Should we all become vegetarians and stop wearing wool?
It would certainly help our emissions, or would it?
Printable View
Should we all become vegetarians and stop wearing wool?
It would certainly help our emissions, or would it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dazzler
And still nada.....:rolleyes:
blah blah blah, study this, review that.....still dont have an anwer for the elephant in the room :p
The world is flat, there is NO ozone hole in the atmosphere, god lives in heaven, the north west passage is still iced up, there is an abundance of fish in the oceans. Time is coming to park up you gas guzzling V8, to put away your electrical tools and remember how things used to be.
Then again its all B*##$hit isn't, nothing wrong with the planet, lets just keep going and see what happens, I mean were right arn't we, stuff them other buggers that come after us. So get out your gear men, rip that timber into shape, run the lathe flat stick and turn some steel or wood, stoke up that V8 and lets leave our mark on the planet. It isn't going to matter as Carl Sager said the Earth is drifting towards the Sun and will be consumed by it in a Zillion years time. BAH HUMBUG:(
D D
This is an interesting, if slightly off topic vid.
Firstly I'd like to say that I am impressed with Koala-Man. Very few people bother to read the literature and as a result the vast majority of the people seem to be misinformed. The mass media seem to be the least literate of all.
Koala-Man I have been on the same journey as you. I certainly does take a lot of reading from many sources simply to separate the fact from fiction. Here is a very useful resource for you:
http://www.climatescienceinternation...d=15&Itemid=28
Personally I didn't start off being neutral. I started off believing in AGW (man made global warming). It was only after a huge amount of reading and research that I had to conclude that significant man made global warming by CO2 production is next to impossible. It certainly hasn't happened so far.
If you want to have a rational discussion about it. I'll be happy to do that.
Personally I have moved on a bit and am looking at the vast damage that is likely to occur by what I call the "Flat Earth Society" - i.e. those creating policies to limit CO2 production.
Of all the stuff I've read on this www.climatechangeanddyou.com is the best. Written by someone who doesn't want to be named and who seems to have a phd in chemistry. I made a blog called http://climatechangeandyou.blogspot.com where I quote some of this stuff. I also added David Attenborough on climate change in the video bar.
While many of us are unsure about a cabon tax, and carbon credits, many are negative about it,
Even so, WE ALL need to take personal responsibility and cut our footprint. for free practical info you can go to http://www.megamoneybox.com/cutcarbonimpacts300707.html
Each person should plant 18-20 trees (or large green plants) to absorb "our" carbon impact.
I look at the atmosphere in China and I shudder. in fact, the Chinese are doing some great things to reduce pollution.
The task seems more difficult for them .. especially since it is estimated that there will be 140 million cars in China by 2020
Let's just do something! ..LET'S DO OUR OWN LITTLE BIT.
I've planted over 18 trees on my 1/4 acre block. plus many other plants and ground cover. Green mesh shelters 2/3 down on glass windows, plants shelter other areas, vines grow up trees for extra shade, compost (neighbours grass clippings and food scrap compost) enriches and protects soil, ground cover reduces mowing, water is used off the roof, etc etc.
Big business will gain a lot from the carbon credit system and will be able to trade these.. Big business will find other ways to benefit (research and tax incentives come to mind) , and there's no way to stop the inevitable.
Let's cut our footprint anyway, reduce our use, reuse, recycle, repair, and redesign, and Grow green.
if I die today, I can say 'I did my bit". (If I don't die today, I will continue to do more than my bit).
kind regards, Mega
The post from Mega is yet another example of the mindless dribble on this issue I was talking about. At no point does mega provide a justification for his assertions.
