Unforgiven wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 6:09pm:



You rely on a report from 2011. What about earlier reports, do they not count?

'Australia has 149 million hectares of forest.  Of this, 147 million hectares is native forest, dominated by eucalypt (79%) and acacia (7%), and 1.82 million hectares is in plantations[i]. Grassland covers around 440 million hectares of land in Australia[ii]. '

'The amount of carbon taken up every year by dry forests in Australia depends on the weather conditions and age of the trees.  Science tells us that the range for forests with continuous canopies is about 0.5-2 tonnes of carbon per year for each hectare.  Grasslands may have a similar annual rate of net carbon uptake[i], but the long-term storage of carbon per hectare of grasslands is less than that over an average hectare in woody trees. '

http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2009/12/which-plants-store-more-carbon-in-austr...

I'll let you do the Maths @ 1t/ha.

Some trees such as Australian Mountain ash store much more.





'The figures are substantially higher than default biomass carbon values used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to calculate emissions from deforestation and degradation'

http://news.mongabay.com/2009/07/temperate-forests-store-more-carbon-than-tropic...

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 9:44pm:


Don't you mean that England should be reprimanded?

Mind you, it's probably a bit late now.

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 9:44pm:



So you still say we should not be feeding the world, or even Australia for that matter? That makes you at least on a level of Paul Ehrlich.

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 11:42am:



Not according to IBUKI (GEOSAT)





http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/05/the-revenge-of-the-climate-reparations/

How can a net emitter of CO2, sink more CO2 than a net sink?

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:08pm:


Australia's carbon dioxide (Co2)  footprint at around 1.5% of all the manmade CO2 budget is one of the smallest in the civilised world.

Ever wondered why our government always gives us our carbon dioxide footprint in per capita terms.......??????

From your favourite source -

'But official figures published on Thursday show that because of increases in 2010 and 2012, the UK's carbon footprint is still roughly the same as it was in 2009 despite government promises to cut emissions.'

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/27/greenhouse-gas-emissions-fall...

'Total  greenhouse  gas  emissions  have been  provisionally  estimated  at 523.1 million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) for the twelve months leading to Q1 2015, a decrease of
27.7MtCO2e  (5.0 percent) compared to the  same  period  in 2014,  when emissions were estimated to be 550.8MtCO2e.'

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/443177...


The latest figures I can find for Australia -

'Annual emissions for 2013-14 are estimated to be 542.6 Mt CO2-e3. This represents a 1.4% decline in emissions when compared with the previous year'

http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/2bd59b0d-cf8f-4bdf-8e23-525...

Of course the UK imports electricity so is not responsible for those emissions.

'UK Electricity imports, billion kilowatthours: For that indicator, The U.S. Energy Information Administration provides data for the UK from 1980 to 2013. The average value for the UK during that period was 10.1 billion kilowatthours with a minumum of 0 billion kilowatthours in 1981 and a maximum of 17.53 billion kilowatthours in 2013. '

http://www.theglobaleconomy.com/United-Kingdom/electricity_imports/

So it would seem pretty much lineball,

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 3:04pm:



And NOWHERE does it say that UK's emissions are lower than Australia's. NOWHERE does it say IBUKI dataset is bogus. NOWHERE does it say that Australia s not a natural carbon sink.

Every time I show you wrong; you change the goalposts.

From your source

'UPDATE (July 9, 2015): As this report went to press, a newly discovered email from a former Exxon employee revealed that the company was already factoring climate change into decisions about new fossil fuel extraction as early as 1981.'

1. Email was very limited in 1981.
2. The author was Lenny Bernstein, a PhD in Chemical Engineering who was also a Coordinating Lead Author of Chapter 7 (Industry) of the Mitigation section of the IPCC AR4.

Extracts-

'Exxon NEVER denied the potential for humans to impact the climate system. It did question - legitimately, in my opinion - the validity of some of the science.'

'It is the only company mentioned in Alyssa's e-mail, even though, in my opinion, it is far more ethical that many other large corporations.'

'Having spent twenty years working for Exxon and ten working for Mobil, I know that much of that ethical behavior comes from a business calculation that it is cheaper in the long run to be ethical than unethical. '

https://www.ohio.edu/appliedethics/iape-speakers-and-events.cfm

It was a publicly available post in reply to Alyssa Bernstein. So it wasn't secret. It wasn't a 1981 email. Lenny Bernstein isn't a climate scientist.

The Union of Concerned Scientists seem to lack scientific integrity, posting something so false.

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 4:45pm:



Maybe the Queen's a King.