Focus on technology to bring China onboard
Posted
Updated
China's energy system is highly carbon emitting and highly energy intensive. (Reuters: David Gray, file photo)
China has become the world's largest carbon emitter this year, as best we can tell, and in another 10 or 20 years it will be far and away the world's largest carbon emitter.
Like Australia, it's a coal economy. Coal is the highest carbon emission per unit of energy out of all of our fuels, and China's energy system is highly carbon emitting and highly energy intensive, given its industrial structure and the technologies that China uses.
I've tried; I don't see any way to have the world achieve climate targets that are quantitatively appropriate without a decisive change in China's emissions. That means significant change of direction even in the coming decade for power systems, automobiles, and other parts of China's overall energy complex.
I don't believe that we can have an agreement internationally that's meaningful, if China isn't signed on to a major commitment along with the rest of the major economies of the world to reduce carbon emissions and make the transition to a sustainable energy system.
The question is how this can be agreed internationally and the cornerstone of this has to be a full understanding of China's position - which is right, up to a point. China says the rich countries have been by far the largest emitters, the largest emitters per capita, responsible for the historical emissions, and "we're still a developing region, give us time".
The problem is nature doesn't care about those arguments. Nature cares about carbon parts per million, not about whether it's fair or unfair to limit emissions in one way or another, and there can be no solution without China playing a significant role.
The kind of agreement we need to take is one that starts out acknowledging the centrality of economic growth for China for India and others, then to say that is a cornerstone of global policy and within that framework, all the rest of the climate agreements will be reached - so nothing in international agreements will call into question the right of countries to converge with high income countries on a sustainable development trajectory.
Growth and sustainability
Rather than starting with specific numerical targets, or moving straight to trading systems - which are deeply distrusted because they're seen by poor countries as a brake on economic development - we should be starting with a focus on matters of technology.
What kind of economic transformation will make it possible to combine growth with sustainability? We probably know just about all the core technologies that are going to be available up to 2030 or 2040, on a scaled basis, that are going to be tools for achieving the twin objectives of growth and sustainability.
What are they? They are carbon capture and sequestration, for those who continue to use coal-fired power plants, they are nuclear power, they are solar power on a large basis and then there are niches like wind power, maybe biomass, that make sense on a much smaller, niche basis. We know that there are powerful technologies that could give long-distance automobile mileage, that could give much lower use of energy in buildings through appropriate codes, that could have lower energy ratings for motors and other appliances. Those technology choices, though not all at a commercial stage, are actually in sight and add up to a potential for sustainable, rapid economic growth, consistent with a significant decline of global emissions.
My own recommendation would be to start with the technology discussion, not start with the formalism of whether we trade or tax, who gets the permits and who doesn't. That is opaque, unquantifiable in terms of its implications for growth, a shot in the dark, and highly distrusted by China and by other developing countries that say, "why should we get into a straitjacket of unpredictable consequences, when we don't even know what is actually available?"
Network of technological transformation
I would recommend we focus more on asking what technologies need to be promoted, demonstrated and diffused and at what pace that make it possible to combine growth and sustainabilty. The first thing I would do for Australia and China together is put up those demonstration plants for carbon capture and sequestration. If that technology works, that's one direction of fundamental importance. If that technology doesn't work, we've got a whole different set of problems here that are much deeper than anyone has imagined.
Without knowing the core power technology - its cost, its availability, its ability to be scaled - reaching agreements on technicalities of mechanisms seem to me to be getting the story wrong and making it impossible to actually reach a real approach. So my view on this is we say that all countries need to sign up for serious conversion to sustainable technologies. But no country has to sign up on two counts: one, to sacrifice its economic development and second, to make commitments to technologies that are not proved and demonstrated.
We should tighten the requirements and tighten the standards as technologies get proved and rolled out and put our focus on the technological development first: long distance automobiles, low-emission coal-fired power plants, safe nuclear power, large-scale solar thermal power, green buildings, carbon capture of industrial processes, and the list goes on.
We should focus on those and get an agreement with China, the United States, Australia, Europe, and others, that as best available technologies are developed, all countries are committed to adopting them. I think what China would agree to in that context is to join a network of technological transformation, conditional on one more point, and that is that the special responsibility of the rich world would be to make available these technologies to China and others on an open access basis.
Professor Jeffrey Sachs is an economist at Columbia University in New York and director of the Earth Institute. This is an edited excerpt of his keynote address presented on July 14, 2008 at the ANU Crawford School's annual China Update in Canberra. Visit the East Asia Forum blog for more analysis of issues discussed at the forum.
