Global Warming

[KnightersRevenge]

I don't understand sorry knighters. my personal efforts to lessen my carbon footprint, for want of a better term, are nothing to do with how i function in our local community. in fact we probably go against the flow a bit in that regard. i'm not even sure how social conscience applies...my concerns are more of a global aspect than a local community one.

i can't see how efforts to look after the environment can be described as selfish. sense of community and individualism in society are a different matter to people doing their bit to look after the environment and contribute less to global warming. the water example here is a good one. to my way of thinking the selfishness is with the individual wallys rather than with those who try and conserve water as much as possible. a person leaving the hose running down the gutter while washing their car is way more selfish than a tree-hugger not showering.

individual can make a difference if enough individuals make an effort...i feel it is my duty to try and do my bit in my own small way.

EDIT Sorry Roses that wasn't what I meant at all. The use of "tree-huggers" was lazy and meant to make the point sound less preachy not to cast those with an environmental conscience as selfish.

When you feel part of a community your actions are never truely taken in isolation. People being harrassed on a train with 30 people around feel powerless because they feel alone. When there is true sense of community everyone on that train feels connected and safe. When you are driving on a busy road you don't speed and cut people off or do dangerous things when you are considering how your actions affect others, that you are all part of a community. Same goes for the way I see Climate Change. People may act as an individuals but they are thinking beyond themselves to the effects their actions will have on others. At least that is how I see it and why I think the selfishness is born of move away from community.

 

[Rosy]

yep i can see where you're coming from. i do consider what impact my actions will have on others. I think crowds, ie people on public transport can be very lonely. so many people with so little connection. i always say hello to the person next to me if i can.

to me community conscience is organising fundraising to buy a car for a recent widow who wrote hers off. it's getting wood for those who can't do so themself. it's setting up for the new years eve get together. it's being an active member of the fire brigade. it's being there for a neighbour who has lost a loved one. maybe just an understanding hug. maybe a cake or casserole. it's making a cuppa and being there for someone who needs a friend whatever the reason. it's making sandwiches for the cwa. it's saying hello and asking aboyut the family..or the dog...or the great aunty. i'd find it very sad if community spirit died out.

the things i do to look after the environment are different and not necessarily with the local community in mind.

i don't agree with willo's claim about doing a bit being rhetoric. i feel obligated to do my bit where i can.

we don't go the 'whole hog' by any means. we do give considered thought to what we do. some off the top of my mind.

we plant a lot of trees
we produce as much of our own meat, eggs, fruit and vegetables as possible. we share the excess with others.
we opt for less processed food and less food miles
we have water tanks and manage our own water
we make an effort to buy things with less packaging
we recycle, compost and mulch
we are getting solar
we rarely use the electric clothes dryer, airco or heater
we don't burn things like plastic, rubber or polystyrene
we walk instead of drive where possible
we turn electrical appliances off at the power point rather than be on standby
we don't have the house lit up like a christmas tree. only lights on are being used.
we have energy efficient light globes in most rooms..though might change a few. it would be nice to be able to actually see.
we buy energy efficient appliances
we use limited sprays and chemicals
we try and avoid plastics
we provide our own travel mugs if we buy coffee
i'm sure there's more. we give thought to how what we do impacts on the environment and look for better alternatives. no doubt we could always do more...
...and we collect and germinate seed and plant more trees.

 

[This Is Anfield]

Haha. Reminds me of "The Good Life"

And all jokes aside, goodonya.

 

[Rosy]

Haha. Reminds me of "The Good Life"

And all jokes aside, goodonya.

you're welcome to joke but i'll choose to take that as a compliment thanks.

 

[This Is Anfield]

you're welcome to joke but i'll choose to take that as a compliment thanks.

And was meant as a compliment.

It's not easy to walk the walk.

 

[Willo]

i don't agree with willo's claim about doing a bit being rhetoric. i feel obligated to do my bit where i can.

I think you missed the point I was making, but that's ok.

 

[Rosy]

I think you missed the point I was making, but that's ok.

yeah that wouldn't surprise me.

the following is what i was referring to. feel free to elaborate.

...
Rather than just saying "I'd rather do my bit than do nothing". That's just rhetoric. How committed are people really? Just pop 6 or so solar panels on your roof to then say I've done my bit (Is that really to reduce your carbon footprint or to reduce power consumption/economics) .
Do people go the whole hog? Sell their car, cycle or walk to work. Don't use public transport or fly to a holiday destination? Or just "do a little" and say if everyone did "a little" it really would make a difference
It's a quandary all right.

