I have long felt a great deal of frustration by the lack of understanding in the community as to why developed nations should rightly bear the bulk of the cost of de-carbonising the global economy.

To put it in the most simple terms: it's because the developed economies caused the problem. We made the mess, we should clean it up. The carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that have so far caused warming of 0.8 degrees have been emitted over the past 250 years. When we look to see which countries were responsible for putting most of it there, you'll see a Who's Who list of OECD nations.

So that means the developed nations should be cutting their emissions by the most. For a start, we've got the most emissions per capita to cut. But it means more than that: we have put so much carbon in the atmosphere that it's dangerous for developing economies to power their economic growth in the same way we did. We have made such a mess that we're now asking the developing economies to forego the right to free carbon emission that we enjoyed for 250 years.

Therefore, the developed economies ought to compensate the developing economies for losing the right to power their growth with cheap fossil fuels. This can be done a number of ways, and by far the most sensible is by way of renewable energy technology transfer. Developing economies should make the switch to clean energy as soon as possible, and the developed economies should foot the bill. It's only fair.

Much fanfare is also made of "the biggest emitting nation in the world", being China (strangely, that accolade was not bandied about so much before 2008, when it belonged to the USA). This is a meaningless label. What if we divided China into two countries, so it's no longer the biggest emitter in the world? Would that do anything for global emissions? Not at all, so who cares? The only measure of this type that counts is PER CAPITA emissions. We are, after all, talking about anthropogenic climate change. In any case, "the biggest emitting nation in the world" has only been at it for five minutes, so if you count up how much of the 250 years of carbon actually came from China, it looks paltry when compared to Europe and the USA.

The purpose of giving developing economies a break in a global climate deal is only about fairness and equity. It has nothing to do with the provision of aid to third world countries, and it is time this was properly reported and understood by the people of the developed world.

Fine, the West will cut its emissions but will also cut th amount of goods it would buy from 'developing' countries like China.
Third world countries will no longer need to be exploited by the rich countriesm, they can sell to each other at the true value of what they produce. Production and consumption will plumet. The Chinese can sell their cars and go back to working the land with th help of a couple of low emission buffalos.

I always wonder whenever I hear the term 'developing country' how long the vast majority of them have been 'developing' and when the hell we should expect them to complete their 'development'. Latin America has been a perpetual state of abject poverty since its colonization; Africa still continues to drag its knuckles as the basketcase of the world and despite unwarranted predictions of imminent superpowerdom, India is basically still the shithole it has always been.

You say that our 'hogging' of carbon emissions is basically unfair to poorer countries that should be able to develop but can't because the pollution stresses on the planet would be too high coupled with our excessive emissions. But I say that most of these countries are going nowhere. Period. A properly industrialized India, Latin America or Africa is not 'just around the corner'; rather, the idea of any of these things to me is a chimerical pipe-dream. Therefore, we have little to worry about regarding carrying forward the development of the third world so that it can industrialize without burdening the carbon capacity of the planet. It's going nowhere. They'll continue to produce insignificant levels of carbon emissions relative to the rest of world for perhaps forever, as they are evidently civilizations that lack the capacity for 'advanced' civilization (in the modern sense).

Paella wrote on Dec 14^th, 2009 at 5:56pm:

I have long felt a great deal of frustration by the lack of understanding in the community as to why developed nations should rightly bear the bulk of the cost of de-carbonising the global economy. To put it in the most simple terms....

What's your background, Paella? You seem to have a good grasp of the situation.  You can reply in private if you want, but I have my suspicions LOL.

I realise the reasoning, but I think that China can handle its emissions strategy quite well on its own, and they have demonstrated that they are capable of developing renewable power generation. Africa is totally irrelevant in this context. With the exception of perhaps South Africa and Equatorial Guinea, they can safely be ignored in the context of global emissions.  

As far as the historical context is concerned, I understand what you're saying, but we can't go back and change history. What's done is done.

In a way, it's like the Aboriginal issue. While I think there is no problem with a national apology, we should not go back and change history. Once we start doing that, what's next? We'd have to restore every single monarchy that was overturned, perhaps getting the Italians to announce an apology and pay reparations due to the Roman invasion of Britain, followed closely by the French, who can pay reparations on behalf of William the Conqueror. Of course, the Danes will have to come up with some big bucks too. We all know what the Vikings did. (staring at soren here with an accusing glare   :P) The stolen generation pales into insignificance by comparison.

History can not be undone. We need to look at the problem that exists now, and seek out the best solutions to that problem with each country contributing according to their ability. I somehow think that China has a lot of ability.  

We don't have the resources to waste on paying massive handouts to Africa to be squandered by corrupt regimes, handouts that will do nothing to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Africa and Kyoto are both red herrings. The world's highest emitters should work on a strategy together.

imperium - excellent posting

10/10

The points made by Paella are very well made, and on the surface at least, seem a pretty fair and equitable approach, with the exception that they require the economic, political and cultural standards they hold, to be overlaid onto the equation to take into consideration the points made by Soren and Imperium.

While China has not had the past emmissions that western countries have had, it does not follow that it is in the best interests of the world to allow them to catch up, we cannot change the past, but the present we can shape, and with their population, and economic strength, China could easily lead the world in converting to clean energy.

To offer them a pass on needing to do so would only delay the comittment to making the transition sooner rather than later, and that would benefit no-one, and would only appease the consciences of those trying too hard to be perfectly fair in the most extreme Politically Correct manner.

Other nations however do not have the same abilities as China and so a different standard could be applied in those cases when absolutely necessary, but the reality is we need to get the major polluters to start the transition away from CO2 heavy energy options, to cleaner greener ones, and that should be applied as comprehensively as possible to all the countries who can possibly do it, of which China is one.

Mozz,

As always, you said what I think but much more fluently.

We can argue about why developing countries are still developing while others are developed, and we could no doubt carry that on all the way back to when Columbus thought he could sail to the East Indies by going the other way. But it is not really the point. The reality is that it was the developed nations that put an additional 140 ppm of carbon in to the atmosphere, and the developing countries did not.

Imagine I get home early one day and proceed to soil every dish in the house. My housemate then arrives and finds no clean dishes. I might say that, since we both have an equal need for dishes, we must each clean an equal amount. After all, I arrived home first, and was therefore entitled to mess every dish I could find. I’ve no doubt that my housemate would say that since it was I who soiled the dishes, I must clean them. “But I was here first” I would say. “That’s irrelevant”, my housemate says, “you soiled the dishes, you clean them up”.

