We've got Penny Wong now backtracking on the ETS scheme with all sorts of excuses - although they sound good politically.  She's blaming the Greens for Labor's woe in regard to the ETS, yet Labor relied on the Green votes to get them over the line.  All sorts of deals were made for their preferences.

The Greens aren't happy about the massive subsidising of the coal industry over renewables, but Wong says we need this industry to stay in Australia because of job losses and what's the point of polluting some other country if they move offshore.


Quote:

Green groups believe the scheme, which aims to cut greenhouse gases by 5 to 15 per cent by 2020, is not ambitious enough and argue against the billions of dollars in adjustment assistance that would be given to big polluters such as the coal industry. "This argument may be appealing and even righteous but it fails to grapple with the economic realities of the transformation we need to make," Senator Wong says.

Maybe Labor should have thought of that before they signed up to this and now it's going to be put in the too hard basket.  What Wong & the rest of them don't understand is that if the same amount was put into smaller solar power plants & wind farms around the country, not only would it increase employment - it would reduce greenhouse gasses substantially.

The only problem is that the major political parties are controlled by the coal industry and if the subsidies stop and replaced gradually with alternative energy - there goes their profits.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/global-warming/get-real-wong-tells-greens-20090222-8er3.html

Increase employment...  yes the great green myth.
You put people out of work...  a few get a job and that increases employment.
I think not.

Quote:

Increase employment...  yes the great green myth.

You can't say that because the Greens haven't had a chance to implement their policies on alternative energy.  Rudd promised a lot before he got in - and I seem to remember Garrett saying every house in Australia would eventually get solar power - instead we get toxic insulation batts.

It's obvious there would be increased employment if solar plants were set up all around Australia.  The largest solar plant capacity today is 400 mw & in another 2 years should be close to 600 mw.  More wind farms would certainly help - not only in construction, but maintenance as well.

What I do notice is there is an anti-Greens campaign going on at present - currently from the Liberals, but now Labor is starting it up.  I hope it backfires in their face.

Much Green policy was implemented by carr is NSW there were supposed to be heaps of forestry jobs..  guess what?

No extra jobs.

Quote:

5 to 15 per cent by 2020

Isn't that what they were targetting from the start?


Quote:

I seem to remember Garrett saying every house in Australia would eventually get solar power - instead we get toxic insulation batts.

Retrofitting solar panels is a really really bad idea. Insulation is much better.

If you are going to insulate you need to do walls and ceiling.

Retrofitting solar panels is a really really bad idea. Insulation is much better.[/quote]

WHY?
Why not do both?

Well insulating roofs is always worthwhile Grendel, the whole house is obviously better, but the overwhelming majority of savings is in the roof.
If you can shade your windows properly, then that is your next biggest job done.

The scheme is a bit of a kill two birds with one stone effort, and obsessing about only ever taking the single purpose option, like the greens often do, ignores the complexities that governments must actually deal with, oppositions can always be noble, because they don't actually have to provide anything.

I don't know why FD is so down on solar, but I obviously disagree, and if his point is that it is more cost effective to build large scale, than domestic, well, of course that is right, but until that gets to the actual table, then domestic installs are still a positive outcome, in the interim.

Retrofitting solar cells on rooves is the most expensive option. It is a waste of money. It means the real options that could make a really big dent in our emissions get looked over. It is worse for the environment and worse for the economy.


Quote:

but until that gets to the actual table, then domestic installs are still a positive outcome, in the interim.

They could get other options on the table just as quickly. they chose retrofitting solar because it involves a massive handout and people think they are getting something for nothing.

I don't disagree FD, it is just that until they actually do get a decent scheme to the table, then domestic is all we have.

I hope they do develop the political confidence to engage in some decent infrastructure development, and you may well remember, the fact that the previous government absolutely refused to do so, is what I most disliked about the Howard government, their wilful resistance to actually invest anything in our country, and their promotion of pork barrelling middle class handouts as electoral candy, was a shameful waste of the opportunities the resource boom offered us.

There are already plenty of options on the table, like wind. They could even install solar cells where they would be cheaper to install. It has nothing at all to do with lack of short term options. In fact it would be better to have to wait a few years and get more emissions reductions. The only reason is political - the handout factor. They could spend the same money elsewhere and get far more reductions, but not as many votes.

good on labor backing out of the ETS scheme. it got some votes, but is impractical.
ditch it now before any more damage is done.
hope they will dump kyoto also.

hey, they are nearing what Howard said all along !!

Notice how rudd was nowhere near when a policy is dumped ??
standard political move

Grendel wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2009 at 7:40am:

Increase employment...  yes the great green myth. You put people out of work...  a few get a job and that increases employment. I think not.

How about putting people out of life?

Sigh. I guess they could always follow along on Obama's lead.

Back to scaremongering muso...  there is no definitive proof that man made co2 emissions is causing global warming or climate change...  take your pick since you can't settle on one.

