Does it matter if the opposition climate change spokesman can't get the basic maths right, given that they hope tree planting will contribute 60% of their emissions reduction policy? When Greg says 100 square kilometers, he actually means 10 000 square kilometers, whereas CSIRO means 750 000 square kilometers.

video:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/04/01/3179338.htm

transcript:

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3179336.htm


Quote:

TONY JONES, PRESENTER: The Federal Coalition's Climate Change spokesman is under attack from scientists and researchers who claim he's made a major error in his policy on emissions reductions. Last week Greg Hunt told Lateline that 150 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year could be abated through soil carbon sequestration over a land area of just 100 square kilometres. Mr Hunt now claims he was misunderstood and that he was talking about a much larger area of land, but critics say the Coalition's policy still doesn't add up. ... The Coalition does count soil carbon. They're banking on it to deliver 60 per cent of their targets, up to 85 million tonnes in the year 2020. ... In a recent interview on Lateline, Greg Hunt said an even greater figure could be achieved on a relatively small area of land. GREG HUNT, OPPOSITION SPOKESMAN ON CLIMATE ACTION & ENVIRONMENT: We are talking about a land mass, if you are achieving the 150 million tonnes, of an area of roughly 100 square kilometres. Not tens of thousands, but 100 square kilometres of intensive agriculture would make an extraordinary achievement on many of the estimates. STEVE CANNANE: But Lateline has spoken to experts in the field who dispute the claim. ... STEVE CANNANE: But when I went back to Greg Hunt today, he said he defines 100 square kilometres as a hundred by a hundred, not 10 by 10. GREG HUNT: When I talk about the 100 squared, that's all about a hundred by a hundred square kilometres or a hundred kilometres by a hundred kilometres, 10,000 square kilometres, a million hectares. You can play a game, respectfully, or we can be serious about what's the calculation here. A million hectares at a 150 tonnes of C02 equivalent per hectare is the figure that we're talking about, but that's the intensive number. STEVE CANNANE: Greg Hunt has altered the transcript of the original Lateline interview and posted it on his website to reflect what he says was his intended definition of 100 square kilometres. Based on this altered figure, Greg Hunt believes 150 million tonnes of carbon dioxide can be abated in one year over one million hectares. But using the CSIRO's best estimate, you'd need a land mass of at least 75 million hectares to do this. And if you take the CSIRO's figures at the lower end of the scale, then you'd need 500 million hectares, or 65 per cent of the land mass of Australia. But Greg Hunt questions the CSIRO figures.

The thing that really matters is that, once again, the more creditable body - CSIRO - is dissed in favour of an outsider.

77% of the population live on the east coast of Australia.  We have roughly 7 million square kilometres of land available, even if it were 750000 square K's we could still do it.  Whether that's a practical solution is obviously open for debate but either way we can afford the land.

Certainly an embarrassing mistake none the less.

qikvtec wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2011 at 5:07pm:

77% of the population live on the east coast of Australia.  We have roughly 7 million square kilometres of land available, even if it were 750000 square K's we could still do it.  Whether that's a practical solution is obviously open for debate but either way we can afford the land. Certainly an embarrassing mistake none the less.

That's one tenth of Australia's land mass. And it would have to be part of our arable land area.

Another embarassing exagerration?

Yes I'll be interested how we transform the Simpson/Great sandy deserts into lush forest :D

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2011 at 5:26pm:

Yes I'll be interested how we transform the Simpson/Great sandy deserts into lush forest :D

It's not that hard to be honest, it wouldn't be cheap, but certainly not impossible.  Arguably environmental bastardry of the highest order, but to argue it's not possible is simply ridiculous.  Have you seen the number of 36 hole golf courses in the middle eastern deserts?

You could pump water in from Cubby Station, Down from the Kimberley or desalinate in SA or WA and pump it up or across.  

