JC Denton wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 5:00pm:


---------------


dont forget those who scream abuse if you dare raise your voice against the boat people..

yet if you ask them .. so "What do you do personally for these people". they are gone in a flash..

its all paper sympathy.. or in this case. forum sympathy but it makes them feel so good about themselves they actually think words do something to make these peoples lives better, at the end of the day its all about making THEM feel better..very pious!

JC Denton wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 5:00pm:


That's partly true. I doubt if anyone would claim that the CSIRO or the BoM are status signallers; however a few Hollywood stars think it's fashionable to buy a Prius to improve their public image. I bought a Prius because it benefitted me personally to the tune of about $20,000 overall because I average more than 100,000km each year.

At the same time, there is so much garbage out there on the media that the profile needs to be lifted.

World governments with very few exceptions are dragging their feet. China is far more advanced in renewable energy than Australia is.

Whatever perspective you look at it from, if we don't invest in renewable energy it will cost society in the long run. There are more reasons to do that than global warming and ocean acidification, but they are pretty good reasons in themselves.

I agree that the deep greens are probably misguided in a lot of ways. The last thing I want is for the world to return to poverty. My motivation is the survival of a technologically advanced society.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 30^th, 2010 at 12:24pm:


Well it's a valid argument, and as I've said before, I'm happy to explain the science. I have a feeling that you basically understand the science behind it, but you object to the "posturing" (thanks Itanmulli) and political crap that's going on. Well so do I - especially the Robin Hood school of global carbon trading that was threatened at Copenhagen. I'd also rather see things happen faster than they already are.

My opinion is that if we can find a way to pay for the renewable energy projects, and preferably keep our inept government well away from their direct management (should I mention pink batts?), then that is more likely to happen.  I suggested elsewhere that a tax on coal exports would be a good start, firstly because the likes of Canada are doing exactly that already and secondly because we're throwing away our natural resources without getting any significant financial benefit from it.

If we tax coal exports, it doesn't impact so much on ordinary people (who vote), and we can use some of the proceeds towards renewable energy infrastructure, in the same way that carbon offsets do. (It doesn't go towards planting trees by the way.)

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 30^th, 2010 at 4:32pm:


In industry we normally work with risks associated with specific processes which typically run around 1 fatality in 10 million years. (1e-07) A typical manufacturing plant might have a total risk of around 50E-06 (50 fatalities in a million years)

If any industrial plant in Australia had risks that approached absolute certainty, they would have to shut them down. Here we're talking about   risks that will almost certainly (close to 100%) kill large numbers of people and cause severe economic disruption within a 100 year timeframe.

A previous poster posted the range of risks associated with a 2 degree temperature rise. That is a compromise that in itself will involve mass fatalities and economic disruptions, just not as severe as business as usual.

It doesn't look like we'll meet that 2 degrees the way things are going.

You say that you disapprove of the alarmist rhetoric. Maybe so. - but if you were aware that a building was on fire, would you bother to sound the fire alarm, or would you worry that you might wake somebody up or piss them off in some way?

After all, sounding the fire alarm is alarmist, isn't it?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1^st, 2010 at 12:30pm:


Ok. Somebody should drown Al Gore. As far as the Working Group I report is concerned, investigating the effects of different emission scenarios, that is sound science. If anything it's biased on the conservative side. By the way none of the scientific authors actually work for the IPCC. They work for national bodies such as the CSIRO in Australia.

As far as things that various people have said to the media and the general public, I can't vouch for them. In some cases they are taken out of context.

I already said that I wouldn't talk about Al Gore.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1^st, 2010 at 1:43pm:


As an environmental professional who works for industry, I distance myself from tie-died greenies, but I still try to do things that are effective both at work and at home.

I just had solar panels installed at home, I offset all my flights using renewable energy offsets, and have set company policy so that everybody does the same. The cost is nominal.

The motivation for the solar panels was mainly financial. I got them while the government incentives were available.

There will be a massive change to society whether we want it or not. The causes will be dwindling resources and an international drive towards renewable energy. Ordinary people like you and me will have little say in it. Life will go on with minimal disruption. 

The biggest threat will be economic disruptions. Progress will be minimal while the economy is weak.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1^st, 2010 at 9:08pm:


Put it this way, one of our plants has been waiting for an ETS to install low emission technology. There is no point in doing it before the ETS comes in. It's much better to set your baseline at current levels and get the credits.

What it does do is to make polluting technology more expensive and reduces the cost differential between that and renewable energy technology/clean production technology.  

With my idea of taxing coal exports, we use the revenue partly to subsidise renewable energy projects.  We can even pass on some of the tax to the general population to sweeten the pill.

There is a kind of renewable energy tax already in place for major industries. It's called the ERET Legislation and it's already paying for renewable energy projects.It works like a tax on electricity purchases. High emitters can initially claim partial exemption through the EITE Scheme (Environmental professionals usually pronounce it "ET"), with the intent of softening the blow. (and it's a total pain in the arse working with financial auditors to validate your figures.)

There is also the NGERS reporting system. The more politically correct pronounce it "engers"  

To answer your question, I think we'll still need to do some very expensive catch-up about 15 years down the line.