An inconvenient truth

[Demonic Ascent]

You just continue along with your head in the sand if it makes you happy.

Ha, yeah OK, this coming from the person who believes there is no point in trying to change our lifestyles and economic foundations because it is inevitable that the earth will heat and humans will merely find a way to adapt, failing to account for the fact that at the most basic level we need water and oxygen to survive.

You are either taking the pi$$ or extremely, EXTREMELY, stupid and wilfully ignorant.

Economic growth cannot last forever. It is fantasy to believe it can. We need to focus on creating sustainability.

 

[medusala]

Geothermal energy, solar energy, wave energy, biomass etc. I like these solutions, as most greenies do. You were saying?

They simply cant take the strain. Not only that but they arent even suitable in a no of places. Wave energy obviously requires a coast. Solar is a bit of a struggle in northern europe. Wind also has issues in most places (see the latest results from Babcock and Brown's windfarm fund) even aside from blatant MINBYism.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

They simply cant take the strain. Not only that but they arent even suitable in a no of places. Wave energy obviously requires a coast. Solar is a bit of a struggle in northern europe. Wind also has issues in most places (see the latest results from Babcock and Brown's windfarm fund) even aside from blatant MINBYism.

So what is your solution? To continue down the same unsustainable path waiting for the inevitable $hitstorm when resources are scarce and famine and disease runs rampant throughout slums which it is estimated 1/3 of the world now live in?

 

[Sir_Adrian84]

Geothermal energy, solar energy, wave energy, biomass etc. I like these solutions, as most greenies do. You were saying?

It is not the greenies who oppose.

However if wind farms were built along the Yarra, people who would be quite green, would start protesting and stopping these developments because it might harm property prices.

Of course, things like wave energy and all that stuff you have mentioned is good, but there is always a problem (ie the wave energy could kill fish, solar energy is built on Aboriginal land etc).

There should be no part of the country which could produce this kind of electricity. However, sticking some turbines in farming areas in Gippsland=Good, sticking them in Williamstown, Victoria=bad. Why?

Maybe they should put wind turbines around Victoria Harbour at Docklands, Melbourne. No one would have a problem then.

 

[Richo83]

First let me commend you on a job well done. Although I am personally in favour of the Greenhouse effect, I respect anyone who backs up their words with actions.

Thank you. IMO there is no point in saying that there needs to be environmental change and then not doing anything.

As for sweeping generations, sweeping generalisations are what the whole debate is about. So, if you believe in what you are saying, then the negative image that the Green movement currently has needs to be addressed if you want your goals to be realised. Perhaps you are targeting the wrong people.

Both sides make generalisations, its a fact of life. People get heated, make irrational claims and the argument goes nowhere. Possibly the green campaign have created a scare campaign, but you have to realise that both sides are to blame for that as well.

They simply cant take the strain. Not only that but they arent even suitable in a no of places. Wave energy obviously requires a coast. Solar is a bit of a struggle in northern europe. Wind also has issues in most places (see the latest results from Babcock and Brown's windfarm fund) even aside from blatant MINBYism.

So as da said, is fossil fuels the way to go? Because clearly, the fossil fuel route is not a viable solution. Yes, maybe these ideas aren't the complete solution, but they do something to address the problem we face with global warming. Development, education and technology are needed. You can't just say "Oh, that wont work" because Australia and the world needs to work towards a better solution.

 

[medusala]

So what is your solution? To continue down the same unsustainable path waiting for the inevitable $hitstorm when resources are scarce and famine and disease runs rampant throughout slums which it is estimated 1/3 of the world now live in?

Natural gas, clean coal and nuclear with r&d on hydrogen etc.

 

[stompie]

It is not the greenies who oppose.

However if wind farms were built along the Yarra, people who would be quite green, would start protesting and stopping these developments because it might harm property prices.

Of course, things like wave energy and all that stuff you have mentioned is good, but there is always a problem (ie the wave energy could kill fish, solar energy is built on Aboriginal land etc).

There should be no part of the country which could produce this kind of electricity. However, sticking some turbines in farming areas in Gippsland=Good, sticking them in Williamstown, Victoria=bad. Why?

Maybe they should put wind turbines around Victoria Harbour at Docklands, Melbourne. No one would have a problem then.