Search for news
Comments (60)
Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added. If you would like to have your say on this issue, you can do so via the Emails section of our Opinion pages.
-
GregS:
18 Jul 2008 3:50:15pm
Just put a boarder tax on all imports from non-carbon trading countries or countries not meeting emissions standards. All carbon-trading countries will be keen to have the law to keep their industries competitive, and it will encourage or force places like China and India to comply.
Gee, that was a complicated solution. Really takes lateral thinking to come up with something so vastly complicated and previously unheard of.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Bertrand:
18 Jul 2008 5:54:16pm
BEcause with protectionism our industries wont become mroe efficient, meaning there is no point having an ETS in the first place.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
David G:
18 Jul 2008 6:55:43pm
Bertrand I think you miss the point. If you apply a carbon tax at the border then emission INTENSIVE imported products become LESS competitive. Just the same as a ETS makes emission intensive products LESS competitive in the domestic market within our borders. You then have incentives to drive down emissions within Australia and also internationally with countries that want to export to Australia.
This will make industries more energy efficient nationally and internationally. The WTO needs to start pushing this.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
BJ:
18 Jul 2008 11:22:56pm
Bertrand is absolutely correct.
Memories are short, but Australia was a closed basket case prior to the opening up of its economy, especially the reforms of the 1980's. While not very patriotic, I thought our manufactured products were high priced and not very good quality (contrary to rose-coloured hindsight). Our service industry was also closed away from some of the best known international knowledge of the time. Do you remember when air-conditioners cost $1,500 just for a wall-mounted ice box, and when a 'cheap' electric drill cost $90 back in the mid 1980's ?? I do, and so I rejoice that I pay $15 today for a cheap power tool to get my jobs done.
Bertrand's low opinion of Labor may be well known, but I will say the 1980's financial market and trade reforms certainly were one of Keating's highlights as Treasurer - I also acknowledged they followed on from reforms commenced in the Fraser era.
Does anyone seriously think Australia would have hit the low unemployment level we have now under a protectionist and closed economy ??Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
David G:
20 Jul 2008 11:12:39am
BJ you seem to forget the EU are implementing emission trading schemes as well as many states within the USA. Seems to me they are a reasonable sized trade group who would also be keen to restrict imports of carbon intensive products. China and India have been part of Kyoto for years and have shown great interest in reducing emissions (just look at there solar and wind farms). They just need help with emission efficiency technology and they too will be keen to restrict imports of carbon intensive products (they live on the same planet and understand what the impacts will be).
You need to examine the climate change consequences of buying those cheap products and weight this against increased food prices, increased water restrictions, increased cooling costs, increased fire and storm protection building costs, increased insurance costs, increased disaster response and repair costs, increased public health costs, increased fire and storm protection building costs, increased taxes to cover these expenses.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
-
spud:
18 Jul 2008 3:54:14pm
Could not agree more so far as the absolute imperative that China is on board with this. I would also add that if we are going to do this, then we need to do it very damned well or not bother. Everything needs to be in or nothing. Period. If China is not in, and we do not include everything, make no mistake people, we will have the worst of all worlds in 20 years time. We will have made sacrifices (or at least some of us will have made very large sacrifices), but we will have had little if any effect on even reining in emissions, so we cannot expect to have an effect on climate. So we will just keep on trying, but with maximum pain and without any indicator at all of whether the pain is likely to work or not (ie if it is even GHGs that are the cause).
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
David G:
18 Jul 2008 7:16:13pm
Simple risk management determines we must give this our best shot. We need to keep foremost in our mind the following question.
Are we going to bring down emissions fast enough?
Look at the IPCC figure that shows what level of risk there is of exceeding 2C for each level of emissions. We are playing with our future in the roll of a dice. Once we reach 2C we start the slippery slope of no return to 6C where 95% of life on earth could be wiped out. We are currently at 400 ppm which means we could have a 30% chance of exceeding a 2C increase. Depending on the climate model used, it may not be as bad as that. We could only have a 10% chance of exceeding a 2C increase but then again if other climate models are used, we could have a 60% chance of exceeding a 2C increase.
We need to help the developing countries achieve these reductions which we are able to make by leading by example. In Australia we need drive down emission reductions as effectively and as rapidly as possible. FEWER companies need to be given free permits NOT more companies. Those with the highest emissions per unit of revenue (the most INefficient at making a dollar) need to justify getting 90% free permits when they do not even produce much revenue for Australia when compared with other high revenue producing industries that will be badly affected by the consequences of their pollution (ie climate change). Why do the high polluters have so much influence?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
BJ:
18 Jul 2008 11:12:55pm
Look, at the end of the day is any Australian going to use less electricity? No. Is any Australian going to use less fuel? No. Is any Australian going to demand less food? No. Is any Australian going to demand less water? No.
