Scott Morrison defiant as UN bans Australia from climate conference   :(


News.com.au
DECEMBER 11, 2020i






Scott Morrison is sure an international climate summit that banned Australia will be “very nice” but insists he is not bothered by the snub.

The Prime Minister will not be among 70 world leaders invited to speak at the UN’s virtual Climate Action Summit this weekend after Australia’s climate ambitions were deemed unacceptably weak to be offered a place.

Countries were invited to make a proposal before the summit, outlining concrete steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Scott Morrison insists he’s not bothered by the snub.


Mr Morrison had planned to announce Australia would ditch its controversial use of Kyoto carry-over credits to meet its Paris Agreement commitments. But the pledge was not considered significant enough to warrant an invitation.

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson will co-host the online forum, and the snub has reportedly angered the Morrison government. But Mr Morrison said Canberra and London had agreed on the need for a consensus on energy technology.

He told reporters on Friday his government would “continue to just get on with the job” despite the rejection.

“I wish them well for the summit. I’m sure it’ll be very nice,” he said.

“What matters here is what you get done, not what you talk about. Australia’s getting it done, and I’m very proud of what Australians are achieving.

Well, it looks like Oz is going to meet and beat its commitments to the Paris Climate agreement.

Mind you, we are only 1% of global emissions.

Doesn't mean we couldn't or shouldn't do even more.

The real test is for China, the US and India and Russia to do a lot more.

https://i.imgur.com/ktK3DEE.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/bSDBtSE.jpg

Good new isn't it.

A couple of countries that have been invited - Rwanda and China. ::)

So can anyone tell me why, seeing as Australia is a carbon sink, we should be bothered?

It's purely political. China 'paid' to make sure Australia is discredited.

Good riddance to the UN and all her policies, why should we listen to people half way around the world on what to do with our back yard.

Are we not wise enough to do what is right for ourselves and the world.

F@rk the united nations........!

We can't even look after our own backyard Ajax.
They also don't consider Australia a legit nation still - with the Union Jack and USA Policies ruling our system.
The Corona Virus is the 2nd time in Australia's history where the States had to exhibit more of a domestic priority and even they find it hard enough to work 'together' in an independent fashion.

That's why the UN probably jilted Australia.
It's not a 'real' nation yet.

Jasin wrote on Dec 12^th, 2020 at 11:39am:

We can't even look after our own backyard Ajax. They also don't consider Australia a legit nation still - with the Union Jack and USA Policies ruling our system. The Corona Virus is the 2nd time in Australia's history where the States had to exhibit more of a domestic priority and even they find it hard enough to work 'together' in an independent fashion. That's why the UN probably jilted Australia. It's not a 'real' nation yet.

Typical anti-British trolling from a person who see no good in our heritage. Where would the likes of you be without English Common Law and the Magna Carta, eating wichetty grubs and knocking your women's teeth out to prove ownership?

issuevoter wrote on Dec 12^th, 2020 at 12:37pm:

Jasin wrote on Dec 12th, 2020 at 11:39am: We can't even look after our own backyard Ajax. They also don't consider Australia a legit nation still - with the Union Jack and USA Policies ruling our system. The Corona Virus is the 2nd time in Australia's history where the States had to exhibit more of a domestic priority and even they find it hard enough to work 'together' in an independent fashion. That's why the UN probably jilted Australia. It's not a 'real' nation yet. Typical anti-British trolling from a person who see no good in our heritage. Where would the likes of you be without English Common Law and the Magna Carta, eating wichetty grubs and knocking your women's teeth out to prove ownership?

A successful Writer and Artist. I wish you luck with your political career along with those Aboriginal 'political' activists  you so dearly love associating with - no? ;) :-?

Jasin wrote on Dec 12^th, 2020 at 12:50pm:

issuevoter wrote on Dec 12th, 2020 at 12:37pm: Jasin wrote on Dec 12th, 2020 at 11:39am: We can't even look after our own backyard Ajax. They also don't consider Australia a legit nation still - with the Union Jack and USA Policies ruling our system. The Corona Virus is the 2nd time in Australia's history where the States had to exhibit more of a domestic priority and even they find it hard enough to work 'together' in an independent fashion. That's why the UN probably jilted Australia. It's not a 'real' nation yet. Typical anti-British trolling from a person who see no good in our heritage. Where would the likes of you be without English Common Law and the Magna Carta, eating wichetty grubs and knocking your women's teeth out to prove ownership? A successful Writer and Artist. I wish you luck with your political career along with those Aboriginal 'political' activists  you so dearly love associating with - no? ;) :-?