You would probably find that they would protest because they have been conditioned by the greens to equate any kind of industrial development with negativity. A more ideal mentality is that displayed by the hero in the Castle who looks at power lines, and admires them as a symbol of human progress. I’ve got a mate who used to live a kilometre from wind turbines in England and had a similarattitude. He liked them. Quiet, looked nice on the landscape, and always a good place to take visitors for a walk.

As for putting the turbines in farming areas, my understanding of power generation is that there is some kind of electricity leakage so the further the generator is from the end user, the more the wastage. I am not a physics man, so I don’t know much theory here. On that logic, the generators need to be as close to the city as possible.

 

[Sir_Adrian84]

You would probably find that they would protest because they have been conditioned by the greens to equate any kind of industrial development with negativity. A more ideal mentality is that displayed by the hero in the Castle who looks at power lines, and admires them as a symbol of human progress. I’ve got a mate who used to live a kilometre from wind turbines in England and had a similarattitude. He liked them. Quiet, looked nice on the landscape, and always a good place to take visitors for a walk.

As for putting the turbines in farming areas, my understanding of power generation is that there is some kind of electricity leakage so the further the generator is from the end user, the more the wastage. I am not a physics man, so I don’t know much theory here. On that logic, the generators need to be as close to the city as possible.

You are correct. It is why WA is not a part of the national electricity grid.

 

[funkyfreo]

. Would it be possible for say the USA to buy the world's supply of carbon and make everyone else have no carbon?

Only if those other nations (owners of rights to emit carbon) agreed to sell their rights. They would make the choice to sell to the USA, and use the cash to get energy from other sources anbd have cash left over. So everyone is happy.

If the US offer was not enough to do this, then they would refuse to sell.

So the US reduces CO2 emissions to the point where it is no longer economically sensible to buy them as they cost more than the benefit the US derives from them.

 

[funkyfreo]

As for putting the turbines in farming areas, my understanding of power generation is that there is some kind of electricity leakage so the further the generator is from the end user, the more the wastage. I am not a physics man, so I don’t know much theory here. On that logic, the generators need to be as close to the city as possible.

But that is why wind is a sensible choice at the grids perimeters, as in those areas is is cheaper to build a small wind turbine station to provide local needs, than to send from the main power station miles and miles away with all the transmission losses.

eg in WA - wind in Esperance and Albany, not in Perth (for now)

 

[medusala]

But that is why wind is a sensible choice at the grids perimeters, as in those areas is is cheaper to build a small wind turbine station to provide local needs, than to send from the main power station miles and miles away with all the transmission losses.

eg in WA - wind in Esperance and Albany, not in Perth (for now)

Doesnt wind have to be connected to the grid though? What happens at times of no wind? I think its unecomic to build wind farms that arent close to a grid given the cost of laying cables, EIS etc.

 

[volcboy]

This isn't the point. The sea level may rise (although in some places it has dropped and in some it has rised an amount too small to make a difference) but the point is are humans causing it? The answer is we dont know. There is no solid evidence.

In some places it has dropped? Evidence please. Are humans causing it? You say there is no solid evidence, but in a complex system (which is typical of environmental, atmospheric and geological systems) there are never any pure right or wrong answers. The same argument is used by supporters of Intelligent Design (aka Creationism) when they attack the validity of evolutionary theory.

Are you a creationist, camsmith?

The point I was making is that, in a science that has no pure yes/no answers, such as environmental/atmospheric/geological science, you need to take the least-risk approach. If there was no evidence at all that humans were contributing to global warming, then you might have a point. You say there is no solid evidence - well, here's news for you: There will never be 'solid' evidence in any type of environmental/atmospheric/geological science, just statistical probability.

Interestingly, the actual makeup of all matter (i.e. quantum physics) is without 'solid' evidence, only statistical probability (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) and mathematical theory. Do you actually exist at all, camsmith, or is there not enough 'solid evidence'?

Do you study what causes "climate change"?

I do for my own interest, and have been employed to research atmospheric phenomena associated with volcanic activity previously.

Remember Y2K?

I do. Were you out there screaming before Y2K that it was a hoax and a waste of time? Did you consider that the existence of a 2-digit calendar issue in computer hardware was sufficient 'solid evidence' to take action to prevent potential consequences?