I think the ethical values of almost everyone would side with my housemate in this situation. I also think the ethical values of almost everyone would side with the developing economies when negotiating global emissions reductions, if they properly understood the issue.

The fact that China is still developing its economy is irrelevant. And even if it was relevant, the developed nations do not have clean hands in how that set of circumstances came about. China, and every other nation, ought to be able to develop it’s energy generation and distribution systems up to the same level of gigawatts per capita  as the developed nations. It should be able to do so at the same cost per capita, AND it should be able to do so in a manner that will not cause global temperatures to rise.

Once equilibrium is reached the developed nations will have had every opportunity to attain the same GDP per capita as every other nation, and every nation will bear the same level of responsibility for the carbon in the atmosphere as any other nation. It’s a little known concept called fairness. It’s a very simple concept, but it will not be inexpensive to anyone, least of all to the people who made the problem in the first place. But it will be an awful lot cheaper than the alternative, which would leave us nothing but a dead planet.

Paella wrote on Dec 16^th, 2009 at 3:47pm:

We can argue about why developing countries are still developing while others are developed, and we could no doubt carry that on all the way back to when Columbus thought he could sail to the East Indies by going the other way. But it is not really the point. The reality is that it was the developed nations that put an additional 140 ppm of carbon in to the atmosphere, and the developing countries did not. Imagine I get home early one day and proceed to soil every dish in the house. My housemate then arrives and finds no clean dishes. I might say that, since we both have an equal need for dishes, we must each clean an equal amount. After all, I arrived home first, and was therefore entitled to mess every dish I could find. I’ve no doubt that my housemate would say that since it was I who soiled the dishes, I must clean them. “But I was here first” I would say. “That’s irrelevant”, my housemate says, “you soiled the dishes, you clean them up”. I think the ethical values of almost everyone would side with my housemate in this situation. I also think the ethical values of almost everyone would side with the developing economies when negotiating global emissions reductions, if they properly understood the issue. The fact that China is still developing its economy is irrelevant. And even if it was relevant, the developed nations do not have clean hands in how that set of circumstances came about. China, and every other nation, ought to be able to develop it’s energy generation and distribution systems up to the same level of gigawatts per capita  as the developed nations. It should be able to do so at the same cost per capita, AND it should be able to do so in a manner that will not cause global temperatures to rise. Once equilibrium is reached the developed nations will have had every opportunity to attain the same GDP per capita as every other nation, and every nation will bear the same level of responsibility for the carbon in the atmosphere as any other nation. It’s a little known concept called fairness. It’s a very simple concept, but it will not be inexpensive to anyone, least of all to the people who made the problem in the first place. But it will be an awful lot cheaper than the alternative, which would leave us nothing but a dead planet.

Your 'housemate' has no right to your dishes, dirty or clean. He used to eat off banana leaves and lived under a tree. His extended family still do and so would he if it wasn't for you generously sharinng the mod cons of the house. He can negotiate houserules but he cannot dictate how he accesses your dishes, fridge, kitchen, TV, laptop, phone etc.

Your 'housemate' brought none of these thing to the house. If he'd rather move back under the tree and the 'old' ways, then yes, you should clean the dishes. Or hire him to do them for you.

Paella wrote on Dec 16^th, 2009 at 3:47pm:

Once equilibrium is reached the developed nations will have had every opportunity to attain the same GDP per capita as every other nation, and every nation will bear the same level of responsibility for the carbon in the atmosphere as any other nation. It’s a little known concept called fairness. It’s a very simple concept, but it will not be inexpensive to anyone, least of all to the people who made the problem in the first place. But it will be an awful lot cheaper than the alternative, which would leave us nothing but a dead planet.

So called 'developing' nations have had every opportunity to actualy develop. Most of them are mighty reluctant to do it because i It would require one thing they have been unwilling to consider: to buckle down.

Quote:

We can argue about why developing countries are still developing while others are developed, and we could no doubt carry that on all the way back to when Columbus thought he could sail to the East Indies by going the other way. But it is not really the point. The reality is that it was the developed nations that put an additional 140 ppm of carbon in to the atmosphere, and the developing countries did not.

Then it is the duty of Western countries if what is happening is actually serious to repair their own problems in the best way that they can; it has never been their duty to assist the rest of the "developing" world in developing with environmental responsiblity. If we're the problem, then obviously the solution is to deal strictly with ourselves. Africa, India, Latin America, etc. are not the problem and never will be a problem, because, well, you know..

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/92/AverageIQ-Map-World.png/800px-AverageIQ-Map-World.png

Their development train only has one stop: Nowheresville. All aboard!

Now is not the time to be allowing any latitude for developing countries. We need to get the renewable technology in place first - then and only then can we give the developing countries a 'leg up'. To do anything else is counter productive to survival. You know the safety briefing in Aircraft where they tell you to put on your own oxygen mask first and then help out infants and children? It's a message with a similar rationale.

I agree with many views expressed here that some countries are going nowhere. That's not racism - that's fact and it's unrelated to race. This is an important nexus for mankind. To hijack something like this and start redistributing wealth to the undeserving is paramount to stupidity. At this juncture in time, it's obscene.  We need to take the Pareto approach and put all our energies into replacing fossil fuel combustion processes with clean processes, regardless of where it's occurring in the world.

Those countries which have a negligible impact on the global carbon footprint can be safely ignored. What little footprint they do have will disappear as the global technology changes. They will follow the rest of the world as stragglers as they always have done. Concentrate on the main issues first.  

This 2 degree  guard-rail is not going to be without casualties. The weak will die- possibly as much as a billion people. It's sad, but it is going to happen regardless of how much money we waste on them.

A couple of important points are being missed.

Firstly, the purpose of a global emissions treaty is to reduce emissions. It is not to redistribute wealth. This is why, in my initial post, I made the point that being fair to the developing economies has nothing to do with the provision of aid to the third world. It is about reducing emissions quickly and efficiently. That’s all. The denial movement incessantly brings the redistribution issue in to the picture: they are the only ones doing this. I suspect that they don’t actually understand that this is NOT about redistribution. They are simply not capable of seeing it in any other way. Many of the posts in this thread demonstrate this point.

The second point is that it is cheaper to reduce emissions in under developed nations than it would be to achieve the same reduction in a developed economy. This is simply because, as the economy is not fully developed, the energy generation and distribution systems are less efficient. It is cheaper and easier to improve an inefficient system than it is to improve an efficient system. The purpose of the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism and the Joint Implementation Scheme is exactly that: to encourage developed economies to achieve reductions where it is the least costly to do so.

