• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

The Climate Change Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

boyo

Mark Ella (57)
Pacific nations urge climate change action, ask Australia for help

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-27/pacific-countries-make-climate-change-appeal/5481050

"Mr Talia says it is important to keep campaigning because people from Tuvalu feel so vulnerable.
"It is difficult to determine who is listening and who is not listening," he said.
"I believe they have heard our message so many times but we keep on pushing and advocating for Tuvalu and Kiribati and low lying atolls [so] that leaders of Australia and other industrialised countries will continue to hear our voice."
 

wilful

Larry Dwyer (12)
Happy to close ever coal powered station if we go nuclear. Now see what that brings.

Alternative technologies do work at a micro level but can't at a macro level. The issues beginning to emerge about wind and how Europe is reassessing that will be interesting.
Me too. Though of course we would import 100% of our nuclear expertise. But a whole bunch of countries are still building big nukes affordably and safely.
 

Runner

Nev Cottrell (35)
Me too. Though of course we would import 100% of our nuclear expertise. But a whole bunch of countries are still building big nukes affordably and safely.

It might revense the brain drain in the area and we do have 50% of the world supply of fuel.
 

Runner

Nev Cottrell (35)
Don’t demonise coal, embrace its many benefits

02 Jun 2014


Those with a social conscience want to deny poor nations’ access to the cheapest and most abundant energy source available.
Brendan Pearson

In his address to the Minerals Council of Australia’s annual Parliamentary Dinner last Wednesday night, the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, summed up the unfashionable truth about fossil fuels in a few striking phrases.
The Prime Minister said it was “particularly important that we do not demonise the coal industry”, adding that the government wants to keep mining strong because “it is our destiny in this country to bring affordable energy to the world.”
In a luncheon address earlier the same day, the Opposition Leader, Bill Shorten, also expressed strong support for Australian coal sector.
Yet, as the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader affirmed the national and global benefits of fossil fuels, an Australian investment fund announced that one of its funds will now exclude companies with “material fossil fuel exposure” in order to suit the “social conscience” of its clients.
The trend isn’t new. In the late 90s it was alcohol, more recently it has been Israel. Now coal is the latest focus.
Let’s take a closer look at the intellectual and moral underpinnings of these propositions.
The first is that coal is neither acceptable nor necessary.
It is a claim easily made by those who are comfortable, well-lit and warm.
Nearly half the world has no or limited access to energy. More than 1.3 billion people have no access to energy. In Africa, 1 billion people use roughly the same amount of electricity as 34 million Canadians. In sub-Saharan Africa 90 million children go to schools without electricity. In Malawi and Uganda as many as nine out of 10 people lack access to regular electricity as do 300 million people in India.
Yet those with a social conscience want to deny poor nations’ access to the cheapest and most abundant energy source available.
Never mind that an average Australian refrigerator will use nine times more energy in a year than an average Ethiopian citizen.
Extreme poverty without coal


Never mind that there is no escape from extreme poverty without access to cheap energy. And coal is the leading option. In the world’s fastest-growing energy market – Asia – the cost of generating electricity from coal is half the cost of gas, and even more affordable than other alternatives.
The bottom line is that excluding coal from the energy mix will mean that tens or even hundreds of millions of people will have to wait decades longer for energy access and a route out of poverty.
Never mind that new conventional generation technologies are slashing the CO2 emissions from coal-fired technologies by as much as 30 to 40 per cent. And good progress is being made on carbon capture and storage such as the new Boundary Dam power plant in Canada, which is capturing and storing 90 per cent of its carbon emissions.
The proposition also seems to overlook the fact that there is 150 to 250 tonnes of coking coal in every wind turbine. On this basis though, shouldn’t socially conscious investors be abandoning wind farms as well as coal mines?
Never mind that coal is indispensable to the production of most of the world’s steel.
The second proposition underpinning the so-called “divestment” movement is that coal is not a sound investment.
The gist of this argument is that demand for coal is going to dry up and leave coal assets stranded. The problem is that there is literally not a single empirical fact to support this proposition. Not a single one. In fact, coal use is continuing to outstrip all other energy sources.
A report by the International Energy Agency in May noted that “growth in coal-fired generation since 2010 has been greater than that of all non-fossil fuels combined, continuing a 20-year trend.”
There is also consensus about projected use of coal for decades to come. All the principal international energy forecasters – public and private – tell the same story. Coal will have a central role in energy generation for decades to come.
These include international Energy Agency, the (US) Energy Information Administration, the (Australian) Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics (BREE), the Institute for Energy Economics of Japan (IEEJ) as well as respected private forecasters Wood Mackenzie and the Salva Report.
Even forecasts produced by the oil and gas industry – including BP and Exxon Mobil – come to similar conclusions.
For the divestment movement to be right, all these forecasters have to be wrong. Investors and policymakers should rely on energy projections by independent government forecasters, not those made by activists with an ideological axe to grind.
The good news is the overwhelming majority of investment funds are not following the latest fashion.
And that is even better news for investors in these funds.
Brendan Pearson is chief executive of the Minerals Council of Australia.

