As the international efforts to address climate change progress it's worth knowing where to access information on government committees and proposals.
A couple of links to kick off with provide some interesting comment and also what our government is doing.
Australia's Climate Change Committee
A brief report on the Cancun meeting of 190 countries
The Liberal Party have strongly endorsed action on climate change although they are promoting different ways of tackling it. Their policy can be found here.
http://www.liberal.org.au/Issues/Environment.aspx
Quote "Tony Abbott and the Liberals stand for real action to tackle the complex challenges of climate change,...."
Great to have them on board.
Greenozi
Member
MMCC create excellent opportunity for new generation of bureaucracy to feed on.
Since we are now close to acknowledgment that from toady we are responsible for climate and his weather symptoms.
Now we can create MMCC office in every bigger city.
Citizens can call to complain on weather, complains will be recorded then analyzed and presented on scientific symposium through the world conferences.
Complains will be acted on to the best ability of local MMCC office.
If matter reach outside local MMCC office authority will be forwarded to regional or even government centers.
Central MMCC offices will be well funded and prepared to deal with much serious weather complains, not just small one like ie permit for the small shower rain over Gold Coast region at 4PM to 6PM next Friday.
To the authority of the central MMCC office belongs also responsibility for Thunderstorms and Hail.
To sustain MMCC administration, network of office buildings will be erected- for obvious reason it should be highest skyscraper at the region with wide un obscured view at all surroundings and subordinate clouds.
Due to universality of the customers base- we all regardless of will depend on weather-
And in effort to minimize administration cost, tax for MMCC activity should be constructed in such way the:
1) is unavoidable 2) universal
I suggest rising GST from 10 to 20% with this extra 10 going towards this new MMCC public facility.
In return
MMCC to fulfill its statutory obligations will erect network of High Power Wind Turbines.
Powered by electricity from tradition coal power station which utilize abundant local resources.
Additional benefit from such setup is no need for further export of this coal as all could be utilized onsite, which brings further benefit in releasing stress to rail network, ports and shipping companies.
Just recently finalized purchase of Eiffel Tower plans allow for cheap, mass production of Sprinklers Towers for which adequate number of desalination plants will be build to supply fresh, quality, drinkable water.
In effort to create substantial weather event in the scale similar to present Queensland Flooding international coordination on UN level is needed.
As resources needed may exceed capability of single country.
Smaller nations requiring substantial disaster event covering in access of 1000km2 should apply to UN MMCC office in writing at least 10 years in advance to allow proper preparations and funding campaign.
Low interest loan will be provided by UN to whose only countries that can prove that canot afford themselves to fund desired disaster.
Preferential points will given to impoverished countries which can prove high success (measured in casualties) rate when loan could be written off completely.
I must stress that MMCC enterprise create endless wonderful employment opportunity for whole new generation across whole country.
Book now at nearest university 4 years course for your Master Degree in MMCC science.
Jeffbloggs
Member
Greenozi
It would seem the combined world is finally making some progress and changing the climate!!
At least I am not the only one asking for a climate control device anymore, to stop all this talk about MMCC! (btw this device is already patented! I'm not kidding)
I don't have a problem with anyone not believing in MMCC it's just that they should create their own thread to put their thoughts on the matter down.
This thread is for those who do believe it is real and all major Australian and International political and science institutions support that view.
Disagree by all means but do it somewhere else.
thatmosis
Member
Cant agree with that statement. The essence of a good forum is opposing views thrashed out between the opposing sides. To have a forum of like minded people is but a love fest infested with crabs. Everybody loves it but everybody gets the same result.
Greenozi
Member
If we take for example undisputed leader in RE technology
simple SOLAR HOT WATER SYSTEM
then we can qualify this device as:
1.EREC -Efficient Renewable Energy Converter ( capable to save money to every family,make sense, proven and easy technology, etc,)
or
2 MMCCGCD - .MemMadeClimateChangeGameChangerDevice that will trick the balance in fight against global warming - that will be long bow stretching
I saw many MMCCGC devices, concepts and programs funded by serious public institutions that are absolute crap and waste of public money
- aerosol dispersing ships
- covering polar ice cups with plastic
- pumping things out to atmosphere- chemicals into stratosphere (sulfur?)
- pumping chemicals out of atmosphere (CO2 into ground)
That all above make sense for crazy scientist but if you think about scale and cost that must be implemented to have global effect to be real game changer (?)
Our belief (humans and public servants called bureaucracy in particular) in our omni potential mightiness is just madness.
