Environment problems

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by echnidna

lots of km's are necessary in regional australia.

---

Sure they are. But do those km's have to be driven in a 6 cylinder car? What's stopping businesses and governments from purchasing smaller cars? Incentives to buy cheap, ?????? Australian built cars (not a big fan personally).

Quote:

---

A lot of business km's are unavoidable

---

A lot of business km's are also avoidable. I'm not saying that everyone should stop driving full stop, but there have got to be ways of minimising travel by car.

Quote:

---

cycling in the country is impractical given the often signifigant distances involved

---

A lot of short trips in cars can easily be replaced with bikes. As a matter of fact, it is estimated that 50% of all car trips are less than 5km. That's disgraceful. Anyone who lives within 20km of their place of work, has showering facilities and does not require a car during the day at work, should be able to ride their bike to work - BOTH ways, EVERY day. 20km should take no more than 1 hour at a leisurely pace, of which most people are capable (and if they're not, then it's probably a good idea to at least start!). I think I'm being reasonable - I'm not saying that people should ditch their cars and replace all car trips with bike trips - rather that if those of us who CAN make a difference TRY to make a difference, it would have a huge impact on the situation.

Quote:

---

the emissions tax is totally unnecessary as the governments are reaping huge income from fuel to the extent they have are major cash surpluses.Increase taxes, any sort, the pig trough just gets bigger

---

Good point. Why not decrease income tax and company tax and instead increase the fuel excise then?

To those of you wondering what we do to mimimise our energy bill, we don't do a heck of a lot. We live in suburbia, about 8km from Brisbane, we have town gas (ie. cheap as chips) and our house is lit by mostly energy saving bulbs. I have a feeling that the fact that we've got a gas hot water system helps too..? We have two reverse cycle inverter air conditioners (both here when we bought the place and had absolutely no impact on our decision to buy) - one in bedroom, one in lounge room. The lounge room system gets used for maybe 10 hours per year (all in February of course) and we use the one in the bedroom sparingly and ONLY for cooling purposes (ie. summer).

I'm really not sure what else contributes to us having such cheap electricity bills??

Cheers,
Lotte

lots of rants here not many idea's

1.reduce the use of cars
this can be done by allowing lots of office workers to work 2-3 days from home. you can allow computer access
this would be especilly good for parents so you kill two birds with one stone
Kids get more parent time and can be picked up so parents dont have to leave kids in expensive daycare and after school care.
so parents save money and can afford solar panels and water tanks.

2.turn of or dim lights in office building, most have big windows and the lower light is more pleasant to work in.
3. set thermostat controls in winter you can put on a jumper.
the number of office workers that strip off when they get in is stupid.

unfortunatly these simple ideas need management on board.and some sense
we've just started a recycling system at work.
were asked to wash our yoghert pots before we bin them.
so idiots are using 3 ltrs of water to recycle a yoghert pot:roll:
4. encorage business to use conference phones instead of flying everywhere.
they'll get used to it

astrid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by astrid

lots of rants here not many idea's


the number of office workers that strip off when they get in is stupid.

astrid

---

Damn!!!! I have been working in the wrong places.:D

I knew that would get a bite:U
astrid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LotteBum

..................As a matter of fact, it is estimated that 50% of all car trips are less than 5km..................

---

I live in a regional area (a bit more urban than Echidna's area though) and 100% of my trips are more than 5km. 5kms will get me to the next intersection.:roll:


Mick

You guys ever considered that AGW is a load of bull and that we may have to do nothing.

Although an orderly reduction in polution is comendable and should be encouraged.

I read both sides of the argument and there are many scientist with valid points disputing AGW. People need to take a deep breath and not jump to conclusions simply based on flaky computer models that just can not predict accurately.

Scaring the population into reacting to a problem that may not exist is sensless. The scientific proof will dissmiss AGW as a farce in time, or a lot quicker if people had an open mind.

The temperature peaked in 1988 and has not increased since!

We are not all going to fry in the next 100 years.

so why are the icecaps and glasiers melting? any other theories?
astrid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

You guys ever considered that AGW is a load of bull and that we may have to do nothing.