You know very well that Australia is a "real" country. You are just venting your spleen because you don't like white people.

lee wrote on Dec 12^th, 2020 at 10:43am:

Good new isn't it. A couple of countries that have been invited - Rwanda and China. ::) So can anyone tell me why, seeing as Australia is a carbon sink, we should be bothered?

Australia is a bigger intelligence sink.

issuevoter wrote on Dec 12^th, 2020 at 1:33pm:

Jasin wrote on Dec 12th, 2020 at 12:50pm: issuevoter wrote on Dec 12th, 2020 at 12:37pm: Jasin wrote on Dec 12th, 2020 at 11:39am: We can't even look after our own backyard Ajax. They also don't consider Australia a legit nation still - with the Union Jack and USA Policies ruling our system. The Corona Virus is the 2nd time in Australia's history where the States had to exhibit more of a domestic priority and even they find it hard enough to work 'together' in an independent fashion. That's why the UN probably jilted Australia. It's not a 'real' nation yet. Typical anti-British trolling from a person who see no good in our heritage. Where would the likes of you be without English Common Law and the Magna Carta, eating wichetty grubs and knocking your women's teeth out to prove ownership? A successful Writer and Artist. I wish you luck with your political career along with those Aboriginal 'political' activists  you so dearly love associating with - no? ;) :-? You know very well that Australia is a "real" country. You are just venting your spleen because you don't like white people.

No.
It is a country that is in bi-partisan cultural ownership by Aboriginal, British and American (Colonialisms) along with others of the 'international' community.
As you can't hand back the entirety of ownership back to the Aboriginal peoples.
There is yet 'anything' to indicate an 'independent' domestic expression of Australian culture beyond Aboriginal.
Americanism of Colonialism with Akubra hats, Man from Snowy River tales, drizabone, gold fevers and Eureka's for Unionism and 'flag wavings' - just doesn't cut it as not all Australians relate to that. Not everyone saw Australia like Hollywood's.

So tell me. Where is this distinctive, original, independent 'business' that will become Australia's true culture beyond Aboriginal, British and Americanisms?

Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 12^th, 2020 at 10:23am:

Well, it looks like Oz is going to meet and beat its commitments to the Paris Climate agreement. Mind you, we are only 1% of global emissions. Doesn't mean we couldn't or shouldn't do even more. The real test is for China, the US and India and Russia to do a lot more. https://i.imgur.com/ktK3DEE.jpg https://i.imgur.com/bSDBtSE.jpg

Quote:

Mind you, we are only 1% of global emissions.

Others say we are at 2% but never mind. Do you know that if every country was at 1% we would need to have 200% available to cover it ?

1% is 100% above our share.

Quote:

UN Bans Australia From Climate Conference

Australia isn't banned from the conference but to our shame we did not earn the right to speak.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Dec 12^th, 2020 at 1:48pm:

lee wrote on Dec 12th, 2020 at 10:43am: Good new isn't it. A couple of countries that have been invited - Rwanda and China. ::) So can anyone tell me why, seeing as Australia is a carbon sink, we should be bothered? Australia is a bigger intelligence sink.

It is if you live here. :D :D

Dnarever wrote on Dec 12^th, 2020 at 6:53pm:

Quote: UN Bans Australia From Climate Conference Australia isn't banned from the conference but to our shame we did not earn the right to speak.

So what did China do earn the right to speak? To try to limit their emissions by 2030? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Dnarever wrote on Dec 12^th, 2020 at 6:52pm:

Others say we are at 2% but never mind. Do you know that if every country was at 1% we would need to have 200% available to cover it ? 1% is 100% above our share.

You do know that they are talking NET zero emissions of CO2? As a carbon sink that is minus Gt CO2. ::)

lee wrote on Dec 12^th, 2020 at 7:57pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 12th, 2020 at 6:52pm: Others say we are at 2% but never mind. Do you know that if every country was at 1% we would need to have 200% available to cover it ? 1% is 100% above our share. You do know that they are talking NET zero emissions of CO2? As a carbon sink that is minus Gt CO2. ::)

You understand that + 1% or + 2% does not equal 0 ?