Yes, in hindsight, it turned out not to be an issue. But hindsight is not something that can be afforded when each issue is seperate and should be considered as such.

We shouldn't stick our heads in the sand, we should simply learn to adapt because we cannot to anything about it. Humans have adapted for thousands of years.

We won't have a choice but to adapt - that is not the issue. The issue is that human induced climate change, operating on timescales that are much shorter than those seen in geological history (mass extinction events excepted) has the potential to severly disrupt ecosystems through significant species loss, which would severely limit the 'carrying capacity' of the planet (i.e. how much life, including human life, it can support).

'We cannot do anything about it' is simply an assumptive statement - if there is a reasonable statistical possibility (and there is) that humans are contributing to climate change, then we have a choice. Ignore it and say 'It's fine, we'll adapt, it's not that bad, there's no solid evidence', or take steps to limit or change activities that may contribute to it.

One of these is a selfish option, thinking only of our current generation and our own species. One of these is a holistic option taking into account future generations and other species of life on this planet. Argue all you want for your point, camsmith, and others can decide which option you're taking....

 

[Fitzroy1]

I have seen it and it is an eye opener, basically we live on this planet and we dont have any where to go so we might as well make the most of what we have, it comes down to money so we can keep on making money and keep employing people if that is the most important thing in our lives or we can change and help our planet for our kids and thier kids to enjoy, once its gone its gone forever.

We should also go on watch doco's on Paedophilia / Cancer Deaths / Road Accidents and all the other nasty things that Human Beings bring to this world.

Then we can all go home and lock our doors and sit in the dark for the rest of our miserable lives.

 

[stompie]

In some places it has dropped? Evidence please. Are humans causing it? You say there is no solid evidence, but in a complex system (which is typical of environmental, atmospheric and geological systems) there are never any pure right or wrong answers. The same argument is used by supporters of Intelligent Design (aka Creationism) when they attack the validity of evolutionary theory.

Are you a creationist, camsmith?

The point I was making is that, in a science that has no pure yes/no answers, such as environmental/atmospheric/geological science, you need to take the least-risk approach. If there was no evidence at all that humans were contributing to global warming, then you might have a point. You say there is no solid evidence - well, here's news for you: There will never be 'solid' evidence in any type of environmental/atmospheric/geological science, just statistical probability.

Interestingly, the actual makeup of all matter (i.e. quantum physics) is without 'solid' evidence, only statistical probability (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) and mathematical theory. Do you actually exist at all, camsmith, or is there not enough 'solid evidence'?




I do for my own interest, and have been employed to research atmospheric phenomena associated with volcanic activity previously.





I do. Were you out there screaming before Y2K that it was a hoax and a waste of time? Did you consider that the existence of a 2-digit calendar issue in computer hardware was sufficient 'solid evidence' to take action to prevent potential consequences?

Yes, in hindsight, it turned out not to be an issue. But hindsight is not something that can be afforded when each issue is seperate and should be considered as such.



We won't have a choice but to adapt - that is not the issue. The issue is that human induced climate change, operating on timescales that are much shorter than those seen in geological history (mass extinction events excepted) has the potential to severly disrupt ecosystems through significant species loss, which would severely limit the 'carrying capacity' of the planet (i.e. how much life, including human life, it can support).

'We cannot do anything about it' is simply an assumptive statement - if there is a reasonable statistical possibility (and there is) that humans are contributing to climate change, then we have a choice. Ignore it and say 'It's fine, we'll adapt, it's not that bad, there's no solid evidence', or take steps to limit or change activities that may contribute to it.

One of these is a selfish option, thinking only of our current generation and our own species. One of these is a holistic option taking into account future generations and other species of life on this planet. Argue all you want for your point, camsmith, and others can decide which option you're taking....

Even though I am optimistic about the benefits of Greenhouse effect, I will accept your reasons for why it may be beneficial to think worst case scenario. But thinking worst case scenario must also include the awareness you have no chance of getting the world to agree to stop using fossil fuels, and even if they did agree, you must be aware it would be impossible to implement the agreement in countries like China and India. Be pragmatic here.

So to think worst case scenario that agreement will not be reached and implemented, surely the logical approach would be to research adaptation. If you think it is going to be too hot to live on the earth’s surface, you can do some research into living underground. Alternatively, you can do some research into building settlements in Antarctica, and how to relocate people. If you are more concerned about flooding, then you can do some research into making settlements more capable of coping with water damage.