her assertions :doh:Quote:
Originally Posted by GekoMan
Sorry - no offence intended!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashore
The post from GekoMan is yet another example of the mindless dribble on this issue that Howard & his cronies have been spouting for years, the same reason why so little has been done to clean up the mess we're all making of our home, earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by GekoMan
There is so much undeniable evidence that people like Gecko ignore, that the fun goes out of beating your head against a brick wall after a while. So go ahead, fellers, keep your head in the sand, for all the good it will do you.Quote:
Originally Posted by GekoMan
So your saying that nothing has been done in Australia in the past 12 years in the way of ...lets say alternative power , lets see wasn't it the libs who encouraged people to install and use solar power and rudd has just canned that, hummQuote:
Originally Posted by Rattrap
But howard is somehow responsable for polution from china, india, usa etc etc :doh:
Rudd's been in for 8 months now he signed the kyoto protocall so why isn't everything better , I know,.. it's Howards fault , I should have seen that before
Alex do you honestly believe that a new tax on the australian public that has the potential to lower our standard of living and cause hardship to people will reduce the worlds polution problem overall.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexS
You say undeniable evidence then why do so many deny it , there is evidence to prove both cases , it depends on the time frame used of how the stats are gathered how they are interpertated where the figures come from , how they are collected , which figures are used and which are ignored , the mind set of the person reading them , mate my head isn't in the sand I actually look at the arguements from both sides and make a judgement from there , because someones opinion is diffrent from yours does not mean they are wrong or there head is in the sand :no:
The whole idea of the carbon tax is to gently 'encourage' us all to move to a life with a smaller carbon footprint. The simple fact is that people don't like major change. I'm sure that most of us would be quite happy if we could keep on burning cheap fossil fuels all our lives & the lives of generations to come if we could.
But we can't.
We MUST break our dependance on fossil fuels, embrace alternative energys & STOP PIGGING UP THE PLANET. Anybody who refutes this simple fact is frankly a waste of space. Fortunately those of us with a little forward vision now outnumber the narrow minded neanterthals.
& for goodness sake these carbon taxes will be relatively easy to negate for the most part. Solar panels for your home have been available for years & getting cheaper & more efficant every day. Electric cars are now on the market - admitantly currently high cost with range limitations but once again there is new designs & technologys that are pulling the price down increasing their range & charge times dramatically. Can u even imagine the sort of technologies that will hit the market once alternative energies become the norm rather than only for 'fringe greenies'?????
Yes these changes are going to hurt, change always hurts but the sooner we embrace the new world thats comming the less the pain will be. I don't understand why some people can't see that.
Thats not even metioning the ablsolute fortune thats just waiting to be made in the field of alternative energys. Take battery technology. Batterys are the single biggest stumbling block for the electric car. The reason for this is simple. For the last 20-30 yrs battery technology has been driven by mobile phones & laptop computers. Up until a very short time ago is u wanted to build an electric car u either had to install a veratable mountain of little tiny laptop batterys of a pack of antiquated led acid batterys that weighed well over 500kg. But in only a few years we now have Lithium ion batterys that weigh 1/3 of the lead acid equilivants, 5 times the range per charge & can fully charge at home in a few short hours. & even these new battery technologies are being supersceded by bigger capacity, smaller size & faster charging batteries. By 2010-2012 there are already at least 3 major car companies that have announced that they plan to release all electric cars for public purchase as well has a whole swathe of 'boutque' electric car manfacturers.
Do you honestly think that Mr Rudd & the Labor party is going to bring in a heart stopping, economy crashing, carbon tax all in 1 fell swoop? Of course not. For 1 thing they are not that stupid - even for polititions, 2ndly they are polititions & they'll be wanting to get elected again next term.
No, the carbon tax will be brought in slowly & gently - not gently enough for some to be sure.
My wife & i are simple pensioners, i am my wifes full time carer, we are in the low economic bracket that will feel the carbon tax first & hardest & you can bet i'm scared how this tax will effect us but i can also see just how completely necessary it is that we break our dependance on oil ASAP. So we will embrace & adapt to the new changes to come rather than kick & squeal our way into the future.
Rattrap - I agree 100% that we need to move away from fossil fuels. For starters fossil fuels are a finite resource. I have learnt over the last year that there are a lot more of those resources than I used to think but they are still finite.
What I object to is the lies being used to justify polices and hence our standard of living. In other words if there were taxes on non-renewable resources I wouldn't object. But what we are getting is tax on carbon on the basis this will prevent climate change.
The main reason I object to this is because it is a falicy. It goes against scientific principals. In other words it is an underhanded way to put through socialist polices. to make matters worse it will in the long term harm our environment. I'll explain this in future posts.