I'm not for a second suggesting it should be done on that scale.  

qikvtec wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2011 at 5:33pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 5:26pm: Yes I'll be interested how we transform the Simpson/Great sandy deserts into lush forest :D It's not that hard to be honest, it wouldn't be cheap, but certainly not impossible.  Arguably environmental bastardry of the highest order, but to argue it's not possible is simply ridiculous.  Have you seen the number of 36 hole golf courses in the middle eastern deserts? You could pump water in from Cubby Station, Down from the Kimberley or desalinate in SA or WA and pump it up or across.   I'm not for a second suggestion it should be done on that scale.

Damn I was hoping we could turn the rivers inland ;D ;D ;D

Sorry qiv couldn't resist, more to the topic as you say it would be VERY expensive........more than a $30 p/tonne tax on Carbon do you think.
If it was Government doing it where's the money coming from, a new tax perhaps?

Adding water to sand doesn't make arable land.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2011 at 5:50pm:

qikvtec wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 5:33pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 5:26pm: Yes I'll be interested how we transform the Simpson/Great sandy deserts into lush forest :D It's not that hard to be honest, it wouldn't be cheap, but certainly not impossible.  Arguably environmental bastardry of the highest order, but to argue it's not possible is simply ridiculous.  Have you seen the number of 36 hole golf courses in the middle eastern deserts? You could pump water in from Cubby Station, Down from the Kimberley or desalinate in SA or WA and pump it up or across.   I'm not for a second suggestion it should be done on that scale.   Damn I was hoping we could turn the rivers inland ;D ;D ;D Sorry qiv couldn't resist, more to the topic as you say it would be VERY expensive........more than a $30 p/tonne tax on Carbon do you think. If it was Government doing it where's the money coming from, a new tax perhaps?

What would it cost to implement carbon capture programs at all Australian Coal Fired plants.

Please delete wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2011 at 5:54pm:

Adding water to sand doesn't make arable land.

No, but adding Nutrients does; sand is a very efficient substrate otherwise.  Given sufficient time there would be sufficient humus to remove the added fertilisers.

Again not suggesting it's practical, but is certainly possible.

qikvtec wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2011 at 6:06pm:

Please delete wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 5:54pm: Adding water to sand doesn't make arable land. No, but adding Nutrients does; sand is a very efficient substrate otherwise.  Given sufficient time there would be sufficient humus to remove the added fertilisers. Again not suggesting it's practical, but is certainly possible.

That's right - it is possible but ludicrously-impractical...not to mention reckless...

Ironically, it would certainly be a damn sight more expensive than any other proposal to date!

That said, it does give us some idea of just how much wanton combustion of non-renewable fossil fuels Australia's tiny population is responsible for...

qikvtec wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2011 at 6:00pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 5:50pm: qikvtec wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 5:33pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 5:26pm: Yes I'll be interested how we transform the Simpson/Great sandy deserts into lush forest :D It's not that hard to be honest, it wouldn't be cheap, but certainly not impossible.  Arguably environmental bastardry of the highest order, but to argue it's not possible is simply ridiculous.  Have you seen the number of 36 hole golf courses in the middle eastern deserts? You could pump water in from Cubby Station, Down from the Kimberley or desalinate in SA or WA and pump it up or across.   I'm not for a second suggestion it should be done on that scale.   Damn I was hoping we could turn the rivers inland ;D ;D ;D Sorry qiv couldn't resist, more to the topic as you say it would be VERY expensive........more than a $30 p/tonne tax on Carbon do you think. If it was Government doing it where's the money coming from, a new tax perhaps? What would it cost to implement carbon capture programs at all Australian Coal Fired plants.

