|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Budawang
(Post 8339045)
Your plan sounds completely unworkable. How could Australia calculate how much carbon went into the production of a barbie doll made in China? It sounds like old-fashioned blanket protectionism to me.
Australia would have to start lobbying the other big carbon extracting economies to jointly implement the carbon tax at source. I don't propose the tax starts of at a very high level, so it shouldn't have a major impact on coal exports. The fact of the matter is that demand for Australian coal is so strong that it would probably only result in a gradual slowing of the coal export growth rate, not actual cuts to export volumes. Surely, the whole point of any serious effort to reduce CO2 emissions will have to eventually involve slowing the rate we use coal, oil and ultimately gas in favour of renewable energy? Wouldn't it be better for Australian tax payers to get extra revenue in exchange for an eventual and gradual reduction in the volume of our coal exports? With the failure of the cap and trade approach, the alternative in many countries is likely to be a carbon tax on consumption which means the revenue benefits will go to the big carbon emitting countries like the U.S. and China. Not a good outcome for Australia. So long as the U.S. and South Africa can be brought on board, then more than 40% of world coal reserves will be taxed at source. Given the problems China already has in exploiting its own coal reserves (they're inconveniently located and of poor quality), this will create added incentive for them to become more efficient energy users. Coal is a dirty fuel source. 10% of TOTAL GLOBAL CO2 emissions come from coal consumption in China alone. In addition, it is a huge contributor to horrific air quality in some areas and 14 Chinese coal miners die, on average, every day. If the world burns all its coal reserves, this will have catastrophic consequences. The case for weaning ourselves off oil consumption is every bit as compelling. If we don't start cutting our use of oil, the world economy may drop off a cliff when we reach Peak Oil (the point where demand no longer leads to increased supply) and oil prices sky rocket. Unfortunately, we may already be too late as Peak Oil could occur in the next couple of years. Personally I think this whole tax scheme is a smokescreen (pardon the pun) so governments don't have to really do anything about Climate Change & AGW. It is ineffectual and has so many loopholes that it won't work. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by iolande
(Post 8339501)
But scientists always put caveats to their findings or conclusions.
I have read the IPCC reports (a cure for insomnia if there ever was one) and there is no caveat that says: “However the Medieval Warming Period could have been even hotter than this, and based upon Greenland agricultural practices of the time it must have been, and therefore this entire report could be a load of rubbish†:) I am still open about AGW/GW, however the IPCC must resolve the MWP before they can issue a further report. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by slapphead_otool
(Post 8339646)
And in this case it should be a bloddy big caveat :D
I have read the IPCC reports (a cure for insomnia if there ever was one) and there is no caveat that says: “However the Medieval Warming Period could have been even hotter than this, and based upon Greenland agricultural practices of the time it must have been, and therefore this entire report could be a load of rubbish†:) I am still open about AGW/GW, however the IPCC must resolve the MWP before they can issue a further report. I thought the MWP was a European phenomenon, not a global one. Perhaps I was wrong. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Budawang
(Post 8339045)
Your plan sounds completely unworkable. How could Australia calculate how much carbon went into the production of a barbie doll made in China? It sounds like old-fashioned blanket protectionism to me.
