Climate Change - where to from here « Alternative Technology Assn Forums

Alternative Technology Assn Forums » General

Climate Change - where to from here

(68 posts) (14 voices)

Started 1 year ago by rockabye
Latest reply from rockabye

Tags:

« Previous 123 Next »

Jeffbloggs
Member

Hey Sojin
I agree we need a solution now. Your Mars vs Venus vs Earth scenario was nearly believable even, have you considered that it might be the case that Venus was once the former earth, and Mars is growing to become the next earth? Planetary growth theories would support it, and no I'm really not kidding. Chk this out for some interesting theories: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ

What are your thoughts on my comments regarding the interconnectedness of a pollutive fossil economy vs an emission free RE economy? Do you agree that they pose a potentially unsurmountable hurdle for a transition to 100% RE? I agree that the economy is driven by consumption, my definition adds fossils as the universally enabling commodity of that economy of consumption, or economic "engine". I would appreciate some feedback on the subject. Thx

Posted Wednesday 25 Aug 2010 @ 2:34:39 pm from IP #
dymonite69
Member

JB says " potentially unsurmountable hurdle for a transition to 100% RE'

I think if we wound the clock back 70 years when there was only a third of the world's population and a fraction of the energy use AND had mature technology to transition to renewables then it might have been doable.

We would have also needed to significantly constrain the explosion in private car transport, minimise urban sprawl (and the road infrastructure associated with it), avoid major shipping of good across countries and across the globe and develop more sustainable agricultural practices.

It will hard to develop enough renewable plant to sustain this energy hungry and energy wasteful world.

Unfortunately, the genie is well and truly out of the bottle. Our cities and production systems are now built for inefficiency
(built on the back of cheap energy) and our lives are too spoiled with luxury that it will be too hard for us to give it up.

Off course many of us will have to give it up when peak oil bites but by that state it would too late to prevent a lot of people suffering in the process.

Posted Wednesday 25 Aug 2010 @ 2:59:30 pm from IP #
Sojin_Muneshi
Member

[quote]
Jeffbloggs
Member
Hey Sojin
I agree we need a solution now. What are your thoughts on my comments regarding the interconnectedness of a pollutive fossil economy vs an emission free RE economy? Do you agree that they pose a potentially unsurmountable hurdle for a transition to 100% RE? I would appreciate some feedback on the subject
[/quote]

Jeff I seriously think a Carbon price (tax) should be implemented immediately, and encouraged to be implemented world wide, and for those countries who refuse, that a tariff barrier be implemented to create a Carbon tariff against their goods, being imported cheaply into each country. (lets face it Free Trade is yet to deliver, the GATT rounds are stalled on agriculture in any case!)

I firmly believe pricing Carbon through a simple efficient Carbon tax creates a level playing field between the Fossil Economy and the RE economy, I dont think fossil fuels themselves lock out RE, its simply we have had 150 years to develop the mass production of FE to point it is very cheap and efficient, other than the uncosted cost of damaging the planet - a Carbon Tax prices in that damage.

We should immediately encourage transfer to Nuclear power in place of existing base load Coal power stations around the world.

Then we need to identify sustainable Population target for the planet, not just Melbourne, Victoria or Australia, and work "down" towards it - 9B is too many already! -

I'm not sure how other than the Chinese 1 baby model? as its always been done with previously as a by-product of war/famine/plague previously? and thats not a good plan? -especially if your name isnt on the "keep" list!

Then we really need to build RE into every aspect of life, business, recreation etc, but there will be powerful forces driven by greed simply rorting and fighting against change, and so that will not be overnight, but a long slow change!

It will be painful for all of us, including (perhaps especially for) those in the high tech/wealthy countries, but more painful for longer, the longer we leave it!

