I suffered the indignity of Tullamarine Airport today and had a little time to kill with the free PC I found. However, this message kept coming up on the screen, I think the computer was broken. Image Unavailable, Please Login
I actually don't take sides with either of the science camps for or against 'climate change' since I don't believe the climate records are extensive enough to get a safe conclusion either way. HOWEVER, simple logic tells me that releasing over a relatively short period (less than 200 years) a quantity of any element (in this case carbon) which was accumulated and stored over a period of millions of years, MUST have some effect on the earth's environment. The argument shouldn't be about 'global warming', 'climate change', 'anthropic influence' or whatever it gets called, when in fact the issue is just plain old carbon pollution - and all you need to do is look at the sky over Macau and HK today to see this is no theory. We are choking the world and whether we die hotter or colder is of little concern.
It's not carbon that's being released BUT carbon dioxide, BIG difference and that is what all the climate change theories are based on. The looneys pushing the climate change debate of course describe it as carbon so that the average punter thinks of black soot rather than a colorless gas we all exhale
A serious issue indeed but no evidence it affects temperature. China has become the world's manufacturing giant with a combination of cheap labour, systemic corruption and no regulation, this is the issue which western politicians should be acting on. The irony of solar panels is that China now dominates the market, but nobody in the green-left considers the environmental devastation caused in their manufacture. Ditto batteries in India. AGW is an anti-capitalism crusade, that shifts industry away from regulated countries to unregulated ones.
Spot on. Also bizarre that nobody of the left will allow discussion of the most obvious energy solution for Australia - nuclear.
Manufacture of solar panels is not without it's problems, but neither is any of the carbon-based energy producers. I think you'll find the biggest driver for industry shifting is the unregulated WAGES regimes...Makes me laugh when right wingers wail about the lack of control of manufacturing in China, when all they ever do is complain about government control in Australia! Can't have your cake and eat it too!
Umm just the small matter of when carbon is burned the byproduct is carbon dioxide... you're proving my point that the 'climate' debate is a stupid red herring to the real issue of carbon pollution.
Actually all the idealogical debate on this is also largely a red herring since the main thing that stops nuclear in Australia is cost - it's the most expensive production option and we all know how good Australia is at expensive infrastructure
So please explain where the excess carbon dioxide is coming from if not from the burning of carbon? I'll put it in simple terms for you - 1. Carbon (in various forms/ compounds) 2. Carbon is burned (in various ways) and produces: 3. Carbon dioxide (and carbon monoxide and various noxious small particulates depending on the base carbon compound) Carbon dioxide could arguably be described not as a pollutant per se, but the unnaturally high amounts being emitted DOES make it likely that there will be some effect on the world environment.
The climate is always changing and humans have little effect, just check out the ice age cycles and our piddly interference means little in the big scheme of things. We need nuclear but will go for the cheaper option as usual, apathy rules
Are you saying that if we could make an economic argument for nuclear (which I believe we can), that all of a sudden all the lefties would be on board? No. The main thing that stops nuclear in this country is the fact that the proponents have done a very poor job of selling it, and have allowed the Left to own the debate and scare the average person into thinking it is both dangerous and dirty. Both of which are untrue. I mean, let's face it, since when has your average idiot Green voter cared about the cost of anything?
Frankly, it's pathetic that we haven't gone down the nuclear path given that we have both the most raw material on the planet and the most stable geography, not to mention a stable political system (despite it's flaws). The number of people who have died as a direct result of nuclear power generation compared to virtually every other method is so small as to be practically immeasurable.
Chernobyl ? Chernobyl: Facts About the Nuclear Disaster 3 Mile Island ? NRC: Backgrounder on the Three Mile Island Accident
The Green party emerged in Germany in the late 70's at a time when the Govt had an extensive program of building nuclear power stations - just like France. Problem was that people in rural areas didn't want reactors in their village, so a classic NIMBY revolt started, which the Greens latched onto and rode into political power. Both Greens and Greenpeace are experts at anti-nuclear hysteria. They take cancer death rates that happen anyway and attribute them to nuclear accidents. France generates 85% of it's power from nuclear. How many accidents? Zero. How many people died from Chernobyl (apart from the poor buggers who went into the building immediately afterwards? 3. And that was a graphite reactor, the unstable leftover of cold war plutonium production. How many deaths in Japan? zero. Now, think about the annual death rate each and every year from coal mining (it runs into tens of thousands) and the public health cost of respiratory illness, which is a ticking time bomb for China and the countries downwind of them.
