Climate Change

blowfly's picture
blowfly started the topic in Wednesday, 1 Jul 2020 at 9:40am

.

GuySmiley's picture
GuySmiley's picture
GuySmiley Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 7:03am

I have zero interest in what Morrison announces because it will be all smoke and mirrors bull shit based on yet to be developed technologies and the price paid to the Nationals will be obscenely high in dollar terms (ICAC now) and in environmental terms e.g. railroad into central Qld to aid the export of coal FFS.

All this fluff and fizz is about winning an election; the LNP have had 10 years to get a policy together and two weeks before Glasgow we’re still waiting, seriously.

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 8:17am

Im really happy about the change in mindset on this issue, ive always though Scomo should just keep them happy and just draw up some close to irrelevant climate policy and say we will be 100% carbon free by 2050.

Yeah off course the opposition will attack them on how this will be done and say its not realistic, it won't matter what is put down that will always happen, but it will blow over and most people will still be happy, even if its not realistic now, advances in tech will be the game changer and its not like Scomo is going to be around to care by 2050 even if it never happened, plus surely Labor will get in for a couple years between now and then, so wont all be on LNPs shoulders.

It will instantly see us look much much better on this issue on the world stage, and change public perception, while really not changing much at all, possibly grab some swinging voters and any that dont vote LNP because of the change will just vote for someone like One nation who's preference will just go to LNP anyway.

Scomo should just go into this Glasgow thing and be proud of the fact that Australia is leaders in renewables, stand proud and dont take any shit, tell it how it is,

The whole issue isn't going to affect things like coal or gas exports that will still all happen its determined by demand and these companies are making changes to reduce emissions as much as possible anyway during mining etc and in many cases heavily invested in renewables too. It wont even change the use of coal or gas locally, coal fired power stations will close when its realistic and gas will still play its part in supporting renewables during the transition, (Only difference is the idea of a new coal power station from the nationals will have to be put to bed, which is should anyway, its completely unrealistic )

Off course the big problem is the Nationals and keeping them happy, im not a fan of that aspect of the coalition.

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 8:26am

BB - looks like the Chinese are unveiling their long term plan .

"Update: As if to confirm the shitshow we expected below, just two weeks before a crucial summit in Rome, Bloomberg reports that the world’s major economies are gridlocked in their efforts to agree concrete steps to tackle climate change.

Preparatory talks between G-20 officials this week failed to end in an agreement to reduce coal subsidies and curb methane emissions. There wasn’t even a consensus on striving toward net-zero emissions and limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees from pre-industrial levels, according to three people familiar with the matter.

China and India, two of the world’s biggest emitters and largest coal users, have failed to submit updated climate pledges.

One person described the negotiating round as a disaster.

Are they all suddenly realizing at once - amid the glorious FUBAR situation occurring in global energy markets - that their goals are a) infeasible, b) a giant waste of time and money without China's firm commitment and c) will create social unrest and lead to them losing their political power.

* * *

The imminent COP26 Climate Summit - heralded with the mighty goal of 2050 net-zero emissions - looks like being a giant nothing-burger (vegan of course).

According to the study co-authored by a former Obama admin climate policy official, energy modelers and emissions experts (just go with it), China is now responsible for 27% of total global emissions - more than the combined total produced by the United States (11%), India (6.6%) and the 27 EU member nations together (6.4%)."

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 8:28am

"Instantly see us look much better on the world stage...."
Wild optimism there Indo. 20 years of denialism and obstruction won't be forgotten because of a dubious last minute swerve for domestic reasons. Not to mention recent behaviour which pissed of the entire EU and embarrassed the US. Even in the UK I would be pretty sure more people agree with the Queen than with Boris.

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 8:38am

Hutchy Glasgow is looking like disaster but you sound positively pleased. So denier or don't carer? Either way a pathetic response to the prospect of ever intensifying climate change. But being a bit slow on the uptake you probably think it won't impact your little bubble.

Existing commitments prior to Glasgow are nowhere near sufficient and yes countries will delay emission reductions to prevent their populations freezing over the coming winter. Our modern Neros continue to practice their fiddling.

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 8:42am

Indo - you are exactly right . Zero 2050 is impossible . Might as well go along with it . I wouldn't but a politician has to .

Smiley - you could change the names in your post and say exactly the same .