The trick that the rich nation-states are trying to pull off is to try to screw as much out of the developing economies as they can. This strategy is as immature and short-sighted as it is predictable.

We need to cut the planet’s carbon emissions, and quickly. It doesn’t make any difference where we cut them, as a ton of carbon emitted in Bangladesh or Uzbekistan  goes into the same atmosphere that we breathe in Germany, the UK or Australia. So let’s all just act like grownups and agree to cut our emissions and share the cost of doing so equitably.

muso wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 8:39am:

The weak will die- possibly as much as a billion people. It's sad, but it is going to happen regardless of how much money we waste on them.

Muso, you are talking like an apocalyptic nutter, like the General Turgidson of warmerists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgyjlqhiTV8

Paella wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 6:07pm:

The denial movement incessantly brings the redistribution issue in to the picture: they are the only ones doing this. I suspect that they don’t actually understand that this is NOT about redistribution. They are simply not capable of seeing it in any other way. Many of the posts in this thread demonstrate this point.

The denialists and the group of 77, numbering 126 - the 'developing' countries. To them, it is ALL about the money.

Paella wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 6:07pm:

We need to cut the planet’s carbon emissions, and quickly. It doesn’t make any difference where we cut them, as a ton of carbon emitted in Bangladesh or Uzbekistan  goes into the same atmosphere that we breathe in Germany, the UK or Australia. So let’s all just act like grownups and agree to cut our emissions and share the cost of doing so equitably.

Spoken like a 14 year old.

I would still like to know how we're actually going to cut our emissions. You hear a lot coming from Muso, etc. about how we need to cut such and such in order to avert imminent obliteration, but you almost never hear HOW. I would like to know what we're actually going to do; and whether or not it's going to render us all bankrupt.

By changing to renewable energy sources for one.  I'll post a more detailed response in the stcky section.

Soren wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 7:01pm:

muso wrote on Dec 17th, 2009 at 8:39am: The weak will die- possibly as much as a billion people. It's sad, but it is going to happen regardless of how much money we waste on them. Muso, you are talking like an apocalyptic nutter, like the General Turgidson of warmerists. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgyjlqhiTV8

Mate,

It's your position that's looney tunes here, not mine. I'm not the one who is siding with a bunch of denialists who can't even agree on a single point, except business as usual.

Soren wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 7:05pm:

Paella wrote on Dec 17th, 2009 at 6:07pm: We need to cut the planet’s carbon emissions, and quickly. It doesn’t make any difference where we cut them, as a ton of carbon emitted in Bangladesh or Uzbekistan  goes into the same atmosphere that we breathe in Germany, the UK or Australia. So let’s all just act like grownups and agree to cut our emissions and share the cost of doing so equitably. Spoken like a 14 year old.

Much as I hate to agree with you Soren, I've been to quite a number of these poorer countries, and quite frankly I don't trust them, with very few exceptions.

I can understand China or perhaps India being able to make a difference, but not Uzhbekistan or Guinea.

Paella, I agree that it doesn't matter where you cut emissions.  It's the question of whether we'll cut emissions at all with that strategy.

I remember having a very interesting conversation in French with a Guinean customs official. He told me that my Australian Passport was a forgery. He said that I would need supporting documentation to allow me out of the country. His original fee was $US100. I managed to get it down to $US20 by a process of bargaining and some humour, but I had to throw in some stickers and some nice colourful pens that he liked.

I have long come to the conclusion that spending any money or supporting any projects in such countries is futile.  If our future depends on investment in countries like that, then all I can say is that we're doomed.

Unlike most topics in this area, the issue of investment in developing economies, and why it is in everyone's best interests, is pretty simple. Let me use an example:

Suppose Uzbekistan is undertaking a project to build a 500MW coal fired power station. Now because it is poor it will build a cheap power station that is not very efficient. It will also run on dirty brown coal, because it's cheaper. The carbon intensity of this power station would probably be in the range of 1200-1500 t/GWh (That's the number of tons of carbon that goes into the atmosphere for every gigawatt hour of electricity generated).

Another country, say Australia, could approach Ukbekistan and say, "we'll build you a super efficient gas fired power station. We'll also provide a grant to build the infrastructure to pipe the gas from Russia, and we'll back it up with an ongoing aid package so you can afford the gas, which is more expensive than brown coal." The carbon intensity of the new project is 450t/GWh, and the cost of this project is USD $1 billion.

The new project will deliver about 4 million less tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere per year than the Uzbeki project. But because Australia has brought about the reduction, the carbon credits are assigned to Australia.

Now there is also a project in Australia that the government could invest in, but the marginal cost of achieving the same emissions reductions (over and above the base cost of building the standard power station) will cost USD $12 billion. Why would we pay $12 billion for something we can get by investing Overseas for $1 billion? Especially when Australia is going to get its base generation capacity anyway, at the same cost, regardless of which option is pursued?

As long as the government of the project's host nation is stable enough to secure the emissions reductions, and the governments of most developing ecomonies are, it's a no brainer, isn't it?

Btw, this scenario is simplified, but it is realistic.

The previous three posts are in the wrong thread. I think they were meant for "The Great Carbon Con". In the interests of getting things back on topic I will repost my last ...


Paella wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 9:01am:

Unlike most topics in this area, the issue of investment in developing economies, and why it is in everyone's best interests, is pretty simple. Let me use an example: Suppose Uzbekistan is undertaking a project to build a 500MW coal fired power station. Now because it is poor it will build a cheap power station that is not very efficient. It will also run on dirty brown coal, because it's cheaper. The carbon intensity of this power station would probably be in the range of 1200-1500 t/GWh (That's the number of tons of carbon that goes into the atmosphere for every gigawatt hour of electricity generated). Another country, say Australia, could approach Ukbekistan and say, "we'll build you a super efficient gas fired power station. We'll also provide a grant to build the infrastructure to pipe the gas from Russia, and we'll back it up with an ongoing aid package so you can afford the gas, which is more expensive than brown coal." The carbon intensity of the new project is 450t/GWh, and the cost of this project is USD $1 billion. The new project will deliver about 4 million less tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere per year than the Uzbeki project. But because Australia has brought about the reduction, the carbon credits are assigned to Australia. Now there is also a project in Australia that the government could invest in, but the marginal cost of achieving the same emissions reductions (over and above the base cost of building the standard power station) will cost USD $12 billion. Why would we pay $12 billion for something we can get by investing Overseas for $1 billion? Especially when Australia is going to get its base generation capacity anyway, at the same cost, regardless of which option is pursued? As long as the government of the project's host nation is stable enough to secure the emissions reductions, and the governments of most developing ecomonies are, it's a no brainer, isn't it? Btw, this scenario is simplified, but it is realistic.

