Discussion in 'Science' started by hlokk, Feb 12, 2007.
there's not denying it, we will destroy ourselves eventually. only a matter of time really.
Not really, there are other external factors such as being hit by a large object, etc.
yeah, kind of like life you could give yourself the best chance of health and long life but then get hit by a bus - you can't stop the bus but live your life like the bus won't hit you.
Elon Musk has said he will no longer be an adviser to Trump if he pulls out of the Paris Climate Deal.
Never in doubt.
The effect of 1 degree of warming.
The ABC has published an interesting article on a number of former climate change skeptics and how they were convinced that man-made warming is real.
From the article:
I believe we're too intelligent a species to let that happen. We're dumb enough though to come close to it though.
Record emissions predicted for 2017.
It also highlights Australia's insignificance as a global emitter. Even if we eliminated all CO2 emissions tomorrow there would be almost no measurable effect on the global trend.
Interestingly, Australia's emissions / capita and GDP are at their lowest in 27 years. Here's Will Steffen's take on that..
But colour me confused when I read this from the Climate council...
CC is complex enough for any average Joe, but when a group of academics who claim to be an authority are confused to the point of total contradiction, it's not hard to see why people will scratch their heads and lose interest.
Pity they didn't say what changes had occurred since the early 20th century when the SST was apparently 1 degree cooler.
Ah the old childish argument that it doesnt matter what we do as they are worse.
Despite the fact we are one of the worst per person and thats with us unloading manufacturing elsewhere.
If we are such a small problem its a small fix.
It's not childish. It's a reasonable point to make that it needs to be part of a concerted collaborative effort, otherwise a great impost on us will make no difference on a world scale.
I'm not seeing any contradiction or confusion in the quotes you selected, when you take them in context. Are you sure you are not the one confused?
How far does polution travel? If Australia reduced/cut all emissions wouldnt the quality of air around us improve?
It depends on what is counted as our emissions.
If the CO2 from the coal we export to be burned often in a way with low efficiency then we're not that insignificant a contributor to the problem.
We could make a significant contribution and one we'd profit from. We have a massive amount of solar energy available in this country and the land to collect it. Some manufacturing requires the combustion of coal e.g. iron ore -> iron however it doesn't matter where the coal is burned and there'd be less CO2 from transportation if the conversion was done here and the steel exported. I'd hazard a guess that new modern plant would be more efficient. The Chinese at the moment cannot get enough "Made In Australia" but instead of us selling them quality steel we're importing dodgy shit from China. Not to say that the Chinese aren't trying but there's a window of opportunity for us to do deals.
Absolutely agree. If you measure emissions on a land area basis, we are actually one of the lowest global emitters. Sure, we could eventually achieve a European level of per-capita emissions, but what's the point if our absolute emissions are 50% higher - due to population increase. India is certainly one of the lowest emitters per-capita, and in fact by that measure are about 9 times lower than Australia, but in absolute terms they still produce 6x our emissions. And when you take land area into account that figure increases to a factor of 15, because our land area is roughly 2.5x theirs. It really rams home the effect of population on emissions. China is even worse of course, with their emissions / unit land area 21 times greater than ours.
But last time I checked there was no global population treaty, or even a commitment to constrain growth, so when Will Steffen dismisses our successful effort to reduce emissions per-capita in the quite forceful way that the did, he runs contrary to the very establishment he (supposedly) represents. The MSM absolutely reflects that establishment too of course.
In fact it's almost impossible to find any media opinion anywhere that supports the view that absolute emissions are more important that per-capita emissions, and if that opinion is to be found it's well beyond the conservative side of the political spectrum. Certainly our Greens party who best represents concern for the environment openly holds the view that emissions per-capita is the problem; Not total emissions, and that's reflected in their policy, which stipulates a per-capita target. Expectedly, the most environmentally conscious media paints China as the climate hero and Australia as the climate villain. - https://theconversation.com/a-tale-of-two-energy-visions-china-and-australia-10808
Of course, when Will steffen says ""The atmosphere doesn't care a whit about per capita, it cares about how much CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere, that's what we've got to get down", I definitely have to agree with him, because it's a logically and scientifically correct statement. It's just a pity that the climate science establishment and cooperating media are living in a bizarro word, to borrow a Seinfeld expression, and are focused on a metric that has little relevance to atmospheric CO2 levels.