If you are concerned for the welfare of other animal species, you can research how each person can become a miniature Noah’s ark to conserve species, and entire cities can become like Noah’s arks to ensure biodiversity. Something most people aren’t aware of is just how good cities are for some native Australian animals. Many Australians have blue-tongues, snakes, marsupial mice, possums in their backyards. Possums in their roofs. Kangaroos, echidna’s in the parklands – especially in Canberra. Platypuses in the stormwater drains. The animals benefit from permanent water, and reliable food.

Progress, and adaptation is happening now. The more aware you become of these adaptations, the better you will be able to cope with the inevitable, and the more you can help other species share the benefits of your adaptation.

 

[section8]

We should also go on watch doco's on Paedophilia / Cancer Deaths / Road Accidents and all the other nasty things that Human Beings bring to this world.

Then we can all go home and lock our doors and sit in the dark for the rest of our miserable lives.

At least then Mother Nature won't be trodden on anymore and the "virus" will be quarantined.

 

[volcboy]

Even though I am optimistic about the benefits of Greenhouse effect,.

I am optimistic about these effects too, when they are caused by natural levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases that have fluctuated in our atmosphere throughout the earth's history. I am not so optimistic about the sudden and dramatic changes to the levels of greenhouse gases that may alter the ambient conditions that exist on the earth's surface at a rapid rate, outpacing the ability of natural ecosystems to adapt and altering the climate to a point that the ability of the earth to sustain life is diminished.

I will accept your reasons for why it may be beneficial to think worst case scenario. But thinking worst case scenario must also include the awareness you have no chance of getting the world to agree to stop using fossil fuels, and even if they did agree, you must be aware it would be impossible to implement the agreement in countries like China and India. Be pragmatic here.

Of course we have to be pragmatic, but when I hear someone say this, I also hear the unsaid "It's all too difficult, lets just forget about it and it might go away/not be as bad as they say." Certainly the logistics of change are difficult, but that doesn't mean that some steps can be made towards at least limiting the problem.

So to think worst case scenario that agreement will not be reached and implemented, surely the logical approach would be to research adaptation. If you think it is going to be too hot to live on the earth’s surface, you can do some research into living underground. Alternatively, you can do some research into building settlements in Antarctica, and how to relocate people. If you are more concerned about flooding, then you can do some research into making settlements more capable of coping with water damage.

I don't buy the old 'research will save us' line. We have technologies now that can assist with the problem (solar/wind power, better planning), we just have to have the will to make the changes. Spending $10 billion on subsidies into geosequestration, as the Victorian government is doing, is OK, but there is no proof that this process will work. Why not spend it on something we know will work?

Sure, living underground and moving millions/billions of people to different latitudes sounds great, but is it really? How many millions/billions will simply starve to death and/or not be moved???

"Settlements more capable of coping with water damage"? That's just funny Water damage such as sea level rises up to 1-3 metres? As in, settlements that can continue to exist underwater? Or subsidising kayaks for residents and moving to the upper floors of buildings? Or perhaps coping with intermittent storm surges in the style that New Orleans did last year.....

If you are concerned for the welfare of other animal species, you can research how each person can become a miniature Noah’s ark to conserve species, and entire cities can become like Noah’s arks to ensure biodiversity. Something most people aren’t aware of is just how good cities are for some native Australian animals. Many Australians have blue-tongues, snakes, marsupial mice, possums in their backyards. Possums in their roofs. Kangaroos, echidna’s in the parklands – especially in Canberra. Platypuses in the stormwater drains. The animals benefit from permanent water, and reliable food.

Progress, and adaptation is happening now. The more aware you become of these adaptations, the better you will be able to cope with the inevitable, and the more you can help other species share the benefits of your adaptation.

I am making adaptations personally now. But that is because I can afford to, as you can. What about the billions living on the subcontinent who cannot afford to make those changes? Just death for them, I suppose.