Paella wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 3:22pm:

The previous three posts are in the wrong thread. I think they were meant for "The Great Carbon Con". In the interests of getting things back on topic I will repost my last ...

I agree. I have moved them.

I can see how it is intended to work, but I doubt if it would actually work that way. The problem will be that of policing the subsidies to ensure that they didn't fall into the wrong hands.

The only way such projects even get off the ground in most African countries is if a richer country steps in and manages the entire process. Uzhbekistan might be different.

It is a major headache, that so many of these countries are so poor, that corruption is the primary industry, and even though the plan Paella spoke of, makes perfect sense on paper, seeing it translated into real action is another thing altogether, and that is why we need to concentrate firstly on the developed countries, which will generate the technoloical advances in clean fuel tech, which can then be adopted by others down the track.

muso wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 4:16pm:

Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.

Is that the secret garden?
I can't access it via the link.

I consolidated the responses into two threads - one for climate denial and the other for developing economies. I hope I didn't delete anything.

Basically how it will work in practice is that now that there is money available, new power station programs will start coming out of the woodwork in some of these developing-(the term non-developing is more accurate) countries. They will be required to produce some local money, but that will dry up very quickly and we'll end up with unfinished programs.

I've seen plenty of unfinished buildings in Africa. They start them and never finish them. There is no line of credit available in most African countries, so they have to turn to the West for everything.

So basically the money will be used to fund new renewable power stations to replace hypothetical coal-fired power stations instead of building renewable power stations in Australia.  

This will achieve nothing.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26507801-952,00.html


Quote:

Chief negotiator for the G77 group of 130 developing countries, Sudan's Lumumba Di-Aping, said: "Gross violations have been committed today against the poor.

Let's look at electricity generation alone:

Last year, Sudan had a capacity of 500MW for Oil fired power generation and about the same in hydroelectric power generation.

Last year, Australia had roughly 50 GW (50,000 MW) of generating capacity, and in the scheme of things, we are small-fry if we take a global capacity of 5000 GW.  

Why was Sudan even represented at Copenhagen? They are insignificant in the scheme of things. Apart from that, I'd be very wary of sending any money to Sudan given their history of unrest.

I remember landing at Accra once and getting a 'porter' to carry my luggage. He stopped to talk to somebody and I signalled for another 'porter' to take over, because my sense of urgency transcended the Ghanaian concept of the word. I tipped the second porter 5000 Cedis (before re-denomination), which at the time was about $2. I looked in the rear mirror to see the first porter fighting (real fisticuffs) with the second porter.

That was the benefit  that a mere 5000 Cedis could have on a very stable African country. Just think of the benefit a larger sum could have in Sudan.  

My response to Lumumba is 'bugger the poor, this is about survival'

muso wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 7:51pm:

Basically how it will work in practice is that now that there is money available, new power station programs will start coming out So basically the money will be used to fund new renewable power stations to replace hypothetical coal-fired power stations instead of building renewable power stations in Australia.   This will achieve nothing.

I'm not following the logic here. The sponsoring country (or company) OWNS the project. Why would they abandoned it before it starts producing carbon reduction credits? That would be irrational behavior indeed.

Obviously sponsors need to take care with regards to the political stability of the host nation, and in unstable countries the returns will not compensate for the risk, so they will not invest there.

The declaration that investment in developing economies would achieve nothing is akin to claiming that the projects delivered under the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism has achieved nothing. Now whilst I agree that the CDM could have delivered MORE than it has, to say it has achieved nothing is a bit of a stretch.

Paella wrote on Dec 20^th, 2009 at 11:43am:

I'm not following the logic here. The sponsoring country (or company) OWNS the project. Why would they abandoned it before it starts producing carbon reduction credits? That would be irrational behavior indeed.

Originally you gave the example of the host country building an inefficient power station. Presumably the money that would have gone towards building the inefficient power station should go towards the new power station.

As I understand it, the financial support from the sponsoring country would not extend to the total cost of the new renewable power station - just the difference between the costs. Now if the sponsoring country would provide the whole cost, then it's a similar result, but at least it would get built.

The net result of this will be to build a large number of power stations that would not have been built in the first place. It's basically not having any impact on greenhouse gas emissions, except during the construction phase - and that would be a net positive emission.

Let's examine the with and without scenarios:

No subsidy - no power station gets built - zero carbon emissions.

With a subsidy, there would be the carbon emissions associated with construction.

Therefore, the net result of the subsidy is carbon positive.

The money should have been spent for renewable projects in developed nations rather than non-developing nations.

I don't think it is too controversial to point out that developing economies need more power stations! Economic development has to be fuelled by something, just like ours has been.

If power stations are built that would not otherwise have been built, this is a GOOD thing. It's good for the developing economy, and good for the task of reducing emissions on an equitable basis. In fact, it is exactly how the "contract and converge" policy is supposed to work.

Once our global community agrees to a uniform amount of CO2 emissions per person per annum, then countries who are above that mark will move down to that mark. Countries who are below that mark will be allowed to move UP to that mark. This means that some developing economies will be able to increase their emissions. Access to cheap fuel for power stations is hence limited to those economies who have not yet received the same benefit that we have received. Of course, they will never be able to receive the same amount of benefit that we have already realised, that would lead to catastrophic warming, so we must compensate these economies in other ways, such as by funding low emission and renewable energy generation. We must compensate these economies because we have stolen their atmosphere and applied it to the development of our own economy.

Indeed we should be doing everything we can to reduce emissions by replacing our own coal and gas fired power stations with renewable energy, but we would be crazy to leave the low hanging fruit on the tree as a result! The cheapest emissions reductions available are in developing economies. Every molecule of GHG we keep out of the atmosphere from a developing economy is of the same benefit as a molecule from our own economy. But it is CHEAPER to reduce the emissions of a developing economy than it is to reduce the emissions of a developed economy.

Paella wrote on Dec 21^st, 2009 at 5:38pm:

I don't think it is too controversial to point out that developing economies need more power stations! Economic development has to be fuelled by something, just like ours has been.