Although an orderly reduction in polution is comendable and should be encouraged.

I read both sides of the argument and there are many scientist with valid points disputing AGW. People need to take a deep breath and not jump to conclusions simply based on flaky computer models that just can not predict accurately.

Scaring the population into reacting to a problem that may not exist is sensless. The scientific proof will dissmiss AGW as a farce in time, or a lot quicker if people had an open mind.

The temperature peaked in 1988 and has not increased since!

We are not all going to fry in the next 100 years.

---

Which scientists, with valid peer reviewed papers, are you referring to :?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by astrid

so why are the icecaps and glasiers melting? any other theories?
astrid

---

Havnt we already had an iceage? I wonder what made the ice melt back then:rolleyes:

Common guys, scaring people shirtless about global warming is good for many businesses, pollies and media. They love it. I will keep driving my car, heat the house with wood, use plastic bags, contribute to the hole in the ozone layer ( can't help it after drinking home brew and having bangers and onions from the bbq) If the world is going to end I will make sure I go out happy and contented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ernknot

use plastic bags

---

Like the scaremongering with plastic bags. They come in conventional and bio-degradable varieties, conventional take around 10 years to break down and bio-degradable break down within 12 months. But the big con job green ones are made from polypropylene, which is a by product of oil refining and they never ever break down. Go figure

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lignum

Havnt we already had an iceage? I wonder what made the ice melt back then:rolleyes:

---

The last major ice age ended when the isthmyth between north and south america rose up due to tectonic plate movement which disrupted the sea flow and caused it to warm as the water was heated more around the equator.

And we have had lots of ice ages, tassie had one with glaciers n all around 30 thousand years ago.

They werent really an issue 30 thousand years ago as the earth didnt have to support 6.6 billion humans as it does now. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wongo

....Build nuclear power stations ….

---

The problem with Nuclear is that, at current usage levels, all known reserves will give us an estimated 30-70 years of power.

The question is, if we go down the nuclear path, will we

Spend the extra time we have developing a proper renewable resouce,
-or-
Will we grab the money and run?

actualy re nuclear,
Its worst than that.
They take years to build and have to be decommissioned after about 25 years.
So then the problems are
1) where to get rid of the contaminated rubble, (just look at chernoble and five mile island)
2) in 30 years, whos going to invest in another if theres only uranium left for another 30-40 years
I think the Nuclear champions are in the "take the money and run" group.
After all, they wont be around to deal with the mess will they?

I find it amusing, that the same lot who blather on about the sacrifices our grandparents generation made in the wars, to give us a free and democratic future, are usually the same ones that wont countinence much smaller sacrifices for their grandchildrens future.
(abolutly no disrespect intended to veterans)
Astrid

This is an interesting topic. Once the dollars are taken out of the equation I am of the opinion that the equation may change considerably. There is a reasonable share of misinformation attached to this particular subject which we all have to wade through. The link below is weather records for a long period of time and it has been pointed out that it must be the average of same to be of use.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~jacob/worldtp.html

Enjoy Xmas everywhere this time around, perhaps the sky will have fallen in by the time next Xmas comes around. PS: Its still well below here in winter and we still get our one month of summer every year.:U:U:U

Regards Mike

Quote:

---

You guys ever considered that AGW is a load of bull and that we may have to do nothing.

---

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI"]YouTube - Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See[/ame]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

You guys ever considered that AGW is a load of bull and that we may have to do nothing.

---

Global warming is happening, that has been agreed by most scientist (Just like evolution), but the argument now is, is it man causing the global warming or is it a natural accurance..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

Here you go, you can have a look at how the world will look after a 14m sea level rise. This is Sydney harbour but it's like Google maps, you can go anywhere in the world and select a sea level rise to a max of 14m.

http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=-33.84....2268&z=5&m=14

---

FWIW this model of ocean encroachment is based purely on topography which is very simplistic. Every metre rise in sea level creates a loss of up to 100 m of coastline due to coastal erosion. It will only be less than 100 m if there is rock in the way.