 

[Tigers of Old]

Crazy weather around the country right now...

 

[Rosy]

Crazy weather around the country right now...

yep very concerning with the bushfires in nsw but i am loving the fury of vic's weather at the moment. 4 seasons in one day.

 

[Willo]

yeah that wouldn't surprise me.

the following is what i was referring to. feel free to elaborate.

I already did.

 

[poppa x]

Based on global data taken in 2005, electricity & heat generation accounts for roughly a quarter of all emissions, the other major culprits are industry at 14%, transportation 14%, agriculture 13%, land use change 12% and fuel combustion at 8%.

Look behind the %'s and ask the question "why did these aspects increase"?
Electricity & Heat generation = Population Growth
Industry, more goods needed to cater for Population Growth
Transport = more cars, trains, buses caused by Population Growth
Agriculture = more food needed by more people = Population Growth
Land Use Change = land clearing for agriculture needed for Population Growth
Fuel Combustion = more fuel needed for construction, goods and services etc for Population Growth

Call me silly but I see a trend here.
The world's population has doubled in the past 30 years, and will double again in the next 30.
Every Breath we expel emits Co2.
Why do I not see any reference to population growth in the IPCC report?

But what does this mean in terms of overall contribution to global warming?
I have no idea as Livers has raised non human factors that are also relevant.
The scientists are supposedly the experts who can tell us, but like economists predicting the A$ and property prices, they are letting us down. The best they can do is come up with predictions, which like the Government budget is always wrong in hindsight.
I'm older than most on this forum, and can remember the same type of climate "experts' predicting a coming ice age back in the 1960's and scaring the beejesus out of everyone.
IMO anything other than facts is simply BS.

 

[Azza]

I have no idea as Livers has raised non human factors that are also relevant.

:

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Every Breath we expel emits Co2.

This isn't contributing to a net increase in CO2 though. It is the addition of carbon from stored sources (ie. fossil fuels) that are leading to an increase in atmospheric CO2. Population growth certainly increases energy demands and we currently source that energy primarily from carbon-intensive sources.

But what does this mean in terms of overall contribution to global warming?
I have no idea as Livers has raised non human factors that are also relevant.
The scientists are supposedly the experts who can tell us, but like economists predicting the A$ and property prices, they are letting us down. The best they can do is come up with predictions, which like the Government budget is always wrong in hindsight.
I'm older than most on this forum, and can remember the same type of climate "experts' predicting a coming ice age back in the 1960's and scaring the beejesus out of everyone.
IMO anything other than facts is simply BS.

Scientists always make predictions. They aren't based on crystal ball gazing or blind assertion though. They are based on current and historical data as well as a theoretical framework. As we learn more, those predictions become more reliable. You just need to look at the scientific papers that they are based on to understand what data is being used to make those predictions. It is in that sphere that scientific criticisms can be made - ie. in the data or the conclusions/predictions drawn from them.

Incredulity and appeals to inaccuracies of the past aren't convincing arguments. The scientific method isn't perfect, but its track record is remarkable at eking out the nature of things. That is why I find the consensus of vast majority of climate scientists to be so convincing. Despite what people on this thread have said, scientists aren't in some sort of cabal and the method is notoriously competitive. You want to make it as a scientist? Overturn the theories of others. The fact that this hasn't happened is why I trust the experts in this area.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Scientists always make predictions. They aren't based on crystal ball gazing or blind assertion though. They are based on current and historical data as well as a theoretical framework. As we learn more, those predictions become more reliable. You just need to look at the scientific papers that they are based on to understand what data is being used to make those predictions. It is in that sphere that scientific criticisms can be made - ie. in the data or the conclusions/predictions drawn from them.

Incredulity and appeals to inaccuracies of the past aren't convincing arguments. The scientific method isn't perfect, but its track record is remarkable at eking out the nature of things. That is why I find the consensus of vast majority of climate scientists to be so convincing. Despite what people on this thread have said, scientists aren't in some sort of cabal and the method is notoriously competitive. You want to make it as a scientist? Overturn the theories of others. The fact that this hasn't happened is why I trust the experts in this area.

I think the "scientists" often mentioned are the ones from newspaper headlines. You know the ones who have "cloned humans", or who "cured cancer" about ten times last year. The relationship between the way science is done and the way it is reported is fleeting at best.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I think the "scientists" often mentioned are the ones from newspaper headlines. You know the ones who have "cloned humans", or who "cured cancer" about ten times last year. The relationship between the way science is done and the way it is reported is fleeting at best.