No one has explained how we can get to net zero 2050 other than plant trees to soak up CO2 .

I have been told how much it will cost $US 150 TRILLION ( and that will probably double ) .

Which billionaire's will line their pockets more with this idea ?

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 8:50am

Missed the bus a bit on that one eh Hutchy? Decades of technological progress on dozens on new technologies and you missed the lot apparently. Not surprised. I suspect we have not yet plumbed the depth of your ignorance. Mate you can't even use an interactive graph! Have a read of this and then let us know what you think about climate change, because until you do you are just another ignorant fuckwit sprouting your ill considered opinions probably because you need to do that to maintain them in the face of the evidence.

https://www.ipcc.ch/ar6-syr/

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 8:55am
blindboy wrote:

"Instantly see us look much better on the world stage...."
Wild optimism there Indo. 20 years of denialism and obstruction won't be forgotten because of a dubious last minute swerve for domestic reasons. Not to mention recent behaviour which pissed of the entire EU and embarrassed the US. Even in the UK I would be pretty sure more people agree with the Queen than with Boris.

Yeah thats why long ago we signed up to Kyoto and then Paris accord, spent billions on the issue and even have a government website explaining climate change.

It's all down to not having a policy that we rate badly compared to other countries, as soon as we have one we should rank higher than most countries.

Its lip service, give them what they want.

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 8:57am

@Hutchy

It's not important if its realistic or not, it might not be now, but could be by then, I just think we should just tell the what they want to hear to keep them happy.

adam12's picture
adam12's picture
adam12 Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 9:18am

"It's not important if its realistic or not, it might not be now, but could be by then, I just think we should just tell the what they want to hear to keep them happy."
Yep, the conservative mantra - feed 'em shit while we rob the place blind.
Fucken pathetic.

brutus's picture
brutus's picture
brutus Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 9:35am
blindboy wrote:

The graph shows the data for extreme poverty as in surviving on less than $2 a day. The 10% is 700 million human beings.......presumably you find that acceptable. I don't.

I also have suspicions about the claim that 90% of people lived in extreme poverty in 1890.

here BB check out these stats on Global poverty, amazing to read that China is the only country to bring 600m people out of poverty , 22,000 children die every day from poverty .
the real problem is mans acceptance/apathy of what goes on elsewhere in the world is irrelevant because it's not you!
What an incredible selfish world we now live in!

.....https://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 9:44am

Indo - I said I agree with you that we should just humour them .

BB - so please tell me how carbon capture and storage has progressed and will be able to store all the CO2 we will need after 2050 to replace , solar panels , wind mills , de sal plants , build new homes ,cars etc etc . Store all the CO2 China , India and Africa will produce .

How an offsetting / carbon trading system will help ?

I am very ignorant on how this can be achieved other than growing more trees . Happy for you to teach me though .

Why don't we start with only ONE way ( other than trees ) that you ( or anyone else ) think this can be done !!!!!

I also agree with Optimist . Australia will be the most compliant country with CO2 in 2050 . We won't be net zero though as I don't believe ( yet ) it is possible .

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 9:42am

Indo get your facts right. Howard demanded thst the Kyoto agreement allow Austrslia to INCREASE its emissions then refused to sign anyway. It was almost a decade later that Rudd signed it. This might cure some of your delusions.

https://theconversation.com/climate-wars-carbon-taxes-and-toppled-leader...

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 9:47am

Carbon capture and storage is the COALition's favourite technology as, like most things they favour, it doesn't work.

The rest of your post doesn't make sense as you mix emission reduction technologies with emission sources. Read the IPCC report you dodo!

Fliplid's picture
Fliplid's picture
Fliplid Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 10:03am

Hutchy by any chance do you have a link to the Bank of America report referenced in the zero hedge article?, I can't find it anywhere on the BofA site

Agree, the costs of change are huge

soggydog's picture
soggydog's picture
soggydog Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 10:04am

Let’s not even talk about the tax breaks given to the likes of Chevron based on their promises of Carbon Capture. No money, no carbon capture. Maybe Indo and Hutchy have some sort of Michael Macormick(?), former leader of the Nationals, Sydney Airport land purchase economic rationalisation for that one too. Hmmm.

Oh yeah and this technology that has never consistently worked is the LNP’s great hope, not the stuff we know that works, “Stupid Windmills”. But something that’s cost taxpayers billions that doesn’t work.