Notice that AlexS never provides any evidence. He attacks the messanger not the message.Quote:
undeniable evidence
I am yet to read any undeniable evidence that proves man made carbon dioxide causes global warming. I would be very interested if any one can show me some. Surely that would be a simple thing to do if what AlexS says is true.
1. Climate changes. It always has and it always will.
2. The current rate of climate change is not unprecedented as far as has been able to be measured. (It is a very complex thing to measure).
3. Anthropogenic Global Warming by Carbon Dioxide is a theory that man made activities which release Carbon from solid form to gaseous form as Carbon Dioxide causes rapid global warming due to the green house effect.
4. In order to deliberately prevent rational discussion of this theory it has recently been called "climate change". This pretty much shuts down rational discussion because the climate has been changing since the Earth was formed.
5. A basic scientific line of inquiry is to propose a rational theory and then test that theory against the evidence. That is the foundation of our whole modern education system. It is the whole basis of our technological and scientific progress since the Dark Ages.
6. The theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming due to Carbon Dioxide fails on at least 6 tests.
7. It is not at all clear that Global temperatures are actually increasing right now. Over the lat 8 years global temperatures appeared to have decreased. I only mention this because in the same time frame man has realsed lots more Carbon Dioxide. However the idea of measuring global climate change over a few years or a few decades is silly. The climate changes so much and so frequently you need to look at climate change over a much longer period.
Before I go on with the evidence that Anthropogenic Global Warming due to Carbon Dioxide fails the test of evidence, I'd like someone to explain what the objective of this carbon tax is.
How are we going to measure our progress against this objective?
Imagine if I came to you and asiked for many billions of dollars to prevent something. but I never actually definted what i was going to prevent. I also never told you how I was going to measure progress. Would you give me those billions of dollars? If not, why would you give it to the Australian Government? Do you think you'll be able to sue the Australian Government for fraud?
Why aren't the pro-carbin tax people asking these simple and basic questions?
I have a much better proposal - give me billions of dollars and I will personally prevent climate change. Guaranteed. Of course I'll be dead by the time your are able to collect on your guarantee but hey that's not my problem.
There are a few things that I am confused about:
1: If carbon dioxide output is the signature of a robust economy, what kind of economy will reduced output give? A smaller economy, right? Is that good?
2: Can we go somewhere with all this money and buy a better atmosphere? No?
3: If we are going to force behaviour change in people, why then shelter most of them from the force? I have to confess some narrow self-interest here: I earn an above average income. (Mr Rudd's fellow travellers hate people like me, so they have fashioned yet one more economic bitch slap.) More than half of the households in this country will have zero disincentive, while other will have extra. Sigh.
(I really would not want to be the person to add to the burden of low income families, but there is a human behaviour disconnect here.)
4: Riddle me this: If we think less carbon is a good thing, but we can't get our trading partners to share the love, why oh why do we still have ships lined up to the horizon waiting to cart away coal? We export more carbon than we burn. The people who buy it aren't having a bar of carbon trading. If we were really serious we'd enforce a little carbon limits of our own.
Oh! I get it! Its money! Not your money, or mine, but money. Money that talks louder than you or I do.
I believe that the entire carbon trading scheme is worse than useless. Its not a solution to anything, but it creates the illusion of action. To be effective it has to be economically damaging-but even if we stopped our economy in its tracks the net effect on the atmosphere would be...zero.
Note to moralists: I understand the argument that just because the major emitters are doing nothing shouldn't change what we do. Since there are no absolutes in life, and that all of existence is (sadly) relativistic, the argument is flawed.
1. Limiting CO2 in today's technology will indeed have massive and wide ranging economic costs. These will be felt both directly and indirectly. As a result the environment will suffer in several ways.
In 2 or 3 generations into the future, conceivably it may be theoretically possible to produce less CO2 and have a strong service based economy.
My question is why reduce CO2? CO2 is necessary and beneficial for life. CO2 is a good thing.
What is wrong with the atmosphere we have?Quote:
2: Can we go somewhere with all this money and buy a better atmosphere? No?
When you say buy a better atmosphere - what specifically would make it "better"?
Do you mean buy an atmosphere with less CO2 in it?
