, or not included, they are not accurate.
Are you a politician? Current or maybe retired. Your other handle is not Bob Brown is it?
-- Edited by Rob Driver on Thursday 18th of November 2021 01:42:15 PM
FACT: We've known since the 1850's, by experiments, that increasing the percentage of atmospheric CO2 increases the atmospheric temperature. It's called the 'greenhouse effect'.
FACT: Burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere.
FACT: Humans have been burning fossil fuels at an unprecedented rate since the industrial revolution.
FACT SUMMARY: humans, burning fossil fuels, releases CO2 into the atmosphere, which causes the atmosphere to become hotter.
One may not believe these facts but that doesn't make the facts untrue. It's just makes one look ignorant and allows one to justify not to take action to fix the problem. One can clutch at ineffectual and trivial arguments of insufficient weather records, political beliefs, which way to implement carbon taxes, watch and see. The facts are that the climate is changing due to human activities and if we don't do something about it the earth will be uninhabitable by humans. Not to do so something is selfish, irresponsible and destroying future generations lives.
P.S. @Rob: I'm not Bob Brown and suggesting so, shows that you need to resort to insults to justify your arguments. I hate Bob Brown. He voted against the carbon tax during Rudd's era which made 'carbon tax' a political no no. He was a fool to do so.
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Friday 19th of November 2021 04:27:10 AM
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Friday 19th of November 2021 04:46:40 AM
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Friday 19th of November 2021 04:47:20 AM
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Friday 19th of November 2021 04:50:08 AM
There are one or two with innate adroitness for ad hominem.
Good day Buzz,
It is with repeated monotony that I have asked questions of you with regard to reducing this so called global warming temperatures and with that same monotony that you have not provided one answer. You couldnt even provide a logical explanation as to how taxing Australians will reduce the days temperature.
OK you dont seem to be able to answer so for the sake of peace just let all my questions go except for one.
If, as you say the planet in the next generation will be unliveable, then tell us all how a paper bag full of money given to a group of people calling themselves the EU will fix this. ?
Please just answer this question thank you Buzz.
The money collected can be used to make other improvements to implement change.
Cheers,
Peter
Hi Rob and others searching for information
How is this for another look at global warming ! Over millions of years before humans the sun shone on the earth and caused great forests to grow and eventually the trees fell into great bands of woody based material. By geological and other means these were buried beneath the earth and rock and with pressure and heat they transformed into what we know as fossil fuels, coal, oil and gas, trapped and buried. But in reality whatever the form they are stored energy from the sun that took millions of years to accumulate.
A truly vast amount of energy even by earth standards. Any dispute of that simplified statement ?
Now man discovered the energy only some hundreds of years ago and after a time started the industrial revolution and started to dig, and pump this bonanza of wealth and power. In that short time of hundreds of years we have released possibly half of that stored energy that took millions of years to accumulate. That is scary enough for me in itself as a fact. That is a scale enough to cause serious warming IMHO.
BUT the release of that energy was achieved mostly by burning the fuel. This released the sequestered carbon, billions, trillions or more tons, vast amounts of CO2, and that causes a double whammy by creating a greenhouse effect on the earth trapping more solar heat than before . Bl**dy hell how hard is that to understand. Time to stop before it is too late. IMHO
Jaahn
Hi Peter,
Yes a fine certainly encourages most people to detract from the action that caused the fine.
No one so far can explain how sending money (lets call it a fine tax) to the EU will stop pollution and global warming.
While many agree that we need to control or eliminate the burning of fossil fuels how will sending, paying, giving, money to some organisation overseas go in any way to help Australia achieve its goals?
No one on here so far can explain how money fixes this.
I said in other posts that I am not opposed to the introduction of alternative fuels to achieve a greener environment but the development of this technology in my opinion is being rushed.
Decentralisation of our cities populations would help in achieving a greener climate as would the restriction of building new subdivisions but we dont see this happening or even being mentioned.
How about the thousands of people that are living in hi rise or even multi storey complexes in cities and suburbs all move out to the country. In many cases these are the loudest protestors.
There are so many other areas where change will help to make a greener planet but so many of us seem hell bent on modifying vehicles and closing power stations.
I will ask yet again, how does sending money to the EU help Australia to achieve its anticipated goals.?
We (the rich) can afford to do that and have an obligation to do so.
Cheers,
Peter
Hi Jaahn,
You provide an alarming description of how we far we have come since the industrial revolution.
If all this is fact and is the actual cause of us having such a polluted planet then by all means, turn off the power stations, make the supply and sale of fossil fuels illegal and stop all industrial actions that are in any way connected to the use of fossil fuels. Stop the production of plastics and other materials that are potential pollutants. The list goes on.
As a country, in theory Australia could do all of this within one election period of 4 years.