The excuse that everything is hunky dory we only produce 1% or 2% holds little water and no wind generated power.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 12^th, 2020 at 8:27pm:

You understand that + 1% or + 2% does not equal 0 ?

Yes petal. That is why they like to use fossil fuel or CO2e.

But you didn't answer my question. Do you realise that this talk fest is about getting to Net zero? That is emissions minus sinks.


Dnarever wrote on Dec 12^th, 2020 at 8:27pm:

The excuse that everything is hunky dory we only produce 1% or 2% holds little water and no wind generated power.

Yep. The real excuse is we are a net carbon sink. Any emissions we don't put up is good; but it doesn't have any real world effect. ;)

lee wrote on Dec 12^th, 2020 at 7:57pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 12th, 2020 at 6:52pm: Others say we are at 2% but never mind. Do you know that if every country was at 1% we would need to have 200% available to cover it ? 1% is 100% above our share. You do know that they are talking NET zero emissions of CO2? As a carbon sink that is minus Gt CO2. ::)

Australia was a net carbon sink for a year or two around 2011, This was due to abnormal rains in arid zone producing vegetation. This type of performance is short term, when the rain stops and the vegetation dies the co2 is released undoing any prior benefit.

lee wrote on Dec 12^th, 2020 at 9:28pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 12th, 2020 at 8:27pm: You understand that + 1% or + 2% does not equal 0 ? Yes petal. That is why they like to use fossil fuel or CO2e. But you didn't answer my question. Do you realise that this talk fest is about getting to Net zero? That is emissions minus sinks. Dnarever wrote on Dec 12th, 2020 at 8:27pm: The excuse that everything is hunky dory we only produce 1% or 2% holds little water and no wind generated power. Yep. The real excuse is we are a net carbon sink. Any emissions we don't put up is good; but it doesn't have any real world effect. ;)

If we were a net carbon sink as you suggest and it were in a meaningful way it would likely mean that it was always the case and part of the world balance. Any carbon impact we make from that 1% or 2% is still over and above that balance.

Your argument infers that it would be ok for Brazil to generate hundreds of billions of litres or CO2 because they have the amazon which swallows so much carbon. The reality is that it is a global balancing act.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 12^th, 2020 at 9:43pm:

If we were a net carbon sink as you suggest and it were in a meaningful way it would likely mean that it was always the case and part of the world balance. Any carbon impact we make from that 1% or 2% is still over and above that balance.

So you are one of those who propose the earth is inherently in balance and we humans have put it out of balance? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


Dnarever wrote on Dec 12^th, 2020 at 9:43pm:

Your argument infers that it would be ok for Brazil to generate hundreds of billions of litres or CO2 because they have the amazon which swallows so much carbon. The reality is that it is a global balancing act.

yep. Definitely a earth is in balance nutter. If the earth was in balance perhaps you can explain previous glaciations. ;)

When the UK can generate the same amount of carbon emissions as Australia and still be 2 and a half times the population as Australia, then you know that Australia is doing too much in terms of carbon emissions.

UnSubRocky wrote on Dec 13^th, 2020 at 2:27am:

When the UK can generate the same amount of carbon emissions as Australia and still be 2 and a half times the population as Australia, then you know that Australia is doing too much in terms of carbon emissions.

Yeah. nothing to do with a small population and a large country. All that cost of transporting things to Rocky and elsewhere. ;)

Dnarever wrote on Dec 12^th, 2020 at 9:43pm:

If we were a net carbon sink as you suggest and it were in a meaningful way it would likely mean that it was always the case and part of the world balance. Any carbon impact we make from that 1% or 2% is still over and above that balance. Your argument infers that it would be ok for Brazil to generate hundreds of billions of litres or CO2 because they have the amazon which swallows so much carbon. The reality is that it is a global balancing act.

Just Australia's land mass sequesters more CO2 than we emit every year not including the vegetation.


