The Climate Change Thread

[Gnostic]

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

And the odd are that sooner or later that event will recur.

What is at debate here isn't to do with "natural" or "unavoidable" changes to climate and environment. It is purely to do with human impacts.

It is a narrow view and an uneducated one to think that the climate/environment will/should be static and there will be no natural extinction (in my point above). Just without taking into account external inputs the drift of continents will result in major climate shifts over periods of geological time, with those changes unmeasurable at the start but likely to build and reach a tipping point with rapid (relatively) change at some point.

Now add in external/variable factors such as volcanic and solar activity and you get a picture of a relatively volatile climate/environment.

What is the point of the this whole thread is the fact that the inputs from humans in addition to everything else is driving change to rates never seen before (excluding your space rock). With such rates of change evolution is pushed into overdrive and species adapt very quickly to survive. The highly specialised species quickly drop off and only those who like humans can that can adapt to all environments (or adapt the environment to them) survive.

Now lets add to the equation in purely impacts upon humans (not the other way around). Putting aside the displacement due to loss of habitable lands etc. as an example of what a changing climate will mean, this year the government and AMA admitted that a man in Brisbane had contracted Malaria without ever leaving the city. This was reported as the first proven case of this formerly tropical disease so far south.

 

[boyo]

Free market hypocrisy on climate change action

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-10/barns-free-market-hypocrisy-on-climate-change-policy/5512372

"Climate change policies are a test of the Prime Minister's free market credentials - a test that he has failed dismally in the past 48 hours, writes Greg Barns."

"The Economist, one of the most intellectually consistent free-market-oriented newspapers in the English speaking world, this week editorialised again in favour of a carbon tax that puts a "price on emissions and [lets] buyers and sellers decide on the cheapest way to reduce them".

In short, Mr Abbott's posturing and rhetoric on the most efficient and least expensive ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a case of turning his back on market-based solutions."


TA has a blinkered view on climate change - also shown by his denial that other countries have moved/are moving.

 

[redstragic]

Free market hypocrisy on climate change action

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-10/barns-free-market-hypocrisy-on-climate-change-policy/5512372

"Climate change policies are a test of the Prime Minister's free market credentials - a test that he has failed dismally in the past 48 hours, writes Greg Barns."

"The Economist, one of the most intellectually consistent free-market-oriented newspapers in the English speaking world, this week editorialised again in favour of a carbon tax that puts a "price on emissions and [lets] buyers and sellers decide on the cheapest way to reduce them".

In short, Mr Abbott's posturing and rhetoric on the most efficient and least expensive ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a case of turning his back on market-based solutions."


TA has a blinkered view on climate change - also shown by his denial that other countries have moved/are moving.

It is an puzzling position. The market will apparently see Uni fees not get out of hand but direct action is best for reducing emissions.

Apparently Obama is doing direct action by looking to mandate states reduce emissions by 30% of 2005 levels. I don't know much about it but I think it is up to the states to work out how they will comply and pay for it. Different to ours where money will be available to polluters to cut back. I am worried ours might amount getting work for the dole to plant trees.

 

[Runner]

Gnostic, Sorry your quote keeps coming up as an error and won't place itself here.

Sorry I still don't see how this justifies a carbon tax. The quotes above about others is simiar. As I have said China is charging its power stations a carbon fee but the government owns the power stations so it taxes itself. No money changes hands and at $1.50a tonne compared to ours heading up towards $20. China is building 500 coal power ststaions we have 30 in total.

In Europe it doesn't work.

In the USA he will not get it through the upper house so this is just a posture position. If he does it will go to the courts as a ststes rights issue and be defeated. Or a Republican will be the next president and that person will repeal it.

 

[Braveheart81]

Taxing government entities still has an overall effect because it raises the cost of producing that electricity to take into account the carbon pollution produced. This then creates a price signal for the consumer and reduces use.

Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

 

[Runner]

Taxing government entities still has an overall effect because it raises the cost of producing that electricity to take into account the carbon pollution produced. This then creates a price signal for the consumer and reduces use.

Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

No, for items such as power which are inelastic. The alternatives don't work for base load so all you effectly have is a revenue raising devise and one that causes costs to rise etc etc.

 

[redstragic]

No, for items such as power which are inelastic. The alternatives don't work for base load so all you effectly have is a revenue raising devise and one that causes costs to rise etc etc.

Here in Queensland big power price increases have meant people use less power. The amount of power reduction is having an effect where it becomes a factor in future price rises because of cost the maintenance of the infrastructure still needs to be met. It is a vicious circle. We use less and end up paying more for what we do use.

 

[Braveheart81]

No, for items such as power which are inelastic. The alternatives don't work for base load so all you effectly have is a revenue raising devise and one that causes costs to rise etc etc.

This is plainly wrong.

Electricity usage is far from inelastic.

Like anything, a price signal causes consumers to consider their discretionary electricity usage (i.e. turning on the air conditioner or the heater) and consider investing in technology to help reduce their usage (newer, more energy efficient appliances or alternative power sources like solar).

Anyway, we've had this conversation dozens of times before. Your only answer is coal or nuclear and considering nuclear is not going to happen in the foreseeable future in Australia, it's a bit of a furphy.

Eventually, coal power usage is going to decrease dramatically. With the way things are going in Australia politically, it's unlikely we'll be ready for that eventuality. We have a government who is putting all their eggs in the coal basket and hoping that the rest of the world continues to twiddle their thumbs. The reality seems to be the opposite however, particularly with developments in the US.

 

[bryce]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/opinion/krugman-interests-ideology-and-climate.html?_r=0

 

[Runner]

This is plainly wrong.

Electricity usage is far from inelastic.

Like anything, a price signal causes consumers to consider their discretionary electricity usage (i.e. turning on the air conditioner or the heater) and consider investing in technology to help reduce their usage (newer, more energy efficient appliances or alternative power sources like solar).

Anyway, we've had this conversation dozens of times before. Your only answer is coal or nuclear and considering nuclear is not going to happen in the foreseeable future in Australia, it's a bit of a furphy.

Eventually, coal power usage is going to decrease dramatically. With the way things are going in Australia politically, it's unlikely we'll be ready for that eventuality. We have a government who is putting all their eggs in the coal basket and hoping that the rest of the world continues to twiddle their thumbs. The reality seems to be the opposite however, particularly with developments in the US.

Sorry.

For households its like a diet. They do it for awhile but them revert especially if its hot or cold for your a/c eg. Business on the other hand see it as a cost to either pass onto the consumer or to use new tech in manufacture and less labour or buy overseas. Aluminium is a good e.g.

Solar etc doesn't work cost effectively. Read back over some of the previous items to see the various reports and analysis on that topic.

Its not a furphy. Alternative will NEVER provide base load. Everyone in the power industry knows that.

Lets say that we don't use coal for power. What about the other hundreds of products produced from oil or coal derivatives. That will not stop so we will still mine--- or do we shut down those industries as well?

But as you say we have had this discussion before and we have contrary views.

 

[Runner]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/opinion/krugman-interests-ideology-and-climate.html?_r=0

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...th-right-and-wrong-about-climate-change-here/

 

[Braveheart81]

Of course you don't shut down coal mining totally. You need coking coal to make steel.

You don't need to burn coal for electricity generation though. Eventually we will stop doing it.

Solar is getting cheaper and more efficient.

Eventually demand for coal will decrease sharply partly due to tougher environmental restrictions placing a proper price on CO2 emissions and partly because alternatives become better value for money.

 

[boyo]

Solar etc doesn't work cost effectively. Read back over some of the previous items to see the various reports and analysis on that topic.

Its not a furphy. Alternative will NEVER provide base load. Everyone in the power industry knows that.

Wrong again.

Alternatives can and do provide baseload e.g. NZ has been using geothermal power for yonks.

Maybe some in the power industry have vested interests in coal, nuclear, etc.

Just because something s easier to do doesn't necessarily make it right.

 

[Runner]

Wrong again.

Alternatives can and do provide baseload e.g. NZ has been using geothermal power for yonks.

Maybe some in the power industry have vested interests in coal, nuclear, etc.

