Climate change

Discuss all the events of the day

Moderator: GH Moderators

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7808
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

gangrenous wrote:
June 27, 2020, 11:02 am
Tut tut Gergreg, you’ve clearly lost the plot!

Occam’s razor. The simplest answer is everyone else is wrong and Red Raider is a beacon of knowledge on a topic far from his expertise.
:lol: Oh no, a spelling error in your put down. I love that radio program on ABC National and presenter Robyn Williams is excellent. ABC can get the spelling correct but not you and for obvious reasons. You've lost the plot. :roflmao
The term "Occam's Razor" comes from a misspelling of the name William of Ockham. Ockham was a brilliant theologian, philosopher, and logician in the medieval period. ... The idea is always to cut out extra unnecessary bits, hence the name "razor."

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10867
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

It’s an accepted spelling... what a huge victory for you.

I’m going to go do something else now. Be worth thinking on Gergreg’s last question to you.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 16010
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: Climate change

Post by T_R »

When I read threads like this, I begin to understand why some commentators refer to the 'cult of climate change'.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7808
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

greeneyed wrote:
June 27, 2020, 10:23 am
RedRaider wrote:
June 27, 2020, 1:38 am
greeneyed wrote:
June 26, 2020, 7:07 pm
RedRaider, the issue is that the technologies you're posting about are uneconomic, at present anyway, so they can't deliver the emission reduction targets. You are advocating, as I understand it a "direct action" approach, and reject a more market based approach. The trouble with so called direct action, is that it is costs the economy and taxpayers more... is less efficient and more damaging to the economy... and delivers uncertain emission reductions. Given the expense to taxpayers, it is unlikely that we will meet the targets, in my view anyway.
GE, I am posting about technologies which are being developed at present and will hopefully be proved successful and economic and in use in coming years. They should be able to stand alone and not require subsidies to be effective. These are being developed privately to meet a big gap in the power storage market. I do have faith that some of the technologies will meet this gap. In Australia we have seen some breakthrough technology in lithium sulphur batteries which have, it is claimed, to have four times the capacity of lithium ion batteries. I hope they can be developed into a commercially successful industry here in Australia. I don't recall ever mentioning a 'direct action' approach in any of my posts, let alone advocating for it. Perhaps you could point me towards a post where you have gained this impression??

Once a technology proves effective and economic then the uptake will pay for the development costs. If I use the example of mobile telephones, we didn't need to tax landline telephones to pay for the new technology. The early mobile devices were clunky of single use to send and receive calls. Now we can use them for emails, paying bills, finding out how to get to locations and multiple other uses. Government had an enabling role in providing transmission infrastructure but not in the initial development of the device or applications. I think we are at a similar early stage with the new technologies for storing power. But it will happen imo.
So, just to be clear, you don’t support governments taking any action to reduce carbon emissions at all? The strategy is purely for private sector technological development?
This is very unlike you GE. I have been through a long list of Government action from Battery of the Nation, Snowy 2.0, National Hydrogen Strategy and the longer list of other things I posted after 3am on 27 June all of which I have said a number of times I support. How you could draw a conclusion that I 'don't support governments taking any action' simply doesn't line up with what I have posted.

Did you once work on the Carbon Tax legislation? You seem very wedded to such a solution which the people of Australia have voted against. Whether you call it a carbon price or tax the effect is an increase in price. The current voting pattern of Australians is that they don't want higher prices. Until that changes I don't see your favoured solution as getting up.

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 131317
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

I was asking the question, as you said you were not an advocate of so-called "direct action". But that's clarified... you are advocating that approach.
Image

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7808
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

gergreg wrote:
June 27, 2020, 10:52 am
RedRaider wrote:
gergreg wrote:
June 26, 2020, 7:05 pm
https://www.newscientist.com/article/22 ... .%E2%80%9D

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.abc.net. ... e/10920500

Of course, not sure of the veracity of either publication.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Thanks gergreg, the second one in particular I have seen before but it is enlightening on the challenges ahead. The transport sector is a major area of interest for me and the growth in emissions will only be arrested by moving away from petrol and diesel internal combustion engines. There are other less emissions intensive fuels which could be used such as compressed natural gas or liquid natural gas and in particular if blended with hydrogen will greatly reduce the levels of emissions. Plug in Hybrid Electric vehicles which use a small internal combustion engine to generate electric power to for an electric motor are also a useful technology in reducing emissions on the way to full electric vehicles. The posts I have made about 'million mile' batteries are a technology which may well have not only long life uses in passenger vehicles and homes but also for powering heavy transport.