You keep forgetting Grendel. Sound management is about managing risks, not demanding absolute proof.

You forget, spending 100s of billions on anything unproven is a large waste of money.

Grendel wrote on Feb 24^th, 2009 at 6:04am:

You forget, spending 100s of billions on anything unproven is a large waste of money.

Well if you want to go there, any money spent on anything that's unproven is a waste of money.

Grendel - you need to stop buying food. There is absolutely no proof that it does not contain poisons  ;D Keep eating that stuff and it could kill you. Now before you write DWMT or something equally inspiring, it's a very similar argument to yours and it's almost as ridiculous as yours.

just another strawman muso...

You got that proof yet muso...?

Ah, where's that proof muso?

Got any real proof muso?

No... of course you don't.

If there actually was a real consensus amongst climatologists and other scientists...  and if all this stuff hadn't happened in the past without our help, then I might give it more credence.  But I'm unconvinced as yet.

On this issue you are full of it, grendel, when muso tried to explain the science, YOU, ran away from the debate.

He bent over backwards trying to take you through it, but it would have negated your ability to pretend that all the opinions as equally valid, so you scarpered.

muso tried what...?  oh right to dismiss every scientist that disagreed with him

I know whose full of it Mozz and it aint me.

i don't run anywhere Mozz you KNOW that.

I couldn't be bothered with him anymore like so many other people.  As all it boiled down to in the end was shooting messengers and personal abuse/ridicule.

so to put it nicely, piss off with the crap.

In this life, you're never going to find the silver bullet of proof for anything.

You probably didn't understand my analogy. It's about risk. The riskiest thing you probably do in life is to take the car out. If you smoke, then I stand corrected. That's even higher in terms of the propensity to kill you.

Doing nothing as far as climate change is concerned carried with it a far higher risk than addressing the issue.

Every single climate scientist except maybe a lunatic fringe that I could count on the fingers of my hands understands the threat that faces the world.

Last year we were talking about the rising CO2 levels. I mentioned that the global CO2 content had reached a figure of 385ppm. Well the latest figure is 387ppm, and it continues to rise.

As time goes on, we'll see ocean acidification increase. That is something that has been observed. The icon of Australian tourism, the Great Barrier Reef is on the chopping block, and there is not a lot we can do about that. We'll continue to see more extreme weather events. It stands to reason. Of course you can't attribute any one event to climate change, but you can attribute patterns of change.

That's the thing about climate change. It's a lot like smoking. The effect is statistical. You could say that your grandmother lived until she was 85 and she smoked like a train, but it wouldn't alter the fact that statistically she would have had a greater chance of dying because of smoking related ailments, such as cardiovascular disease or lung cancer.

If a smoker gets lung cancer, can I prove that the smoker got it as a result of their habit? No. It doesn't work that way. It's all a question of risk. That's why Governments put Health warnings on cigarette packets.

With Climate Change,  it's also a question of risk. You can demonstrate that it will cause harm if we continue to burn fossil fuels, but can we prove categorically what will happen in 20 years time? Of course not. A lot depends on what we do between now and then.

My stance has always beem that man is NOT the PRIMARY DRIVER of climate change.  Since it has been going on long before man, I feel that is a reasonably safe position to take.

Nothing you have ever said has proven otherwise.

If you can prove that or prove that by curtailing emissions that man can alter the climate I'll quite happily accept that.

Till then you are just pissing in the wind

Grendel wrote on Feb 25^th, 2009 at 6:39pm:

My stance has always beem that man is NOT the PRIMARY DRIVER of climate change.  Since it has been going on long before man, I feel that is a reasonably safe position to take. Nothing you have ever said has proven otherwise. If you can prove that or prove that by curtailing emissions that man can alter the climate I'll quite happily accept that. Till then you are just pissing in the wind

The sun is obviously the primary driver of climate on this planet. However the evidence we have is that the changes in temperature and CO2 up until around the beginning of the industrial era were relatively mild compared to what has happened recently.

The heat is still coming from the sun, but it's caused by changes in the Earth's atmosphere that increase the amount of heat that is absorbed, and an overall reduction in reflected heat.

It is not a subtle effect either, with CO2 levels increasing by around 33% since 1950. The rate of change is something like 10,000 times greater than anything that has been measured in the past 2 million years at least. Sure, the climate changed in a relatively predictable manner prior to man, but the last 50 years is totally off the wall.

Basically the effect coincides with a period in which we have been pumping CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at an incredible and unprecedented rate. Blind Freddy can see that this must have an effect.

The conclusion that the increase in CO2 and the warming effect that has been observed is due to the burning of fossil fuels and other sources is inevitable.

No other serious contenders have been put forward. Cosmic Rays have been dismissed through subsequent research. Volcanoes have an overall cooling effect. They emit carbon dioxide, but only around 1/100 of that emitted by industrialised nations.

We have a pretty good handle on the accounting for greenhouse gases too. It stands to reason, since every tonne of fossil carbon that is burnt had to be paid for by somebody.