C’mon Hutchy & Indo explain that one

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 10:11am

BB - you are so predictable . I said I don't believe carbon capture and storage won't work . I am glad to hear you don't think so to .

Must admit I am surprised .

That's one possible solution off the list .

I ask you for ONE suggestion on how it is possible to get to net zero . You can't so you suggest I read the IPCC report . Which version ?

If you can , just give me the name of one technology that you think can achieve your goal . How hard can that be ? I will be able to respond very quickly .

I bet you don't and this will be another example for all SN viewers to see how ignorant YOU are .

soggydog's picture
soggydog's picture
soggydog Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 10:49am

You said it your self mate and the technology is as old as time it self. Trees.
We had a policy under Julia Gillard that would given Australian farmers an additional green revenue stream through offsets. Who knows what the down street benefits would have been. Scuppered by your hero Tones.
Good job.

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 11:04am

soggydog - I am all for growing more trees .

Is there enough room on planet earth to grow the number of trees to enable us to get to net zero in 2050 ?

Is there enough time for them to grow big enough .

If the answer is yes I am all for spending the $US 150 trillion on doing this .

If the answer is no I am still happy for spending the 150 on this as I believe it won't be wasted .

soggydog's picture
soggydog's picture
soggydog Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 11:20am

We keep cutting them down, so I’d say there is plenty of room for re forestation.

What really grinds my gears on this stuff is we know that inland rainfall is heavily reliant on healthy forests/ scrubland. There are concerns about ongoing droughts and water shortages. We still have land clearing, We pay drought relief.

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 11:30am

Great summary of the history of the negotiations, the players and what is at stake in Glasgow.

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/a-matter-of-survival-w...

Fliplid's picture
Fliplid's picture
Fliplid Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 11:31am

"If the answer is yes I am all for spending the $US 150 trillion on doing this ."

Hutchy I've tried to find the Bank of America report this figure came from. Is there a link you know of where I can read it?

soggydog's picture
soggydog's picture
soggydog Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 11:33am

In combination with reduced emissions and the phase out of fossil fuels. Pretty simple.

Vested interests are what complicates it.

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 11:41am

Planting trees is great for many reasons but it is not the solution to climate change. The link estimates 1000 trees per person to compensate for emissions. It is US data but our emissions are comparable. In Australa that would be 25 billion trees. It's not happening!
https://savingnature.com/offset-your-carbon-footprint-carbon-calculator/

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 11:52am

I don't think it is freely available Fliplid . I got the summary I posted from Zerohedge which I posted the same day . The article on Zero will be still there , you just scroll back in time .

Zerohedge said the whole report was only available to their premium subscribers .

BB- So we have carbon capture and storage off the list and planting trees ( thanks for showing my doubts were correct ) . Must be not too many other options on how we get to net zero in 2050 .

Again I ask - name just ONE option that you think can get us there .

If you don't I can only presume you think getting to net zero is impossible . FFS - we might agree on something .

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 12:25pm
Fliplid's picture
Fliplid's picture
Fliplid Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 12:32pm

Thanks Hutchy, might have been an interesting read. It could possibly have highlighted some benefits and solutions that come from that type of investment as well.

Always good to get both sides of the story

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 12:41pm
soggydog wrote:

In combination with reduced emissions and the phase out of fossil fuels. Pretty simple.

Vested interests are what complicates it.

No reality is what complicates things, there is so many different challenges in just getting to 100% renewables, but there is even more challenges in getting to zero emissions in other areas like farming etc, just turning over/tilling soil release carbon, livestock add to emissions.

It's impossible to actually get to 100% emission free, it's only possible to get to certain point and then offset the remaining emissions.

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 12:42pm

BB- Try and stop being a weirdo .

Everyone knows that you are the most opinionated contributor on SN .

You are happy to show everyone how much you know .

Others I am sure would like to know what you think are the options /technologies on how we can achieve net zero .

I really don't give a rats arse . I don't think it can be done . I am very happy to be proven wrong and change my view .

Time to stump up or shut up on this issue .

What is ONE option ? Surely you have one and CAN share it with us all ? Time to PROVE it . Your credibility is at stake ( if you have any ) .

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 12:43pm
Hutchy 19 wrote:

BB- Try and stop being a weirdo .

Everyone knows that you are the most opinionated contributor on SN .