Australia would have to start lobbying the other big carbon extracting economies to jointly implement the carbon tax at source. I don't propose the tax starts of at a very high level, so it shouldn't have a major impact on coal exports. The fact of the matter is that demand for Australian coal is so strong that it would probably only result in a gradual slowing of the coal export growth rate, not actual cuts to export volumes. Surely, the whole point of any serious effort to reduce CO2 emissions will have to eventually involve slowing the rate we use coal, oil and ultimately gas in favour of renewable energy? Wouldn't it be better for Australian tax payers to get extra revenue in exchange for an eventual and gradual reduction in the volume of our coal exports? With the failure of the cap and trade approach, the alternative in many countries is likely to be a carbon tax on consumption which means the revenue benefits will go to the big carbon emitting countries like the U.S. and China. Not a good outcome for Australia. So long as the U.S. and South Africa can be brought on board, then more than 40% of world coal reserves will be taxed at source. Given the problems China already has in exploiting its own coal reserves (they're inconveniently located and of poor quality), this will create added incentive for them to become more efficient energy users. Coal is a dirty fuel source. 10% of TOTAL GLOBAL CO2 emissions come from coal consumption in China alone. In addition, it is a huge contributor to horrific air quality in some areas and 14 Chinese coal miners die, on average, every day. If the world burns all its coal reserves, this will have catastrophic consequences. The case for weaning ourselves off oil consumption is every bit as compelling. If we don't start cutting our use of oil, the world economy may drop off a cliff when we reach Peak Oil (the point where demand no longer leads to increased supply) and oil prices sky rocket. Unfortunately, we may already be too late as Peak Oil could occur in the next couple of years. We don’t need to calculate individual CO2 impacts per product. We impose a flat GST type of tax on imported goods when a country fails to meet the IPCC agreed global levels (everyone gets the same levels – none of these adjusting for other factors). However, you seem to be falling into the same trap that so many GW activists slip into. You are levelling behind the initial objective – global reduction in CO2 content – for other more politically based motives – e.g. usage of non renewable energy resources. You say: “Surely, the whole point of any serious effort to reduce CO2 emissions will have to eventually involve slowing the rate we use coal, oil and ultimately gas in favour of renewable energy?" No – it is an effort to reduce CO2. End of story. That means efficient use of coal is as important as reduction in use. You say: "So long as the U.S. and South Africa can be brought on board, then more than 40% of world coal reserves will be taxed at source. Given the problems China already has in exploiting its own coal reserves (they're inconveniently located and of poor quality), this will create added incentive for them to become more efficient energy users". No – taxing 40% of coal reserves makes the other 60% cheaper, and more lucrative. The poor calorific content means they will simply burn more of it to achieve the same energy levels, producing much more CO2, not less. You say: "Coal is a dirty fuel source. 10% of TOTAL GLOBAL CO2 emissions come from coal consumption in China alone. In addition, it is a huge contributor to horrific air quality in some areas and 14 Chinese coal miners die, on average, every day. If the world burns all its coal reserves, this will have catastrophic consequences". So what effect does taxing US coal at source have on them? They buy from Vietnam and Indonesia. You say: "The case for weaning ourselves off oil consumption is every bit as compelling. If we don't start cutting our use of oil, the world economy may drop off a cliff when we reach Peak Oil (the point where demand no longer leads to increased supply) and oil prices sky rocket. Unfortunately, we may already be too late as Peak Oil could occur in the next couple of years". Other than the CO2 content issue, Peak Oil is irrelevant to this argument, and is a common theme of Greenpeace who seem more interested in attacking big oil companies than in global oil supply. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by iolande
(Post 8339668)
Agreed - IPCC is definitely a great door-stopper.
I thought the MWP was a European phenomenon, not a global one. Perhaps I was wrong. Good point re MWP. I will try to find out if it as just European. My logic had been that we know most about the medieval period via the writings of Europeans. Interesting point – I an in the running for a Carbon trading job, presumably based upon my analytical background. The pay is staggering. Absolutely staggering. It is 3 times what I have ever been offered before. A lot of people are going to make a lot of money out of CO2. If I am offered the position how do I resolve my ethical dilemma? I am an not sure AGW exists, and I object to people profiting out of it. :( |
Re: Global warming
I am a bit confused about the term "clean coal". I thought it refereed to coal that didn't emit sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides when it was burnt. I didn't think it made any difference to the amount of CO2 emitted.
It seems that the greenies reckon that clean coal doesn't emit as much CO2 when it burns. This can't be correct. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by NedKelly
(Post 8339700)
I am a bit confused about the term "clean coal". I thought it refereed to coal that didn't emit sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides when it was burnt. I didn't think it made any difference to the amount of CO2 emitted.
It seems that the greenies reckon that clean coal doesn't emit as much CO2 when it burns. This can't be correct. The biggest problem in this scenario is if the Earth starts cooling, since then plants become less efficient at removing CO2. And we'll find it harder and harder to feed the rapidly expanding human population. There is no need to reduce the amount of fossil fuel burning. It will reduce over time as we bring in the technologies that are absolutely required to replace them when coal oil and gas run out. Carbon dioxide is a biological gas. If you want to get rid of it, ask some biologists. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by NedKelly
(Post 8339700)
I am a bit confused about the term "clean coal". I thought it refereed to coal that didn't emit sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides when it was burnt. I didn't think it made any difference to the amount of CO2 emitted.