Personally I think that would be a lower quality atmosphere. However if that is what you wanted then it doesn't matter how much money you have. We just don't have the technology to make a significant difference to the amount of CO2 in the world. If you killed all the humans on the planet it would still make such a tiny difference to CO2 levels I am not sure it could be measured.
Well quite frankly they wont be. Policies that attempt to get wealthier people to pay more of the cost in the long run simply hurt poorer people more. History has proved this over and over.Quote:
3: If we are going to force behaviour change in people, why then shelter most of them from the force?
Since you and I earn more than the average Joe there are all kinds of way you can get rich off a carbon trading scheme. You and I can make money out of it. I already have a scheme lined up. These poor less informed people that believe in it will pay dearly. This is one of the things that is immoral about it.
I agree with you 100%. but you don't have to take it on faith you can prove that what you say is true. Hence it is not just your belief but a verifiable fact.Quote:
I believe that the entire carbon trading scheme is worse than useless. Its not a solution to anything, but it creates the illusion of action.
:whs: :2tsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by gregoryq
The whole idea of a carbon tax is just that, TAX. Been watching the Olympics? What, hard to see some events? Australians paying a carbon tax is not going to stop countries like China choking the begesus out of the world. Maybe a tax on the raw material we export to China would have a more direct result.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rattrap
I will tell you one thing for certain, if your kids can't afford a house now then they certainly won't be able to once the carbon tax comes in.
The Carbon Tax will increase the cost of building materials, and this will be the catalyst for the next real estate boom. Cost of building a new house goes up so the cost of buying an existing house skyrockets. Don't believe me? Mark it in your diaries then and come back to me a year or two into the tax.
prozac
ps: Labour would do more good if it encouraged us to install environmentally useful enrgy systems such as solar hot water, PVcells on the roof etc. Remember the stuff the Libs brought in and Labour is shutting down.
:whs: too. :2tsup:
Mate whats the point I already mentioned this and rattrap ignored it and went into a rant on phone batteries , mabye he should look at VRB battery technology that has been assisted by the last gov as well , bottom line is when you get someone who referes to "howard and his cronies " for the libs but " Mr Rudd" for the labor Pm you realize where their mindset is and don't bother :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by prozac
Too true. Except that CO2 is not pollution.
Also there is no valid reason for reducing ones carbon footprint.
The world isn't going to run out of coal or natural gas for a long time yet. Hence there is no need to reduce consumption of those fossil fuels.
Chinese coal power stations use very old technology which put lots of soot and other crap like Sulphur into the atmosphere. Modern technology coal power stations are very clean and they only really produce steam and CO2 which are not pollutants.
Oil on the other hand will peak at some point and any way it is exported from countries that don't like us much. Hence we should move away from a dependence on oil at least for transport fuel. Not due to CO2 but because it is risky.
As you know it was rhetorical. Sarcasm is just one of the many services that I offer.Quote:
Originally Posted by GekoMan
Originally Posted by Rattrap
The whole idea of the carbon tax is to gently 'encourage' us all to move to a life with a smaller carbon footprint. The simple fact is that people don't like major change. I'm sure that most of us would be quite happy if we could keep on burning cheap fossil fuels all our lives & the lives of generations to come if we could.
But we can't.
I tend to agree that less consumption would be a good thing on many levels, economic not the least of them. My point is that since the average family is going to get an income tax break to offset the carbon credits that there will be no disincentive. The heaviest emitters will be compensated for carbon credit costs-no encouragement there either.
The labor party has to come to grips with the fact that they can't change people's behaviour while at the same frigging time shelter them from all consequences of their own actions. It's the kind of muddled thinking that leads to phonics and political correctness. Dwarfs, all of them.
:wts::flog:
LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashore
Howard & his cronies earned my ere, Mr Rudd & his cronies are yet to. I won't be holding my breath tho he is a polition at the end of the day.
"ps: Labour would do more good if it encouraged us to install environmentally useful enrgy systems such as solar hot water, PVcells on the roof etc."
I agree completly & just don't understand why they arn't when other countries have done just that successfully. I think the answer my be in the massive amounts of coal we dig out of the ground every year & the wads of cash that goes into govt coffers as a result.