Yes there is a note to that effect on the site. The idea is just to get people thinking about what a relatively small rise in sea level will do to the coastline. He says he deliberately avoided the worst case because he didn't want it to be dismissed as alarmist. I wanted to see what it would look like at 100m but he only went to 14.

The other thing it doesn't handle is places that are already below sea level.

Quote:

---

the argument now is, is it man causing the global warming or is it a natural accurance..

---

That's the point of the video. These are all 'row arguments' which are debating something that we have no control over. What we should be debating is whether or not to try and do something about it.

For those of you interested in some facts, rather than melodramatic hype, this link makes interesting reading.

I've always wondered: if scientists know so much about the earth's climate and atmosphere, how come they can't predict the weather?

Facts are interesting things aren't they? One person's facts are another person's hype. It has been slowly dawning on me over the last 40 odd years that there are a great many things that nobody knows for sure. Another thing is that there is always more to a story than meets the eye.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

I've always wondered: if scientists know so much about the earth's climate and atmosphere, how come they can't predict the weather?

---

Agreed silentc, it is one of my favourite replies to those people quoting the magical "2.3deg warmer in 20 years" - how come the same science cannot give us an accurate 1day forecast - let alone an accurate 4 day forecast:doh:.

As a physicist let me correct some misconceptions being put up here and give you some perspectives that are missing.

Firstly, is it man made global happening? The consensus of experts says yes and that is good enough for me. Those that say no are mostly crackpots or have vested interests.

Ice bergs melting: Yes they have melted before as have the ice caps (our lab works on polar ice and snow over the last few glacial cycles). What we do know is this has happened fairly slowly and life generally had time to adapt to the changes. What we are doing is forcing the climate system beyond it's capacity to adapt. The coral reefs will die (sorry - ARE dying), not adapt as will WA Jarrah and Karri.

Energy supplies: We should not be looking around for magic bullets we should spread the development of new energy generation across a range of technologies.

Bio-fuels: Would seem to work well in low population areas and Oz Acacias/Eucalpyts are ideal for this but we have no infrastructure (and it brings with it the exciting possibilities of exoctic acacia timber availability as well!). 1/10th of the arable land in Australia would supply all our fuel needs. In contrast if Germany wanted to supply its own fuel all the arable land in the country would be required. Tropical countries are attracted to biofuels but cutting down rain forest to plant biofuels is a dumb idea.

Nuclear: We have enough Uranium for about 50 years if ALL we use is nuclear. That is nuts and as big a squandering of resources as the oil waste. A sensible use of nuclear is as a base power source makes sense in countries where population density and other supplies are insufficient. If it is spread over time it could last 200 years and ultimately there is breeder reactor technology. I did my PhD on a natural fossil breeder reactor and nuclear waste disposal - this is a serious but solvable situation and a smaller, easier and a shorter term problem than CO2 sequestration. Fourth generation nuclear plants will also be inherently more efficient and safer than present day reactors. Then there is Thorium as a nuclear fuel (which Oz has 40% of the worlds known supply). We just need to hang in long enough for fusion which currently has a next generation reactor being built in France. Do I see future based entirely on nuclear - definitely not, but it is already playing an important role in many countries which have little else and we should be doing more with it.

Solar Energy and Hydrogen: We should set up huge solar energy plants in hot areas cracking water to make hydrogen for fuel. The price (even after economies of scale) will be $5-$8 a litre energy equivalent so we need more efficient cars. Cars in cities and townes can run on electricity but hybrids will be needed for long range use and for planes. Storage is a big problem. Fourth generation nuclear that make hydrogen direct from superheated water is another source of this important fuel.

Construction: Did you know that after burning fossil fuels, making concrete is the next biggest CO2 producer? Every ton of concrete makes a tone of CO2. We already have the technology to use materials that generate 1/10th of this and this is widely used in Europe but guess who controls this in Oz?