The decision may not be favourable to all but it is what the people want and would be reflected in electoral promises at election time.
If we humans do this world wide we will achieve what many of us want and that is a green planet.
Unfortunately, in reality this wont happen for so many reasons so why are some of us just attacking motor vehicles (the subject of this topic).
Take a look at China India and the USA as main offenders.
Strangely enough, these are the ones who will not commit to any plan of change and even if they do they are only telling the rest of the world what they want to hear.
Nothing will change until it is economical for those countries to do so. The key word is economical.
Because money is the main influence to the decisions on both sides and extending to the economy of many countries, any half hearted change wont be enough to fix the planet.
This is my argument about paying money to some cause when we cant possibly get a result. I can imagine the EU sending China a bill for the pollution they currently emit. Chinas answer would be, * bend over EU we will bring it to your next meeting.*
By all means have Twiggy and other entrepreneurs do their R and D, and if it benefits the bottom line of their industry and helps the planet then we all applaud.
The average Australian does not want to pay any more taxes or be fined for using their motor car or air conditioner or any other electrical appliance when the the majority of the population of the rest of the world wont be changing power consumption habits until it is economical for them to do so.
All this and no one has yet proven that the production, use, disposal and even the generation of renewable electricity for this new EV is totally green.
Peter,
I would consider that a very poor investment of Australian taxpayer money.
Sending money to India for example from Australia and asking them to stop their industrial manufacturing, power generation etc would work, how?
How much money would it take to buy Indias manufacturing economy? I wouldnt even have a guess at that one.
there is a big black line between being obligated and just throwing money away so we in Australia will feel all warm and fuzzy.
That kind of agreement where we give money to third world countries will cost our children and grandchildren and future generations a fortune.
Australia just wont afford it.
-- Edited by Rob Driver on Friday 19th of November 2021 12:19:35 PM
Not our problem, so we won't help?
One of the biggest problems in the world today.
Australia actually has a foreign aid program now. Relative to other rich countries it is very conservative. This is simply a part of it.
Cheers,
Peter
A comment that is a tad unnecessary,
Australia does participate in foreign aid and for the most is very generous but if you think for a minute that any country with a population of Australias will make India close there power generation and industry with a fine tax on everything we manufacture and sell, then really, you are dreaming.
You know, not one of you pro, tax the crap out of Aussies to pay some overseas country to stop polluting, has given this forum any explanation as to how this fine tax will stop them polluting.
No one has even given any proof as to the production, operation, disposal and the generation of renewable power for EVs is ACTUALLY GREEN, and will achieve saving the planet.
Peter,
I am as interested as you in the development of truly green sources of electrical power and its use, however I am not naďve enough to believe for one minute that the introduction of current technology will achieve everything I have listed in the sentence immediately above within the current time frame suggested.
If those conditions arent achieved then the reason to change to achieve a green planet is mute.
Your boat sinks 10km from shore.
It is too far so swim, so don't bother trying, just drown right where you are?
The difference with global warming is how hot it gets.
Do nothing and we are in deep trouble. If we try hard and don't achieve everything we need to, it will be much better than if we had not tried.
We need to try VERY hard.... until it hurts, lots.
There s no plan "B".
Cheers,
Peter
As they say, if the money is right even the rosters start laying!
newatlas.com/marine/fortescue-worlds-first-ammonia-ship/
@Rob Driver,
All these questions have been previously answered or can be obviously inferred. You just ignore the truth. Climate deniers repeatedly quote reports that have been debunked time and time again but no matter how many facts and how logical the information is presented to climate deniers they just wont accept the truth. You will obviously not change your mind even though the facts have been presemted to you. You are a lost cause. One just can't be botheted bashing one's head against a wall. However, I guess I'll give it one more try. Just in the hope that it will sink in.
Burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere. As the CO2 parts per million go up in the atmosphere the temperature rises. This is called the greenhouse effect. There are other gases that also contribute to the greenhouse effect. Nitrous oxides have the short term effect 296 times more than CO2. Methane also has a greater short term effect than CO2 but CO2 has a much longer effect. The effect of each gas that contributes to climate change is given a value relative to the most destructive gas, CO2. This value is CO2 equivalent or CO2e. The only way to prevent the human contribution to climate change is to stop releasing CO2e gases into the atmosphere.
How can this be achieved? The general consensus is to discouraged the release of the CO2e gases. The fairest way is to have a global carbon trading system that rewards the industries that do not release CO2e and punish those that do. If one is charged more for one's products then one is less competitive and hopefully one will sell less and hence release less CO2e gases. This will encourage the biggest polluters to change their production processes to release less CO2e so that they can make more profit. This creates newer, cleaner technologies and globally less CO2e gases are released. As we see, some industries just can't compete with the new technologies, such as, renewable energy (solar power and wind turbines) produce cheaper electricity than coal powered stations.