Have u never missed reading a post before Ashore? ffs.:doh:
Photovoltaics aren't green. It takes more energy to make them than they can ever produce. Something about melting sand...:)
Lots of so called green things are not enviromentally friendly and all the talk about them is propoganda and hype. Hybrid cars are a good example, and much public transport, but fanatics on both sides never let the facts get in the way of a good rant.
Now if we could get that $8k rebate for installing wind power at home...
The tool that determines the veracity of these claims is called Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), here are a couple of links on PV LCA's, http://www.clca.columbia.edu/papers/...apan_10_06.pdf (check the last, summary slide) and http://www.energybulletin.net/node/17219 I know it wouldnt cut it in a lot of corporations but the claimed 2-8 years seems OK to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by damian
As for hybrids and public transport where do you get this opinion from?
I personally believe that this is where we should be going with solar technology http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow...htm#transcript as usual the Aussie governemnts are not interested, something about coal revenues... I reckon we should put one on every roof.
damian has made a good point about energy required to manufacture these "green" alternatives. Toyota's electric car is a good point. I believe that they can never justify environmentally the carbon cost of manufacturing them. Just good marketing.Quote:
Originally Posted by damian
PV cells have a calculated payback in dollar terms of about 20-25 years on todays Australian electricity charges. In places like Germany the payback is something like 7 years because the government returns the metered supply on a basis of 4:1. Maybe also the carbon cost of manufacturing the PV cells is not justified.
BUT... I believe that if we are not encouraged to install PV cells to feed back into the sytem then the cost both real and in carbon terms of supplying (transporting) electrical energy via wires across the country will become exhorbitant. This is because of the cost of installing new and of maintaining existing systems. With an ever increasing population governments will have antiquated elecrtical supply systems that will need massive amounts of maintenance and upgrade. New supply sytems will need to be installed across the country from wherever new power stations are to be built. It will not be the construction costs of new power stations that is the issue, it will be the cost of transporting the electrical power from the generators to the consumer that will cripple us.
If households become mini power stations then the size and cost of the supply system will not become burdensome. The carbon cost of supplying the material for these systems will far outway the carbon cost of manufacturing PV cells. Installation of PV cells to homes will reduce stress on the electrical wire system and on supply. It would be nice if we had wind generators also but the noise would be excessive in suburban areas.
As to pay-back times, I think as the power generation systems become more loaded the cost of electrical energy will increase tosuch an extent that the PV cells will pay for themselves in much less time than 20 or so years.
prozac
That's interesting. It contradicts every other study I've seen on energy payback times for PV's.
I'm prepared to believe I'm wrong, but I'd want to see the sources and ultimately the raw data that presentation is based on. Ditto the second link. I spent way too long in research to believe anyone is without bias. It's really easy to cobble together a convincing demo taylored to suit your sponsors desired outcome. Having said that everything I've read on the subject for years could have been based on flawed analysis or hearsay...
As for hybrids and PT I've done some modelling of my own based on the best sources I could find for trains and busses, and I've read a couple of things on total energy/pollution of hybrids. The numbers for PT are rubbery, depends on many assumptions, but we came up with a figure of 55 people per carraige to offset 1.4 per car. So if there is less than 55 people per carraige on your train it's costing more pollution to move you 1 kilometer than if there were an average 1.4 ppl per car travelling the same distance. Busses are probably a lot better.
Meh.
Edit: I never said PV's are bad. I quite like them and will fit them on my roof in an instant when I move house, but not because I assume they will reduce pollution. What bugs me is extremists on both sides of politics who grab a sliver of information and develop it into a complete world view to suit their POV. The snowball grows until our wonderful government starts spending my taxes in accordance with this myth, whichever myth it happens to be.
I though that article was interesting as well. Technology does move on so Im sure its what you buy and what methodology you use. Personally I think solar/steam combinations are the future but Im not sure there is the political will as the donations still come from carbon and nuclear based suppliers. Hot water can be stored, this was always the major (realistic) objection to PV.Quote:
Originally Posted by damian
I agree about the public transport, all of those trains running throughout the night with less than 20 people, major waste of all kinds of resources. Ive driven a Prius for 6 years now (Im on my second) and even with daily motorway driving I average 5.2l / 100km. It is the shop car so I mainly use it as a ute. Service costs $200 every 10k, it really has saved money over the last six months.
