Australian Politics Forum - UN Bans Australia From Climate Conference

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17969
Gender: male

Re: UN Bans Australia From Climate Conference
Reply #15 - Dec 12^th, 2020 at 7:57pm

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. Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 59054
Here
Gender: male

Re: UN Bans Australia From Climate Conference
Reply #16 - Dec 12^th, 2020 at 8:27pm

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

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. Roll Eyes

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17969
Gender: male

Re: UN Bans Australia From Climate Conference
Reply #17 - Dec 12^th, 2020 at 9:28pm

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. Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 59054
Here
Gender: male

Re: UN Bans Australia From Climate Conference
Reply #18 - Dec 12^th, 2020 at 9:36pm

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

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. Roll Eyes

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 59054
Here
Gender: male

Re: UN Bans Australia From Climate Conference
Reply #19 - Dec 12^th, 2020 at 9:43pm

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

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. Wink

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17969
Gender: male

Re: UN Bans Australia From Climate Conference
Reply #20 - Dec 12^th, 2020 at 9:57pm

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? Grin

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. Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

UnSubRocky Gold Member Offline Crocodile Hunter: Origins Posts: 25019 Rockhampton Gender:	Re: UN Bans Australia From Climate Conference Reply #21 - 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.
Back to top	At this stage... IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17969
Gender: male

Re: UN Bans Australia From Climate Conference
Reply #22 - Dec 13^th, 2020 at 8:55pm

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. Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male

Re: UN Bans Australia From Climate Conference
Reply #23 - Dec 13^th, 2020 at 11:28pm

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-Seque...

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......... Cheesy

Back to top

« Last Edit: Dec 13^th, 2020 at 11:37pm by Ajax »

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male

Re: UN Bans Australia From Climate Conference
Reply #24 - Dec 13^th, 2020 at 11:34pm

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-aust...

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

UnSubRocky

Gold Member

Offline

Crocodile Hunter: Origins

Posts: 25019
Rockhampton
Gender: male

Re: UN Bans Australia From Climate Conference
Reply #25 - Dec 14^th, 2020 at 12:29am

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

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. Wink

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.

Back to top

At this stage...

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17969 Gender:	Re: UN Bans Australia From Climate Conference Reply #26 - Dec 14^th, 2020 at 8:15pm 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.
Back to top	IP Logged

UnSubRocky

Gold Member

Offline

Crocodile Hunter: Origins

Posts: 25019
Rockhampton
Gender: male

Re: UN Bans Australia From Climate Conference
Reply #27 - Dec 14^th, 2020 at 9:14pm

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

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. Grin

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.

Back to top

At this stage...

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17969
Gender: male

Re: UN Bans Australia From Climate Conference
Reply #28 - Dec 14^th, 2020 at 10:03pm

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. Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

UnSubRocky

Gold Member

Offline

Crocodile Hunter: Origins

Posts: 25019
Rockhampton
Gender: male

Re: UN Bans Australia From Climate Conference
Reply #29 - Dec 14^th, 2020 at 10:46pm

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

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. Wink

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.

Back to top

At this stage...

IP Logged