Finally here is something to think about that shows how serious the problem is. To get CO2 back to an even level in the atmosphere using present day technologies you will only be allowed to have ONE of these per year (http://www.manicore.com/anglais/).
- Short intercontinental plane trip
- Use 3200 kWh electricity (22000 kWh in France or Sweden) (100 W light bulb for 1 hr/day)
- A third of a small car
- Large plasma screen TV,
- 2 tons of concrete (house requires 10 tons),
- Drive 5000 km - city traffic in a subcompact car
- Drive 1500 km - in a large 4WD or V8
- Heat/Cool a medium sized home for 3 months

I think this puts things into perspective. What few people realize is that it is a lot more serious than changing to a few low energy use light bulbs and buying a smaller car. It's about changing everything we do and what we do it with. Like the guy on SilentC movie (who is that BTW?) the alternative is far less attractive.

My biggest concern is that all kids of today need to know more science and maths than ever to tackle this problem but few want to study these important subjects.

So, how can I drive 5000km in a third of a small car?:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

I've always wondered: if scientists know so much about the earth's climate and atmosphere, how come they can't predict the weather?

---

The answer is in your question. Weather and climate are two different thing. Climate is long term weather is very short term. Much of the past climate is written in the geological record of the earth and is the basis for study and interpretation. Only extreme weather events register and then for a short time.

G'day BobL,

An excellent post and even better to read it from someone in the industry and more than qualified to give your 2¢ worth. :2tsup:

Unfortunately it still won't convince a relative of mine. :( We just have to agree to disagree. :shrug: But I'll still use and refer to your post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Shed

For those of you interested in some facts, rather than melodramatic hype, this link makes interesting reading.

---

Wow "junkscience.com" - a respected and well cited scientific resource I must add that to my "must read" science list. NOT!

FWIW, here is the credentials of the editor of junkscience.com: Steven J. Milloy is: the founder and publisher of JunkScience.com and CSRwatch.com ; an investment adviser to the Free Enterprise Action Fund ; and a columnist for FoxNews.com

And what about the Free Enterprise Action Fund? Here is a quote from their website"
"Left-wing social and political activists are harnessing the power, resources and influence of publicly-owned corporations to advance their social and political agendas. (1) Frustrated by their failure to advance their agendas in the public political process, these activists use capitalism against capitalism under the guise of “corporate social responsibility” and “socially responsible investing.” (2) Their movement threatens shareholder value and the American system of free enterprise."

Interesting what you can find if you dig a little.

I could debunk his junk but I have real science to get on with! :D

Time will tell, I refuse to be pannicked by outlandish false claims about AGW.

It is easer to believe when the media will not give the other side a mention. People have claimed AGW is a foregone conclusion and "the debate is over". In science the debate is never over. There is not one piece of concrete non debatable conclusive bit of evidence that confirms AGw not a single one.

Every argument is opinion based on opinion or computer models that are flakey and faulty. Any one can point to an event and blame it on AGW.

The Globe has warmed and cooled forever and will continue to do so forever. We are better spending money on dealing with the results of climate change rather than trying to effect it. For sure as hell there will be global cooling sometime in the future.

I suggest anyone who simply reads the newspaper or follows the mob to form their opinion should take time to read the science disputing AGW.

For many, regardless of any credible evidence produced to the contrary will not convince them that AGW is a fraud. Only time will tell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Shed

So, how can I drive 5000km in a third of a small car?:rolleyes:

---

For three years you buy a 1/3 of a car THEN you can drive it 5000 km a year - BUT the rest of the time you have to live like 3rd world person and burn small animal dung fires for cooking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

For three years you buy a 1/3 of a car THEN you can drive it 5000 km a year - BUT the rest of the time you have to live like 3rd world person and burn small animal dung fires for cooking

---

So, I guess that means I can't use my chainsaw mill either then?:D

Quote:

---

Weather and climate are two different thing.

---

Yeah I understand that. There are so many variables involved in producing weather that it would be virtually impossible to accurately model what is going on now, let alone what might happen tomorrow. It's just that a few people seem to be quite adamant about a number of things that I believe are not really all that predictable. But then if scientists prefaced everything with "we believe" they would just sound uncertain and unreliable - which is ironic...

Quote:

---

who is that BTW?

---

http://www.youtube.com/wonderingmind42

Quote:

---

There is not one piece of concrete non debatable conclusive bit of evidence that confirms AGw not a single one.

---

So I take it you have a piece of concrete non-debatable conclusive evidence that denies AGW?