What about non-developing countries? (failed states). These are the countries that make up the bulk of the G77. For some of them, I can actually see the benefit in the approach you describe. That group might include Argentina, Chile, Uzbekistan and perhaps Vietnam. In Africa, perhaps Gabon and Central Guinea should be considered. These are countries that are relatively stable, have some capital of their own, and are genuinely developing rather than "non developing" stagnant, usually corrupt failed states.

For the likes of China, India, Saudi Arabia, Brazil and South Africa, they have enough economic clout (and nouse) to get things done by themselves. I really don't have any concerns about China pulling through.

For most of the rest, there would be no tangible benefit for the world in providing assistance. We need to focus on the prime objective, which is to de carbonise the world's economy. Providing new power stations that would never have been built doesn't get us closer to that objective.

The objective is not nation building.

Agreed, the objective is not nation building, but we need to acknowledge that every participating country does have a nation building objective: a duty, in fact. We also must acknowledge that a global agreement on emission reductions will, to some extent, act as a hinderance to that other objective.

China, for example, still has a lot of people living in poverty. It has a duty to raise the standards of living of those people and deliver them from poverty. It is not going to abandon that duty to fix an environmental problem that it didn't cause (at least, it didn't cause very much of it). They are especially not going to abandon that duty, or even lower its priority, if they see the nations that did cause the environmental problem sitting on their hands and doing stuff all about it.

Paella wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2009 at 5:55pm:

Agreed, the objective is not nation building, but we need to acknowledge that every participating country does have a nation building objective: a duty, in fact. We also must acknowledge that a global agreement on emission reductions will, to some extent, act as a hinderance to that other objective. China, for example, still has a lot of people living in poverty. It has a duty to raise the standards of living of those people and deliver them from poverty. It is not going to abandon that duty to fix an environmental problem that it didn't cause (at least, it didn't cause very much of it). They are especially not going to abandon that duty, or even lower its priority, if they see the nations that did cause the environmental problem sitting on their hands and doing stuff all about it.

I don't know how it is intended to work, but any contribution to projects needs to be indexed to net contribution to the problem.  Maybe China  has not contributed much to date, but if they continue down this path, their relative contribution will increase. After all, they have no intention of shutting down coal fired power stations in the near future.

There needs to be a sliding scale so that there is a financial incentive to improve.

It's likely to be a two-way benefit. The cost of renewable energy packages must come down as they become more prevalent, and there are great opportunities for Australian companies to provide expertise for other global projects if they can demonstrate success in China.

With oil, we are likely to see a rapid rise in prices as supplies become scarser, making other renewable options more viable.

With coal, such an effect is unlikely to eventuate in the near future.  

On your highlighted point, maybe we don't need a 100% global agreement. Some countries in reference to the issue are like ants on an elephant (they are insignificant, but quite capable of complicating the issue) and should be ignored unless they miraculously start to improve their act.

We won't run out of coal for a long time, but mines will become deeper & more dangerous.

In Geol II at Adelaide Uni we studied core samples from the Cooper Basin--I remember a huge length of core sample was black coal. From over a Km down IIRC--that was over 40 years ago!

Darwin wrote on Dec 28^th, 2009 at 9:39am:

We won't run out of coal for a long time, but mines will become deeper & more dangerous. In Geol II at Adelaide Uni we studied core samples from the Cooper Basin--I remember a huge length of core sample was black coal. From over a Km down IIRC--that was over 40 years ago!

There are whole coalfieds that we have hardly touched yet in Australia. The Surat Basin is one of them, and it's probably as big as the Bowen Basin.

If we are to enforce a global carbon trading regime, rather than forcing the poorest countries to hand over huge sums of money to wealthy nations in order to emit the same level of GHG's, the rights should be distributed evenly amongst the global population, and those nations who wish to emit more should have to ppurchase the rights from thos who don't, rather than getting them for free merely because they have already emitted so much.

freediver wrote on Dec 28^th, 2009 at 11:05am:

If we are to enforce a global carbon trading regime, rather than forcing the poorest countries to hand over huge sums of money to wealthy nations in order to emit the same level of GHG's, the rights should be distributed evenly amongst the global population, and those nations who wish to emit more should have to ppurchase the rights from thos who don't, rather than getting them for free merely because they have already emitted so much.

What you describe sounds a bit like communism.  How do you allocate the share? By population, by GNP or by giving exactly the same allocation for each sovereign nation?

It sounds like the board game Monopoly in which everybody is given an equal amount of money at the beginning. To give any money to failed states is basically throwing money away, or giving them funds that they have not earned.  Perhaps if the credits were allocated on the basis of GNP, then the States that have the technology to solve this problem would be given the opportunity to do so. Virtually all electrical energy that is generated tends to be local in application. It's very difficult to export electricity from (say) Africa because the transmission losses are too high.

Even if we start off that way, failed states will continue to do what they do best:They will continue to fail - regardless of outside help. Saving such countries will rapidly become a luxury we can't afford as we progress down the track.

It is wasted effort that would be better spent on renewable energy projects in developed countries rather than 'non-developing' countries.

If all that sounds callous, I'm sorry, but it is a crisis. It's not a charity program. It's technology that will solve this problem, not growing bananas in the most inefficient way possible.

It sh1ts me to see people applying what amounts to communism - a failed model to something that cannot be allowed to fail.

Absolutely agree muso, I do not care too much about trying to equal up for past actions, when we have such pressing issues to deal with in front of us.
Just start taxing carbon emissions and be done with it, some proportion can go towards ameliorating the effects of highe prices for the poor, but the majority of the money should be plowed into renewable energy systems as quickly as we can do it.

We have known that action was needed for over a decade, and done buggerall, so there is no more time ti p1ss about with silly feelgood schemes, we just need to start cutting emmissions now, and put as much effort as we can into renewables.

The whole issue of the developing nations is little more than a red herring in my opinion, just another delaying tactic from big energy companies to try and postpone the inevitable, and then profiteer from it when it is no longer possible to delay any more.

We should start taxing and ruining the standard of living for Australians right away based on phoeney science that the senate has already blocked twice?  

Maybe we should have a referendum on this.

There is another way, and that is to make it a national priority to replace coal fired power generation with renewable sources. That may end up being the only viable option yet.

How do we allocate funds for military offensives? How did the US allocate funds for the Apollo project? If we allocated funding in the same way into establishing say geothermal energy projects, we'd get there pretty quickly.

We need to keep a critical eye on costs, and manage it on a national basis. Forget about global carbon trading. It's not going to work.

- and if we really want to help non developing countries, then I suggest we help ourselves first, otherwise nobody will be around to help them.