But it has to be a transition, starting as soon as possible, it wont be accepted as a step change over night, it will however snowball once it is the focus of design, construction, planning.

regards

Sojin Muneshi

Posted Wednesday 25 Aug 2010 @ 3:26:20 pm from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

Sojin
So do you agree we need to get rid of fossils and the associated fossil fuel economic drivers to allow a new renewable based economy? The way I see it a Carbon price will only be an initial incentive to change, but it could very soon reach a critical point at which our currently fossil enabled economy will no longer be able to afford (unemployment etc) these extra costs. I think there might be to much inertia in the 150 years of FE industry and consumption to turn it around in time. We might need to adopt a viral growth of the RE economy as opposed to a bacterial growth. (ie hybrid car vs EV) The difference being that the virus (RE) doesn't kill of the host (FE) until the virus (RE) has secured its survivability. A bacterial growth (RE) will only lead to a direct conversion and consumption of mass from host (FE) to bacteria (RE), regardless of the consequences to the well being of the host (FE).

On the subject of population: currently most western nations have a declining population by fertility rate, immigration is nearly the only growth mechanism in most of Europe, America and Australia. Chk out this link:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
The stable population rate is about 2.18 (depending on gender distributions)
Australia is just below China at 1.78, USA is at 2.08 because of the South American influx and higher reproduction rates, and most of the population of EU is sitting around 1.5 apart from France that have a relatively high north African population and correspondingly higher fertility at 1.98.

The population growth is really limited to the third world and only really effects immigration in Western countries. I know Dick Smith is pushing the population issue, but the problem is not really solvable on a national level, maybe not even on a industrialized nations level. At least, not unless we force our will on other nations, in which case I'd suggest to let the USA deal with it, they have a "good" record of forcing their will on others!
One idea I had about stabilizing population was to implement a scheme to promote later pregnancies ie 30+yo. It would have the effect of hopefully more mature and responsible parents, and reduce the generation cycles in a given period of life expectancy.

Anybody interested in putting together a strategic policy to combat all of these interrelated issues and push it through parliament via one of the independent MP's?

Posted Wednesday 25 Aug 2010 @ 4:58:09 pm from IP #
thatmosis
Member

What I object to is the fact that people think a Tax on CO2 will do anything to expediate the change over to Alternative Power. If Alternative Power is so good then it should stand on its merits and not be sudsidised at all.I know from personal experience the pit falls of alternative power as I have a 7.5kW generator on standby to top the power up if we have 3 overcast days and this from a system that has the best items that money could buy. It is not that I dont want people to take up Alternative Power but I dont think that everybody should be slugged extra on everything to pay for it and I dont believe that people should be compensated as this leads to massive rorting of the Tax Payer Dollar. Power prices will continue to rise and rise and this will and should be incentive enough for people to take up Alternative Power without the need for Government intervention which on past experience starts out with the best of intentions but ends up costing 4 or 5 times what its worth. I say let market forces determine the future of what power people use and I think that alternative power will have the edge without all this extra tax and incentives. If people are stupid enough to play the Energy Companies game and pay and pay through the nose then so be it but common sense will eventually prevail I'm sure.

Posted Wednesday 25 Aug 2010 @ 10:21:50 pm from IP #
dymonite69
Member

What happens if it is not possible to ever match the price of fossil fuels based on our current (and continually increasing) level of consumption?

Oil, gas and coal was like drawing indiscriminately on a huge trust account that was accumulated for thousands of years but squandered in a few hundred.

Now we can only use what we can make.

Posted Thursday 26 Aug 2010 @ 12:34:12 am from IP #
thatmosis
Member

Just as a guide have a look at computers early on. A good system cost about $3,500.00 and that was top of the range and provided less computing power than most watches today. Now a good system costs $1000, has great computing power and is much more reliable thatn the older ones. The ever decreasing price was because of innovations in the Computer industry and more and more people coming into the computer age. I see no reason that the Alternative technology should do the same or better seeing it is so important. How much more pain will it take to make people start to realise that alternative power although not as good as Coal fired power in terms of reliablity is an alternative and a cost cutting measure. A thing to watch though is the miriade of companies now offering Panels and the ancillary electronic gear. The Government should legislate to make sure that all equipment sold comply with strict guide lines. Some of the inferior equipment on the market is suspect as far as longevity of the companies making them are concerned. Some of the recognised companies now have a backlog of over 12 months from time of order to time of delivery.

