-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
Disco08 said:
All very well to say "All they had to do was keep the pine plantations away from the urban interface as numerous reports had suggested" but the fact is unless they ripped up and moved the pine forests it was not going to happen.
The is no land for expansion with the only tract of land available [which can not be used due to toxic soil] is the old Naval Radio Signal station.
The reality is with the growth of the population base the inner City/Woden area was always going to be developed.
Canberra has one of the lowest percentile of available rental housing [around two percent rental vacancy] anywhere for this very reason [No Land].
The last available land is now being redeveloped in the Gungahlin area, once that is developed no more land for housing is available.
This is the reason why the Federal Government fought Jim Snow in the courts from converting the surround land at the airport from light industrial to residental.
You could also argue why was the fire left to burn for weeks in the Namadji national park?
I don't know exactly what type of buffer the reports suggested, but I'd guess at about 100-200 metres. That size break certainly would have stopped the catastrophic firestorm that hit Duffy, Holder and parts of Kambah and would have saved hundreds of homes. If you know how big these plantations are then losing a border that size around the urban interface is a drop in the ocean so to speak.
What we have in my district is a grader cleaning up rds/tks etc a D4 ( dozer ) scrubbing tks fixing run offs etc and a backhoe/Loader drainage/signage etc. we have about 5 permanent feild crew and get around 10 - 12 seasonal workers over summer they do tk maintence weed control etc. ( all year every year )
Fire wise we aim to fuel reduce areas every 7 years but this is all weather and location dependent also it depends on the areas fire history like now we have had 70% of our district burnt in the last 3 years we cant burn any more for a while because fauna needs somewhere to go ( burning is Autumn and spring ).
what has been happening is that with the severity of the last few years fire seasons is that the seasonal workers( mainly uni students who head back in Feb ) dont get any maintenance done because they are to busy with fires and by the time the permanents take some leave in winter we dont get alot done.
Fire wise we aim to fuel reduce areas every 7 years but this is all weather and location dependent also it depends on the areas fire history like now we have had 70% of our district burnt in the last 3 years we cant burn any more for a while because fauna needs somewhere to go ( burning is Autumn and spring ).
what has been happening is that with the severity of the last few years fire seasons is that the seasonal workers( mainly uni students who head back in Feb ) dont get any maintenance done because they are to busy with fires and by the time the permanents take some leave in winter we dont get alot done.
I just had a thought about this issue yesterday and I'd be interested in comments:
The carbon we are now pumping into the atmosphere causing warming, came originally from the atmosphere.
I'm not sure of the significance (if any) of this. The implication is that CO2 levels were far higher in the distant past. It also makes me think that a vast amount the Earth's total carbon is stored as fossil fuels!
As for GW incidently, I'm a believer.
The carbon we are now pumping into the atmosphere causing warming, came originally from the atmosphere.
I'm not sure of the significance (if any) of this. The implication is that CO2 levels were far higher in the distant past. It also makes me think that a vast amount the Earth's total carbon is stored as fossil fuels!
As for GW incidently, I'm a believer.
What do people think of how Bali is going?
Personally I am happy we are not committing to a target range in talks that are essentially prelim, but whats with the EU? First discussions they already put everything on the table with no obligations for developing nations?? They baffles me they do
Personally I am happy we are not committing to a target range in talks that are essentially prelim, but whats with the EU? First discussions they already put everything on the table with no obligations for developing nations?? They baffles me they do
Six Pack said:
EU want developed nations to commit to 25-40% reduction by 2020. They believe the developed world needs to show leadership, and then the developing world will follow.
Developed nations want the same, but still open commitments for them. Usual bit that they are still growing, and they didn't create the problem.
USA, Japan, Russia, and Canada want the figure set at the Copenhagen Meeting in 2009. Say setting a target goal now will restrict the scope of discussions.
Australia want to wait till 2008 when the independant report (Garner? Report) on climate change is available.
Some articles are:
http://news.theage.com.au/wong-garrett-must-burn-midnight-oil-pm/20071213-1gr1.html
http://news.theage.com.au/all-eyes-on-nobel-laureate-gore-as-high-noon-looms-for-climate-talks/20071213-1gwg.html
Tiger74 said:What do people think of how Bali is going?
Personally I am happy we are not committing to a target range in talks that are essentially prelim, but whats with the EU? First discussions they already put everything on the table with no obligations for developing nations?? They baffles me they do
Tiger74,
This is what I have said previously on another thread about it:
Liverpool said:
The debate is the usual diplomatic stuff, its not for the actual agreement, its for the framework underwhich the negotiations will occur. Will be tough, but hopefully a compromise is made by all nations tomorrow, and we agree on a middle ground.
Great Barrief Reef doomed within a generation, say scientists
By Greg Roberts
December 14, 2007 06:03am
IT is probably too late to save the Great Barrier Reef and other coral reefs from global warming.