At the low carbon price, and compensation for fuel through an equivalent excise reduction, there will be no change to habits.
Why bother...Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
David G:
20 Jul 2008 10:57:13am
BJ you seem to forget that increased efficiency WILL result in less fuel, electricity, and water. If your next car is more fuel efficient then you use less fuel for the same number of kms travelled. If the electricity you use is produced from less emission processes the you produce less emissions. As for water just look at the decrease water consumption following restrictions.
As for FOOD then we can reduce emissions here as well. Livestock production represents about 15% of national emissions which is almost as large as our entire national household emissions of 20%. Australian National Dietary Guidelines (National Health and Medical Research Council) actually recommends meat consumption levels of about 100 to150 grams/day (54.75 kg including meat, fish and poultry) These are a half of the current consumption levels (123.8 kg meat, fish, poultry per annum (ABS 1997-98).
If you followed these guidelines and reduced your meat consumption by HALF you could save more emissions than if you
cut your car use by a HALF ,or if you
never used hot water, . or if you
never heated or cooled your home.
If you only removed ONE meat meal each week it would be the same as @@ never turning on a light.
So BJ, get positive and get going on action now.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Orion:
18 Jul 2008 3:56:19pm
Sequestration is a terribly awkward, inefficient and expensive process. A little like sweeping dust under a rug. Aneutronic fusion is the way to go - all the benefits if nuclear power without the radioactive waste issue.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Brad:
18 Jul 2008 4:05:04pm
This is why we need our own ETS even though we only contribute 1% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. By reducing our own emissions, we develop renewable technologies which we can export to places like China and India.
However carbon capture and geosequestration is in fairyland. We cannot risk the high tech, high cost option which would take 25-30 years to develop and then hope the gas never leaks out of the rocks.
The low cost, low tech solution for carbon capture is terra preta from agrichar. This was proven to work thousands of years ago. As well as being a long term (virtually permanent) way to store carbon, it makes soil more fertile. http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s2012892.htmAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
david:
18 Jul 2008 5:26:42pm
I agree with this article completely. China are not about to limit their growth while they are going through the development cycle. However, they have a unique opportunity to invest in the development of new technologies and incorporate these into the roll-out of their new industry, rather than retrofitting as we have to do. Witness the new solar powered city being built in China (I forget its name).
However, the new technologies are not developing fast enough to have any significant impact on coal and oil usage by the Chinese. We really need to focus on collaborative development of these technologies which will have the double advantages of reduces CO2 emissions and greatly increasing our trade (particularly value-added trade) with China.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Wendy Bunce:
18 Jul 2008 5:28:18pm
We pride ourselves on our economic results, yet we remain unwilling to acknowledge the unsustainable damages we are doing to our planet. We refuse to sacrifice our huge short term economic expectations, for any long term environmental gains. We seem unwilling to save our country from global warming, by continuing to knowingly sell our many filthy resources like coal & gas to unchecked places like China & India & anywhere else, just to make a quick buck. If we want a sustainable future, we must stop breeding more people. If we want to leave a nice habitable planet for our kids, we must drop our huge economic expectations right now! World environments are fragile, finite & vulnerable. World trade must diminish to allow world survival.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Doh:
18 Jul 2008 6:32:50pm
Spot on, but will you tell the Chinese and Americans or shall I?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Wendy Bunce:
18 Jul 2008 10:50:38pm
The Chinese, the Americans & all of us, all know full well that what we are doing to our planet for money & greed, is quickly wearing our planet out. It will take courage to confront the awful truth of us. But if we remain afraid, dismissive or basically unhelpful, we seriously lessen our chances to save what's left of our one & only planet. It is inexcusable to pretend that we don't know how much the digging & sales of all our natural resources, actually costs us & damages our world. Real world leadership will be shown by whom ever zealously defends our world's precious environments. And whatever economic hopes we may have, we must never, ever ruin global sustainability! From now on, anything environmentally dubious, should cease.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
david:
18 Jul 2008 7:07:23pm
The irony is that birth rates are lowest in those countries with the highest standard of living. However, it is those countries with the highest standards of living that consume the most and produce the most CO2.
As for knowingly selling our resources, remember that we are the world's quarry, and if we don't sell it, they will just come and take it, which is essentially what happened 200 years ago.
