aquascoot wrote on Jan 2
nd, 2014 at 9:58am:
i actually accept the science as it makes sense. the storage of fossil fuels occured over millions of years and is endothermic.
to burn them all in 2 centuries is hugely exothermic.
It's not the exothermic chemical reactions that are the primary driver of climate change but the ability of gas molecules with more than two atoms to absorb and reradiate infrared radiation. It's why CO
2, H
2O, CH
4 and various CFCs are greenhouse gases but the main atmospheric gases N
2, O
2 and Ar are not. These latter gases have only one or two atoms and cannot trap infrared radiation effectively.
Here is a simple example that illustrates the problem. Ever notice how an overcast night is typically warmer than a night with clear skies? The extra water vapour in the clouds does that.
Quote:i just disagree with the response.
lets be pragmatic. people arent going to turn off their air cons or stop driving their fat lazy kids 3 km to school.
People will be happy to run their aircons if they've got an array of solar panels on their roof providing the power. Cars are a bit more of a problem, but in some cases public transport options are available.
Quote:we need to get behind local action (not tonys rediculous "direct action' which will create another groups of government tit-suckers).
Fair enough. I do not think that the central planning of "direct action" will work. It spends taxpayers' money without transparency. It is a model that is far too likely to end with some scandal of ministerial favouritism. Minister Hunt is delusional if he thinks it will be in place for decades. It won't.
A fixed carbon price is not the best model either. It is too inflexible.
IMO the best model is an ETS with a price that is allowed to move freely according to a global market. It will to some extent replace the interest rates set by the RBA as a driver in the economy.
Quote:and, we need to prepare by storing water, gm heat resistant crops, cyclone proof dwellings all the way to sydney, reduce population (geez, stopping the boats and the baby bonus may actually make sense)
There are many things that we need to do, not all of them are cheap and not all would be popular. Goyder's Line is a line drawn on a map of South Australia that was drawn in about 1865 based on the 12-inch rainfall line. To the south agricultural land is deemed fit for cropping. To the north land is only fit for grazing. The cropping land is more valuable. Do we need to redraw Goyder's Line?
Quote:i dont think a democratic government can do much that is effective. china would have more hope of a centralised solution. its going to be unpopular to tell people they cant have air con and drive their cars on meaningless trips
no votes in it, so neither side will get serious about it
Democracies could enact long-term carbon mitigation policies that provide stability and certainty for business. Any that do not will find free trade harder to secure in countries and regions with an active carbon market.
The "Direct Action Plan" is a short-term folly that will not last past the lifetime of the Abbott government. The plan with the best long-term chance of success is an ETS with a link to carbon trading markets in other countries.
Forum
Pages: 