Even if governments implement far-reaching measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions, they will not prevent the annihilation of coral reefs around the world.
These are the conclusions of analysis by leading marine scientists to be published today in the prestigious journal Science.
'Terrible future'
"There is a terrible future in front of us for the reefs," said Canada-based United Nations University professor Peter Sale, one of 17 authors from seven nations of the Science paper.
On Wednesday, Kevin Rudd told the UN's Bali climate change conference that global warming was threatening Australian natural wonders such as the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu National Park and rainforests, killing rivers and exposing people to more frequent and ferocious bushfires.
The scientists present three scenarios for the future of coral reefs - the world's largest lifeforms - under different climatic conditions.
If current conditions continue, with the stabilisation of temperatures and emissions at today's level of 380 parts per million (ppm), reefs will survive but undergo fundamental changes.
'Stabilisation not possible'
However, scientists agree that stabilisation of current conditions is not possible. The paper warns that if emissions rise to between 450 and 500 ppm, with an associated temperature rise of 2C by 2050 - the most optimistic outcome predicted by the landmark study by British economist Nicholas Stern - reefs will suffer "vastly reduced habitat complexity and loss of biodiversity".
But if they rise above 500ppm, the minimum emission level forecast by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climage Change by 2050, reefs will become "rapidly eroding rubble banks".
"These changes will reduce coral reef ecosystems to crumbling frameworks with few calcareous corals," the paper says.
"It is clear that coral reefs as we know them today would be extremely rare."
The scientists determined that the concentration of carbon monoxide in the earth's atmosphere of 380ppm was 80ppm higher than it has been for 740,000 years, and probably for as long as 20 million years.
Professor Sale, who is in Brisbane this week for a World Bank-sponsored marine science conference, said there was no point speculating about the outcome for reefs in the worst-case scenarios outlined by the Stern and IPCC reviews, of temperature rises as high as 6C.
"In the best-case predictions, with temperature rises of 2C by 2050, the outlook can hardly be more dire," he said.
'Radical measures' would help
However, he said some damage could be averted if radical measures were introduced to curb emissions.
"There is a ray of hope, but it is fading fast."
Climate change sceptic Bob Carter, a James Cook University researcher, said while he was not familiar with the Science paper, caution needed to be exercised about "alarmist" climate modelling.
"Too often these climate models are basically PlayStations which have not been validated scientifically," Dr Carter said.
But the lead author of the Science paper, University of Queensland professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, said the $7billion Great Barrier Reef tourism industry was at risk.
"With conservative estimates predicting emission levels exceeding 500ppm, coral reefs will dwindle into insignificance," Professor Hoegh-Guldberg said.
"These changes dwarf anything that happened in the Ice Age transitions and they are happening faster than Stern and the IPCC predicted. The outlook is very grim."
'100 million livelihoods at risk'
Another author of the paper, World Bank marine adviser Marea Hatziolos, said the collapse of coral reefs would destroy the livelihood of 100 million people.
Food supplies to millions more would be reduced; in Asia, reefs supply 25 per cent of fish, feeding one billion people.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22922985-5009760,00.html
By Greg Roberts
December 14, 2007 06:03am
IT is probably too late to save the Great Barrier Reef and other coral reefs from global warming.
Even if governments implement far-reaching measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions, they will not prevent the annihilation of coral reefs around the world.
These are the conclusions of analysis by leading marine scientists to be published today in the prestigious journal Science.
'Terrible future'
"There is a terrible future in front of us for the reefs," said Canada-based United Nations University professor Peter Sale, one of 17 authors from seven nations of the Science paper.
On Wednesday, Kevin Rudd told the UN's Bali climate change conference that global warming was threatening Australian natural wonders such as the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu National Park and rainforests, killing rivers and exposing people to more frequent and ferocious bushfires.
The scientists present three scenarios for the future of coral reefs - the world's largest lifeforms - under different climatic conditions.
If current conditions continue, with the stabilisation of temperatures and emissions at today's level of 380 parts per million (ppm), reefs will survive but undergo fundamental changes.
'Stabilisation not possible'
However, scientists agree that stabilisation of current conditions is not possible. The paper warns that if emissions rise to between 450 and 500 ppm, with an associated temperature rise of 2C by 2050 - the most optimistic outcome predicted by the landmark study by British economist Nicholas Stern - reefs will suffer "vastly reduced habitat complexity and loss of biodiversity".
But if they rise above 500ppm, the minimum emission level forecast by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climage Change by 2050, reefs will become "rapidly eroding rubble banks".
"These changes will reduce coral reef ecosystems to crumbling frameworks with few calcareous corals," the paper says.
"It is clear that coral reefs as we know them today would be extremely rare."