What we need to do is reduce CO2 emissions. How we do it - whether by decreasing our economic activity, employing new technology, better land use, or some combination of these three is where the discussion lies. I think big statements such as your's that admonish and proscribe without suggesting how we go about it are not very useful.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
BJ:
18 Jul 2008 11:09:35pm
Drop... economic... expectations... ?? No thanks.
You can sweat over the perceived state of the planet, while I'll remain relaxed about it all...Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Wendy Bunce:
19 Jul 2008 12:45:52pm
The responses given by David & BJ, sadly demonstrate the sheer lack of environmental compassion or interest of modern man. And there in also lies by far the greatest challenge of our entire industrialised world's future survival. There is a terrifying possibility that the generally aloof & overly tough attitudes of industrialized humans, may result in the most critical issues of our unsustainable human impacts, remaining forever ridiculed, & always in favour of our ruthless desire for purely monetary benefits & for even more decadent lifestyles, that are so plainly wrong & are so environmentally expensive. Perhaps the only way that we modern human beings will ever learn to respect nature is by losing our place in our world's ecosystems & dying.
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Geoff:
18 Jul 2008 5:49:07pm
Lets get this straight; China makes stuff for the rest of the world. Some is off its own bat, other stuff is made for companies that went off shore. In doing so they have become the world's greatest polluter.
So if a company had not gone off shore, would it have had to pay ETS? If so, it should pay it. The rest of what China makes should have a surcharge added to it, to cover the ETS.
That way Australia gets to kill three birds with one stone. Companies that went off shore get to pay for the pollution they shifted overseas to somewhere that is not acting responsibly, AND they get told they should have stayed here, and kept Australians in work. Although they may say they actually helped Australia's shortage of skilled labour, by moving jobs overseas.
China gets told it has to pay for polluting, and Australia gets more money with which to research and develop clean processes, which it sells back to China. This reduces China's profits by even more, remembering that at least a third of companies in one part of China are operating at a loss. Sooner or later all companies in China operate at a loss, and go broke, so in not producing anything they have no pollution.
Australia on the other hand gets all its jobs back, and now controls the balance of world trade, although as we have no labour to actually fill these jobs, there's no pollution, and once again Australia has saved the world. Australia has saved the world on at least one previous occasion, hasn't it?
Now to sell this idea to the mining council.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
G:
18 Jul 2008 6:48:28pm
You've missed the point of the article Geoff.
The article is not talking about tax, import or export, or anything like that.
This article is trying to solve a problem with logic and sense, by pushing us ahead in technology where we should have been decades ago.
Our intellectually impotent then-governement didn't have the gall to do anything about it, and the current government isn't doing a whole lot better - by bending to the big polluters will.
What we are forced to do now, the only real avenue, is to collaborate with technology - more efficient, more of it, and faster. It has to be so that it is more efficient than hauling coal out of the ground, which in the medium term, I feel can be the case.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Geoff:
19 Jul 2008 10:06:59am
Its not so much that I missed the point of the article, its just that the thought of those who provide the money actually providing the money seems so remote, anything, even something as stupid as I wrote, would be something.
Sitting around waiting for the government to do something is futile. It is already too late to actually save the world. The best that can be done now is to save as much of each individual country as possible. Australia is not in a strong position to do this, given our climate.
Add to that our fixation with digging up as much of it as possible, and sending it overseas, and those who want to stop that practice without really giving any thought to what is an alternative. Those who would save the world always have a broad solution, but never give a thought to the fine detail.
As temperatures rise, rainfall will decrease. Inland towns will need water, so it is stupid to think it can be conjured up out of thin (dry) air. They will need resettling, but given the oafish greed of investors and speculators who have driven up the cost of housing, either by talking down the number of houses etc actually available, or by sitting on empty properties until prices increase again, those needing resettling will either stay where they are and die, or become a new generation of homeless.
What is being spoken about now, should have become reality years ago.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Joe :
18 Jul 2008 6:35:55pm
Techonology is great, and part of the solution. The whole point of the ETS is to create a market where it is actually attractive to implement the technology. They are not mutually exclusive.
One other point, we will certainly be in a better position to ask China to change once we have. Lot of pot calling the kettle black going on at the moment, and that can only lead to a race to the lowest common denominator.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
BJ:
18 Jul 2008 11:06:50pm
China are not going to change anything at anytime, not least at the behest of Australia.