The latest Aust Geographic has a couple of good articles on local progress.
Bayer is funding a CSIRO program to help more Australian schools and communities to better understand climate change. Called Carbon Kids it encourages positive actions from students, teachers and kids to live more sustainably. They are following this up with a new module on sustainability in agriculture to steer more young adults into the industry.
Corinda State High near Brisbane is endeavouring to be one of the first accredited carbon neutral schools in the world. Now that's progress and good news for those kids.
Greenozi
Member
Sorry for interrupting again but I can not stop myself from asking the stupid question again:
1. So, if not the Climate Change all our effort to conserve,recycle, sustain, renew, innovate doesn't make any sense?
2.If ie hypothetical prognosis is that climate will stay as it is for million of years regardless what we throw at it, then should we start to burn, spent, drive, build and waste as crazy again?
I tough that we do the first because we are (as civilization) grown up ethically, morally responsible, technically advanced enough to do what is right without (regardless) of the vision of total catastrophe.
Greenozi
Member
rephrased:
" If the vision of Climate Change (Total Catastrophe) is the only reason for us to beehive rationally?"
"If Carbon Kids must be scared to death by total extinction before they decide to put empty energy drink container into recycling bin instead of throwing into bushes?"
"If the power plant could not make the switch to solar PV from coal because soon will be just cheaper and simpler , not because of Carbon Tax but because new solar thermo cells are exceeding 40% efficiency and promised to be cheap as dirt?"
Jeffbloggs
Member
Hey Rockabye
I definitely agree that humans have an effect on the planets biosphere. The extent of the effect on the climate and atmosphere are probably even greater than we know. The question is "if" and until when these effects will be reversible. These consequences concern me more than the political correctness of scientific discovery, especially if the solutions can be regarded as a side product of sustainability anyway.
My statement was in line with the lightheartedness expressed through Greenozis post.
His latest comment is also relevant, like religion the MMCC theory is sometimes used as "hellfire" to persuade people out of fear and not education of sustainable principles. It is often done to protect the "commercial" interests in consumption. For example: Out of fear people buy PV panels in a somewhat vain individual effort to reduce the effects of MMCC, and the PV manufacturers and retailers rub their hands in the money and profits to lead a even more extravagant lifestyle ie BP execs.
I didn't buy PV out of fear or to reduce the effects of MMCC. I did it since the early 90's because it made sense and soon after I purchased my 'no subsidy' solar hws because it made sense to do that.
Here is the front page of my website I wrote when I first got on the internet in 1996, long before the MMCC debate got going. I wouldn't change one word of it 15 years later.
The frog at the left has a lot in common with you and I. We are both going to disappear unless we start changing our attitude to the ongoing destruction of our planet. A simple fact with some simple answers if you get right down to it.
By changing the way we use things like electricity and water we can save the frogs and ourselves. You see it's not what we use that is the problem.
It is what we WASTE.
A good example of this waste is the ordinary light bulb. Up to 90% of the energy used by a light bulb is wasted as heat. By using a compact flourescent light we can reduce this waste to a fraction of this figure.
Now all this wasted energy has to come from somewhere. In most cases we dig up coal, burn it to produce steam which spins a huge generator to produce electricity. This electricity is delivered to us by a vast network of power lines and transformers across the countryside. The system is normally run flat out consuming the maximum amount of coal just in case you want to run everything in your house at once.
During this process tons of pollutants are added to to the atmosphere, our ground water and arable cropland. Huge quantities of water are required which results in the damming of rivers and flooding of good quality farmland. All so we can waste the bulk of the energy as unwanted heat. I suspect something is wrong with this system.
thatmosis
Member
Of course something is wrong with the system, but its the only system we have at present and will be for decades to come. Change will take longer than you or I have on the planet and we can but do our bit to make it better. Until the mindset of the people is changed nothing of significance will happen.
As for the lightglobes, hmmmmm, dont like the thought of hundreds of thousand, maybe millions of them in landfill leaching mercury into the water table
Re Mercury in CFLs. Not as big a problem as burning coal. The EPA in the USA say...
"Mercury is a potent neurotoxin, particularly damaging to the fetus, infant and young child. Coal burning power plants are the largest source of mercury emissions in the US."
Found a fact sheet here.
http://kansas.sierraclub.org/Wind/Coal-MercuryFactSheet.htm
Of course the big polluters have found a way to undermine legislation to reduce mercury pollution already.
And another snippet from the EPA really puts it in perspective.