Posted Thursday 26 Aug 2010 @ 3:21:08 am from IP #
dymonite69
Member

History tells us differently

For computers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Transistor_Count_and_Moore%27s_Law_-_2008.svg

For solar photovoltaic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PVeff(rev100414).png

There is theoretical maximum efficiency for solar cells that can't exceed 45%.

How much has PV decreased in price in the last 20 years? (the current technology has not changed much since the early 1990s).

Posted Thursday 26 Aug 2010 @ 4:15:46 am from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

PV efficiency is stuck at under 45% because PV uses visible light and not the IR spectrum, a solar concentrating dish with a stirling engine go up to 40% electrical and over 80% in CHP mode.

thatmosis
There is no real logic in in comparing Moores law for transistor density to PV or any other renewable technology development. Look at development in cars, they haven't achieved much technological advancement at all in the last 100 years (still made out of steel, have a combustion engine and 4 wheels) and neither have coal fired steam turbines in the last 50 years. Also generically categorizing RE as unreliable is untrue, take Hyrdo or landfill gas for example.

When you make the statement: "If Alternative Power is so good then it should stand on its merits and not be sudsidised at all" Maybe you should consider what is "good" about it for you and all the rest of us, when it reduces the impact on climate. Then at least, the cost of renewables would fall in to perspective, rather than be veiled by the low cost smokescreen produced by fossils.

Posted Thursday 26 Aug 2010 @ 4:43:01 am from IP #
dymonite69
Member

"Look at development in cars, they haven't achieved much technological advancement at all in the last 100 years (still made out of steel, have a combustion engine and 4 wheels)"

And that is partly why we are so in much trouble.

Posted Thursday 26 Aug 2010 @ 6:07:33 am from IP #
dubbo teacher
Member

Thatmosis
I don't agree with all your assertions here.
"If Alternative Power is so good then it should stand on its merits and not be sudsidised at all."
"I say let market forces determine the future of what power people use"
'Market forces' are something of a fallacy. Demand for goods and services can and is manipulated. Consumers buy what they see others buy and is largely subject to slick marketing campaigns. And governments have subsidised industries artificially since year dot. Would Australia manufacture cars without govt help? How do you think the "Tiger economies" of Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong developed. And of course Japan? They all developed after WWII on the back of Western (mainly American) intervention - US govt and large firms working with select government elements within those countries. The West offered technology, skilled supervision, capital to build and finally a ready market for the cheaper products. Does anybody seriously believe those Asian nations would have developed without the intervention of outsiders?
Industries in the Tiger economies were also heavily subsidised, had protective barriers on imports and they manipulated their currencies; and they had cheap labour and compliant governments that paid little heed to environmental and human rights concerns.
SO let's not go overboard on the evils of
"Government intervention which on past experience starts out with the best of intentions but ends up costing 4 or 5 times what its worth"
All markets are manipulated by someone for somebody's benefit.
Why not RE?

Posted Thursday 26 Aug 2010 @ 9:36:23 am from IP #
dymonite69
Member

At least the Asian countries make stuff. Wall street just makes imaginary money move around whilst Rome burns.

Posted Thursday 26 Aug 2010 @ 9:56:59 am from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

dubbo teacher
Good point.
The west has exported its slavery via the establishment of the international economy.
Capitalism has shunned poverty out of sight and mind.

I only believe in the value of one currency, and that is the currency of time, that each person has in their life, until they die. How can we speak of human equality if one works all day for a meal, and another an hour for three?

Likewise ownership is a fallacy, we are born with nothing and we can take nothing with when we die. We have all become like the Pharaohs, possessed with material wealth and so insecure we don't trust anyone or even consider sharing the worlds wealth. It's all mine, in this generation of I.

Its one thing that only a few believe in doing good, it is however, much worse, if we can justify evil, because we don't want to see the truth.