The first of the links had a huge headline but the last paragraph was a massive disclaimer.
I really don't know how to respond. As far as I can tell a large part of your argument is based on Australia doing the absolute minimum possible on climate change because other countries are worse, and by minimum it simply means we meet our Paris Agreement targets - which we are tracking not to achieve and the countries which you claim are worse are actually tracking to meet their Paris Agreement targets quicker than required and better than Australia. Does that not change your thinking on this subject?

Like I said, I honestly don't know how to respond.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Er no, to the bolded section. I am after World wide action on the issue and not limiting action to 'the few'. China gets to increase its emissions under the Paris Agreement. To say they may peak earlier than 2030 still means a massive increase in emissions. I don't know if you read the disclaimer in the NewScientist article or not. See below:
'However, Haikun and colleagues admit they didn’t analyse many small cities, which have the potential to develop more, so the real emissions may end up higher.' REAL EMISSIONS MAY END UP HIGHER. Hard to believe the worlds largest emitter is increasing emissions under the Paris Agreement. Does this not strike you as counter productive to the goal of reducing world emissions? Once again I applaud the honesty of those doing the research, but to pat the Chinese Communist Party on the back on the basis of this article is a bit premature don't you think?

User avatar
Dr Zaius
Mal Meninga
Posts: 20059
Joined: April 15, 2007, 11:03 am
Location: Queensland somewhere

Re: Climate change

Post by Dr Zaius »

I lump climate change denialists in with Covid denialists and antivaxxers. They don't like the reality of it, so they cherry pick fringe data and invent conspiracy theories.

I don't know any thing about climate science, but climate scientists do. The notion that they are making it up to somehow benefit themselves fits squarely in the antivax style conspiracy camp.

gergreg
Bradley Clyde
Posts: 8125
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gergreg »

RedRaider wrote:
gergreg wrote:
June 27, 2020, 10:52 am
RedRaider wrote:
gergreg wrote:
June 26, 2020, 7:05 pm
https://www.newscientist.com/article/22 ... .%E2%80%9D

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.abc.net. ... e/10920500

Of course, not sure of the veracity of either publication.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Thanks gergreg, the second one in particular I have seen before but it is enlightening on the challenges ahead. The transport sector is a major area of interest for me and the growth in emissions will only be arrested by moving away from petrol and diesel internal combustion engines. There are other less emissions intensive fuels which could be used such as compressed natural gas or liquid natural gas and in particular if blended with hydrogen will greatly reduce the levels of emissions. Plug in Hybrid Electric vehicles which use a small internal combustion engine to generate electric power to for an electric motor are also a useful technology in reducing emissions on the way to full electric vehicles. The posts I have made about 'million mile' batteries are a technology which may well have not only long life uses in passenger vehicles and homes but also for powering heavy transport.

The first of the links had a huge headline but the last paragraph was a massive disclaimer.
I really don't know how to respond. As far as I can tell a large part of your argument is based on Australia doing the absolute minimum possible on climate change because other countries are worse, and by minimum it simply means we meet our Paris Agreement targets - which we are tracking not to achieve and the countries which you claim are worse are actually tracking to meet their Paris Agreement targets quicker than required and better than Australia. Does that not change your thinking on this subject?

Like I said, I honestly don't know how to respond.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Er no, to the bolded section. I am after World wide action on the issue and not limiting action to 'the few'. China gets to increase its emissions under the Paris Agreement. To say they may peak earlier than 2030 still means a massive increase in emissions. I don't know if you read the disclaimer in the NewScientist article or not. See below:
'However, Haikun and colleagues admit they didn’t analyse many small cities, which have the potential to develop more, so the real emissions may end up higher.' REAL EMISSIONS MAY END UP HIGHER. Hard to believe the worlds largest emitter is increasing emissions under the Paris Agreement. Does this not strike you as counter productive to the goal of reducing world emissions? Once again I applaud the honesty of those doing the research, but to pat the Chinese Communist Party on the back on the basis of this article is a bit premature don't you think?
I did read the disclaimer in the article. It's like saying Australia is tracking to not meet it's Paris Agreement targets but with a few tweaks we may meet the targets. What is the difference?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017

gergreg
Bradley Clyde
Posts: 8125
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gergreg »

Dr Zaius wrote:I lump climate change denialists in with Covid denialists and antivaxxers. They don't like the reality of it, so they cherry pick fringe data and invent conspiracy theories.