The Australian Financial Review
 

boyo

Mark Ella (57)
Barack Obama's climate change moves put heat on Tony Abbott

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/barack-obamas-climate-change-moves-put-heat-on-tony-abbott-20140602-39f0s.html#ixzz33XRMkDDe


"A dramatic acceleration of America's response to climate change, including strong caps on coal-fired pollution threatens to expose Australia's humble 5 per cent emissions reduction target by 2020 as too low and out of step with the rest of the world.
The US move may overshadow the first bilateral talks between Prime Minister Tony Abbott and President Barack Obama to take place in Washington next week."

"Environment Minister Greg Hunt rejected such assessments, arguing Australia is taking strong action on climate change. "We're offering real incentives through the emissions reduction fund for coal power stations to implement new technologies that will cut emissions," he said."
 

Gnostic

Mark Ella (57)
Not a direct Climate change subject but intrinsically related.

Australia has the worst Mammalian extinction rate in the world and it is accelerating. 1 Mammal becomes extinct in this country every decade and has done since white settlement.

Climate change will not help this disgusting record.
 

boyo

Mark Ella (57)
Barack Obama plans 30 per cent cuts in power carbon emissions, hailed as 'super bowl of climate change' regulation

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-03/us-unveils-plan-to-cut-carbon-emissions/5495560

"The United States has unveiled a new regulation requiring the power sector to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 30 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030, one of the strongest actions ever taken by the US to combat global warming."

"Household power bills, she says, will be 8 per cent cheaper thanks to energy efficiency improvements the rule will accelerate.
"The most costly thing we can do is to do nothing," she said.

"Now, climate change is calling our number and right on cue these same critics will once again flaunt manufactured facts and scare tactics, standing in the way of our right to breathe clean air, to keep our communities safe."
 

Runner

Nev Cottrell (35)
Not a direct Climate change subject by intrinsically related.

Australia has the worst Mammalian extinction rate in the world and it is accelerating. 1 Mammal becomes extinct in this country every decade and has done since white settlement.

Climate change will not help this disgusting record.

Question. If no man was here on the planet when we had two mass extinctions can it be all man!
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Question. If no man was here on the planet when we had two mass extinctions can it be all man!

The previous mass extinction events happened over millions of years.

We're now seeing substantial change over the course of years or decades. The rate of change has sped up astronomically.
 

BPC

Phil Hardcastle (33)
Question. If no man was here on the planet when we had two mass extinctions can it be all man!

That's not a question. That's a statement in which you answer your own question.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Runner

Nev Cottrell (35)
The previous mass extinction events happened over millions of years.

We're now seeing substantial change over the course of years or decades. The rate of change has sped up astronomically.

The last one was preety quick and no man/women about to cause it just a stray rock.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BPC

Runner

Nev Cottrell (35)
Academic slams tyranny of the greens

: 04 Jun 2014

Trevor Sykes

Professor Ian Plimer has never been renowned for moderation in his opinions about the extremist elements of the green movement and in this book he launches on them in a full-blooded, broken-bottle attack.
In his own words: “What started as a laudable movement to prevent the despoilation of certain areas of natural beauty has morphed into an authoritarian, anti-progress, anti-democratic, anti-human monster.” That Plimer should attack the greens is no surprise. More impressive is the book’s foreword, written by Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, who fully supports Plimer.
He congratulates Plimer for a book that provides a “different . . . and extremely rational look at the agenda of the green movement today”. “In many respects, they have become a combination of extreme political ideology and religious fundamentalism rolled into one,” Moore says.
“There is no better example of this than the fervent belief in human-caused catastrophic climate change.” Moore even rejects the core green belief that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful.
Plimer’s thesis is that the real agenda of green groups (often registered as charities) is nothing less than the destruction of modern civilisation and that a key aim is to kneecap the global energy industry which provides society with electricity. It has always seemed odd that greens are so hostile to a gas which is vital for the life of trees. As a trained geologist, Plimer is well aware that the planet’s climate has been changing since its birth 4½ billion years ago. “If the Earth’s climate did not constantly change, then I would be really worried,” he says.
What he contests is that manmade carbon dioxide has anything much to do with such change. It must be comforting for left-wingers to blame evil industrialists for destroying our planet, but in fact carbon dioxide accounts for only 0.04 per cent of the atmosphere and man-made carbon dioxide accounts for maybe 4 per cent of that, so Plimer regards the proposition as nonsense.
Also, carbon dioxide emissions do not accumulate quickly in the atmosphere.
After five to seven years, they are absorbed by the oceans, trees or rocks. Plimer believes that for scientists to argue that traces of a trace gas can be the driving force for climate change is fraudulent.
What causes climate change?


