Global Warming

[tigersnake]

Lets look at it another way. Lets say the deniers are right but we decide to act decisively anyway. What’s the problem? We end up with cleaner air, more efficient technology and our fossil fuels will last an extra couple of hundred years.

But look at the flipside, what if the science is correct and the lower end of the future scenarios is correct, but the deniers win the debate and we don’t act?

To me that’s the key point, even if the deniers are correct, and they might be, probably aren’t but they might be, we are still better off acting decisively. If we act, nothing to lose and a lot to gain. If we don’t act, a lot to lose and not that much to gain.

Im not disagreeing with you, Im just saying if we take action make it effective action.

This is too big an issue for the usual political fluff responses, and ignoring China and India is too big a risk

Often the first steps in major political breaks in the road need adjusting later and recalcitrant nation fall into line later. Key is to act. Saying we should'nt act until we are sure its the perfect course of action is ridiculous I reckon. Its like if somebody spews all over your kitchen floor and you don't have any rags of chux, only newspaper. You don't leave the spew there do you because you don't have the perfect wipe on hand? You have a go at cleaning it up with the newspaper.

 

[evo]

Hot Rocks technology looks the most viable renewable alternative solution to me.It can provide baseload power where others like wind,wave and solar can't.

Not a huge fan of Rudd,but his announcement to put in an initial $50m into developing that technology was one of his few highlights of late.

 

[Tiger74]

As such, those demanding we go back to the Stone Age need to be put on ice, because if this is a planetary issue, it wont change anything.

To me this is the key point and one I always trying to make. Nobody is going back to the stone age. Sure there are are a few baggy-arsed hippies who'll advocate that, but its a ludicrous, extremist position. As I said, once committment exists at the top level and across the board, the pace of tech innovation will be blinding.

You are stating this better then, and you and I agree. People saying "cut emmissions by 80% in 20 years" have no idea of the economic consequences that will have. We need to do this in steps (significant ones, not Howards little mini ones), but steps that allow society and the global economy to adapt to the change.

This is why China and India are crutial though. If the West makes all the changes, and these two are outside it, polluting production will simply transfer there. If we want change to happen, we need to close this loophole to force our businesses to adapt and change.

 

[mld]

It is worth keeping in mind that while it is desirable for us to cut emissions, in global terms it doesn't make a great deal of difference. Maintaining a strong economy can help us pressure our big trading partners like China to adopt emissions-cutting technology whilst leading the way in the development of that technology.

So, in essence our efforts should be focussed on what is done with our resources first and foremost.

 

[tigersnake]

India and China.
Why don't the Greenies get over there and have a go at them?

Everything about Chinas (and Indias to a lesser extent) ecomomic boom has happened a lot, a lot lot, faster than anyone ever predicted. Income levels, car ownership, GDP, you name it. The cleaning up of Chinas (and probably Indias too) industry, and greater emphasis on clean and efficiency, will be just another phase in their super-rapid development. Its already happening. The Chinese Cabinet announced last year their priority for the next decade is the environment. The’ve stated this may slow their growth rate by 1-3% in the short term but that’s a good thing because they are growing too fast.

 

[Tiger74]

It is worth keeping in mind that while it is desirable for us to cut emissions, in global terms it doesn't make a great deal of difference. Maintaining a strong economy can help us pressure our big trading partners like China to adopt emissions-cutting technology whilst leading the way in the development of that technology.

So, in essence our efforts should be focussed on what is done with our resources first and foremost.

Disagree with this.

At the moment we have....

US doing its own thing, which is ignoring the issue
EU making great targets and buying hybrid Saabs, but failing to actually hit any of the targets they made (Maybe wrong here, happy to be corrected)
Japan is eager to do stuff, because all its nasty mining and production is now offshore
China/India/Brazil basically said they will get around to it when they are first world economies
Australia/Canada doing some okay stuff, but petrified of carbon taxes due to their resource dependant industries

The world is a uncoordinated mess on this issue, because the whole thing of "focus on ourselves first" has meant everyone has done that.