I dunno, you're still arguing about something you have no control over. It's just a silly and pointless debate I think, except at an academic level. The concerns have been raised by the scientific community, all we have to decide is whether to do anything about it or not.

Its all about managing Risk.

When you weigh up the probability of AGW against the consequences,
you realise that its too risky to do nothing.

Of the 4 scenarios i.e. Action/No Action -Vs- Fact/Hype,
Taking no action when AGW is a fact has the biggest negative impact.

Is it worth the risk ?

That's what it boils down to.

Rod,

For the first time in human history we face a serious dilemma. You are right there is no single incontrovertible fact (and there probably won't be for some people until some of the houses start falling into the Swan River) - there is no magic pointer saying this is it - the bit of evidence that can't be refuted. Nevertheless there is more than sufficient evidence in the geological record and the current trends and changes, for the consensus taken amongst the worlds experts about that it is happening.

What do you expect them to do - nothing - wait till the changes are irreversible? I actually think it is probably already too late and we will be seriously affected and the best we can hope for is a mitigation of the effects.

What most people do not realise is this is a HUGE problem. An individual (even an expert) simply can't learn about or decide about man made global in a lifetime. It is such a difficult problem that it has required a collective consensus amongst experts and we will have to decide at some point to put our hands in their decisions - just like we do with doctors (yes they are sometimes wrong). I am very familiar with how international level scientists operate, they are not sheep - they absolutely love proving each other wrong and do so at the drop of a hat. If half, or a quarter or even 1/10 of the worlds GW experts were still arguing about it i'd be slightly skeptical. I am never 100% convinced of anything but in this case I'm about 99% convinced.

Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mickj

Its all about managing Risk.

When you weigh up the probability of AGW against the consequences,
you realise that its too risky to do nothing.

Of the 4 scenarios i.e. Action/No Action -Vs- Fact/Hype,
Taking no action when AGW is a fact has the biggest negative impact.

Is it worth the risk ?

---

You can't manage a risk that you can't quantify.

Like everything else in life this is about cost/benefit analysis. The problem is that there are a lot of arguments muddyig the waters, making it hard to quantify the cost.

One of the most vocal persons on global warming in our local Landcare group is also the one that probably produces the most greenhouse gases, having made numerous o/s plane trips in the last few years.
That same person was talking about buying a Toyota Prius to save the planet!
So a question of "do as I say, not do as I do".

The minute that people like Al Gore stop spending half their life in an aeroplane and stops spending umpteen times the average on using energy, is the time I will take this whole argument a bit more serious.

In the meantime I will try to do my bit without getting too anal about it.:2tsup:

Quote:

---

The minute that people like Al Gore stop spending half their life in an aeroplane and stops spending umpteen times the average on using energy, is the time I will take this whole argument a bit more serious.

---

With all due respect, that's a crazy point of view. Why would you base your own opinions and decisions on the arguably hypocritical behaviour of other people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Shed

So, I guess that means I can't use my chainsaw mill either then?:D

---

Well there are swings and roundabouts on home milling.

If I mill a street tree outside my house and replace it with another that is relatively low CO2 emission milling. I haven't had to drive anywhere to get the timber and can use it on the spot. If I have to drive 300 km to do it then it's debatable.

Unfortunately commercial milling is currently high CO2 emission even using plantation timber but stuff all of this comes from chainsaws. Trucks and tractors will have to be biofuel based - not hard but will cost more. Light rail may come back for plantations. I have no idea what they can do for the replacements of 2-stroke motors. Would I stop home milling if the price of petrol was $3 litre, probably not even $5 litre would be OK.

I am a little concerned that two-stroke will for political reasons be singled out quickly for "special treatment" - ie they will be banned or licenced. BTW, I already own a battery powered mover which for our hanky sized lawn works great.

In the long run I am not worried about home milling - if it comes down to it I will build a small rail mill running a small biofuel powered 4 stroke engine.

BTW There should be no way that it should be cheaper to import softwood from overseas than to grow our own here but that is another story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dazzler

Which scientists, with valid peer reviewed papers, are you referring to :?

---

well :)