The climate change argument seems not to be focussed on technology, but rather destroying already successful technologies in industries like coal and natural gas fired electricity generation. I'm absolutely certain we would all miss them terribly if they were shut off tomorrow.
Anyway, there is no evidence that burning coal is harming the environment.
There appears something distinctly Luddite about the climate change argument.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
too many of us:
18 Jul 2008 8:04:12pm
I think we skirt around the issue at the core of all our environmental problems, there are just too many of us. Maybe we could ask China about its experiences with the one child policy, it's a possible solution and it seems to have worked there. Better we act conciousely, on a global scale and do it ourselves, otherwise I think nature's old trio of disease, famine and it's resulting wars will do it for us.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
BJ:
18 Jul 2008 11:03:21pm
We have such low natural birth rates, we almost have a one child policy in Australia by choice.
Anyway, why is it that the climate change proponents are so keen to take away humanity's one fundamental right - the right to procreate ??Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
uncle Sam:
19 Jul 2008 11:05:31am
Because population control is at the heart of the environmental movement. A publication called The First Global Revolution states: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then is humanity iself."
Environmentalists were also the same group which set out to ban DDT. Before this, DDT was regarded as the safest and most effective agent in controlling malaria in third world countries. DDT alone was responsible for saving 500 million lives according to the National Academy of Sciences. Behind every movement is always a hidden agenda.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Oscar:
20 Jul 2008 10:09:48am
"Anyway, why is it that the climate change proponents are so keen to take away humanity's one fundamental right - the right to procreate ??"
You are confused! Those who think climate change might be a real possibility want the people of the world to collectively do something about it.
The people who want the spoon fed tabloid masses to stop procreating have a different agenda and may or may not believe in global warming.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
breeder:
19 Jul 2008 11:44:03am
Remind me who we're supposedly saving the planet for? Is it the next generation (who won't exist under your plan) or is it just the rich and prosperous who sit in their well lit mansions, on country estates driving their luxury cars to the city slum for work.
I guess, in your opinion the economic pain felt by consumers is good if it gets them out of their cars, onto buses and trains, out of the suburbs and back into crowded central cities, leaving only the rich able to live an expansive life close to nature.
For most of us, that scenario sounds like regression to a poorer past. To the environmentalists who can't get enough of Gore, it's more like nirvana.
Will you think it nirvana when you're old and decrepit and there is no younger generation to care for you, or to keep basic industry moving along....? When you've destroyed the economy by throwing away billions at fraudulent scientists who are priming their funding pump by pouring out the response which keeps the money flowing into their deep pockets?
I don't agree with a lot of things the Chinese are doing, least of all the one child policy. Try to look at more of the FACTS and you might find that there is in fact no need to panic about all of this silly global warming. Try speaking to the countless mothers in China who dump or abort their female babies purely driven by the fear that without a son there will be no-one to care for them in their old age..... Yes. Lets ask them how it's working for them!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Wendy Bunce:
18 Jul 2008 8:12:18pm
To be sincere about changing the current terrifying effects of excessive carbon emissions, all countries will urgently need to adopt an entirely different approach to business expectations. The constant demands of our human obsession for monetary profits, regardless of any dire global consequences, is likely to hasten global decline at an ever alarming unprecedented rate. If effect, if Australia hopes to live by example to the rest of the world, unfortunately there really is no other option, other than to refuse, for world environmental reasons, the sale of all bad resources like coal & gas to any other country, that continues to damage our beautiful planet. The less resources we sell to places like China & India, the less carbon emissions produced.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
BJ:
18 Jul 2008 11:01:51pm
I cannot agree with such a proscriptive comment.
In any event, we are all arguing a moot point. Carbon emissions will not be reduced in any of the major developing nations. In fact they will increase at an increasing rate.
I'm reasonably relaxed about it all to be quite honest.
Actually it will be nice to have all that warming CO2 when the next fad comes along in 20 years time to promote a mass belief in global cooling...
I'm waiting to be called a "denier" again, like it is supposed to be a pejorative label...Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Malcolm:
19 Jul 2008 10:55:41am
Wendy:
Do you live on our planet, earth?
Do you wonder what would be the state of our forests and whales if we had not converted to coal and oil in the late 1800's?
What do you mean by "the terrifying effects of carbon emissions"? Are you aware that over the last 500 million years, carbon dioxide has fluctuated up to around 7% - 190 times what it is currently? Entirely naturally!
Do you realise atmospheric carbon dioxide is VERY much lower now than during the past 500 million years?
Do you know carbon dioxide has climbed steadily since the end of the little ice age - well before man started using recycled life fuels?