Your comments about animals adapting to human environments are interesting, but neglect to mention the hundreds and thousands of species that have failed to adapt and become extinct. I'm trying not to be too personal, but your comments that animals 'benefit from permanent water and reliable food' neglects a whole raft of research into the robustness of ecosystems being increased by natural diversity, as opposed to those that contain relatively few species (such as city/suburb artificial ecosystems), and severly affected by the introduction of extant species.

And what if all the people move to Antarctica? They take all the animals with them? Or just the furry, cuddly ones?

 

[stompie]

I am optimistic about these effects too, when they are caused by natural levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases that have fluctuated in our atmosphere throughout the earth's history. I am not so optimistic about the sudden and dramatic changes to the levels of greenhouse gases that may alter the ambient conditions that exist on the earth's surface at a rapid rate, outpacing the ability of natural ecosystems to adapt and altering the climate to a point that the ability of the earth to sustain life is diminished.



Of course we have to be pragmatic, but when I hear someone say this, I also hear the unsaid "It's all too difficult, lets just forget about it and it might go away/not be as bad as they say." Certainly the logistics of change are difficult, but that doesn't mean that some steps can be made towards at least limiting the problem.




I don't buy the old 'research will save us' line. We have technologies now that can assist with the problem (solar/wind power, better planning), we just have to have the will to make the changes. Spending $10 billion on subsidies into geosequestration, as the Victorian government is doing, is OK, but there is no proof that this process will work. Why not spend it on something we know will work?

Sure, living underground and moving millions/billions of people to different latitudes sounds great, but is it really? How many millions/billions will simply starve to death and/or not be moved???

"Settlements more capable of coping with water damage"? That's just funny Water damage such as sea level rises up to 1-3 metres? As in, settlements that can continue to exist underwater? Or subsidising kayaks for residents and moving to the upper floors of buildings? Or perhaps coping with intermittent storm surges in the style that New Orleans did last year.....




I am making adaptations personally now. But that is because I can afford to, as you can. What about the billions living on the subcontinent who cannot afford to make those changes? Just death for them, I suppose.

Your comments about animals adapting to human environments are interesting, but neglect to mention the hundreds and thousands of species that have failed to adapt and become extinct. I'm trying not to be too personal, but your comments that animals 'benefit from permanent water and reliable food' neglects a whole raft of research into the robustness of ecosystems being increased by natural diversity, as opposed to those that contain relatively few species (such as city/suburb artificial ecosystems), and severly affected by the introduction of extant species.

And what if all the people move to Antarctica? They take all the animals with them? Or just the furry, cuddly ones?

I live in China. People here are starving, and they are being relocated. As their problems have nothing to do with the Greenhouse effect, naturally it is very low down on their list of concerns. Think about, you can’t even convince Australians with food on the table to make the necessary sacrifices. Be pragmatic. You have no chance here.

The Chinese government is investing heavily in alternative energy, but their motivation is an economic one. The people here realise that if China and India consumed fossil fuels at the rate of America, then the price would sky-rocket. They are adapting out of economic, rather than environmental, necessity.

As for the Noah’s ark analogy, I was making an ideological point that it is better to think about how to live with the ecosystem, rather than devote all your research into how to protect it. Some animals that are in no danger of extinction include rats, cockroaches, horses, pigs, goats, cats, dogs, and sheep. Take humans off the earth, and their prospects of survival would be greatly diminished. In Australia, any native animal that has managed to carve out a niche in the city, either as a zoo exhibit or house/park stowaway, is safe. The ones in the bush are in danger. You can argue about the morality of it all until the cows come home, but the fact is which animals survive or become extinct will be determined by the relationship they have with humans.

 

[funkyfreo]

Doesnt wind have to be connected to the grid though? What happens at times of no wind? I think its unecomic to build wind farms that arent close to a grid given the cost of laying cables, EIS etc.

I was referring to the grid's perimeters. Not stand alone fromthe grid. But remote off-grid locations such as you mention are some of the most economically feasible locations to use renewable energy sources. They have a local mini grid backed up by less efficient diesel or other small fossil fuel generators that kick in in times such as you mention. But generally Solar would be used, not diesel. Yes Wind would more commonly be grid connected.

 

[volcboy]

I live in China. People here are starving, and they are being relocated. As their problems have nothing to do with the Greenhouse effect, naturally it is very low down on their list of concerns. Think about, you can’t even convince Australians with food on the table to make the necessary sacrifices. Be pragmatic. You have no chance here.