You are happy to show everyone how much you know .
.

ha ha you are a quick learner, first you figured Constance (AKA facto) out and now BB.

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 12:46pm

Just as you two are happy to display your ignorance.

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 12:48pm

I don't usually post slabs of text but nyb has a paywall ......so here are the interesting bits.

Reviewed:
Electrify: An Optimist’s Playbook for Our Clean Energy Future
by Saul Griffith
MIT Press, 269 pp., $24.95

“As his title suggests, Griffith is fairly single-minded. Electrification is to climate change as the vaccine is to Covid-19—perhaps not a total solution, but an essential one. He begins by pointing out that in the United States, combustion of fossil fuels accounts for 75 percent of our contribution to climate change, with agriculture accounting for much of the rest.”

“The US uses about 101 quadrillion BTUs (or “quads”) of energy a year……Our homes use about a fifth of all energy; half of that is for heating and cooling, and another quarter for heating water. “The pride of the suburbs, the single-family detached home, dominates energy use, with large apartments in a distant second place,” Griffith writes. The industrial sector uses more energy—about thirty quads—but a surprisingly large percentage of that is spent “finding, mining, and refining fossil fuels.” A much smaller amount is spent running the data centers that store most of the Internet’s data, though, as he points out, much of this is wasted—“that photo of your kids you uploaded for Grandma will be seen only once, but it will require tiny amounts of energy forever as it is stored in some backwater memory bank.” (There’s also the rapidly growing use of fossil fuels to mine Bitcoin, which now requires as much energy as powering Finland.)”

“Transportation uses even larger amounts of energy—and for all the focus on air travel, passenger cars and trucks use ten times as much. The commercial sector—everything from office buildings and schools to the “cold chain” that keeps our perishables from perishing—accounts for the rest of our energy use.”

“ Let’s stop imagining that we can buy enough sustainably harvested fish, use enough public transportation, and purchase enough stainless steel water bottles to improve the climate situation. Let’s release ourselves from purchasing paralysis and constant guilt at every small decision we make so that we can make the big decisions well.”

“A lot of Americans,” he insists, “won’t agree to anything if they believe it will make them uncomfortable or take away their stuff,” so instead you have to let them keep that stuff, just powered by technology that does less damage.”

“By “big decisions” he means mandates for electric vehicles (EVs), which could save 15 percent of our energy use. Or electrifying the heat used in houses and buildings: the electric heat pump is the EV of the basement and would cut total energy use 5 to 7 percent if implemented nationwide. LED lighting gets us another 1 or 2 percent. Because electricity is so much more efficient than combustion, totally electrifying our country would cut primary energy use about in half. “

“……solar and wind will do the heavy lifting. That’s primarily because renewable energy sources have become so inexpensive over the past decade. They are now the cheapest ways to generate power, an advantage that will grow as we install more panels and turbines. (By contrast, the price of fossil fuel can only grow: we’ve already dug up all the coal and oil that’s cheap to get at.) According to Griffith’s math, nuclear power is more expensive than renewables, and new plants “take decades to plan and build,” decades we don’t have.”

“Griffith devotes more attention to batteries than almost any other topic in this book, and that’s wise: people’s fear of the “intermittency” of renewables (the fact that the sun goes down and the wind can drop) remains a major stumbling block to conceiving of a clean-energy future.”

“Griffith is good at analogies: we’d need the equivalent of 60 billion batteries a year roughly the size of the AAs in your flashlight. That sounds like a lot, but actually it’s “similar to the 90 billion bullets manufactured globally today. We need batteries, not bullets.”

“ This renewable economy, as Griffith demonstrates, will save money, both for the nation as a whole and for households—and that’s before any calculation of how much runaway global warming would cost. Already the lifetime costs of an electric vehicle are lower than those of gas-powered cars: Consumer Reports estimates they’ll save the average driver $6,000 to $10,000 over the life of a vehicle.”

“ Griffith’s miscalculation, on the other hand, is based on a misunderstanding of how political change happens, which is not by simply repeating rational arguments in the face of vested interests. If you do that, you win the argument but lose the fight, because the fight is about money and power, not reason and evidence.”

“……the real goal of the divestment campaigns, right from the start, was to take away the social license of the fossil fuel companies by stigmatizing them for their climate change denial, and in so doing reduce their ability to dominate our political life. That we’re even considering big climate bills in the Senate is testimony to the success of that strategy (and other such campaigns, like the ones to block pipelines); activists have worked to shift the zeitgeist, and that shift is always the wellspring of political change.”