Posted Thursday 26 Aug 2010 @ 10:08:21 am from IP #
thatmosis
Member

I dont agree, are we still driving open air buggies on one cyclinder, no. The car has progressed to such an extent that some are now made from carbon fibre, have eco friendly engines, some even fully electrict and you say we havent progressed???? Solar power will do the same, not maybe as we know it but it will progress. As for saving the planet that furphy belongs in the bin. Australia couldnt even if it wanted to make one iota of difference to the amount of CO2 being put into the atmosphere and I for one dont believe that we should go it alone and inflict damage to our economy on such a scale as to make life as we know it untenable. If you are willing to pay extra for everything then you are stupid to say the least as it will do nothing for the planet. If every other country agreed to the cuts required and carried them through then yes I would agree to paying a higher price but it is just plain nuts to go it alone for no discenable benefit. Thats my main arguement, going alone no, going with every other nation yes. Only then will there be a reduction in CO2 and not before.

Posted Friday 27 Aug 2010 @ 2:08:17 am from IP #
dymonite69
Member

Any country that doesn't have a future energy policy including RE will be left behind with no energy source. You can only wait for so long. Whether or not it is expensive to switch is moot.

Posted Friday 27 Aug 2010 @ 3:27:33 am from IP #
munter
Member

Is it fair to draw a comparison between the voluntary abolition of slavery and the voluntary introduction of greenhouse gas emission abatement policy? It might have been more convenient to maintain the status quo but that doesn't make it right. I don't know the history well but it seems at least partly valid.

I'm still kind of tossing this idea around - does it hold any water?

Posted Friday 27 Aug 2010 @ 3:50:00 am from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

thatmosis
My comment in regards to cars makes complete sense when applied to theme of this thread. We are discussing climate change, and as per my previous posts I would like to reiterate:
-Rudolf Diesel's engine originally operated on vegetable oil, there was no fossil "diesel" fuel yet, diesel fuels were named after the engine, not the engine after the fuel.
- Nikolaus Otto 4 stroke "petrol" engine ran on ethanol as there was also no fossil "petrol" fuel yet either

Given these were the first effective car propulsion devices (apart from EV) at the time, we would have been better off sticking to biodiesel and ethanol, as renewable fuels they would have had no impact on the climate. It would seem that since these combustion engines inception, they have "devolved" into fossil fuel spewing, completely overpowered, mobile fossil to CO2 conversion devices, designed to satisfy proud rev-heads bent on trying to prove something, but completely lacking any feeling in their lives, apart from the feeling of acceleration they get, when they mash the pedal down on their way to nowhere.
BTW please read this interesting definition on our current money system and social split personality towards climate change : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
The "Franklin effect" is a interesting concept.
I think it might help in forming a opinion on the perceived cost on changing to RE.

@ everyone
On the point that a global effort is required to combat climate change, I agree to this with the following provision:
Climate change is a locally produced global problem.
In order to remove the problem we must fix it locally, in our own "backyards".
Third world nations are still predominately RE. Why? Because they can't "afford" fossils. So lets take the next logical step and introduce to developing nations a fossil free economy like RE. That way at least we won't have them following our footsteps into climate doom, because they aspire to obtain our quality of life.
As leaders in the development of all technology, especially RE tech, the industrialized nations have the obligation to provide this technology to every person on this planet.

"These technological capabilities are given to us via the tools we create from resources, tools conceived from human ideas (as the fallacy "economic growth"), these magnify our natural abilities, and extend the control of individuals over the environment and even human activity itself." (JB original quote!)

We have the capability and therefore we have the response-ability...

The difference between slavery and climate change is that one wouldn't necessarily bring about the demise of mankind, the other could. A "fair" comparison would be subjective, if however you incorporate droughts, hunger and economically imbalanced "slavery" caused by climate change, the moral objectives would be nearly identical. The "upside" is that the enslavers (us) will get another chance to devise a scheme for world domination though a all encompassing global carbon tax on life!