Do you know, when considering the last few decades, temperature peaked in 1998 and then fell sharply and flattened out - meanwhile carbon dioxide continued rising?
Do you know temperatures were hotter than today during the medieval period? During the early Roman period. And four to six degrees warmer during the holocene which was a period of lush growth and bursting of life on earth?
What do you know?
MalcolmAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
Malcolm:
19 Jul 2008 11:01:33am
Wendy:
Do you use energy? Do you buy food? Do you enjoy the freedom of traveling to work/study/meeting friends/enjoy recreation away from your home? Do you use a computer? Do you use electric lighting? Do you ...... If so you use lots of energy.
A question for you - of the proven forms of energy used in the past which energy do you prefer: slaves, females paid a pittance, exploited poor, wood burned by individuals with real pollution (carbon dioxide is not a pollutant), individual coal fired stoves with real pollution, whale oil, density fuels burned in clean combustion with minimal pollution such as coal fired electricity generation plants, natural gas fired plants?
Only since the use of electricity on a mass scale due to the advent of clean coal combustion and electricity generation and distribution organisations have we enjoyed lower pollution.
Consider Londons pollution prior to the use of electricity. Consider the health stats regarding people burning wood and dung in African nations lacking electricity - today?
Now include the unproven (on a mass scale sufficient to meet people's needs) forms of energy such as solar cells, tidal generation, wind farms. Please answer the question on your energy preference using an holistic approach of considering resources over the life cycle of energy generation - consider the energy and resources used to manufacture exotic materials used in solar cells and wind farms and their environmental impacts. Consider the environmental impacts of tidal and wind energy.
Are you aware of the consequences for the poor, whether in Africa or Australia, of your pronouncements?
MalcolmAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
Malcolm:
19 Jul 2008 11:04:51am
Wendy:
Are you aware of the FACT that higher use of energy liberates people from poverty and thus reduces humankind's footprint which is mostly due to population growth. That's the real issue - population and wasteful use of energy.
Have you thought of the impacts of harsher lifestyles (reduced energy) where people fight for the essentials of life? The result has always been conflict, disease, poverty.
Responsible use of energy is the key. Not emotive claims lacking fact and substance.
It's not just the cosy who deserve an easy lifestyle. It's everyone - all humans and all creatures on our beautiful planet.
MalcolmAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
Strange_Days:
19 Jul 2008 2:35:15pm
Your point is an interesting one. Perhaps an unforeseen outcome of the climate change agenda will be the further suppression of poor people and poorer nations who, will in effect, be told that they cannot utilise natural resources to produce energy to raise their standard of living as the western world has done. This is socialism dressed up in green.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Malcolm:
19 Jul 2008 10:24:30pm
Strange_Days
You're getting it.
Maybe socialism dressed up in green. Certainly, control dressed up in green.
By the way, it's not just the poor nations to be denied and to be controlled. It's us as well.
One estimate, $20 Billion extra costs in Australia - that's $1,000 for every man, woman, child and pensioner in our country. Oh, we won't pay it directly - we'll pay it in increased charges and taxes.
It's about control and revenue.
MalcolmAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Wendy Bunce:
19 Jul 2008 7:56:54pm
Malcolm, even the thought of change & the unpleasant need for us all to adapt quickly & to move away from our current wasteful, complacent, overly energy rich ways of life, is scary. How much easier to continue to plow on regardless & to refute all of the increasing scientific evidence of real planetary decline. Perhaps the worst crime of our global abuse, is to be so intent on actively depleting literally every available natural resource on earth, purely for our own short term monetary gains. If we adults keep on ruthlessly bleeding our planet dry & we keep on breeding as well, what on earth do we expect all our future generations to live on? Unwieldy commercial exploitation is globally untenable. What's left for our kids is rapidly shrinking.
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
-
-
WayneG:
18 Jul 2008 8:14:52pm
Agree very much with the logic of this article. Whilst climate change is inevitable (irrespective of which camp your in - natural, man-made or a combo of both), there has always been a flaw in any plan that could not include all the main players (stake holders) and drive the necessary change globally.
I rarely agree with much of what the US comes out with in relation to foreign policy and most things Bush but he was spot on when he identified a need for China and India to be included in any solution and anything without less than 100% cooperation from these two would prove to be fruitless.
So despite how much it makes people feel good, it appears obvious that carbon trading is doomed to fail before it starts because it is not inclusive and has too many exceptions. The only thing it will achieve will be to provide another impost on business to the detriment to the countries that adopt it which in itself is okay, but with no gains, to me it will be a waste of time.