However, it takes time to change to clean technologies from fossil fuel technologies, such as, building batteries and pumped hydro systems to meet demand when the renewables over produce power or can't match the demand.
Unfortunately, there is no global carbon trading scheme because many governments are too nationalistic and, as Sir David Attenborough says, can't see the bigger picture. Countries that do see the bigger picture know that they need to stop the release of CO2e gases and so tax the products and industries that pollute. It may cost at little bit more to produce clean products and these products should be encouraged because they are saving the world so the tax imposed on the polluting industries could be used to subsidise the non polluting industries or build infrastructure that helps reduce CO2e emissions.
For example, the carbon tax on coal powered stations doesn't need to subsidise renewable energy because renewable energy is now cheaper than coal powered electricity so that money could be spent on building batteries or pumped hydro systems that can replace the coal powered stations.
Another example is, let's say a green product costs a bit more to make but it reduces CO2e emissions so the carbon tax on the polluting products are used to subsidise the green product because overall, the greener product is better for the environment. This makes the green product competitive to the polluting product and so, climate conscious people, will buy the green product because it's better for the environment.
Another example is, let's say the EU has benefitted greatly over the past two hundred years but, in doing so, it has pumped tonnes of CO2e gases into the atmosphere. This could be said of any of the western, industrialised countries. Then there are the developing countries, such as The Marshall Islands, which have hardly released any CO2e gases. The underdeveloped countries may need to reinforce their shores against rising sea levels. The money to do this could come from the carbon taxes applied in the developed countries. Also, maybe the developing countries can't afford to implement green technologies. The carbon tax collected in the developed countries could donate or sunsidise the green technologies in the developing countries so that they do not follow the same polluting path of the developed countries and so the planet is better off. The donation to developing countries has been agreed at the COP meetings. Unfortunately, the developed countries are not paying their dues.
These are examples to show how we could address climate change if we had a global carbon trading scheme or every country had equivalent climate change policies and schemes.
Now consider that the EU has good climate change policies and has a well working carbon trading system. Some products cost more because a carbon tax has been applied to it's polluting process of manufacture. Then along comes the exact same product from a country that doesn't have decent climate change policies and carbon trading system. The product costs less because the environmental costs have not been applied to it's production. Should the locals be penalised because it's good for the environment? Should the imported product benefit because it's pollution wasn't accounted for? The only fair and sensible thing to do would be to apply a tariff on the imported product so that the local product is as competitive, the customers have a choice to choose the product that is better for the environment rather than the cheaper polluting product and the revenue could be used to benefit developing countries or build green solutions as previously mentioned.
Now consider that the polluting manufacturers let's say Australians, aren't happy with the tariffs because the Europeans aren't buying their products. What would be better for Australians and the environment? Pay the tariffs because we were warned about them and bad luck. Or, the government introduce decent climate policies that has a carbon trading scheme?
The latter means that the carbon tax revenue could be used to build batteries and pumped hydro systems that benefits, not only Australians but the world. Climate change is addressed, and our children may live better lives. The money that is no longer paid to subsidise the fossil fuel industries could be used to home the homeless, provide better education, a better health care system, better infrastructure, subsidise green technologies (such as EVs) and help save the world from climate change. However, the government decides to stick it's head in the sand and ruin future generations.
It is more complicated than 'a paper bag full of money given to a group of people calling themselves the EU' but maybe now you understand.
I've spent a long time writing this reply. You'd better appreciate it.
This is how climate control fanatics prove their argument.
Buzz Lightout,
Wow it certainly would have taken you some time to write your last post.
We can go around and around with all these points, but in real terms there is no real proven fact to support your climate change argument.
My argument is that if there is not enough PROVEN fact to support your argument then why should we all be hell bent on taxing the wallets off of our children and grandchildren.
There will be good quality development in the use of different fuels, different methods of production and dare I say it, CLEANING UP THE PLANET but to dive in blindly and hope it works, wont work because of countries like China, India, etc.
Should someone mention Uranium, NNNOOOOOO!!
The EU itself raises another caution
By their very conflict between countries they have had a very unsettling history and they still do.
Although the union of some countries existed from the fifties the last formation of the group was only 18 YEARS AGO.
From inception there has been ongoing arguments and disagreements within the group.