In July 2008 the US EPA published a data sheet stating that the net system emission of mercury for CFL lighting was lower than for incandescent lighting of comparable lumen output. This was based on the average rate of mercury emission for US electricity production and average estimated escape of mercury from a CFL put into a landfill.[51] Coal-fired plants also emit other heavy metals, sulfur, and carbon dioxide.
Net mercury emissions for CFL and incandescent lamps, based on EPA FAQ sheet, assuming average US emission of 0.012 mg of mercury per kilowatt-hour and 14% of CFL mercury contents escapes to environment after land fill disposal.
In the United States, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated that if all 270 million compact fluorescent lamps sold in 2007 were sent to landfill sites, that this would represent around 0.13 metric tons, or 0.1% of all U.S. emissions of mercury (around 104 metric tons that year).
That's right 0.1% worries people, but 40% from coal power stations is "oh well, that's just the way it is."
To change the mindset of people we need to show the bad in it's true light, excuse the pun, and present the real cost of 'cheap' coal fired electricity in birth defects, cancer and shorter lifespans, maybe even a dead planet.
Stephan Lewandowsky is a Winthrop Professor and Australian Professorial Fellow at the University of Western Australia. His research addresses the distinction between scepticism and denial and how people think about statistical data and scientific problems.
His piece on statistics at the link below is further progress on the climate change position.
thatmosis
Member
An interesting read but, and theres always a but as far as Im concerned, if the history of the planet was a 24 hour clock we are taking but a millisecond of that time to prove or disprove Climate Change. As he said we must take all available years and make a prognosis. All available years, not just the infinitely small period that has been recorded by man but all those years that have been recorded by nature. Tree rings, ice cores, geological stratas. To not do so is to in his own words to cherry pick the data to prove a point. Two centuries or even 3 centuries of "data" can not make a point as the period is too small in the context of the age of the planet.
This is not sceptisicm or denial but a valid point using the professors own words. Im sure this will further p#ss people off but Im not making the rules just applying them logically. If we wish to make a statement that the earth is now warming due to Man and his actions then a greater slice of the available "data" must be made available going back not just a few centuries but hundreds of centuries.
Greenozi
Member
thatmosis "greater slice of the available "data" must be made available"
You didn't ask professors and academics to be paid in three hundred years time from now by any chance? Did you? They need the money for bread and butter today.
And how prof. Lewandowsky felicitously noticed
- statistics don't lie, people do
You didn't ask professors and academics to take solvable problems on their desk right now by any chance? Did you?
I wish donate my first dollar to the professor that will write dissertation about Global Flooding ( could be based on Australia statistics) and will show that this problem has finite solution.
The data for the last couple of hundred years is valid because the rise in average global temps is tracking the rise in the use of fossil fuels almost exactly. Prior to the 1700's fossil fuel use was a tiny fraction of what has occurred since 1800.
Greenozi
Member
Rockabye" .. rise in the use of fossil fuels..."
The only hope is that we are running out of fossil fuels rapidly.
I am only scientist that like easy solutions (simple is beutifull e=mcc not e=mmcc ! ) unlike politicians that prefer muddy water.
If the price for fossil fuel is setup right the problem will be solved instantly.
1.In my option we are selling our coal to cheaply.
2.Arabs sells their oil to cheaply too. $150 was once on the table but bombs on their heads and other means of political muscle seems to rectify that problem.
3.Kiwi's just closed one new mine pit forever - but it was Gods finger involved - stronger the jet propelled GAG
At $500 a barrel nobody with healthy mindset will burn black gold anymore and cars will perform 500km on one 1L of gasoline equivalent.
Since professor position is more political function then scientific they don't like easy equation either.
(e=mmcc
Ernings = My Money Count Continuously)
I am sure future generation will curse us not for producing co2 or few more calories but for burning irreplaceable black gold that took millions years to create.
thatmosis
Member
Statistics dont lie, people do....hmmmm. Thats a broad statement and it all depends on who compiled the statistics and for what reason and what criteria was used. The official statistics for our area for the month of December had rainfall at 735mm but here in the same area but separated by a few kilometers we had over 1030mm. Whose statistics are correct????? The Bureaus because they are the end user of these stats or myself who has no reason to fudge the figures. I believe my figures represent a truer picture of the rainfall than the Bureaus as they correlate to many others in the area whilst the Bureaus are gathered from a set point with no corroborating evidence. There are statistics and there are statistics. Both appear to be right but!!!!!!!!!