The Chinese government is investing heavily in alternative energy, but their motivation is an economic one. The people here realise that if China and India consumed fossil fuels at the rate of America, then the price would sky-rocket. They are adapting out of economic, rather than environmental, necessity.

As for the Noah’s ark analogy, I was making an ideological point that it is better to think about how to live with the ecosystem, rather than devote all your research into how to protect it. Some animals that are in no danger of extinction include rats, cockroaches, horses, pigs, goats, cats, dogs, and sheep. Take humans off the earth, and their prospects of survival would be greatly diminished. In Australia, any native animal that has managed to carve out a niche in the city, either as a zoo exhibit or house/park stowaway, is safe. The ones in the bush are in danger. You can argue about the morality of it all until the cows come home, but the fact is which animals survive or become extinct will be determined by the relationship they have with humans.

There are simple ways of increasing the movement to more efficient and less damaging technologies through economic means, such as the use of carbon-based or polluter-pays tax systems. Unlikely to happen unfortunately due to the fact that governments are beholden to (and financed through political donations by) large oil/mining companies and their lobbies. If these type of taxes replaced goods/service taxes, they would more readily mirror the cost to the planet of each good or service purchased, and naturally drive individuals and corporations to focus on lower impact (and hence lower taxed) products and services.

Economics, eventually, will make the use of carbon fuels (especially crude oil) too expensive relative to other fuel sources (a peak oil debate that doesn't need to happen here), but the choice is between being reactive or proactive. Proactive means making choices now about changing the production of your energy - this is important because as fossil fuel sources decrease and prices increase, the cost of producing your alternate/renewable energy souces as a reaction to these increases (especially if you haven't built up a supply of them already) is a much poorer option.

I agree that we should live within ecosystems rather than protect them as 'museum pieces'. My point was that an ecosystem is a delicately balanced system that can only absorb a limited amount of peturbation before it changes dramatically. Dramatic changes to an ecosystem dramatically effect the organisms living within those ecosystems, which includes humans.

You have probably heard the term 'tipping point', which in ecosystem terms refers to a mathematically measurable point where an ecosystem (a non-linear dynamical system) is peturbed to the point that it changes dramatically into a new type of system. This is all good and well, but as we rely on the delicate balance of ecosystems within which we live to provide us with the nourishment we need (including horses, pigs, goats, cats, dogs, and sheep) as well as crop foods, it is unlikely that a dramatic change to our current ecosystems would allow an increase in productivity, and much more likely a dramatic decrease.

In addition, all ecosystems on earth are, to varying degrees, interlinked. When one ecosystem fails or changes dramatically, it peturbs those to which it is linked, thus increasing their chances of doing the same. Hence, the whole world can be modelled as a single ecosystem comprised of many interlinking parts, most of which include humans at some point. This type of theory is most famously described by James Lovelock in his Gaia hypothesis. You could read his new book if interested in these ideas further.

 

[William G. Gruff]

if al gore was serious about this "problem" he would have been altruistic and not let anybody know of his involvement in the film. he would have used a pseudonym in the credits and got somebody else to do the voiceover.

 

[Qsaint]

if al gore was serious about this "problem" he would have been altruistic and not let anybody know of his involvement in the film. he would have used a pseudonym in the credits and got somebody else to do the voiceover.

On the otherhand if he wasn't then no one would have seen it?

 

[William G. Gruff]

al gore, publicity whore.

 

[funkyfreo]

if al gore was serious about this "problem" he would have been altruistic and not let anybody know of his involvement in the film. he would have used a pseudonym in the credits and got somebody else to do the voiceover.

Fine balance between lending a big name and credibility to a film to make people go see it, and not wanting to politicise the film. I must admit as a greenie and staunch believer that we can knock of these GHG issues with little economic impact, the Gore thing makes me cringe a bit. IMO it means more left will watch it as he is a lafty(ish), but gives the right an instant rebuttal of "sour grapes".

 

[funkyfreo]

al gore, publicity whore.

William G. Gruff, looks bad in the buff.

 

[volcboy]

al gore, publicity whore.

Probably true - I mentioned my disappointment at the self promotion in this film in an earlier post - but by not even mentioning or challenging any of the science presented and resorting to childish name calling, what does that make you?