I believe the solution lies in a localized community system that can predominately support a minimum quality of life from local resources, as opposed to centralized industrialization. All of this unnecessary and ineffective trade, that is driven by countries with cheap (slave) labor like China needs to stop. When was the last time anyone saw a piece of electronics gear with (entirely) "Made in Australia"? We already have the technology to construct devices that can outlive generations, and I think if we became more focused on product recycleability, quality and overall lifecycle cost and effectiveness, rather than cheap, nasty and useless after the first use, our resource demand will become much more sustainable. I think we simply throw to many resources away in a hole, while others have none. It might just be possible that when we stop behaving like locusts, we might just start behaving all together, like humans.

Maybe we should take the opportunity to fix the climate problem, as an opportunity to fix a few other problems as well.

Posted Friday 27 Aug 2010 @ 5:24:06 am from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

Did anyone see the program about Psycho-Socio-Pathology on West TV this morning? It might sound like a mouthful, but it is a easy to understand concept dealing with something called inversion. It outlines the process of self inflicted human suffering, despite our desire for the opposite. I just found their site this afternoon, I think its worth checking out. http://www.stop.org.br/site/catalogo/secoes.php?idsecao=297

Posted Friday 27 Aug 2010 @ 7:37:22 am from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

There was another really interesting docu on ABC today about what the natural world is worth. It is primarily concerned with environmental economics vs fossil/industrialized economics. Enjoy.
Chk out this link http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2010/08/24/2989069.htm

Sorry guys for being a "TV guide", but these are very relevant subjects.
The truth is out there!

Posted Saturday 28 Aug 2010 @ 4:40:51 am from IP #
rockabye
Member

Prof Nicholas Stern on today at the National Press Club 12:30pm

For those who missed it he gave very good insights into the economic risks of not dealing with climate change.

Posted Wednesday 1 Sep 2010 @ 2:42:55 am from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

This is a good article that explains the "biased" media coverage presented about climate change, and how this bias can be unintentionally misunderstood to be in denial of anthropogenic climate change. It would seem that the truth is not always the loudest, when it come to scientific evidence, and its presentation by the media.
Check out this link for more.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s3001949.htm

Posted Friday 3 Sep 2010 @ 10:21:47 am from IP #
rockabye
Member

I attended a seminar this week run by Professor Doug Hargreaves from Engineers Australia.

He is the current president of that body of 90,000 engineers and his focus is firmly on addressing climate change. It isn't just the science community behind this, it is all thinking people.

Quote "“For example, while the great debate surrounding the extent or even the validity of humaninduced climate change goes on, Engineers Australia’s position remains that human activities are influencing the global climate and we need face that reality."

Also, today on ABC RN is a good talk on climate change psychology.

Climate change is on and off the political agenda in Australia. Whether an emissions trading system or a carbon tax win the day, one big barrier stands in the way of change: human nature.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/allinthemind/stories/2010/2998311.htm

Posted Friday 3 Sep 2010 @ 11:20:14 pm from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

Rockabye
Spot on with your "human nature" analysis. Thats why I think it is more important to resolve the "human" issues, rather than just trying to combat climate change. Otherwise we will once again just treat the symptoms and not the cause of the problem. It starts with our ideas (petrol engines etc.), our beliefs (ie believing in the economy and value of fiat money), and our resulting actions (buying petrol for our car, to drive to McDonalds).
ATM we're well on our way to becoming "fully sick".

Posted Saturday 4 Sep 2010 @ 3:26:00 am from IP #
rockabye
Member

Some good info here in this 20 min video

Stanford climate researcher Stephen H. Schneider, a long-time friend, colleague and Edge contributor, died last month at the age of 65 of a heart attack while on a flight to London.

http://www.edge.org/

Posted Saturday 4 Sep 2010 @ 6:36:29 am from IP #
rockabye
Member

Bjørn Lomborg, the self-styled "sceptical environmentalist.

"The world's most high-profile climate change sceptic is to declare that global warming is "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today" and "a challenge humanity must confront", in an apparent U-turn that will give a huge boost to the embattled environmental lobby.

Of course he is selling a new book. Smart Solutions to Climate Change.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-u-turn

Posted Sunday 5 Sep 2010 @ 9:18:20 pm from IP #
rockabye
Member

Climate Change under discussion on SBS tonight at 7:30pm

Can one climate change scientist change the minds of a roomful of climate change sceptics?