Jeffbloggs
Member
Greenozi
The cost of fossils is linked to economic growth, I saw some predictions once that if fossils rose to $150/barrel (at current convertibility rates), it would reduce economic growth through the cost of transportation and fossil derived products plastics etc. To try doing this whilst most countries are in recession would be suicide.
The flaw in your proposal is that we are exposed to a misleading concept of how and where money comes from, and that it actually has a fixed value. It doesn't. You raise the price of fossils and it will simply increase (read inflate) costs on all other products. The only time a threshold would be reached to lower consumption, is when the fossils cost to much in comparison to other products, but seeing that nearly all modern products today are reliant on fossil fuel, they will simply rise with the "cost" of fossils. They are linked.
The only way I can conceive that this could work is produce "sustainable" products that are not completely reliant on fossils ie have no fossil fuel cost. Once promoted these will allow an alternative sustainable "valuation" of goods and currency to emerge (ie RE$), which can replace the existing fossil "currency" backbone of modern economics. In the beginning of the British-East-India Company they traded herbs and opium (illegally to China). Now a days they have a strangle hold on oil and force us to buy it through the introduction of fiat money via debt mechanisms. I like to call this "monetary enslavement". There is no political or economic freedom at all in these mechanisms. They are all so large that we cannot survive a change in their inertia. Where did I sign away my free will and rights that I must participate in this economic system? We don't even have the right to choose another system, it is forced on us. Likewise through globalization, where can I go that I can live without these effects? I think it was Lumbuck who once wrote we need to establish "islands" of different persuasions, and let those that succeed lead by example.
Thatmosis
I agree with your statistics issue. The problem comes from the fact that the real world is to dynamic to replicate in numbers. Numbers are man made after all.
I'll tell you a subjective riddle about numbers to think about: (maybe you have heard this one before)
There once where three guys that went to a restaurant for lunch. After they had enjoyed the meal the shop owner brings them the bill, all up it is $30. So each bloke puts in $10 (3x$10=$30) get up and leave. Now whilst they are walking away the shop owner realizes that he over charged them for the meal by $5, and so he asks one of the waiters to run after them and give them the money back. So whilst the waiter is running towards them, he thinks to himself "how will I be able to split $5 into 3, so every person gets their fair share back?" then he figures "well if I give each a dollar they will be happy, and if I keep the other $2 I will be happy, and won't have to fuss with change."
So he does this. This means that every guy paid, $9 ($10-$1= $9) right? SO 3x$9=$27 ok?
And $27 plus the $2 the waiter took = $29 ok? So where did the other $1 go from the $30 the guys paid?? Have fun...;)
thatmosis
Member
Andy Chee, there is probably not anything wrong with gathering stats from a set point but it makes the outcome subjective. Stats from various points in a given area, be it geographical or whatever would give a balanced outcome that would not lend itself to accusations of maniplulation, thats what I am saying. Its like the old adage-measure twice and cut once. Saves time and mistakes alround.
Greenozi, at $500 dollars a barrel the emerged and emerging industrial countries would collapse. $150 is pushing the boundries of what is a "safe" price and now is not the time to raise it to that level. With the economic meltdown still impacting on so many countries to suddenly raise the price of oil would be catastrophic. We will see the price flutuate between $80 and $115 abarrel for a few years until the world has once again got on to a steady base then the price may rise but not so sharply that it will cause another meltdown. Its not in anybodies interest for this to happen.
Greenozi
Member
Jeff's example with waiter is really illustrative, here.
Similar with oil $500/ barrel.
To some extend is unrealistic now, because we assume that prices structure remains as we know it now.
But developed countries overproduce what people could actually realistically use that is causing "hidden inflation".
I call is hidden because if you think that your home your bought 3 years ago for $290k is worth now $520k.
Similar to this waiter story there are suddenly money for nothing - same home, same country and suddenly you think you have twice us much money. You can go shopping - buy new car, TV etc ( bank will fund it happily)
For me is just galloping inflation and in fact you have even less money then before in real terms because you need to pay interest on home that before was already mortgage free.
Rising fuel prices may not cause total collapse but rationalization and prioritization.
Junkies could throw their 8 and 12 cylinders clunkers - buy electric Leafs.
Still cheaper then 24 cylinder tanks needed to sustain cheap oil prices.
Trend is clear
- Oil could be only more expensive in the future
- wind and water power could not be made much cheaper
- there is not limit by how much solar cells could drop, not bottom price I can think about.
You must log in to post.