The scientists determined that the concentration of carbon monoxide in the earth's atmosphere of 380ppm was 80ppm higher than it has been for 740,000 years, and probably for as long as 20 million years.
Professor Sale, who is in Brisbane this week for a World Bank-sponsored marine science conference, said there was no point speculating about the outcome for reefs in the worst-case scenarios outlined by the Stern and IPCC reviews, of temperature rises as high as 6C.
"In the best-case predictions, with temperature rises of 2C by 2050, the outlook can hardly be more dire," he said.
'Radical measures' would help
However, he said some damage could be averted if radical measures were introduced to curb emissions.
"There is a ray of hope, but it is fading fast."
Climate change sceptic Bob Carter, a James Cook University researcher, said while he was not familiar with the Science paper, caution needed to be exercised about "alarmist" climate modelling.
"Too often these climate models are basically PlayStations which have not been validated scientifically," Dr Carter said.
But the lead author of the Science paper, University of Queensland professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, said the $7billion Great Barrier Reef tourism industry was at risk.
"With conservative estimates predicting emission levels exceeding 500ppm, coral reefs will dwindle into insignificance," Professor Hoegh-Guldberg said.
"These changes dwarf anything that happened in the Ice Age transitions and they are happening faster than Stern and the IPCC predicted. The outlook is very grim."
'100 million livelihoods at risk'
Another author of the paper, World Bank marine adviser Marea Hatziolos, said the collapse of coral reefs would destroy the livelihood of 100 million people.
Food supplies to millions more would be reduced; in Asia, reefs supply 25 per cent of fish, feeding one billion people.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22922985-5009760,00.html
Apparently talks still going on, stances understood as follows:
1) EU insisting on targets now for developed nations, as it sets the example for the rest of the world
2) USA still insisting this isn't viable, and should be a part of discussions, not the framework
3) Developing nations resisting cuts for them
We are one of the nations trying to broker a middle ground.
I actually heard a decent interview or two on Newsradio today. Summed up as follows:
1) Mandatory targets failed for Kyoto, why will they work now. Better framework is to promote reductions, but to have pressure valves to ease the pain if the cost reaches certain trigger points. This apparently is a mid point between the Howard Sydney Resolutions and Kyoto.
2) Asian growth is around 10%, while EU growth is around 1-2%. Its easy to cut emmisions if your economy is not growing. Also Kyoto has lots of advantages for the EU - in 1990 UK still had the remnants of a coal industry, and East Europe was a poluting MF. The fact that these two spot saved the EU heaps. Also the EU has a collective figure, meaning some countries are cutting, but others are massively over the mark.
3) India emitts 1/15th the carbon of the USA. Their argument is if they cut 25% people remain destitute. If the USA cuts 25% you sell your SUV for a sedan.
This is all relevant, because the points are all fair. I think what needs to happen is for a few compromises. The West needs to cut, but with more flexibility than the EU insist. We are not all mature non-mining economies that are barely growing like the EU. Also the developing world MUST come to the table, but I think they will need western $$$ to help "clean" their industries. Its not easy, it will be expensive, but we have to do something and stop thinking we have to be a "winner" out of these negotiations.
BTW this is far from a definitive idea of mine, its Fri night so keep that in mind I just think a bit more flexibility needs to be shown by all three sides.
1) EU insisting on targets now for developed nations, as it sets the example for the rest of the world
2) USA still insisting this isn't viable, and should be a part of discussions, not the framework
3) Developing nations resisting cuts for them
We are one of the nations trying to broker a middle ground.
I actually heard a decent interview or two on Newsradio today. Summed up as follows:
1) Mandatory targets failed for Kyoto, why will they work now. Better framework is to promote reductions, but to have pressure valves to ease the pain if the cost reaches certain trigger points. This apparently is a mid point between the Howard Sydney Resolutions and Kyoto.
2) Asian growth is around 10%, while EU growth is around 1-2%. Its easy to cut emmisions if your economy is not growing. Also Kyoto has lots of advantages for the EU - in 1990 UK still had the remnants of a coal industry, and East Europe was a poluting MF. The fact that these two spot saved the EU heaps. Also the EU has a collective figure, meaning some countries are cutting, but others are massively over the mark.
3) India emitts 1/15th the carbon of the USA. Their argument is if they cut 25% people remain destitute. If the USA cuts 25% you sell your SUV for a sedan.
This is all relevant, because the points are all fair. I think what needs to happen is for a few compromises. The West needs to cut, but with more flexibility than the EU insist. We are not all mature non-mining economies that are barely growing like the EU. Also the developing world MUST come to the table, but I think they will need western $$$ to help "clean" their industries. Its not easy, it will be expensive, but we have to do something and stop thinking we have to be a "winner" out of these negotiations.
BTW this is far from a definitive idea of mine, its Fri night so keep that in mind
I just think a bit more flexibility needs to be shown by all three sides.