Lets say we have swimmers and non swimmers in a shipwreck. What I'm suggesting is that we let the swimmers get to dry land first and send out rescue parties. The analogy of global carbon trading is for the swimmers to stay in the water, trying to teach the non-swimmers to swim while the non-swimmers are hanging lead weights around the swimmers' necks.

At this rate we're all going to drown.  

With current model it doesn't pay to change from developing country to developed country and this is wrong and open to abuse!

We need to get rid of brown coal fired power stations! Replace those with gas fired ones. That will reduce emissions bulk! This is interim but relatively easy and cheap.

Better management of bushfires--fuel-load reduction burns emit much less CO2 than a full bore dinkum huge bushfire does! Keep the ban on land clearances and encourage plantations.

To keep the south habitable some of the Qld rivers can have flood control dams built--and that water funnelled into the Murray Darling. Thinking of the Burdekin river particulalrly. That and floodwater harvesting etc.

What renewable energy source has the best bang for the buck? Integral fast breeder reactors!

Integral Fast Breeder Reactors - yes, but geothermal is much more competitive if the source is close to the grid.

Also, if you thought it was tough introducing an ETS into Australia, just wait until you see them try to introduce Nuclear Energy. There are just too many barriers. They can build one in my back yard if they want, but my neighbours would probably object.

I've long since argued that it's a much better option to export our Uranium to safe generators rather than use it in Australia. Thorium is less of an issue than Fast Breeder, and Fast Breeder reactors can easily be used to produce weapons grade plutonium.  

The downside of Thorium is lack of developed technology, although there is a successfully operating Thorium Power Station near Surat, India.

http://www.power-technology.com/features/feature1141/

Muso I agree with you on Uranium. Better to ship it to the efficient reactors than try to start from scratch here. And the more we ship, the lower the price. So hopefully the most nuclear capable states will increase their nuclear output.

Further, the time the world needs uranium is NOW ... as in over the next 50 years. Uranium can keep us in energy while we bring the cost of renewable generation and distribution down.

I like the swimming analogy, but the distinction with carbon emissions is that in the case of emissions it is the activity itself (economic activity) that causes the problem. For the analogy to be accurate we would need the swimming to be causing the drowning. Further, when big economies go down, as in Russia in 1990, emissions plummet. This benefits the rest of the community from an environemntal point of view, but there would be no benefit to the remaining swimmers if a good went under.

Paella wrote on Dec 31^st, 2009 at 2:35pm:

Muso I agree with you on Uranium. Better to ship it to the efficient reactors than try to start from scratch here. And the more we ship, the lower the price. So hopefully the most nuclear capable states will increase their nuclear output. Further, the time the world needs uranium is NOW ... as in over the next 50 years. Uranium can keep us in energy while we bring the cost of renewable generation and distribution down. I like the swimming analogy, but the distinction with carbon emissions is that in the case of emissions it is the activity itself (economic activity) that causes the problem. For the analogy to be accurate we would need the swimming to be causing the drowning. Further, when big economies go down, as in Russia in 1990, emissions plummet. This benefits the rest of the community from an environemntal point of view, but there would be no benefit to the remaining swimmers if a good went under.

It's only swimming the wrong way that causes drowning LOL. There is nothing wrong with economic activity as long as it's sustainable.

There is plenty of economic activity in Iceland for example, where 99% of the electricity and energy for direct heating is renewable (hydro and geothermal). Of course, they only have a population of about 300,000. (OK, I realise the irony given their rough ride in the recent stockmarket crash, but they are still living in an advanced economy) 

Economic activity is vital to maintaining prosperity and vital to solving this crisis, as long as it's not based on fossil fuels. (actually that's not strictly true either - we must use fossil fuel based industry in the short term to get us out of the crisis, as long as the resulting capital goes to renewable projects. )

Where else is the new technology going to come from? The solution can only come from economic activity.

muso wrote on Dec 28^th, 2009 at 4:32pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 28th, 2009 at 11:05am: If we are to enforce a global carbon trading regime, rather than forcing the poorest countries to hand over huge sums of money to wealthy nations in order to emit the same level of GHG's, the rights should be distributed evenly amongst the global population, and those nations who wish to emit more should have to ppurchase the rights from thos who don't, rather than getting them for free merely because they have already emitted so much. What you describe sounds a bit like communism.  How do you allocate the share? By population, by GNP or by giving exactly the same allocation for each sovereign nation? It sounds like the board game Monopoly in which everybody is given an equal amount of money at the beginning. To give any money to failed states is basically throwing money away, or giving them funds that they have not earned.  Perhaps if the credits were allocated on the basis of GNP, then the States that have the technology to solve this problem would be given the opportunity to do so. Virtually all electrical energy that is generated tends to be local in application. It's very difficult to export electricity from (say) Africa because the transmission losses are too high. Even if we start off that way, failed states will continue to do what they do best:They will continue to fail - regardless of outside help. Saving such countries will rapidly become a luxury we can't afford as we progress down the track. It is wasted effort that would be better spent on renewable energy projects in developed countries rather than 'non-developing' countries. If all that sounds callous, I'm sorry, but it is a crisis. It's not a charity program. It's technology that will solve this problem, not growing bananas in the most inefficient way possible. It sh1ts me to see people applying what amounts to communism - a failed model to something that cannot be allowed to fail.

At the risk of sounding like a mad uncle, this whole AGW caper has been, to most fellow-travellers, a gigantic opportunity for a shake-down. The old 'means of production' lingo is now used, almost word-perfect, with 'carbon emission' substituted. The 'bourgeoisie' has become the 'developing world'; the 'proles' are 'developing nations (sic)'; the 'means of production' is 'carbon-based energy'. And so on.

Now that the Copenhagen jamboree is over and forgotten, the papers are full of zzzzzzzzzzzzzz again. AGW has always been the 'next pet project' of all those middle class kids who started their march through the institutions in the 60s. It has always been about an ideal to an end.

You do sound like a mad uncle, but I am becoming more and more irritated by the way that this issue is being hijacked by marxists.

It's quite a simple matter. We need to switch our technology to renew ables but keep our economy going full blast.

The non developing countries can basically go and get buggered. It's not their problem and will never be their problem. They need to butt out while we find a technological solution (actually it's more a question of building infrastructure - the technology already exists)

It's only a thriving capitalist system that will achieve that aim. China is ironically about the most capitalist country in the world right now and they have good control of their population- even better than the Americans under Bush. He did a pretty good job of using religion to control the population. If he'd had any talent, he could have gone far.  Unfortunately he was as inept as they come and made some woefully bad decisions.