A few weeks after we recorded this program, Stephen Schneider died on a flight from Stockholm to London. He was 65 and had been battling a serious illness.

http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/episode/index/id/302#overview

Posted Tuesday 7 Sep 2010 @ 4:38:40 am from IP #
termite
Member

Partway through Insight - interesting that the deniers/skeptics are focused on:
(i) they see predictions of anthropogenic global warming as alarmist
(ii) they don't want to change the economy
Like I said before - they're afraid.

Posted Tuesday 7 Sep 2010 @ 9:57:39 am from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

Termite
I agree on your point i)
But on your point ii) I think we will have to get rid of the entire fossil driven economy (0 fossil emissions = 0 fossil consumption), and replace it with a RE based economy.
How to achieve this change still concerns me, even though I know it is the right thing to do. In that regard the fear of the unknown is justified, when changing the fossil driven economy, especially without any evidence of a functional RE economy. This step can only be achieved if a precedent of this type of RE economy can be demonstrated as a fact. The only other alternative is a leap of (blind) faith, no piece of paper policy will provide this faith, and therefore it will be up to the courage of the people to act against this fear.

I expect that statistically a lot of people who suffer from this fear of change in economies, are people who directly rely on the current economy as a job. The problem is most jobs are directly related with the act of making money out of the transactions with the fossil economy, and this will likely mean they will all need to seek new employment in a RE based economy. As RE "farmer" this will seriously effect how I do business as well, even though my main source of income is through the commercial sale of renewable energy to the grid. I suppose what I am trying to say is that it is one thing to identify it as a fear (of change), but it is still quite difficult to overcome it.

BTW it's unfair that you get to see the Insight program before I can even start watching it in WA!!

Posted Tuesday 7 Sep 2010 @ 10:47:40 am from IP #
rockabye
Member

I think the fear of change has always played a part in new technology. Edison used to go around electrocuting cats and dogs to sway customers away from Westinghouse who were promoting AC power. And the current big players in the oil and coal industry are always fear mongering. There will be blackouts and we will all be jobless and living in caves, blah blah blah.

The alternative is that we will have more jobs than ever, installing new energy efficient power, water, waste recycling while we build and drive electric cars. As for farming, the fuel for tractors etc can readily be made from renewables such as biogas and oil from crops.

It is the fear that you won't be able to sit at the lights burning oil in your sole occupant V8 4WD with the aircon up to the max that is going to have to be addressed. We need to show the benefits from change and how there will be cleaner cities and less pollution. There will be better public transport and it will be cheaper to go electric.

And the benefits are many. I no longer fear blackouts or running out of hot water because of renewables and new technology. If I need to go anywhere in my local area my fuel free electric bike does it easily. The internet and portable computers make obtaining information and saving energy extraordinarily easy compared to just 10 years ago. I pay most of my bills without having to drive anywhere and use fuel. The sun powers this technology, including the ebike, not coal or oil in my case. I can carry my entire medical history or photo collection on an SD card that weighs a few grams instead of 5 reams of printed information on paper from our old growth forests. Let's embrace the future instead of hanging on to inefficient and resource sapping systems.

Posted Tuesday 7 Sep 2010 @ 8:17:07 pm from IP #
dymonite69
Member

http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2009/06/embodied-energy-of-digital-technology.html

"A handful of microchips can have as much embodied energy as a car. "

"the ratio of fossil fuel use to product weight is 2 to 1 for most manufactured products (you need 2 kilograms of fuel for 1 kilogram of product), the ratio is 12 to 1 for a computer (you need 12 kilograms of fuel for 1 kilogram of computer). Considering an average life expectancy of 3 years, this means that the total energy use of a computer is dominated by production (83% or 7,329 megajoule) as opposed to operation (17%). Similar figures were obtained for mobile phones."

Posted Tuesday 7 Sep 2010 @ 11:17:29 pm from IP #

RSS feed for this topic

« Previous 123 Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.