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 1:00pm

BB - How does all this get us to net zero ? You need to understand what the term means you simpleton .

No fucken CO2 ! What we produce HAS to be taken out !

All the electric vehicles and producers of energy will still produce CO2 to build and maintain them . Same with de sal plants and nuclear plants . Building new homes . New surfboards ETC ETC !

We will always produce CO2 . We exhale it .

To achieve net zero we need to REMOVE / TAKE OUT CO2 .

If trees and carbon capture can't do it what can ?????????????

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 1:12pm

Mate you are the single most ignorant person ever to pollute these forums with your excrement. You are a smug, self-righteous know nothing.

NET fuckin' ZERO you clod means that the amount of greenhouse gases being emitted is equal to the amount being absorbed.

GuySmiley's picture
GuySmiley's picture
GuySmiley Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 1:10pm

More splashing down the shallow end of the gene pool by SN's village idiots. Is this a surfing website or a sheltered workshop FFS??

Tweedle Dumb asks " ..... What is ONE option ? Surely you have one and CAN share it with us all ? Time to PROVE it . Your credibility is at stake ( if you have any ) ....." and gleefully cheered on by Tweedle Dumber.

There is no ONE apart from a credible and honest determination to do it (and that is why what the LNP are doing is all BS). There are 100's possibly 1,000's of little and big things that will get a country and the globe there so to try to narrow it down to one, is sheer and utter BS. If we had a genuine and honest government they could bring the country with them but all we're getting from Morrison is more transfer of tax payers cash to the corrupt Nationals. Tripe BS from the govt.

Keep on splashing boys .....

tonys-shirtfront's picture
tonys-shirtfront's picture
tonys-shirtfront Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 1:09pm
blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 1:12pm

You're better off smoking it mate. It's not going to solve climate change.

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 1:32pm

BB- You DO know the definition then -"NET fuckin' ZERO you clod means that the amount of greenhouse gases being emitted is equal to the amount being absorbed."

How is the CO2 that we emit going to be absorbed ? The question I have repeatedly asked you .

You say we can't grow enough trees or use carbon and capture to absorb them . I agree .

For the fucken last time . Give me ONE way that WILL absorb all the CO2 we will emit ???

GuySmiley's picture
GuySmiley's picture
GuySmiley Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 1:40pm

Not waving more drowning in your own BS hutchy

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 2:50pm
Hutchy 19 wrote:

BB- You DO know the definition then -"NET fuckin' ZERO you clod means that the amount of greenhouse gases being emitted is equal to the amount being absorbed."

How is the CO2 that we emit going to be absorbed ? The question I have repeatedly asked you .

You say we can't grow enough trees or use carbon and capture to absorb them . I agree .

For the fucken last time . Give me ONE way that WILL absorb all the CO2 we will emit ???

As far as i know there is only two ways to capture Co2 through planting trees or through algae or maybe seaweeds and plankton?.

And then artificial means like carbon capture type things either before it hit's the atmosphere or once in the air. (Direct Air Capture)

It's easy to criticise the government for looking at these avenue as it hasn't been the success hoped, but it's something both Labor and LNP have funded, i guess because if it was possible it would be a complete game changer.

Its hard to know what to beleive on how realistic it is, one day your read it not possible next your read it is even Dr Karl has talked it up.

Anyway interesting read from early this year, seems to be some progress in the area, article says they have 15 machines operating across Europe.

"Engineers have built machines to scrub CO₂ from the air. But will it halt climate change?"

https://theconversation.com/engineers-have-built-machines-to-scrub-co-fr...

arcadia's picture
arcadia's picture
arcadia Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 3:04pm

The oceans currently absorb around 30% of emissions. Seaweed and algae use some. Shellfish and corals convert some to CaCO3. The rest gradually acidifies the sea water. Eventually the majority will become limestone.

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 3:12pm

Carbon-Cycle

...and this explains it.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle/page1.php

Jesus cheeses! Adults who want to argue about climate change when they don't even have a junior high school level of understanding of the carbon cycle! What's next guys? Your opinions on the clash between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity?

