[Lord_Farquar]

Originally Posted by Swerv-o But we're not seeing anywhere near enough investment in alternatives to make them a viable solution to the burning of coal. I find it staggering that Australia has no solar furnace infrastructure, given all of the sunshine it receives and open space in abundance. Why aren't we building these systems? Australia should be the market leader in solar energy generation, yet these technologies are still in their infancy here We have a first world economy, yet are clinging to coal and gas, and now the government proposes to pay them money to compensate them. Had we had reasonable investment in solar furnace technology, then we would have had both the infrastructure and the knowledge base required to move (and sell on) this technology in a short time frame. I don't see that there is much alternative to nuclear power at the moment. We [apparently] need a minimal CO2 solution, and ideally need it pretty quickly. We aren't in a position with any other technology to adequately replace coal and gas to provide our baseload power. We do have an abundance of uranium right on our doorstep however. Unfortunately instead of exporting our clean power technology and knowledge to the rest of the world we will no doubt end up importing it from China. S

Australia is very backward in some regards. It's madness that the power of the sun is not harnessed in this country. I also find it strange that the second driest continent in the world has not yet embrace water recycling.

[Lord_Farquar]

Originally Posted by MartinLuther Because if Aus goes carbon neutral tomorrow the world will be saved? I don't think so

I was merely pointing out that Australia produces more CO2 per capita than other much larger countries. I fail to see the relevance of your comment and it has nothing to do with the point I was making.

[MartinLuther]

Originally Posted by Lord_Farquar I was merely pointing out that Australia produces more CO2 per capita than other much larger countries. I fail to see the relevance of your comment and it has nothing to do with the point I was making.

Okay. I guess you'd have to be able to retain the context from ABC's quote to get the point.

[Lord_Farquar]

Originally Posted by MartinLuther Okay. I guess you'd have to be able to retain the context from ABC's quote to get the point.

I thought it was pretty clear to be honest.

[MartinLuther]

Originally Posted by Swerv-o But we're not seeing anywhere near enough investment in alternatives to make them a viable solution to the burning of coal. I find it staggering that Australia has no solar furnace infrastructure, given all of the sunshine it receives and open space in abundance. Why aren't we building these systems? Australia should be the market leader in solar energy generation, yet these technologies are still in their infancy here We have a first world economy, yet are clinging to coal and gas, and now the government proposes to pay them money to compensate them. Had we had reasonable investment in solar furnace technology, then we would have had both the infrastructure and the knowledge base required to move (and sell on) this technology in a short time frame. I don't see that there is much alternative to nuclear power at the moment. We [apparently] need a minimal CO2 solution, and ideally need it pretty quickly. We aren't in a position with any other technology to adequately replace coal and gas to provide our baseload power. We do have an abundance of uranium right on our doorstep however. Unfortunately instead of exporting our clean power technology and knowledge to the rest of the world we will no doubt end up importing it from China. S

I think the main reason is because it has been cheaper to burn coal. The experiments in solar in the 70s weren't very fruitful. I agree that Aus has the opportunity to become the leaders in renewable energy but the government is not doing enough to make it happen.

My solution would be to build gas fired power stations in the short term. This would give a quick win on carbon reduction (as it did in the UK). (How long does it take to get a nuke operational?) That'll buy us time to develop renewable based systems that can deliver (including base load). The gas power stations can later be switched to hydrogen that has been created by renewable means (e.g. solar or tidal).

[MartinLuther]

Originally Posted by Lord_Farquar I thought it was pretty clear to be honest.

You point was clear. I thought mine was too but you can never tell. Maybe I should have used relevance instead of point to make mine less ambiguous.

Back to the relevance of my point. It's not the per capita that's causing the problem it's the actual amount being produced.

Originally Posted by Lord_Farquar I was merely pointing out that Australia produces more CO2 per capita than other much larger countries.

But if we include the number of sheep, etc, in the per capita figure, for each country, Australia goes way down the list...