Better to address the cause directly and in the long term, with the support of all the players as outlined here, taxes are not the answer, nor are tariffs. Education and technology will be what brings the catalyst for change and ultimately will prove to be the solution. For this to happen everyone has to follow suite, not just a few, this way we still have a level playing field, no one nation is disadvantaged and we have an achievable goal as opposed to a feel good, setting ourselves up to fail scenarioAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
Kevin Webb:
18 Jul 2008 8:35:55pm
We are a nation of idiots. We are exporting our valuable raw material to the People's Hypocrisy of China where corruption is king and communism is a lie. China is building 60 nuclear power plants and 500 coal powered plants this year. They are recklessly destroying the world and they don't give a toss. We are directly or indirectly paying massive bribes to communist party officials in order to do business with these cretins. We should be working to starve China of coal, steel and other resources and using the resources to improve our own infrastructure and wealth. We should be manufacturing products here and exporting them to the world rather than importing substandard rubbish made in China. The Rudd government, businesses and individuals are shaking hands with the devil and in the end we will have nothing left as China buys up our companies, land and anything else we have of value. We have already lost our manufacturing, thanks to the Nation of Idiots who were idling watching it disappear. The end of our way of life is near.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Malcolm:
18 Jul 2008 10:17:14pm
Fact - Naturally occurring colourless, odourless, tasteless, harmless, non-toxic gas essential to life on earth. Is it Oxygen? Yes. Is it Carbon dioxide? Yes!
Fact - Oxygen - 21% of atmosphere or 21,000 molecules in every 100,000 molecules of air
Fact - Carbon dioxide just 0.038%. of atmosphere or a mere 38 molecules in every 100,000 molecules of air. That's why carbon dioxide is called a "trace gas"!
Fact - Nature produces 95% of Carbon Dioxide produced each year!
Fact - Carbon dioxide was at its usual low after the little ice age and has been steadily increasing since well before humans started using recycled life fuels.
Fact - Temperature naturally rises and falls. And has done so for millions of years.
Fact - In last few decades, 1998 temperature was peak. Temperatures then fell sharply and then flattened. During the last ten years China and India have really started to produce carbon dioxide - yet temperature is lower!
Think!Agree (4) Alert moderator
-
Doh:
19 Jul 2008 8:20:56am
This highlights the difficulties with the climate change debate, but there are two other dimensions which are of fundamental importance. Those issues are energy production and resource use.
One approach is to just keep going the way we are until the coal and oil run out. At some point economics will drive change.
The better view is that it is in everybody's interests to develop cheap renewable sources of energy for China, India and emerging economies. As a by-product we also get cheap renewable sources of energy.
By a happy coincidence this focus will also alleviate the worries of those who rightly or wrongly believe that carbon dioxide is killing the planet.
It's a no brainer.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Malcolm:
19 Jul 2008 1:21:13pm
Doh:
Thank you. Much appreciate your comments.
While the alarmists though point fingers at a non-problem humankind runs the risk of diverting finite/scarce resources and human spiritual, emotional and creative energy on the non-problem.
Carbon dioxide is not the problem. It is NOT a pollutant. It is essential for life.
Instead, lets focus our resources and human energy on a real problem. As I see it is, the real problem is population growth and extravagant, wasteful lifestyles, particularly extravagant use of material resources and physical energy.
I'm all for doing something about that - together.
MalcolmAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
Geoff:
19 Jul 2008 6:03:01pm
Its not that carbon dioxide is poisonous, although it can cause death by asphyxiation if there is too much. It is called a greenhouse gas because it acts in the same way the glass in a greenhouse does, when it traps the heat which would normally radiate back into space.
Malcolm you indicate the ignorance of what global warming is about, that many many people have. Carbon dioxide interrupts the return of heat at the infra red wavelengths, in much the same way as ozone interrupts the incoming light at the ultra violet C (UVC) wavelengths. Without ozone it would be fatal to go out into the sun without being completely covered.
Before you post comments, please please read up on what global warming is. It has nothing to do with the properties of carbon dioxide, except for its ability to block heat at infra red wavelengths. In fact once the concentration of carbon dioxide reaches about 500 ppm, it will no longer have any additional effect, other gases will then take over to increase the greenhouse affect.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Wendy Bunce:
20 Jul 2008 10:02:28am
Very well said thank you Geoff. And it would be an absolute tragedy if our human ignorance & our deliberate human environmental brutality & greed, continued to intentionally destroy & to deplete, virtually every available resource here on earth, simply because we adults only wanted to make more & more money for ourselves, completely regardless of all the shocking dire global consequences for our rapidly ailing planet, & without any regard whatsoever, for what we adults are knowingly leaving of our shockingly delapidated ragged world, for all of our poor trusting little kids to try to live on, when we are all gone. Surely all world trade should be world eco friendly or simply not be traded at all. If any trade is in doubt leave out.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Malcolm:
20 Jul 2008 7:25:59pm
Geoff:
Thank you.