Carbon capture is a straw man always was, why not just go for cold fusion? ;D

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2011 at 6:15pm:

qikvtec wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 6:00pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 5:50pm: qikvtec wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 5:33pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 5:26pm: Yes I'll be interested how we transform the Simpson/Great sandy deserts into lush forest :D It's not that hard to be honest, it wouldn't be cheap, but certainly not impossible.  Arguably environmental bastardry of the highest order, but to argue it's not possible is simply ridiculous.  Have you seen the number of 36 hole golf courses in the middle eastern deserts? You could pump water in from Cubby Station, Down from the Kimberley or desalinate in SA or WA and pump it up or across.   I'm not for a second suggestion it should be done on that scale.   Damn I was hoping we could turn the rivers inland ;D ;D ;D Sorry qiv couldn't resist, more to the topic as you say it would be VERY expensive........more than a $30 p/tonne tax on Carbon do you think. If it was Government doing it where's the money coming from, a new tax perhaps? What would it cost to implement carbon capture programs at all Australian Coal Fired plants. Carbon capture is a straw man always was, why not just go for cold fusion? ;D

Our coal fired plants will be operational for at least the next 50 years perhaps longer.  I was just curious what it would actually cost?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2011 at 5:50pm:

qikvtec wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 5:33pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 5:26pm: Yes I'll be interested how we transform the Simpson/Great sandy deserts into lush forest :D It's not that hard to be honest, it wouldn't be cheap, but certainly not impossible.  Arguably environmental bastardry of the highest order, but to argue it's not possible is simply ridiculous.  Have you seen the number of 36 hole golf courses in the middle eastern deserts? You could pump water in from Cubby Station, Down from the Kimberley or desalinate in SA or WA and pump it up or across.   I'm not for a second suggestion it should be done on that scale.   Damn I was hoping we could turn the rivers inland ;D ;D ;D Sorry qiv couldn't resist, more to the topic as you say it would be VERY expensive........more than a $30 p/tonne tax on Carbon do you think. If it was Government doing it where's the money coming from, a new tax perhaps?

 ;) Mate, there is the m(&%f&(^% rub!  :D ;D

qikvtec wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2011 at 6:06pm:

Please delete wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 5:54pm: Adding water to sand doesn't make arable land. No, but adding Nutrients does; sand is a very efficient substrate otherwise.  Given sufficient time there would be sufficient humus to remove the added fertilisers. Again not suggesting it's practical, but is certainly possible.

Therefore suggesting Tony Abbott is dead in the water: this is all going in the history books as a leadership problem!!!

TONY ABBOTT IS A DODGY M*&^%F(&%!!!

 ;) ;) :D ;D

Therefore suggesting Tony Abbott is dead in the water: this is all going in the history books as a leadership problem!!!

TONY ABBOTT IS A DODGY M*&^%F(&%!!!

 ;) ;) :D ;D

Quote:

We have roughly 7 million square kilometres of land available, even if it were 750000 square K's we could still do it.

I don't think they mean desert or semi arid. They mean prime agricultural land. Also, it still comes down to an economic decision. Remember, this is 'intensive' work they are talking about, not sitting back and letting nature do its thing.


Quote:

Whether that's a practical solution is obviously open for debate but either way we can afford the land.

Ever heard of the NIMBY principle?


Quote:

Certainly an embarrassing mistake none the less.

It hardly got noticed compared to Abbott's gaffe, and even there most of Abbott's supporters haven't realised yet.


Quote:

What would it cost to implement carbon capture programs at all Australian Coal Fired plants.

As far as I know, more than renewable enerrgy sources.


Quote:

Given sufficient time there would be sufficient humus to remove the added fertilisers.

Those fertilisers require fossil fuels to produce.

It must have been Greg Hunt that did the Coalitions' TEN BILLION DOLLAR election costings black hole

Or maybe Barnaby Joyce - who doesn't know the difference between a MILLION, a BILLION and a TRILLION

I WONDER HOW HARD THE MEDIA WILL GO ON THIS....

THIS IS BLATANT DECEPTION: BUT WORSE, IT REPRESENTS A VACUUM OF CONCRETE IDEAS FROM TONY ABBOTT!

TONY ABBOTT IS A JOKE: ALL THE OLDIES FROM THE LAND KNOW HE IS UP A CREEK.... HE IS STILL DOWNPLAYING THE NBN FOR CHISSAKES: HE HAS NOTHING!