Quote:

Soil can sequester carbon at the following rates Croplands…………………………………………………..0.25 to 1.0 tonnes of carbon per hectare annually Pastures………………………………………………………0.1 to 0.175 tonnes of carbon per hectare annually Permanent crops…………………………………………0.5 to 1.0 tonnes of carbon per hectare annually Salt affected & chemically degrade soil………0.3 to 0.7 tonnes of carbon per hectare annually Physically degraded & prone water erosion….0.2 to 0.5 tonnes of carbon per hectare annually Susceptible to wind erosion………………………..0.05 to 0.2 tonnes of carbon per hectare annually Multiply by 3.67 to convert to CO2 Croplands…………………………………………………..0.918 to 3.67 tonnes of CO2 per hectare annually Pastures………………………………………………………0.367 to 0.6423 tonnes of CO2 per hectare annually Permanent crops…………………………………………1.835 to 3.67 tonnes of tonnes of CO2 per hectare annually Salt affected & chemically degrade soil………1.101 to 2.569 tonnes of tonnes of CO2 per hectare annually Physically degraded & prone water erosion….0.734 to 01.835 tonnes of tonnes of CO2 per hectare annually Susceptible to wind erosion………………………..0.1835 to 0.734 tonnes of tonnes of CO2 per hectare annually Australian land area = 769.2 million hectares Instead of trying to do the calcs and sorting out what percentage is crop land, pastures etc, I got lazy and refer you to this, This paper by (Cf Barret 2002) estimated CO2 exchange between atmosphere and the Australian soil at 700 million tonnes every year. Therefore it can be said that just the Australian land soil sequestration of CO2 from our atmosphere is greater than Australia’s CO2 emissions. .........................560 < 700. [url]https://www.dairyingfortomorrow.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Soil-Carbon-Sequestration-in-Aust-dairy-regions-2018-09-07_Final_DA-cover.pdf If we do go to market for an Emission Trading Scheme we shouldn't pay anything at all, after all we are carbon neutral. In fact we can sell the extra (sink capacity) as carbon derivatives. But hey I wouldn't really want to go there. Death to the oligarchy controlled United Nations and all their schemes......... :D

Now add in the Australia's vegetation,


Quote:

Australia's eco system sequesters more CO2 every year than Australia emits, therefore we are a carbon neutral country, what we emit is taken up by our land and its eco system. Here are some crude results from what information is available. Depending on their state like, tree spacing, humidity, dryness etc etc Australian grasslands and forests sequester approximately between 0.5 to 2 tonnes of carbon per hectare annually To convert to CO2 we need to multiply by 3.67, therefore re-writing Australian grasslands and forests sequester approximately between 1.835 to 7.34 tonnes of carbon dioxide per hectare annually There are approximately 149 million hectares of Australian forests There are approximately 440 million hectares of Australia grass lands Forrest uptake of atmospheric CO2 every year Lowest: 149 x 1.835 = 273.4 million tonnes of CO2 per annum Highest: 149 x 7.34 = 1093.66 million tonnes of CO2 per annum Grasslands uptake of atmospheric CO2 every year Lowest: 440 x 1.835 = 807.4 million tonnes of CO2 per annum Highest: 440 x 7.34 = 3229.6 million tonnes of CO2 per annum Let’s combine grasslands and forest uptake of atmospheric CO2 per annum Lowest: 273.4 + 807.4 = 1080.8 million tonnes of CO2 per annum Highest: 1093.66 + 3229.6 = 4323.26 million tonnes per annum Australia emits 560 million tonnes of CO2 per annum The bottom line is Lowest: Our grasslands and forests sequester nearly double what we emit. Highest: Our grass lands and forests sequester nearly eight times more than we emit. Conclusion: It would be a rare occasion for the lowest or the highest values to take place therefore more than likely we would hover somewhere in between lowest and highest depending on the sun and weather conditions. The above doesn't take into account the uptake of the land (Australian soil) itself which would make those values even bigger. https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2009/12/which-plants-store-more-carbon-in-australia-forests-or-grasses

lee wrote on Dec 13^th, 2020 at 8:55pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 2:27am: When the UK can generate the same amount of carbon emissions as Australia and still be 2 and a half times the population as Australia, then you know that Australia is doing too much in terms of carbon emissions. Yeah. nothing to do with a small population and a large country. All that cost of transporting things to Rocky and elsewhere. ;)

717 cars per 1000 people in Australia. 519 cars per 1000 people in the UK. The UK is quite an urban society. And whilst I agree that transport vehicles in Australia can drive 10 hours to get to their destination compared to 4 or 5 hours at most in the UK, most of the driving in Australia is confined to towns and cities.