I don't know any thing about climate science, but climate scientists do. The notion that they are making it up to somehow benefit themselves fits squarely in the antivax style conspiracy camp.
Do you know what gets up my goat? People that live in first world countries that pin the blame on developing countries. And yes China is still a developing country when compared to us. Their big cities have joined the first world in the past few decades but they still have millions of people living in poverty, burning cow dung for heating.

We sit in Australia enjoying a quality of life, for the past 50 years, and blame China and India for wanting living conditions that we have had for 50 years. It's pretty selfish. We are totally the lucky country and I'm very grateful to have won the lottery of life in being born here.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7808
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

gergreg wrote:
June 28, 2020, 3:14 pm
We are totally the lucky country and I'm very grateful to have won the lottery of life in being born here.
Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Well that is something we can agree on.

But I disagree that China is still a developing country.
If you look at World Steel production in 2018 China produced 928.3 million tonnes compared to a world total of 1,808.4 million tonnes.
World Motor Vehicle production for 2019 was 91,786,861 and China alone produced 25,720,665 or 28% of the Worlds total.
In Ship building South Korea tops it at 49,600,000 tonnes with China second on 43,900,000, Japan on 13,000,000 and the rest of the world on 5,000,000 tonnes.
If you look at 'Food Supply our World in Data' comparing 1961 to 2013 for Daily supply of Calories per person per day the figures for China are 1415 and 3108, Australia is 3091 and 3276, USA 2380 and 3682, NZ 2926 and 3137, Japan 2525 and 2726. China is clearly producing enough to feed its people.

But when it comes to emissions China burns 50.5% of the total coal consumed in the World (Worldometer). The Union of Concerned Scientists use information from the International Energy Agency updated on 11 May 2020, which put Chinese CO2 emissions at 28% of the Worlds total.
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-c ... -emissions

The BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2019, estimates that with their current production China will run out of coal in about 38 years (pending any additional discoveries). I think it is unlikely that any other nation will be burning coal at the current rate China does. The high sustained increasing rate of coal consumption in China though, will make the goal of reducing World emissions extremely difficult in the coming decade. China is also building coal fired power stations in other nations which more readily fit as 'developing nations' eg Pakistan.

I think emissions reduction is a World issue and needs the largest emitters on board.

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 131317
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

China is still a developing country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... per_capita
Image

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7808
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

GE, The Chinese Communist Party uses a mechanism of price controls via their command economy and therefore comparisons with open market economies should be treated with caution. See below an economic explanation:

'The reason most economists are skeptical about price controls is that they distort the allocation of resources. To paraphrase a remark by Milton Friedman, economists may not know much, but they do know how to produce a shortage or surplus. Price ceilings, which prevent prices from exceeding a certain maximum, cause shortages. Price floors, which prohibit prices below a certain minimum, cause surpluses, at least for a time. Suppose that the supply and demand for wheat flour are balanced at the current price, and that the government then fixes a lower maximum price. The supply of flour will decrease, but the demand for it will increase. The result will be excess demand and empty shelves. Although some consumers will be lucky enough to purchase flour at the lower price, others will be forced to do without.'

We saw this in action when Australia had a floor price for wool. It created a surplus of production which took years to clear and although initially seen as a support to farmers, in the end they had to diversify or go broke.

Can I ask your opinion on the fact that the worlds largest CO2 emitter (28% of the world total) is expanding emissions when the Scientific consensus is that CO2 emissions need to first be stabilized and then reduced. Does this not seem to be counter to the global goal of long term reducing CO2 emissions to you? Do you support the CCP in its current policy setting, of expanding emissions?

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 131317
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

I am an economist... There may be challenges in valuing production and incomes in non market based economies, but China has pursued considerable market based reforms. And the problems of valuation are not so significant so as to invalidate the country comparisons. If they were, the IMF, OECD etc would not publish them. The article mentions the qualifiers.

I do believe market mechanisms and price signals produce the best results. That’s why I support a market based mechanism - a carbon price - for dealing with carbon emissions.

I would like to see more urgent action everywhere, including China. There’s a valid argument, IMO, that developing countries have less ambitious targets than developed countries - or that developed countries help meet their adjustment costs - as their people face considerably more poverty.
Image

Post Reply