We need to knock a few heads together, give China/India/Brazil the aid/tariff trade-offs/tech support/whatever to get them to sign on, and then the US and us finally buy in. Once we get a binding global agreement, we can eventually transistion to an enviro version of the WTO, where sanctions and penalties apply to non-compliant nations.

 

[Disco08]

Thought this graph would be worth posting. Keep in mind the US, with the world's highest carbon emission per head of population ratio accounts for over one quarter of the world's total emissions.

Compare that to the trends displayed in both temperature and total carbon present in the atmosphere

 

[Tiger74]

This argument however can become completely redundant by two words anyway.....peak oil

If we are past that, the economic depression and reduction in carbon emmission will happen as a matter of course (assuming no viable alternatives come up of course)

 

[evo]

peak oil certainly solves the petroleum aspect.The blue line in Duckmans graph.

Theres still the problem of coal fired electricity though.Stil lalot of coal around.

 

[Tiger74]

Coal is an issue, but petroleum starts the cascade effect.

No petroleum means:

Road transport becomes much more expensive
Long term supply chains become unsustainable
Plastics become economically unviable for some, more expensive for others
Food costs go up
etc...

Coal will keep the power plants going, but the kick in the guts by losing or rationing petroleum will cause a significant global depression, which will drop demand significantly.

This is all theory though. Depending upon notice, alternatives, and potential for global conflict, any outcome is possible

 

[evo]

I don't think peak oil necessarily indicates a certainty of a great depression.Oil price increases will provide more and more incentive for man to find alternatives the more it rises.

Eventually it gets to a point where it prices itself out of the market.

It depends how ingenuative man is in providing alternatives on whether it'll be a 'shock' or not.

 

[Tiger74]

I don't think peak oil necessarily indicates a certainty of a great depression.Oil price increases will provide more and more incentive for man to find alternatives the more it rises.

Eventually it gets to a point where it prices itself out of the market.

It depends how ingenuative man is in providing alternatives on whether it'll be a 'shock' or not.

Thats the key though, planning.

Already there are rumours the oil companies are lying about reserves. While hitting peak oil will mean higher oil prices, it will also mean a likely move towards nationalization of oil resources and rationing of supply. Funnily this is something no industry wants

If the transition is transparent and managed, I agree we are only looking at recessions and a global slowdown. If poli's being poli's look after today, and business being business focuses only on this budget period, and this means we are fed BS until the cr@p hits the fan, then a depression is the best we can hope for.

 

[mld]

It is worth keeping in mind that while it is desirable for us to cut emissions, in global terms it doesn't make a great deal of difference. Maintaining a strong economy can help us pressure our big trading partners like China to adopt emissions-cutting technology whilst leading the way in the development of that technology.

So, in essence our efforts should be focussed on what is done with our resources first and foremost.

Disagree with this.

At the moment we have....

US doing its own thing, which is ignoring the issue
EU making great targets and buying hybrid Saabs, but failing to actually hit any of the targets they made (Maybe wrong here, happy to be corrected)
Japan is eager to do stuff, because all its nasty mining and production is now offshore
China/India/Brazil basically said they will get around to it when they are first world economies
Australia/Canada doing some okay stuff, but petrified of carbon taxes due to their resource dependant industries

The world is a uncoordinated mess on this issue, because the whole thing of "focus on ourselves first" has meant everyone has done that.

We need to knock a few heads together, give China/India/Brazil the aid/tariff trade-offs/tech support/whatever to get them to sign on, and then the US and us finally buy in. Once we get a binding global agreement, we can eventually transistion to an enviro version of the WTO, where sanctions and penalties apply to non-compliant nations.

Yes, that is all very good, but much easier said than done and certainly time consuming. Perhaps we can start with the practical measures like those I highlighted in the meantime.

 

[Tiger74]

It is worth keeping in mind that while it is desirable for us to cut emissions, in global terms it doesn't make a great deal of difference. Maintaining a strong economy can help us pressure our big trading partners like China to adopt emissions-cutting technology whilst leading the way in the development of that technology.

So, in essence our efforts should be focussed on what is done with our resources first and foremost.

Disagree with this.

At the moment we have....