UnSubRocky wrote on Dec 14^th, 2020 at 12:29am:

And whilst I agree that transport vehicles in Australia can drive 10 hours to get to their destination compared to 4 or 5 hours at most in the UK, most of the driving in Australia is confined to towns and cities.

Only 10 hours. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Dec 14^th, 2020 at 8:15pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 12:29am: And whilst I agree that transport vehicles in Australia can drive 10 hours to get to their destination compared to 4 or 5 hours at most in the UK, most of the driving in Australia is confined to towns and cities. Only 10 hours. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

The truckies would probably drive up to 5 hours at most before they are required to take a sleep break. Though, they might only have a few hours driving before they are required to stop and stretch their legs. Police pull truck drivers over to do a log of the truckies whereabouts.

UnSubRocky wrote on Dec 14^th, 2020 at 9:14pm:

The truckies would probably drive up to 5 hours at most before they are required to take a sleep break. Though, they might only have a few hours driving before they are required to stop and stretch their legs. Police pull truck drivers over to do a log of the truckies whereabouts.

And then they .... continue driving. ;)

lee wrote on Dec 14^th, 2020 at 10:03pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 9:14pm: The truckies would probably drive up to 5 hours at most before they are required to take a sleep break. Though, they might only have a few hours driving before they are required to stop and stretch their legs. Police pull truck drivers over to do a log of the truckies whereabouts. And then they .... continue driving. ;)

The truckies probably do. If the police can estimate that the truckies have done no more than 80km an hour between towns, it should be reasonable that the truck drivers have taken breaks.

UnSubRocky wrote on Dec 14^th, 2020 at 10:46pm:

The truckies probably do. If the police can estimate that the truckies have done no more than 80km an hour between towns, it should be reasonable that the truck drivers have taken breaks.

So this driving for 10 hours was crap. Truckies drive multi-day spells.

There was nothing in your original post about travelling 10 hours/day; merely 10 hours.

lee wrote on Dec 15^th, 2020 at 11:53am:

UnSubRocky wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 10:46pm: The truckies probably do. If the police can estimate that the truckies have done no more than 80km an hour between towns, it should be reasonable that the truck drivers have taken breaks. So this driving for 10 hours was crap. Truckies drive multi-day spells. There was nothing in your original post about travelling 10 hours/day; merely 10 hours.

I think you could work out that I meant 10 hours a day. And even then, that seems a bit excessive. But for you to think that I meant truckers driving 10 hours straight with no breaks, you would be a bit of a moron.

UnSubRocky wrote on Dec 15^th, 2020 at 12:49pm:

I think you could work out that I meant 10 hours a day. And even then, that seems a bit excessive. But for you to think that I meant truckers driving 10 hours straight with no breaks, you would be a bit of a moron.

poor petal. You can't write clearly or succinctly and it is my fault. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Dec 15^th, 2020 at 1:42pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Dec 15th, 2020 at 12:49pm: I think you could work out that I meant 10 hours a day. And even then, that seems a bit excessive. But for you to think that I meant truckers driving 10 hours straight with no breaks, you would be a bit of a moron. poor petal. You can't write clearly or succinctly and it is my fault. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

The quote was:

Quote:

717 cars per 1000 people in Australia. 519 cars per 1000 people in the UK. The UK is quite an urban society. And whilst I agree that transport vehicles in Australia can drive 10 hours to get to their destination compared to 4 or 5 hours at most in the UK, most of the driving in Australia is confined to towns and cities.

I did not say that transport vehicles in Australia can drive *non-stop* to get to their destination. I was expressing that transport vehicles would drive a total of 10 hours in Australia to get to their destination. Maybe they drive further. Maybe they drive less. That depends on what they are carrying and where they are going for their company. But not for more than a few hours at a time without a break. Obviously, you are not going to see a transport driver drive 10 hours straight without a meal and toilet break every few hours. Oh, and to refuel, too.