Wait till we get those non-methane producing sheep in production

[Lord_Farquar]

Originally Posted by ABCDiamond But if we include the number of sheep, etc, in the per capita figure, for each country, Australia goes way down the list... Wait till we get those non-methane producing sheep in production

Sheep don't drive V8s or own McMansions though.

[moneypenny20]

Originally Posted by Lord_Farquar Sheep don't drive V8s or own McMansions though.

Oh I think you'll find some do

[slapphead_otool]

The real problem for me is no one seems to be able to tell me what happens to all of this new “tax wealth” that the government will receive.

We were up in arms about GST, yet no one seems interested in this new tax. We don’t need a tax to get in control of carbon emissions, it can just as easily be achieved by legislation.

I have a sneaking suspicion that this whole ETS movement is part of a planned redistribution of global wealth, with first world countries paying more to the third world. Which in itself is good idea, but not if it is done by subterfuge and scaremongering.

[Centurion]

Originally Posted by slapphead_otool The real problem for me is no one seems to be able to tell me what happens to all of this new “tax wealth” that the government will receive. We were up in arms about GST, yet no one seems interested in this new tax. We don’t need a tax to get in control of carbon emissions, it can just as easily be achieved by legislation. I have a sneaking suspicion that this whole ETS movement is part of a planned redistribution of global wealth, with first world countries paying more to the third world. Which in itself is good idea, but not if it is done by subterfuge and scaremongering.

Welcome to the forum. No need to have a sneaking suspicion. Thats exactly what it is.

The government has deliberately not made a big deal or explained in simple terms what effect the ETS will have on the general public by wrapping it in green recycled Christmas paper and declaring anyone who doesn't support it a climate criminal. I am amazed by how many people do not understand what it actually is and what it means to them and their children.

One government spokesperson, I forget who, was on the radio yesterday and was asked what will happen to the additional money that I as a private person will have to pay. The answer was that it will come back to you in tax credits and in fact you will be better off financially. I nearly died laughing.

[Wol]

The gorilla in the room, as always, is overpopulation.

We can all print on both sides of the paper, change to 25watt bulbs, shower twice a year etc but all it does is delay the abyss a few years and make the final collapse that much more painful for more people.

None of is *really* prepared to shed a goodly proportion of out living standards to "save the planet", and the socalled Third World naturally aspires to a much higher standard. There's nothing wrong with that - it's entirely natural and frankly no-one's going to stop it. What *will* stop it is when raw materials, energy, water and food effectively become scarce. Nothing to do with climate change, although *that* is IMO one part of the same basic problem.

But I cannot see *any* politician in *any* western country tackling the population bomb, can you?

[slapphead_otool]

I have a slightly uneasy feeling that you think these chaps might not be pukka?

Surely Kevin07 and Suzi Wong wouldn’t lie to us?

I am happy to pay my ETS, pay extra for everything, secure in the knowledge that the Australian government are a trustworthy group of people who will reimburse me for my contributions and not spend it irresponsibly. Like they always have…..

Originally Posted by slapphead_otool Surely Kevin07 and Suzi Wong wouldn’t lie to us?

Best laugh for ages

[MartinLuther]

Originally Posted by Wol The gorilla in the room, as always, is overpopulation. We can all print on both sides of the paper, change to 25watt bulbs, shower twice a year etc but all it does is delay the abyss a few years and make the final collapse that much more painful for more people. None of is *really* prepared to shed a goodly proportion of out living standards to "save the planet", and the socalled Third World naturally aspires to a much higher standard. There's nothing wrong with that - it's entirely natural and frankly no-one's going to stop it. What *will* stop it is when raw materials, energy, water and food effectively become scarce. Nothing to do with climate change, although *that* is IMO one part of the same basic problem. But I cannot see *any* politician in *any* western country tackling the population bomb, can you?

How do you stop a ponzi scheme?