Im a big fan of the science show as they do have regular technology updates.
You turn your prius over every 3-5 years ? What about the battery change ? that kicks in at 5 years or something doesn't it ? have you had a quote ?
I believe the diesel golf gets similar economy to the prius. Even with diesel at current prices a friend with one is laughing all the way to the bank.
I really like mirror arrays. Simple, well understood, long life, as you say storable for base load. I haven't found any downside to them and of course australia isn't short of sunny plains. As you say no big money behind them to lobby (bribe) the government.
A chap from the PV industry on Alan Cohla (sp?) few weeks back made an interesting point. The coal fired industry is heavily subsidised in Australia, the PV and other alternative industries really aren't. He was actually quite right in asking for a level playing field. They often aren't and such complaints are often a way of beating your drum, but this chap was actually correct.
When they put forward a system that hits everyone fairly and squarely between the eyes I will support it. The current concept is to hit a relatively small number hard, sit back and see what happens. In gold for intance most mines are predicted to close operations and focus offshore due to margin errosion of such a scheme and there will likely be little investment in any further exploration..Nickel wouldn't be far behind. Ramp this across a number of heavy industries the support the economy and the picture becomes a little clearer. Dont expect to hit industry and not have them hit back.
Nah the first Prius went when I got made redundant, the second one is almost 4 years old. No battery issues yet but I figure that five years is a long time in battery technology (think Moore's Law) and I thought it was eight years, btw heard of Toyota motors lasting 350,000 km so Im not that worried,Quote:
Originally Posted by damian
Ah yes the crunch, pollies have to pay the piper, the unions for Labour or big business for the Libs. One day we will have a democracy, but thats another conversation.Quote:
A chap from the PV industry on Alan Cohla (sp?) few weeks back made an interesting point. The coal fired industry is heavily subsidised in Australia, the PV and other alternative industries really aren't. He was actually quite right in asking for a level playing field. They often aren't and such complaints are often a way of beating your drum, but this chap was actually correct.
My Prius more than 5 years old and battery likely to last another 5 years I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by damian
The fuel economy is great. Unlike other 'eco' cars like small turbo-diesels, it's not just about saving fuel, but reducing emissions as well. I feel positively prehistoric sitting at the lights in a conventional vehicle burning fuel and pumping out emissions. Eve when the car is driving the petrol motor probably only runs 50% of the time. Eg. initial take off, coasting, reducing speed - all done with the motor off, no fuel burning and no emissions.
Hi Prozac - What source are you quoting?Quote:
Originally Posted by prozac
You have added to a fairly old thread, but anyway...
Have a look online about the prious. If your thinking about the enviromental impact of any product you need to do a holistic analysis, manufacture, disposal as well as use. A prious is a wonderful marketing sucess, but it's not particularly enviromentally sound. The pollution load in making and transporting teh raw materials for the batteries for example is signifigant.
I totally agree about whole of life cycle analysis. I am just concerned that people 'quote' information but don't point to the sources.Quote:
Originally Posted by damian
There is obviously an impact in making any component for a vehicle. But, do the batteries require more resources in their product life cycle versus the fuel product life cycle (that is the equivalent amount of fuel saved by operating the Prius)?
I don't know the answer to this, but I would love to see a reputable authorities analysis to find out.
The majority of these environmental evaluations are false for a simple reason. They tend to assume that the conversion of carbon from a solid or liquid form into a gas form is bad for the environment. This is a false assumption for two main reasons:
(a) This assumption isn't supported by the known scientific facts.
(b) "bad for the environment" means bad for life. However current projections of the climate are good for most life forms. An ice age would be an example of a bad environment.
I am not sure the evaluations are false, but you raise an interesting point: "man and other components of the ecosystem he needs to survive and prosper" versus "the other life forms and the ecosystem he needs to survive and prosper".Quote:
Originally Posted by GekoMan
I know which one will get the popular vote. :)
What do you mean by "This assumption isn't supported by the known scientific facts."? I think there are plenty of facts behind the assumption 'bad for the environment' - but as you point out, it comes down to perspective on man vs. everything else.
Personally, I would like both man and everything else to survive and prosper. I feel like John Lennon - "Imagine all the ........." etc