You need to take into account my borderline-disability IQ level.
CO2 emission accounting methods are determined by the UNFCC, so you would need to convince them to radically change those methods to include all fossil fuel exports.
My guess, and it's just a guess of course, is that countries including Saudia Arabia and UAE might not be too happy about that.
There's obviously a case for reducing emissions in large cities, but it's not specifically CO2 that's a problem, it's the other bi-products of combustion such as CO, NO2, VOC's and particulates etc that are associated with negative health outcomes. Changing to electric cars would reduce pollution very significantly, although ironically it could actually have the effect of increasing overall CO2 emissions. That's because the energy required to change lots of batteries would need to be sourced from coal and gas combustion, which is substantially more CO2 intense than refined petroleum. . https://theconversation.com/germany...-may-actually-increase-carbon-emissions-72997
And of course the production and disposal of millions of batteries every year brings a new list of environmental issues to the table. For that reason the future of electric cars probably depends on future clean battery technology.
I really don't get the point you are trying to make?! One minute you are saying our total emissions are low and we shouldn't have to do anything, and the next you are saying per capita is the important figure and we are bad at it and need to something.
It's a simple system with 2 variables. Population * per capita emissions = total emissions. If you want less total emissions, it means either the population or the per capita emissions has to drop. Anyone with half a brain that applies a little thought to the subject would realise this.
But a lot of the population doesn't appear to be capable or willing of such thought, and hence we have the media and political talk that we have. They just want to chuck out a single number that best suits them. Gov wants to look proactive on carbon output, they show the reduced per capita numbers. Scientists want to highlight the ongoing problem, they show increased total numbers. And the regular news sources just regurgitate either number, because they have no interest besides people consuming their product.
And yes, it is hard to find anyone talking about future global population and the resulting/needed per capita emissions, and it's a far bigger problem. Just going off some crude data, which lists global emissions at 36,000,000kt, which for a global population of 7.2bil (approx for 2015 to match the data) is 5t per capita. Australia in that data is using 18.6t. That means we have to reduce our emissions considerably in order to 'balance the system', for the entire global population to live at the same level as we do. This doesn't even consider the fact they expect the global population to grow beyond 11bil.
It (life as we know it) is not going to work when here we are complaining that a carbon tax the reduced our emissions by 0.2% was too much drain on the system, and we don't need to bother doing anything because we are 'a small fish in the ocean'.
My point was pretty clear I thought, but you didn't quite get it.
I'm raising the greater question of why Australia needs to do more on emissions reduction than China , India, Indonesia etc. Why is it that we should carry a greater responsibility than countries who emit far more? The UNFCC sees our moral obligation stemming from outright wealth, as well as some level of historic culpability, which is based mostly on per capita emissions; And is something that you acknowledge and agree with. On the other hand, a country like India is not compelled to act to reduce emissions, even if they are encouraged to limit emissions growth, in spite of their absolute emissions. The same applies to China too, who negotiated to delay achieving negative or zero emissions growth until after 2030, which was presumably granted on the basis of a per capita metric and / or financial capacity to act.
It's pretty clear that there is no penalty for emissions stemming from absolute population; Only emissions per-capita. And yes I get it that the targets we are working towards are based on absolute reductions, but that's what I'm pointing out as the root of the contradiction. If we're being compelled to act on the basis of 'per capita', and we are, then the metric should be - 'per capita'.
Where per capita emissions come into play is linked to wealth. Third world countries argue that the first world have used up their CO2 allocation in the process of becoming 1st world. That's not just a moral argument because per capita energy consumption and wealth are also linked to population growth and that's arguably an even more pressing problem than AGW. The issue is further clouded by how globalization has turned the 3rd world into the 1st world's factories.