.. HE IS STILL DOWNPLAYING THE NBN FOR CHISSAKES: HE HAS NOTHING!

.. HE IS STILL DOWNPLAYING THE NBN FOR CHISSAKES: HE HAS NOTHING!

qikvtec wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2011 at 6:06pm:

Please delete wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 5:54pm: Adding water to sand doesn't make arable land. No, but adding Nutrients does; sand is a very efficient substrate otherwise.  Given sufficient time there would be sufficient humus to remove the added fertilisers. Again not suggesting it's practical, but is certainly possible.

I did notice when in Perth they had the largest trees I thin k I have ever seen in this country...huge and beautifull and the soil seemed very sandy.

of course they had rain as well and dont they have RAIN?..

however I was so struck by the size of the trees.

trouble with trees is they burn dont they?

maybe we should b e planting trees in countries like Borneo where we are causing no end of trouble for the Orangutans their survival is in our hands right now....why are we so centred on Australia???...it isnt as though each country has its own little bit of the ozone layer is it?

cods wrote on Apr 6^th, 2011 at 7:28am:

qikvtec wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 6:06pm: Please delete wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 5:54pm: Adding water to sand doesn't make arable land. No, but adding Nutrients does; sand is a very efficient substrate otherwise.  Given sufficient time there would be sufficient humus to remove the added fertilisers. Again not suggesting it's practical, but is certainly possible. I did notice when in Perth they had the largest trees I thin k I have ever seen in this country...huge and beautifull and the soil seemed very sandy. of course they had rain as well and dont they have RAIN?.. however I was so struck by the size of the trees. trouble with trees is they burn dont they? maybe we should b e planting trees in countries like Borneo where we are causing no end of trouble for the Orangutans their survival is in our hands right now....why are we so centred on Australia???...it isnt as though each country has its own little bit of the ozone layer is it?

Oh now come on,
Last week people were complaining about giving Indo money now your saying give them more?????
In fact that was a central plank of Rudds ETS, give Indo money to stop cutting tree's down & our friends on the right thought it was a dumb idea.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 6^th, 2011 at 12:31am:

I WONDER HOW HARD THE MEDIA WILL GO ON THIS.... THIS IS BLATANT DECEPTION: BUT WORSE, IT REPRESENTS A VACUUM OF CONCRETE IDEAS FROM TONY ABBOTT! TONY ABBOTT IS A JOKE: ALL THE OLDIES FROM THE LAND KNOW HE IS UP A CREEK.... HE IS STILL DOWNPLAYING THE NBN FOR CHISSAKES: HE HAS NOTHING! .. HE IS STILL DOWNPLAYING THE NBN FOR CHISSAKES: HE HAS NOTHING! .. HE IS STILL DOWNPLAYING THE NBN FOR CHISSAKES: HE HAS NOTHING!

abbott is losing skin everyday: he has to continually admit his belief in climate change!

Then having a faulty system to address it is what he has to continually defend....  ;) ;) ;) ;D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 6^th, 2011 at 3:43pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 6th, 2011 at 12:31am: I WONDER HOW HARD THE MEDIA WILL GO ON THIS.... THIS IS BLATANT DECEPTION: BUT WORSE, IT REPRESENTS A VACUUM OF CONCRETE IDEAS FROM TONY ABBOTT! TONY ABBOTT IS A JOKE: ALL THE OLDIES FROM THE LAND KNOW HE IS UP A CREEK.... HE IS STILL DOWNPLAYING THE NBN FOR CHISSAKES: HE HAS NOTHING! .. HE IS STILL DOWNPLAYING THE NBN FOR CHISSAKES: HE HAS NOTHING! .. HE IS STILL DOWNPLAYING THE NBN FOR CHISSAKES: HE HAS NOTHING! abbott is losing skin everyday: he has to continually admit his belief in climate change! Then having a faulty system to address it is what he has to continually defend....  ;) ;) ;) ;D

;) ;)