Sceptical scientists do not know what causes climate change but it would seem a complex combination of factors. Plimer believes the atmosphere is merely the medium through which climate change manifests itself and the major driver is “that giant fusion reactor we call the sun”.
He says: “It is quite capable of throwing out immense clouds of hot, ionised gases many millions of kilometres into space, sometimes with drastic effects on both the Earth’s atmosphere and on spacecraft travelling outside the lower atmosphere and the Earth’s protective magnetic shield.” Plimer, who is not renowned for pulling his punches, describes green extremists as hypocritical – “a malevolent unelected group attempting to deconstruct healthy societies that have taken thousands of years to build”.
That may sound extreme, but it’s difficult to find an alternative explanation for the change they have forced upon the Drax power station in Yorkshire.
Drax used to boast it was the largest, cleanest and most efficient coal-fired power station in Europe, generating up to 3960 megawatts. Greens demonstrated against it, saying Drax was the largest carbon dioxide emitter in Europe. So Drax is changing from coal to biomass. Plimer says it intends to import timber from North Carolina for fuel. This is madness, both economically and ecologically. A plant which used to burn 36,000 tonnes of coal a day will instead burn 70,000 tonnes of wood.
Forests will have to be chopped down in North Carolina, which must involve some destruction of native habitats of creatures such as otters and woodpeckers. Habitat destruction kills birds and animals more surely than climate change ever will. The timber will be reduced to pellets in factories fuelled by conventional fuels, then shipped across the Atlantic in diesel-burning boats. Over the 20-year life of the power station, that would involve the destruction of 511 million tonnes of wood.
The energy density of wood is about half that of an equivalent weight of coal, so wood will produce more expensive electricity. Burning wood also releases its stored carbon dioxide.
Wind and solar power unreliable


The European Environment Agency has ruled that burning wood is carbon neutral because the carbon dioxide will be absorbed over time by the oceans or other trees.
That leaves the EEA in the odd position of believing that a molecule of carbon dioxide emanating from wood behaves differently to a molecule emanating from coal.
The greens, having achieved their aim, have stopped demonstrating although there is a strong argument that the conversion of Drax will make it more, not less, harmful to the planet.
Wind farms and solar power stations are unreliable and totally unable to provide base load electricity.
Plimer gives calculations which show that wind turbines are barely able to generate as much electricity in their lifetime as it takes to make them.
. Even more bizarre was the Spanish solar plant which enjoyed such large subsidies that it could make profits generating electricity at night by shining floodlights on the panels. The floodlights were powered by a diesel generator. These are only three examples of green illogic from a book crammed with them. Plimer has assembled a massive case which needs answers.
Even more bizarre was the Spanish solar plant which enjoyed such large subsidies that it could make profits generating electricity at night by shining floodlights on the panels. The floodlights were powered by a diesel generator. These are only three examples of green illogic from a book crammed with them
Not For Greens, by Ian Plimer, Connor Court. $29.95

The Australian Financial Review

Sorry paywalled so all placed here
 

BPC

Phil Hardcastle (33)
The last one was preety quick and no man/women about to cause it just a stray rock.

Perhaps the rapid degradation caused by man made global warming is not entirely comparable to a catastrophic astronomical event that was the equivalent of millions of times the explosive power of modern atomic weapons - Schulte, P et al, 2010 Science 327:5970, 1214.

Humanity is working on it though.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tex

BPC

Phil Hardcastle (33)
'Ian Plimer' and 'academic' are three words never to be joined logically.

He's a vested interest, representing vested interests, all in the interest of promoting his latest book.

Long version: http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91
Short version: Plimer does not produce a proper scientific argument
Shortest version: Plimer is full of shit

But he is supported by a former founder of Greenpeace! How significant is that?

Not very. Former Greenpeace activist Patrick Moore has produced 'environmental' reports slanted towards the businesses he now provides consultancy services for: http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91, http://www.theguardian.com/environm.../sumatra-rainforest-destruction-patrick-moore. In his supposed expert reports, Moore has been caught cutting and pasting material from his client's press releases and his expert team when assessing a Sumatran rainforest comprised himself and two public relations experts.

So, one hired gun spruiking for another hired gun. Hardly earth-shattering.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

boyo

Mark Ella (57)
"The science is not settled" is a frequently rolled-out statement.

The science should not be settled.

If someone says that "The science is settled", it shows that they have little or no understanding of science.
 

boyo

Mark Ella (57)
It is Australia's 'destiny' to be powered by coal?

http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2014/06/03/4017140.htm

"Clean technology isn't cheap to build; hence, the need for a policy incentive. But once the infrastructure is in place, it is cheaper to produce than coal, because wind and sunlight are free. This brings down wholesale electricity price, (as explained further in this ABC Fact Check)."

"Bloomberg published a detailed report that examined the impact of scrapping the RET on electricity prices. The report forecasted a short-term slight dip, but in the long term, prices would increase. Bloomberg's findings align with modelling commissioned by the Clean Energy Council, which found each household would be paying an extra $50 for electricity in 2020 if the RET is scrapped, totalling half a billion dollars in the same year for the whole energy system.

We are compelled, then, to consider that clean energy might not just be affordable but actually cheaper than the burning of fossil fuels."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top