Come off it...  all the major climatic changes have been fairly rapid.  Heating up and Cooling down.

I'm not going into a tit for tat with you re facts again it is a fruitless exercise.  ::)

Even being a conspironaut Greenie - I'm still sitting on the fence with man made climate change, but we do have to change our lifestyle for many reasons.  Pollution is one, which is going to kill us off quicker than anything - not only destroying the land which we need to grow crops, but our marine life as well.  Without these resources staying healthy into the future we'll have nothing.

Why do we have to degradate everything we touch, especially when we have the resources to do it in a much cleaner way.  Jim Profit actually made some good points in one of this threads...


Either we do nothing, and there is no problem. Hooray! The rightwing pundits were correct! The economy's doing better, progress regins supreme!

Either we do something, and there was no problem. This sucks! We're going through another depression, in debt up to our eyeballs... But nothing we havn't dealt with before...

Either we do nothing, and we're wrong. And there is noone around to say I told you so. Either they're all dead, or too busy trying desperately to survive. Life as we know it ends. Technology is crippled, nations are forgotten, panic and death run rampant. The horrors of economic recesscion look like a trip to Vegas compared to this!

Either we do something, and we're right. And it sucks. We have barely anything. But atleast we're alive... Cause we prepared...

In any event, why let a perfectly good crisis go to waste?

Quote:

I'm not going into a tit for tat with you re facts again it is a fruitless exercise.

------Grendel

It is fruitless when you paste an argument, and Muso, refutes it, and demonstrates the expert opinion that refutes it, and you then accuse him of shooting the messenger.

You are being totally obtuse on this subject, by virulently clinging on to discredited theories, and highly questionable "experts", all the while claiming that there is a large group of expert climatologists, who dissent from the man made climate change position, a spurious claim, without any evidence to support it, yet you use that as the basis for claiming your denialism is rational, but still withdraw from any actual debate about specifics provided to you by muso.

false premise...  Mozz.

mozzaok wrote on Feb 26^th, 2009 at 8:25am:

Quote: I'm not going into a tit for tat with you re facts again it is a fruitless exercise. ------Grendel It is fruitless when you paste an argument, and Muso, refutes it, and demonstrates the expert opinion that refutes it, and you then accuse him of shooting the messenger. You are being totally obtuse on this subject, by virulently clinging on to discredited theories, and highly questionable "experts", all the while claiming that there is a large group of expert climatologists, who dissent from the man made climate change position, a spurious claim, without any evidence to support it, yet you use that as the basis for claiming your denialism is rational, but still withdraw from any actual debate about specifics provided to you by muso.

In a nutshell, yes - and it wouldn't matter what facts I provided. He'd still remain like King Canute sitting on his throne on the intertidal zone with water swirling around his hair and the barely discernable tones of his voice bubbling underwater "You can prove nothing!"  

Let's ask one question. Which part of ocean acidification don't you understand?  If you look at atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in the last 50 years, they have increased by around 1/3. In the late 50's the annual increment was around 0.8 ppm. Nowadays that has increased to 2 ppm per year for various reasons including the fact that the oceans are no longer capable of storing as much of the annual production of CO2.

Now if we do some simple arithmetic and take the current rate of  increase as applying to the next say 42 years, then we'll have approximately another 84 ppm, to provide a value of about 471 ppm.

If you don't think that's going to happen, can you explain how you come to that conclusion? Is there something that the vast body of marine science has as yet unaccounted for, or is it because God will change the laws of physics at some stage between now and 2050?

Do you follow so far? That's assuming the rate of burning of fossil fuel remains constant, and that's an extremely optimistic estimate.

Do you suppose just maybe that we could simulate the concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and in the oceans reasonably well? It's not exactly rocket science.

At that concentration a great many of the organisms in the sea will be under considerable stress. Coral reefs have already died out a few years back, and the sea in 2050 is totally unrecognisable from the sea in 2009.

The only King Canute around here is you muso...  as I said FRUITLESS...  all we get is shooting messengers and ridicule.  I'm not wasting my time again.

babble-on...  :D

The part of the ETS that I have always found strange is the EITe or Emissions Intensive Trade Exposed Assistance program. Anyway I'm going to attend a workshop on that in Canberra next week so I'll find out how it works and let you know. It sounds like it's just propping up industries that would be disadvantaged by the scheme, but hey - isn't the trading scheme supposed to make polluters disadvantaged anyway?

muso wrote on Feb 27^th, 2009 at 8:00am:

The part of the ETS that I have always found strange is the EITe or Emissions Intensive Trade Exposed Assistance program. Anyway I'm going to attend a workshop on that in Canberra next week so I'll find out how it works and let you know. It sounds like it's just propping up industries that would be disadvantaged by the scheme, but hey - isn't the trading scheme supposed to make polluters disadvantaged anyway?

Here's how it works...

---