GuySmiley's picture
GuySmiley's picture
GuySmiley Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 3:41pm

BB as you should know by now if it isn’t on youtoob or in Nat’s VHS on AU Surfing it doesn’t exist for SN’s resurcher in residence, sharpen up there!!

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 4:11pm

I think Hutchys point was (as mine was) there is only some areas where humans can help with this natural process.

By:

-Planting trees
-Possibly through growing algae.
-Possibly through growing seaweeds
-Maybe other things like Shell fish?...but would have thought pretty much irrelevant?

And then artificial means like link above.

As far as my understanding goes, humans cant increase what carbon the ocean takes up for instance, so its pretty much irrelevant as are other natural ways it may be absorbed.

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 4:20pm

You still haven't come up with a technology that you think will absorb CO2 BB .

The oceans , earth and trees are not doing enough as the CO2 levels are increasing dramatically .

For us to get to net Zero YOU have to have a technology that absorbs CO2 .

Thanks Indo- I will have a look again at your link as I am unaware of this technology ( I am sure BB is as well as he would have already mentioned it ) .

I have seen a lot of your types in my 62 years BB . Many in my industry .

Know it alls that love to bully people with their non stop opinions . Very bad listeners .

In my experience they all have very high egos but low self esteem .

Optimist's picture
Optimist's picture
Optimist Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 4:25pm

Almost Daily lately, I hear the grinding of the wood chipping machine again in some backstreet. Another city person has moved to our town and doesn’t like leaves in their gutters. That’s exactly what a new neighbour told me as he had two beautiful at least 50 year old tallowoods wiped from the face of the earth, a home to many of my bird friends and the sentinel of a few tons of carbon. With this kind of stupid rampant on earth only God can save us.

arcadia's picture
arcadia's picture
arcadia Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 4:27pm

You're pretty much correct, Indo. Without dipping into the ethically and environmentally murky area of climate engineering, the best (only?) solution is a very steep reduction in emissions. Overpopulation and in the developed world overconsumption are huge stumbling blocks.
Pretty much every economic or social activity involves some kind of carbon emission. Currently, sustainable growth is an illusion. We need a sustainable retreat.

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 5:02pm

"Planting trees is great for many reasons but it is not the solution to climate change. The link estimates 1000 trees per person to compensate for emissions. It is US data but our emissions are comparable. In Australa that would be 25 billion trees. It's not happening!
https://savingnature.com/offset-your-carbon-footprint-carbon-calculator/"

On a global scale we would be lucky to keep up with the rate of clearing. The only feasiible solution is to reduce emissions and if people haven't got that by now then it is just some weird combination of wishful thinking and wilful ignorance. Ghe data has been clear for decades ..... though Rupe the rat has done his best to stop word getting out.

Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19's picture
Hutchy 19 Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 5:01pm

You are exactly right arcadia . The developing world quite rightly want to catch up with our standard of living . Same with China , Indo and India .

Unfortunately even the people on SN , who believe it is a huge problem , wont change their behaviour . They will continue to drive and fly to go surfing . They want more de sal plants for our increasing water needs . Renewable energy cant power them as they cant be turned off and on ( costs about $45m to turn them off due to the membranes drying out ) . They wont consider nuclear energy . They don,t want to be cold in winter and hot in summer . They want to cook their dinner and not hand wash the dishes . ETC

Due to the link that Indo provided a few weeks ago I am extremely surprised ( and impressed ) at how much energy we produce from solar and wind . I don't want endangered birds killed by blades but I now see what a big difference they are making . This is all great and I believe Australia CAN and WILL dramatically reduce CO2 emissions .

Not as confident in the rest of the world .

If it is going to be possible to get to net zero ( 2050 seems impossible to me and the cost of $US 150 trillion is too high ) we need to use nuclear ( until a new energy source is invented ) and develop some other CO2 absorbing technology ( existing carbon capture and storage is next to useless ) .

People the world over will refuse to lower their standard of living imo . A few will but they will make no difference .

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy Saturday, 16 Oct 2021 at 5:06pm

" Currently, sustainable growth is an illusion. We need a sustainable retreat."

This is not true. Even now we can reduce emissions with minimal impact on our lives. Read the piece I cut and pasted from nyb. The idea that progress involves radical sacrifices is not supported by the evidence and has been part of the fossil fuel industry propaganda as they know people will not vote for any action likely to disrupt their lifestyle. The only serious barriers to solving the problem are political.