Indeed. A pet hate of mine. It breeds this type of sentiment and has nothing to do with how scientists actually do science.

 

[Azza]

"Senior figures at the OECD, IMF and World Bank, who have all stated over the past week that carbon pricing is the most cost-efficient way of reducing emissions."

Good to see Tones has saddled us with the more expensive option. Thanks mate, appreciate it.


UN climate chief says Direct Action 'a lot more expensive' than pricing carbon

Christiana Figueres calls for rapid emissions cuts to avoid 'doom and gloom' events such as the NSW bushfires

The Coalition government is set to pay a “high political price” for its Direct Action climate change plan, according to the United Nation’s climate chief.

Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said the government’s approach could be “a lot more expensive” than pricing carbon and called for rapid cuts in emissions to avoid the kind of “doom and gloom” represented by the New South Wales bushfires.

“What the new government in Australia has not done is step away from its international commitment on climate change,” Figueres told CNN. “What they are struggling with is not what they are going to do but how are they going to get there.

“They are going to have to pay a very high political price and a very high financial price because the route they are choosing to take to get to the same target agreed by the last government could be a lot more expensive for them, and for the population.”

The Coalition has set a fixed amount of $2.5bn over the forward estimates to pay for its Direct Action plan, which would involve incentives given to businesses to cut emissions, as well as activities such as storing carbon in soils.

Independent analysis has shown that it may have to spend billions of extra dollars in order to meet the bipartisan target of at least a 5% reduction in emissions by 2020, based on 2000 levels.

Greg Hunt, the environment minister, has indicated parts of the Direct Action plan could be implemented without legislation, due to a potentially hostile Senate that won’t change until July next year.

Figueres said that she supported putting a price on carbon, echoing senior figures at the OECD, IMF and World Bank, who have all stated over the past week that carbon pricing is the most cost-efficient way of reducing emissions.

“We are already paying price of carbon,” she told CNN. “We are paying the price with wildfires, we are paying the price with droughts, we are paying the price with all sorts disturbances to the hydrological cycle.

“What we need to do is put a price on carbon so we don’t pay the price of carbon.”

Figueres added that the world needed to take “vigorous action” to help avoid the “doom and gloom” scenario illustrated by the NSW bushfires, insisting that there needed to be zero net emissions by 2050 to avoid dangerous climate change.

“We have very little time left and we are closing the window upon ourselves,” she said. “But we do have time. The trajectory of emissions is still rising so we need to get to our global peaking point this decade and then get our trajectory down.”

Figueres said Australia wouldn’t suddenly move to a “magical world” that doesn’t have fossil fuels but that the future involved a more “balanced and healthier” energy mix.

“There will always be a base load provided by fossil fuels,” she said. “The issue is, however, that those fossil fuels, coal in particular, cannot pursue business as usual. They have to invest in carbon capture and storage, they need to become much more efficient, because most of the plants are horribly inefficient, and they need to invest in the new technologies of the future.”

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/22/un-climate-chief-says-direct-action-a-lot-more-expensive-than-pricing-carbon

 

[poppa x]

So the NSW fires are the result of adopting direct climate action and dumping the carbon tax.
When did this happen?
I must have been asleep on the couch.

 

[Azza]

So the NSW fires are the result of adopting direct climate action and dumping the carbon tax.
When did this happen?
I must have been asleep on the couch.

The heading says it Poppa - "UN climate chief says Direct Action 'a lot more expensive' than pricing carbon". The OECD, IMF and World Bank have all said that the Government way of reducing emissions is more expensive than the Labor one it wants to get rid of.

The reference to the fires is just reinforcing the point that global warming will see an increase in fire activity.

 

[poppa x]

The heading says it Poppa - "UN climate chief says Direct Action 'a lot more expensive' than pricing carbon". The OECD, IMF and World Bank have all said that the Government way of reducing emissions is more expensive than the Labor one it wants to get rid of.

The reference to the fires is just reinforcing the point that global warming will see an increase in fire activity.

I think their use of the current disaster is appalling in terms of its timing.
Peoples houses are burning. Lives have been lost. Thousands of animals dead or injured. Exhausted Fire Fighters with worse expected tomorrow.
But no - let's use it to make a political point.
Sorry. their "cause" may be valid, but their timing is shocking.

 

[This Is Anfield]

Excuse my ignorance, but what caused the bushfires of - 1851, 1898, 1926, 1938-39, 1944, 1951-52, 1955, 1961, 1962, 1965, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1983, 1985 etc?