US doing its own thing, which is ignoring the issue
EU making great targets and buying hybrid Saabs, but failing to actually hit any of the targets they made (Maybe wrong here, happy to be corrected)
Japan is eager to do stuff, because all its nasty mining and production is now offshore
China/India/Brazil basically said they will get around to it when they are first world economies
Australia/Canada doing some okay stuff, but petrified of carbon taxes due to their resource dependant industries

The world is a uncoordinated mess on this issue, because the whole thing of "focus on ourselves first" has meant everyone has done that.

We need to knock a few heads together, give China/India/Brazil the aid/tariff trade-offs/tech support/whatever to get them to sign on, and then the US and us finally buy in. Once we get a binding global agreement, we can eventually transistion to an enviro version of the WTO, where sanctions and penalties apply to non-compliant nations.

Yes, that is all very good, but much easier said than done and certainly time consuming. Perhaps we can start with the practical measures like those I highlighted in the meantime.

You need to chill mate, we actually agree remember Only difference is a disagree with putting Asia in the "too hard basket"

 

[mld]

I must have read 'I disagree with this' wrong Sorry if it sounded a bit harsh, but I just think that we are in a position to have a say how our trading partners use the resources they are buying off us and it is something can can focus on whilst the diplomacy for global agreements is in action.

 

[Tiger74]

I must have read 'I disagree with this' wrong Sorry if it sounded a bit harsh, but I just think that we are in a position to have a say how our trading partners use the resources they are buying off us and it is something can can focus on whilst the diplomacy for global agreements is in action.

No issue, I actually disagree that trade will "bring 'em around". On everything else (i.e. keep improving home while....), I agree.

Wife is Chinese, so we follow everything "back home" pretty closely. The Govt is saying they care about enviro issues, but at the end of the day economic issues are always paramount because poverty is so immense there. As long as China will buy our resources and export products, I doubt our govts will have the balls to refuse to deal with them or wack tariffs on them.

Thats why I advocate incentives. When the stick doesnt work, use a big a$$ carrot

 

[evo]

It's a difficult situation isn't ,T74.We(the west) went through our industrial revolution years ago. The economic benefits we now reap are a result of that.

Now that China/India are experiencing theirs we start lecturing them on how they should pull their heads in for the good of the planet.

it's easy to see why it would fall on deaf ears.

 

[Tiger74]

It's a difficult situation isn't ,T74.We(the west) went through our industrial revolution years ago. The economic benefits we now reap are a result of that.

Now that China/India are experiencing theirs we start lecturing them on how they should pull their heads in for the good of the planet.

it's easy to see why it would fall on deaf ears.

Absolutely. I have no idea what the poverty there is like, but my wife keeps reminding me I have ABSOLUTELY no idea.

If we say "you must do this or else" China will blow us off. FIrstly they need to develop their economy to catch up to the West, but secondly, they are over being dictated to by "colonial" powers like USA and EU. China believes their moment in the Sun is once again here, and they are demanding that we "respect their authority".

This is why I advocate incentives. Pay them to shut plants. Let them put export subsidies (contravening WTO) on products effected by emmission control costs. Agree to reduce tariffs at our end in exchange for better standards.

We need the USA to stop approaching this as a trade negotiation where they must "win" and get a decent outcome for our planet.

 

[evo]

What do you mean by 'pay them to shut the plants'

Someone has to make fridges,plasma screens,clothing and toys.'The planet' doesn't care if they are made in Guangzou or Broadmeadows.Or are you suggesting we in the west forgoe such decadences like fridges?

 

[Tiger74]

What do you mean by 'pay them to shut the plants'

Someone has to make fridges,plasma screens,clothing and toys.'The planet' doesn't care if they are made in Guangzou or Broadmeadows.Or are you suggesting we in the west forgoe such decadences like fridges?

This is a common thing in China. They have a lot of new factories being built, but a lot going back to early Mao days. The Govt basically pay for the plant to be shut down, so the resources/land/etc can be used in a better way.

Currently it is done mainly for cost inefficient plants, so they can be replaced with more modern ones.

Reason for the pay-off is to minimize impact on local economy/workers (they are still Socialists remember :spin)