undyau’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Kuke 

  The link you supplied refers to a story about GreenPower that will reflect the situation if the proposed legislation is passed, not the current state. Its not very well written, because a lot of the quotes are taken out of context, but skip to the last three paragraphs. Its the same point that I'm making.

  There is an old story on the SMH by Jeff Angel (quoted out of context in the ABC story) which makes things clearer:

  http://www.smh.com.au/environment/earth-hour/its-not-easy--being-green-20090324-9848.html

   

  Jim,

  Your comment was posted about five hours after mine, so any link between my comments and yours is in your imagination. I'm also not sure why you are referring me to the Chinese government - perhaps you are confusing me with a different poster. In defence of the Chinese government, their one-child policy is probably the single most effective policy in reducing future emissions enacted anywhere in the world.

  I'm suprised that you elect to draw attention to the coal industry - the meagre reduction in emissions sought by this legislation are more than outweighed by the planned increase in coal exports from Asutralia. Whilst the public has already turned on the coal export industry, I suspect that you will become increasingly visible as an originator of emissions.

  Regarding clean coal - the coal industry has repeatedly shown down here in NSW that it can't even mine under a water-catchment without the water emptying from the creek systems and into the mines. The idea that it has the competence to transport and sequester massive quantities of CO2 for hundreds of years underground without leaks is laughable. I haven't me a single geologist who believes that is is possible on even 10% of the scale required (I'm married to a geologist, so I meet a fair number). Keep taking the clean coal handouts while you can, your days are clearly numbered and our day in the sun is coming.

   

   

  On The defeat of Australia's climate plan is not bad news for cap-and-trade posted 2 months, 3 weeks ago 12 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Its a bit of a stretch to describe the proposed Australian scheme as a cap-and-trade measure - the only cap that has been defined at the moment is the $10/tonne cap on the price of permits.

  What could have been a good scheme, a proving ground for other countries has turned into a scramble by the polluters for free permits (value $billions). With its very low targets (a reduction of 5% on 2000 emissions) and the ability of polluters to buy in credits from overseas, its possible that the scheme could see NO REDUCTION in Australian emissions.

  The most successful scheme for avoiding emissions in Australia has been the GreenPower scheme whereby homeowners, businesses and local authorities can buy certified GreenPower by paying extra for their electricity. Each kWh of GreenPower is currently certified to be clean energy produced above and beyond the mandatory targets that the power industry has. This scheme will be eviscerated by the proposed legislation which is going to include any GreenPower as part of the targets that the power generators have to make - so every kWh of GreenPower I buy is a kWh less that the power company has to generate.

  The government seems to be having two dialogs about this legislation - one with the resource companies, who donate vast amounts of money their way and one with the even-more-coal-faced Liberal/Nats party who are electorally irrelevant. They aren't engaging with the public or the Green party (who could pass the legislation if it was amended to be effective).

   

   

   

  On The defeat of Australia's climate plan is not bad news for cap-and-trade posted 2 months, 3 weeks ago 12 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  jabailo calculations

  My calculations show 2 polar areas, maybe you need to revisit your maths with this in mind.On Report from AGU meeting: One meter sea-level rise by 2100 'very likely' posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 4 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Monkey butt

  Crutzen's comments seem reasonable to me, whilst the argument you present against him seems a bit contrived. By all means attack the politicians for their vacillation, but hammering Crutzen's comments like an odd way to lead into it.

  As Crutzen says, reduced economic activity will probably mean reduced fossil fuel burning, which is good climate-wise.

  I'm not sure that you are disagreeing with that, it seems to be the comment about the slower increase of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere. Reducing the rate of increase of emissions is a necessary step to turning that rate negative. For the climate it doesn't matter how that rate change occurs, its just important that it does occur.

  You say "If carbon dioxide emissions stopped growing forever, concentrations would still keep rising forever".

  This isn't true if the rate of emissions growth goes negative. In that case concentrations would actually drop, rather than still keep rising forever.On Nobelist Paul Crutzen suggests that a slowdown in the economy could be good for the climate posted 1 year ago 5 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Re: Airbus loser

  I guess you mean Fourier transforms, named after Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier the famous French mathematician.

  Fourier is also famous for his discovery of the greenhouse effect (in 1824).On Airlines must pay for emissions, E.U. says posted 1 year, 4 months ago 7 Responses