It seems that the greenies reckon that clean coal doesn't emit as much CO2 when it burns. This can't be correct. Inefficient use of coal is a different matter. Poorly designed boilers, inefficient pulverised feed systems etc will mean greater quantities of local are needed – meaning more CO2. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by slapphead_otool
(Post 8339692)
Good point re MWP. I will try to find out if it as just European. My logic had been that we know most about the medieval period via the writings of Europeans.
Interesting point – I an in the running for a Carbon trading job, presumably based upon my analytical background. The pay is staggering. Absolutely staggering. It is 3 times what I have ever been offered before. A lot of people are going to make a lot of money out of CO2. If I am offered the position how do I resolve my ethical dilemma? I am an not sure AGW exists, and I object to people profiting out of it. :( http://www.statemaster.com/encyclope...al-Warm-Period then the Medieval Warm Period is only a theory that doesn't have full consensus from the scientific community. there are a couple of interesting references at the end including one called: The Medieval Cool Period And The Little Warm Age In The Central Tropical Pacific? Fossil Coral Climate Records Of The Last Millennium. The Climate of the Holocene |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Budawang
(Post 8339045)
The case for weaning ourselves off oil consumption is every bit as compelling. If we don't start cutting our use of oil, the world economy may drop off a cliff when we reach Peak Oil (the point where demand no longer leads to increased supply) and oil prices sky rocket. Unfortunately, we may already be too late as Peak Oil could occur in the next couple of years.
This is on our doorstep right now and will change everything. Economies will collapse. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...peak-oil-close |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by iolande
(Post 8339782)
If the following site is to be believed:
http://www.statemaster.com/encyclope...al-Warm-Period then the Medieval Warm Period is only a theory that doesn't have full consensus from the scientific community. there are a couple of interesting references at the end including one called: The Medieval Cool Period And The Little Warm Age In The Central Tropical Pacific? Fossil Coral Climate Records Of The Last Millennium. The Climate of the Holocene |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Centurion
(Post 8339824)
Now there is the more pressing thing which needs addressing in my mind whilst we sort out the science behind man made CO2 and whether it actually contributes anything at all to the phenomenon of warming or ice age or whatever.
This is on our doorstep right now and will change everything. Economies will collapse. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...peak-oil-close |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Burbage
(Post 8340102)
Very little that happened historically has the full consensus of the scientific community. The archeology is probably the best source of information. If the vikings grew wheat in Greenland, then the climate must have been suitable for that activity.
|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by iolande
(Post 8340160)
sure, but then that doesn't prove that the change in climate then is the same in nature as the climate change now.
http://www.greenland.com/content/eng...n_temperatures |
Re: Global warming
Monash University:
>>Many of those who most strenuously deny any link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change make a great deal of the period from roughly 800 to 1300 AD, when it is possible that temperatures may have been slightly warmer than at present – at least in northern Europe. The argument runs that if temperatures were warmer then, and CO2 levels were lower, then (somehow) that is supposed to show that rising greenhouse gas levels are nothing to worry about because natural variability can lead to warming. There are a few problems with this logic. Firstly, even if temperatures were slightly higher in medieval times, that is irrelevant to our current situation. No-one claims that rising greenhouse gas levels are the only factor that has ever led to higher temperatures. Changes in solar intensity, variations in ocean currents and a number of other factors can influence temperatures. In this case a persistent positive North Atlantic Oscillation from 1050 to 1400 seems to have played an important role.[56] The fact that temperatures appear to have been warm during medieval times in certain regions does not necessarily imply that the warming in our current era can be explained by similar factors. The main reason scientists are so concerned is because they cannot explain the changes over the past century without taking into account rising greenhouse gas levels. Second, recent research suggests that the ‘Medieval Climate Anomaly’ as it now increasingly described by scientists, was warmer than the Little Ice Age, which lasted from around 1500 to 1850, but globally it was probably slightly cooler than the last 30 years. It was also most likely a regional, rather than a global phenomenon.[57] Third, as David Archer has warned, “Beware the bait and switch!â€[58] The projections for global climate change for the current century and beyond do not depict a fraction of a degree increase in temperatures that would usher in a benign era of more pleasant winters and balmy summer evenings. Instead, projections show that even 2ºC above pre-industrial temperatures would bring major adverse impacts. As Figure 2 shows, on current trajectories we could see average global temperature increases of 6ºC or more by 2100, which would lead to a humanitarian catastrophe and a dramatically different planet. << |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 7:02 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.