Consolidated Climate Change/CO2/Global Warming Thread

Discussion in 'Science' started by hlokk, Feb 12, 2007.

  1. Perko

    Perko Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    Messages:
    3,817
    Location:
    NW Tasmania
    Yeah I know what you mean. If you try a direct action policy though, (like Tony Abbott did and neRok is somewhat ironically suggesting), you're guaranteed to spend several fortunes and not guaranteed any real drop in emissions.
    It seems to me that everyone loves democracy when it means that they get what they want and someone else gets it in the neck when required.
     
  2. adamsleath

    adamsleath Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    13,558
    Location:
    Sunnybank Q4109
    you suggested the ETS.
    in reality the policy mechanisms need to, imo, 'force' new infrastructure that complies with emissions standards. do not impose penalties on existing plants.
    impose them on new ones.

    easy. this gives investors total choice over their infrastructure investments in full knowledge.

    environmental impact assessments are also important part of the process for considering hydro projects and land use impacts of renewables projects. greenlighting projects without Environmental Impact studies isn't wise.

    there is democracy and there is fully informed and well thought out solutions that may come about despite the argee bargee.

    democracies don't come up with the solutions - but they are good at complaining about their concerns ;) like...my tholidomide baby has no arms...or any number of other things.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2019
  3. Perko

    Perko Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    Messages:
    3,817
    Location:
    NW Tasmania
    You'll keep carbon intensive operations in business longer that way. ETS offers a competitive advantage to new, more carbon efficient competition up front.

    We do that now, but if carbon is priced, the cost to the climate is in the economic plan for the project, not just the environmental one.

    Most of our large scale dams would have big question marks over them if they were built today under an ETS. The carbon emissions from Lakes Gordon and Pedder in Tasmania's South West would have been obscene.

    Populism and intensive news cycles are a massive problem, and will be through the whole policy transition around climate change. The trouble is that it goes both ways, you have the deniers saying do nothing, the hippies wanting us to do what OzRinger suggests and move into caves, and then every special interest group in between.
     
  4. adamsleath

    adamsleath Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    13,558
    Location:
    Sunnybank Q4109
    "Most of our large scale dams would have big question marks over them if they were built today under an ETS. The carbon emissions from Lakes Gordon and Pedder in Tasmania's South West would have been obscene." - would you have preferred a brown coal fired power station in those locations?

    and unlikely under an lnp government. say a labor gov. puts in the ets, then Abbott junior rolls into office and cancels it again. back to square zero.
    the provider passes on the cost to the customer and blithely continues business as usual. achieving nothing.

    ----

    focus on the bipartisan agreements. morrisons/lnp are doing the lip service thing while slithering out of committing to climate action. (ie not our problem australia represents sfa of world emissions)

    and there are other environmental concerns, tied to population policies and land use that are also sidelined or simply ignored, despite being brought to public attention.

    the choice of least environmental impact is what i'd like to see in all infrastructure. amazingly there are actually well informed experts in various fields to assist who aren't total sellouts to ignoramuses.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2019
  5. Perko

    Perko Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    Messages:
    3,817
    Location:
    NW Tasmania
    Clearly not, but the new hotness seems to be smaller impoundments with retainers for pumped storage etc. Furthermore if they were built today as I said, they'd have the wind/solar/tidal/gas side that they didn't have in the 60's and 70's.
    That's without going into what was actually lost in an enviromental and cultural sense at Lake Pedder in particular.

    If an ETS yields decent revenue for the government in excess credits or otherwise, the Coalition will be just as addicted to the revenue as the ALP. The one thing that they can't resist is a pot of money to throw at middle class marginal seats.

    If those issues relate to emissions/climate change, an ETS won't ignore them.
     
  6. adamsleath

    adamsleath Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    13,558
    Location:
    Sunnybank Q4109
    in the uk the carbon pricing virtually eliminated what remained of coal power in the uk.. how the remaining few are still in operation there i do not know.

    having ETS yields of any size at all just indicates failure to reduce emissions in my opinion.
    unfortunately there needs to be really well explored options prior to hasty oversimplified projects are hurried through a poorly thought out development phase.

    as for renewables environmental impact. high density generation and low footprint is my preference (wind, geo and ocean thermal is what interests me) people still rave about the beauty of the franklin river and how great it is that it wasn't developed.

    snowy 2.0 has bipartisan support and low impact.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2019
  7. Perko

    Perko Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    Messages:
    3,817
    Location:
    NW Tasmania
    If you compared the Franklin River to the real Lake Pedder, Robin Gray's statement of it being a muddy creek wouldn't seem so odious.
     
  8. adamsleath

    adamsleath Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    13,558
    Location:
    Sunnybank Q4109
    they are separate if considered separately.


    did people put a Price on the franklin river? or did they simply express the importance of their values to protect it from destruction.

    i pity people born and bred in cities and fully urbanised environments. losing contact with nature is a sad and sickening condition.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2019
  9. Perko

    Perko Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    Messages:
    3,817
    Location:
    NW Tasmania
    The Franklin was more of a line in the sand moment after Pedder, it resulted in the Greens becoming much more radical in their views and tactics compared to how they were in the Pedder campaign, because in 1970-72 nothing they did in terms of logical, calm argument within the system could change the outcome. The awareness and campaign came later, and Hawke used it as one part of his 1983 Federal campaign, so once he got in, he had to come good.

    I agree about city people, it's a huge problem and the Dunning-Krueger factor makes it worse, and I don't say that with disdain or arrogance.
     