Not a secure environment to be trusted with the trillions of dollars that they wish to collect and give to the poorer countries.
https://www.thoughtco.com/the-history-of-the-european-union-1221595?utm_source=emailshare&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=mobilesharebutton2
https://www.thoughtco.com/the-history-of-the-european-union-1221595?utm_source=emailshare&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=mobilesharebutton2
From the link above
The Maastricht Treaty and the European Union
On Feb. 7, 1992, European integration moved another step further when the Treaty on European Union, known as the Maastricht Treaty, was signed. This came into force on Nov. 1, 1993, and changed the EEC into the newly named European Union. The change broadened the work of the supranational bodies based around three pillars: the European Communities, giving more power to the European parliament; a common security/foreign policy; and involvement in the domestic affairs of member nations on justice and home affairs. In practice, and to pass the mandatory unanimous vote, these were all compromises away from the unified ideal. The EU also set guidelines for creation of a single currency, although when the Euro was introduced on Jan. 1, 1999 three nations opted out and one failed to meet the required targets.
Currency and economic reform were now being driven largely by the fact that the U.S. and Japanese economies were growing faster than Europes, especially after expanding quickly into the new developments in electronics. There were objections from poorer member nations, which wanted more money from the union, and larger nations, which wanted to pay less, but a compromise was eventually reached. One planned side effect of the closer economic union and the creation of a single market was the greater co-operation in social policy that would have to occur as a result.
The Maastricht Treaty also formalized the concept of EU citizenship, allowing any individual from an EU nation to run for office in the EU government, which was also changed to promote decision-making. Perhaps most controversially, the EUs entrance into domestic and legal matterswhich produced the Human Rights Act and overrode many member states local lawsproduced rules relating to free movement within the EUs borders, leading to paranoia about mass migrations from poorer EU nations to richer ones. More areas of members government were affected than ever before, and the bureaucracy expanded. The Maastricht Treaty faced heavy opposition, only narrowly passing in France and forcing a vote in the UK.
I have hi-lighted some of the points of major concern. It appears to be based strongly around socialism. I could have hi-lighted the entire first paragraph.
Since this publication I believe that the UK has removed themselves from this organisation.
Under the regime of the EU is it your prediction that the Marshall Islands will be the worlds next superpower and that is how ridiculous your suggestions of sending money to the EU are.
Well Buzz Greenbulb,
You and I have with the help of some others from both sides run up three odd pages of *off the original topic* information but before I go I want you and the other supporters of throwing money at quite often, a wayward representative group of countries in the guise of fixing climate change would you like to read the information in the link below.
If you and your group do achieve that money being paid under this guise of how we as humans have ruined our planet as directed by your IPCC ( heaven forbid) and then find that it doesnt fix the planet as hoped, WILL YOU THEN CONSIDER AN EXPLANATION BY REPRESENTATIVES OF NASA as explained here.
https://prepareforchange.net/2019/09/15/nasa-climate-change-caused-by-changes-in-earths-solar-orbit-and-axial-tilt-not-man-made-causes/
-- Edited by Rob Driver on Saturday 20th of November 2021 05:28:05 PM
-- Edited by Rob Driver on Saturday 20th of November 2021 05:32:27 PM
Just ask yourself, 'what if the experts are correct that climate change is real'. Why not do something about it? The world will be ruined if nothing is done. If climate change in NOT real then doing something about the rising CO2 emissions and temperatures won't be a bad thing.
Again, it costs much more to fix it than prevent it and your trivial, selfish, time wasting arguments just show how selfish and pathetic you thoughts are. You'd rather destroy our children's future rather than accept the facts.
For example, the NASA article that you show a link to has been known but the effect of the tilt of the earth's axis and the variation in the earth's orbit is trivial compared to the human contribution to climate change. Human induced climate change happens in decades whereas the NASA reports effects happen over tens of thousands of years allowing time for biodiversity to evolve.
These are the typical arguments of climate deniers, they've been debunked time and time again yet these pathetic climate deniers keep clutching at this rubbish just to show some sort of justification of their beliefs.
There are psychological reasons for climate denying. The brains of these people can't cope with the knowledge so they grasp at rubbish to make the problem go away. They just can't see the bigger picture and have useless trivial arguments to justify their denial.
Or, they are selfish people who realise the truth but want to make as much money as possible before they die and couldn't care less about those people who are left behind to suffer the consequences.
It's frustrating, it's stupidity. It's like watching someone drill holes into the bottom of a sinking boat to let more water out rather than patch the holes and bail out the water.
Have a look at this. You may see the reason why you can't see the reality:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23231020-500-changing-minds-how-to-trump-delusion-and-restore-the-power-of-facts/
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24132180-100-how-to-upgrade-your-thinking-and-avoid-traps-that-make-you-look-stupid/
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Saturday 20th of November 2021 06:44:20 PM
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Saturday 20th of November 2021 06:53:43 PM
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Saturday 20th of November 2021 07:20:38 PM
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Saturday 20th of November 2021 07:26:53 PM
-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Saturday 20th of November 2021 07:29:15 PM