Just because something s easier to do doesn't necessarily make it right.

I don't see any geothermal in Sydney.

Also the point was about solar NOT geothermal

 

[Runner]

Of course you don't shut down coal mining totally. You need coking coal to make steel.

You don't need to burn coal for electricity generation though. Eventually we will stop doing it.

Solar is getting cheaper and more efficient.

Eventually demand for coal will decrease sharply partly due to tougher environmental restrictions placing a proper price on CO2 emissions and partly because alternatives become better value for money.

This may happen but not in my life time or 100 years. Governments will not go with it in any form the environmental movement will put forward as it will effect jobs. Yes alternative jobs in that alternative area but these are only available due to heavy subsideies.

 

[Braveheart81]

I disagree. I think there will be substantial change within 20 years because the environmental impacts are becoming more and more obvious and harder to ignore.

 

[boyo]

PM Tony Abbott's Australia out in the cold over climate change

EDITORIAL

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/smh-editorial/pm-tony-abbotts-australia-out-in-the-cold-over-climate-change-20140611-zs3ko.html#ixzz34Ntmvbkw

"These politicians also spread the furphy that the world is withdrawing from emissions trading schemes. Mr Abbott insisted this week: "There is no sign – no sign – that trading schemes are increasingly being adopted. If anything trading schemes are being discarded, not adopted."

Not exactly."

"Australia is increasingly being left behind as the US, China and other nations seek a global consensus to tackle climate change. Even worse, Australia risks losing the economic advantages of acting decisively now."

Once again, TA's denial over climate change leaves Australia behind.

 

[boyo]

Abbott wrangles with his own climate paradox

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-12/green-abbott-wrangles-with-his-own-climate-paradox/5517210

"Tony Abbott's language so far on his overseas tour betrays a complete lack of connection between what climate change is and what it might do, writes Jonathan Green."

"To suggest that the economy needs to be protected from the only policy path that might in the long term secure its very existence, is so close to absurd as to leave you wondering just whether in fact Abbott does accept any recognisable concept of climate change.

There is another possibility: that he does concede the menace of a warming world, but for the sake of effective short-term politics has elected not to act in its interests. It's hard to imagine any greater betrayal of national - human - interest."

Repetitive slogans - reminiscent of whom?

 

[boyo]

Britain, New Zealand reject Tony Abbott's idea for alliance to block action on climate change

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/britain-new-zealand-reject-tony-abbotts-idea-for-alliance-to-block-action-on-climate-change-20140612-39yws.html#ixzz34PEMOzP0

"The UK's conservative climate and energy minister has rejected suggestions his government could form an alliance of "like-minded" nations with Australia to oppose carbon pricing.

Greg Barker has put an end to Prime Minister Tony Abbott's dream that a group of five countries could be formed to undermine global moves to install carbon pricing and challenge a push by US President Barack Obama for stronger international regulation of climate change.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen are increasingly isolated in their push to limit action to mitigate climate change. Photo: Andrew Meares​

​

In moves that show Australia is increasingly isolated on the subject, New Zealand's Prime Minister John Key has also said he was caught off-guard by the idea of an alliance and signalled his government has no intention of walking away from its emissions trading scheme."

"Mr Abbott's stance on climate action has also drawn criticism from retiring US politician Henry Waxman, who was at the forefront of clean energy bills in America.

Mr Waxman said Australia, along with Canada, risked being ''behind-the-scenes laggers'' rather than leaders on climate policy.
Both nations risked being out of sync with Europe and the US. ''I hope Australia doesn't turn its back on its leadership role and become a drag on what we need to all be doing around the world,'' Mr Waxman told ABC's 7.30 on Wednesday.

The retiring senior Democrat also criticised the Coalition government's ''voluntary'' direct action policy as ineffectual. ''That never worked anywhere,'' he said."

 

[boyo]

I am a conservationist: Tony Abbott says no friction with Barack Obama on climate change action

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/i-am-a-conservationist-tony-abbott-says-no-friction-with-barack-obama-on-climate-change-action-20140613-3a192.html#ixzz34Ta3WzCG

TA has no sense of irony.