I can see that China will be the place from which well packaged cheap renewable power generation technology will emerge in the future.

The unspoken mantra elsewhere is that the problem is too far in the future - so why worry? Sooner or later we need to get out of that mindset, because it will be a major problem.  

muso wrote on Jan 1^st, 2010 at 10:50am:

China is ironically about the most capitalist country in the world right now and they have good control of their population- even better than the Americans under Bush. He did a pretty good job of using religion to control the population. If he'd had any talent, he could have gone far.

Muso, I think you have become so used to speaking in hyperbole that you do not even realise it. Bush 'controlled' the population? Through religion? And better than the Chinese, who are the most capitalist?

These are glimpses into your fundamental views, not mere misunderstandings of some detail. And they barking mad views, if you prardon my frankness.

Soren wrote on Jan 1^st, 2010 at 2:35pm:

muso wrote on Jan 1st, 2010 at 10:50am: China is ironically about the most capitalist country in the world right now and they have good control of their population- even better than the Americans under Bush. He did a pretty good job of using religion to control the population. If he'd had any talent, he could have gone far.   Muso, I think you have become so used to speaking in hyperbole that you do not even realise it. Bush 'controlled' the population? Through religion? And better than the Chinese, who are the most capitalist? These are glimpses into your fundamental views, not mere misunderstandings of some detail. And they barking mad views, if you prardon my frankness.

Let me explain where I'm coming from. In most democratic countries, economic growth is tempered by factors such as human rights, and relatively stringent safety controls, particularly in mining for example.

In China, the drive for economic growth is a very ruthless national agenda. If factory managers don't achieve their objectives, they  stand to lose somewhat more than their jobs. Basically it's untempered capitalism. Even though it's driven by the government, a lot of the investment in China comes from multinationals, but regardless of the source of the capital, it's the relatively unconstrained industry that is the key to their success.  

That's what I was driving at. The Chinese can potentially achieve a lot more because they don't have to deal with the inconvenience of the democratic process.

Anyway, maybe you think that Jim Rogers is barking mad too:
http://www.forexfactory.com/news.php?do=news&id=102705

I was actually quoting him when I said that China was the most Capitalist country in the world. He also said that the USA was more communist than China, or words to that effect.

As far as Bush was concerned, there is little question that he used fundamentalist Christian religion as a weapon to achieve his objectives. It was made abundantly clear that "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror",  and everything that it entailed.

It was largely a question of bundling fundamentalist Christianity and patriotism. He came a "long way from whisky and cocaine" indeed, and you'd have to question if his religious fervour was genuine or just very useful.

Anyone who disagreed could virtually be accused of treason. It was very uncomfortable for those who opposed the invasion of Iraq. Many of the more outspoken opponents of the war in Iraq found that they were subjected to all kinds of harrassment by authorities, and many jost their jobs. It was a kind of Neo-McCarthyism.

Bundling guns, Jesus and patriotism was a very effective means of controlling the populace in the Bush era. His self proclaimed war on terror was quite a useful mechanism for stifling any criticism or opposition usig the excuse of patriotism and homeland security.

Maybe he didn't control the US population quite as well as the Chinese do, but he did quite an effectve job of it.

Quote:

What you describe sounds a bit like communism.  How do you allocate the share? By population, by GNP or by giving exactly the same allocation for each sovereign nation?

By population is the only reasonable option out of those 3.


Quote:

To give any money to failed states is basically throwing money away, or giving them funds that they have not earned.

None of us have done anything to 'earn' the right to emit GHG's. If anything, the wealthy nations have 'unearned' the right by overexploiting it and creating the problem.


Quote:

Perhaps if the credits were allocated on the basis of GNP, then the States that have the technology to solve this problem would be given the opportunity to do so.

They would have that opportunity either way.


Quote:

Even if we start off that way, failed states will continue to do what they do best:They will continue to fail - regardless of outside help.

You seem to be getting awefully hung up on the failed state issue. How many failed states do you know of that are taking part in the scheme? None of them are. No-one would want them to be part of any international emissions trading scheme, because they would destabilise it.


Quote:

It sh1ts me to see people applying what amounts to communism - a failed model to something that cannot be allowed to fail.

This is no more communism than any of the other options you suggest. Either way, the rights have to be handed out to someone. Or do you think we should set up an international body that we have to purchase the rights from?


Quote:

Just start taxing carbon emissions and be done with it,

I agree with that Muso. It would bypass this whole problem.


Quote:

but the majority of the money should be plowed into renewable energy systems as quickly as we can do it

No it shouldn't. Reducing our consumption or making it more efficient in terms of emissions is an equally valid way to reduce emissions. We should let the market choose the best option. Renewable energy investment should be judged according to the same criteria of any other research effort clamouring for government funding.


Quote:

We have known that action was needed for over a decade, and done buggerall, so there is no more time ti p1ss about with silly feelgood schemes, we just need to start cutting emmissions now, and put as much effort as we can into renewables.

Actually, we have a couple of decades to do so. The environment won't care much whether we make the cuts now or make deeper cuts in 5 years time. The arguments in favour of early action are largely economic.


Quote:

The whole issue of the developing nations is little more than a red herring in my opinion, just another delaying tactic from big energy companies to try and postpone the inevitable

India, China etc are not red herrings. They do need to be dealt with. Unilateral action can also make it harder later on, for several reasons. One, the price of coal will go down, giving poorer countries an even greater incentive to burn it. Two, we will have less to offer them in return.


Quote:

There is another way, and that is to make it a national priority to replace coal fired power generation with renewable sources. That may end up being the only viable option yet.

It is a far, far more expensive option muso.


Quote:

We need to keep a critical eye on costs

That's we we are using pricing mechanisms.


Quote:

Better management of bushfires--fuel-load reduction burns emit much less CO2 than a full bore dinkum huge bushfire does! Keep the ban on land clearances and encourage plantations.

Do you have any evidence of this DARWIN?


Quote:

yes, but geothermal is much more competitive if the source is close to the grid.

Muso, most good geothermal sources in Australia are way out in the desert.


Quote:

It's only swimming the wrong way that causes drowning LOL. There is nothing wrong with economic activity as long as it's sustainable.

But weren't you suggesting we continue with unsustainable economic activity as a way to achieve that sustainable economic activity?


Quote:

actually that's not strictly true either - we must use fossil fuel based industry in the short term to get us out of the crisis, as long as the resulting capital goes to renewable projects

It is not necessary in any way, just cheaper.