  10. peg

    peg Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2003
    Messages:
    2,830
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Not like we can't do a bit of gardening or find a beach or park for a nice stroll. :lol:

    You're acting like ticks, blow flies and dry heat are all good things. :p
     
  11. Perko

    Perko Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2011
    Messages:
    3,817
    Location:
    NW Tasmania
    Come to Tassie - rain, wind, and ice are a few of my favourite things.
     
  12. Phido

    Phido Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,206
    Location:
    Dark City
    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48337629



    Apocalypse slowly cometh. While not certain, it seems likely we will undershoot CO2 reductions. Soon we will talk about how much the sea is rising, not if climate change is a real thing.
     
  13. Tinian

    Tinian Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    16,546
    Location:
    15.0° N, 145.63° E
    By 2100 I doubt I'll be eating steaks at the Brekky Creek anyway, so it won't matter if it's permanently under water.
     
  14. neRok

    neRok Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,069
    Location:
    Perth NOR
    Now there are more disastrous events on the horizon thanks to rising sea levels: The U.S. put nuclear waste under a dome on a Pacific island. Now it’s cracking open.

    In Fiji on Thursday, [U.N. Secretary General António Guterres] told a crowd about the huge “kind of coffin” built by the United States in the Marshall Islands to house the deadly radioactive debris from the 1980s. The structure, however, was never meant to last. Today, due to disrepair and rising sea tides, it is dangerously vulnerable. A strong storm could breach the dome, releasing the deadly legacy of America’s nuclear might.

    “I’ve just been with the president of the Marshall Islands [Hilda Heine], who is very worried because there is a risk of leaking of radioactive materials that are contained in a kind of coffin in the area,” Guterres said in Fiji, Agence France-Presse reported.
    ...
    Enewetak Atoll was subjected to repeated blasts during the testing, and inhabitants were forced to relocate before the explosions began. Beginning in 1977, 4,000 U.S. service members began collecting an estimated 73,000 cubic meters (2.58 million cubic feet) of tainted surface soil across the islands, according to the Marshall Islands’ government.

    The material was then transported to Runit Island, where a 328-foot crater remained from a May 1958 test explosion. For three years, the American military dumped the material into the crater. Six men reportedly died during the work. Locals took to calling it “The Tomb,” the Guardian reported.

    In 1980, a massive concrete dome — 18 inches thick and shaped like a flying saucer — was placed over the fallout debris, sealing off the material on Runit. But the $218 million project was only supposed to be temporary until a more permanent site was developed, according to the Guardian. However, no further plans were ever hatched.
    ...
    Cracks have reportedly started to appear in the dome. Part of the threat is that the crater was never properly lined, meaning that rising seawater could breach the structural integrity.

    “The bottom of the dome is just what was left behind by the nuclear weapons explosion,” Michael Gerrard, the chair of Columbia University’s Earth Institute, told the ABC. “It’s permeable soil. There was no effort to line it. And therefore, the seawater is inside the dome.”
     
  15. Phido

    Phido Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,206
    Location:
    Dark City
    Well its not just your favourite steak eatery..

    Some bastard put all the nuclear power stations next to water.. Like they need it or something..

    https://news.nationalgeographic.com...levels-rise-are-coastal-nuclear-plants-ready/

    upload_2019-5-22_11-24-14.png

    Some bastard put 1 in 4 nuclear power plants on the coast line..

    [​IMG]

    Nothing says safe like sandy cliffs near surf.. How could it impossiblie go wrong.

    [​IMG]
    Turkey point reactor..
    Safe... No way a storm surge could damage that.. its reactor core is "nearly 20 feet" above sea level. Located in Miami, AFAIK they don't get tropical storms there.
    [​IMG]
    This one in Belgium. Why would rising sea levels of ~1 meter ever be a problem? Its a good 30 cm above the high tide mark.
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2019 at 11:32 AM
  16. adamsleath

    adamsleath Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    13,558
    Location:
    Sunnybank Q4109
    ...and if we had more of them we wouldn't have a co2 problem.

    exploding nuclear weapons is a far cry from a well managed facility.

    think on how many gigatonnes of co2 that hasn't been spewed into the atmo. because of nuclear power.

    store unused nuclear 'waste' in old mine sites that are typically not subject to leaching into water systems.

    as with any 'toxic substance' its location and concentration are the issues.
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2019 at 11:44 AM
  17. Tinian

    Tinian Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    16,546
    Location:
    15.0° N, 145.63° E
    Yeah but when I'm dead, the lines won't bother me. :D
    You know that one has shut down?
    If only there was a country that showed us how well we could hold back water.
     
  18. Phido

    Phido Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,206
    Location:
    Dark City
    Japan. Japan builds great seawalls.. What could go wrong..
    [​IMG]

    Rising sea levels are a significant challenge.
    Related but different to the normal issues people think of climate change.

    The flood defenses built after the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_flood_of_1953 were finished in the late 90's. So If you want to build flood levys and dykes, you need to plan 30+ years before you need them.
     
  19. Tinian

    Tinian Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    16,546
    Location:
    15.0° N, 145.63° E
    Good thing we've got decades then. Better get on to it all the same. :thumbup:
     
  20. neRok

    neRok Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,069
    Location:
    Perth NOR
    We've not got decades. Storm surges upon a higher base-level sea height, coupled with increased storm intensity that leads to even greater storm surges, will mean that design criteria for existing structures will be surpassed.

    For example, I designed a set of tug berth pontoons in the cyclonic region, and there was not even 1mm extra capacity added to the system beyond what the current requirements were. And the current requirements were most likely based upon old data/standards/norms, and they are quite slow moving (I can't confirm that though, I'm not an engineer). I think we allowed for the "100 year storm", but storms of that intensity are happening with remarkable frequency lately.
     

Share This Page