Quote:

It's only a thriving capitalist system that will achieve that aim. China is ironically about the most capitalist country in the world right now and they have good control of their population- even better than the Americans under Bush. He did a pretty good job of using religion to control the population. If he'd had any talent, he could have gone far.  Unfortunately he was as inept as they come and made some woefully bad decisions.

American conservatives like Bush are largely to blame for the many bans on foreign aid going to family planning (ie condoms).

Quote:

As far as Bush was concerned, there is little question that he used fundamentalist Christian religion as a weapon to achieve his objectives. It was made abundantly clear that "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror",  and everything that it entailed. It was largely a question of bundling fundamentalist Christianity and patriotism. He came a "long way from whisky and cocaine" indeed, and you'd have to question if his religious fervour was genuine or just very useful.

He went to great lengths to make the war on terror not about religion, so that Muslims would fight on our side.

freediver wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2010 at 1:04pm:

American conservatives like Bush are largely to blame for the many bans on foreign aid going to family planning (ie condoms).

Unfortunate choice of words. When I said 'control the population', I should have said 'control the populace', ie limit their freedom. The former phrase was ambiguous.

In terms of his use of religion, a number of American friends tell me that it was a very stifling environment during the Bush Era. Patriotism and Religion were intertwined to the extent that religious freedom was compromised and the separation of (a very specific fundamentalist) Christianity and government, was blurred.

Even if he tried to make the point that it wasn't about fighting Islam, his use of biblical rhetoric went against that initial sentiment.

freediver wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2010 at 1:04pm:

Quote: There is another way, and that is to make it a national priority to replace coal fired power generation with renewable sources. That may end up being the only viable option yet. It is a far, far more expensive option muso.

If we don't get our global act together, it could end up being our only option.  


freediver wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2010 at 1:04pm:

Quote: actually that's not strictly true either - we must use fossil fuel based industry in the short term to get us out of the crisis, as long as the resulting capital goes to renewable projects It is not necessary in any way, just cheaper.

It's all a question of time scale.  It's cheaper in the short term, and in the absence of a low carbon infrastructure in the short term, it's the only option.

Quote:

No it shouldn't. Reducing our consumption or making it more efficient in terms of emissions is an equally valid way to reduce emissions. We should let the market choose the best option. Renewable energy investment should be judged according to the same criteria of any other research effort clamouring for government funding

-Freediver

Undoudtedly, I mean, obviously we should not let considerations of trying to minimise the harmful effects of global warming cloud any financial considerations, the market is the only factor that should be considered.
If it is more profitable to ignore it completely, then that is what we should do.


Unfortunately, even though I vehemently disagree, I do accept the reality that we will only see meaningful progress, when businesses and governments can see a profit coming from it.

I completely agree with muso in regard to wasting money by trying to assuage the collective guilt we are supposed to assume with stupid equalising schemes to compensate those countries who did not get on the mass consumption bandwagon early enough, it is just extremist political correctness which would merely divert funds from areas where they could do some good, into areas where it will just be wasted or stolen, and either option would be a shameful waste.

The simple fact is that we need to see emmissions taxed to inhibit unnecessary over use, and to promote development of zero, or low emmission options becoming more economically viable.

We seem to have so many people taking varied stances on this issue, and it is reflective of the degree of importance they place on the whole Global Warming issue.
We have some, like myself, who consider it paramount, the most important issue to face mankind, since the nuclear arms race, which also had the potential for causing catastrophic outcomes for the planet, and mankind, in particular.

We have some who think it is pretty important, but not so much that we should take any drastic measures to try and ameliorate the possible effects. This group has an optimistic belief that even if we do suffer some adverse changes to our climate, we will still have science to help us cope, and private enterprise, and human ingenuity will come to the fore and save the day, somehow.

We have some that think it probably is real, but nowhere near as bad as people make out, and if we get a few slightly hotter summers, who cares. So we should put a little effort into it, but definitely not worth making any tough decisions over, and definitely do not think emmissions should be taxed, because the new SUV is a real thirsty beast, and fuel costs enough already.

Then we have the denialists, who deny it is even real.
We know this lot will resist any action, ever.

So, with such a diverse range of views, and with the probable majority of people fitting into the second category, it will be a tough sell for any government to get any really effective schemes happening, so I guess we are going to have to just hope they are right, and blind dumb luck will get us through this, because good sense and forward planning are anathema to the majority of our species.

As a footnote, I will venture a little prediction here, that when the effects become so obvious, and so negative, that we all are forced into accepting extreme measures, just to survive, then the groups who are most vocally supporting sitting on our hands, will be the most vocal in complaining about why didn't "they" do something sooner, forgetting that "they" were the problem.

Quote:

I completely agree with muso in regard to wasting money by trying to assuage the collective guilt we are supposed to assume with stupid equalising schemes to compensate those countries who did not get on the mass consumption bandwagon early enough, it is just extremist political correctness which would merely divert funds from areas where they could do some good, into areas where it will just be wasted or stolen, and either option would be a shameful waste.

This is where I have an extreme difference in opinion with you Mozz.
Are we talking about projected crimes or reality crimes?
This is a western way of thinking that is entirely incorrect IMO. The fact is that our actions have resulted in the situation that we have today. We must be responsible for our own actions.
It's all fine and dandy to say that if they had the opportunity then they would have done exactly the same thing. But the fact is that they didn't.
Our laws deem that if I drive at more than 3km/h over the speed limit then I have committed a crime by referring to an average of projected results.
This is a ridiculous mentality that we need to release ourselves from, much less attempt to enforce it on the rest of the (more matured) world.

We have materially gained from our lack of concern for other cultures, we need to grow up and be responsible for our own actions.


So do you think that there is a requirement to discern between a crime committed and a crime imagined?

I doubt that very much, because you are always right.

..Charlatan  ;)

Frikin' weak Mozz.
Your idealisms are covered with words. Display some logic to back your words.
Tell me why we must punish the threat of crime as opposed to actual crime.

So why is it Mozz?
Why should the threat of action be regarded as the same thing as committed action in the eyes of the law?

Plaese tell me Mozz. Exert your infinite wisdom upon me and make me believe.

freediver wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2010 at 1:04pm:

Muso, most good geothermal sources in Australia are way out in the desert.

I remember reading about a project being developed near Geelong.  Then there is the Frome Project:


Quote:

Geothermal Resources:    * Operates two 100% owned geothermal projects in SA that are well located with respect to power grids and potential markets for electricity.

'

http://www.geothermal-resources.com.au/index.html