I agree with you.
I will endeavour to take greater care in future to more effectively communicate my message.
My message was targeting the widespread and erroneous perception that many people seem to have - namely, that the debate is all about carbon dioxide and that CO2 is having a catastrophic effect on our planet and doing damage to the human race. Nonsense.
To reassure you I am aware of the commonly understood term global warming and CO2's supposed role in climate change. I have been researching the associated science for over twelve months internationally and understand what global warming is supposed to be and what it is in reality.
I remain concerned though that if ill-informed politicians jumping on the AGW bandwagon for their own agendas are successful in exploiting the nonsense of AGW it is possible they could construct a case for taxing oxygen!
I hope this reassures you about my views.
Thank you for clarifying.
MalcolmAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
Mck:
21 Jul 2008 3:53:12am
> carbon dioxide and that CO2 is having a catastrophic effect
given that the majority of scientific studies over the last two decades support climate change and it being human made don't you feel a just a little silly ranting off here like you're some big shot scientist?
> I have been researching the associated science for over twelve months
you try and portray you're some intellectual but you don't reference or support your "facts".
I hope that we are all interested in controversial and challenging research and studies, but until you have solid research (and a paper to go with it) maybe you could take that chip off your shoulder.
> concerned though that if ill-informed politicians jumping on the AGW bandwagon for their own agendas
i guess this isn't the only conspiracy theory you believe in?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
-
Strange_Days:
19 Jul 2008 9:55:26am
Clearly, one of the most disturbing issues in this debate is that there is far more than meets the eye. Since 1895, the media has alternated between global warming and cooling scares on at least four separate occasions.
1895-1930's: "The coming ice age..."
1920's-1960's: "Global warming..."
1950's-1970's "Another ice age..."
1980's-2008+: "Global warming..."
More specifically, in the last 25 years or so, we have been informed by a political elite of certain catastrophic doom as a result of anthropogenic factors. Contrary to popular belief, the issue is not over pollution. Nor is it fundamentally about developing technology which is more environmentally friendly. Rather, if you are prepared to look down the path to its logical conclusion, the climate change agenda has an undeniablly sharp, geopolitical edge.
H.L. Mencken said it best when he said : "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it." Dr. Freidrich Seitz, President Emeritus of Rockefeller University and former president of the National Academy of Sciences fired warning shots over the bow of the climate change juggernaught the IPCC. "I have never witnessed a more distrubing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to the IPCC report. Nearly all the changes worked to remove hints of skepticism with which the many scientists regard global warming claims." In other words, the IPCC, which has been the cornerstone to this entire movement and upon which Kyoto was fashioned, is untrustworthy. Could the climate change agenda really be the first step towards gloabl governance? Is the UN driving this debate for it's own hidden agendas? Before we all sign up to an Australia ETS, remember tha the failure of the European Union ETS to either curb emissions or reduce dependance on dirty power, is a reminder that regional efforts will ultimately fail. Ultimately, a global central planning authority is implicit in all potential international efforts to combat an alleged global climate catastrophy.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Wendy Bunce:
20 Jul 2008 10:35:45am
The simply facts are Strange Days, that if we keep on supplying brutal countries like Communist China, with all of our natural resources like dirty coal & water-gusling gas & iron ore for China to use up, however they like unsustainably, then we are literally helping places like China, to continue to ruthlessly pollute our lovely world & to quickly & very dangerously wreck our entire world's fragile environments plus our global climate!
Unfortunately, the time to confront our unsustainable economic expectations & demands is here now. And if we skirt around our global responsibilities & we do not ensure that we keep to well within a strict & truly sustainable, safe global framework, applicable to all world trade activities from now on, we'll all die.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
PaulG:
19 Jul 2008 10:17:01am
More the reason for the persuit of clean coal technology
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
goober:
19 Jul 2008 11:24:56am
Call me a 'Denier' but I think this article -link below (1)- really needs to be seen by more people. It appeared in the 'Herald Sun' yesterday (18th July).
If you find it interesting, you may also like to look at the other link (2) below. It appeared in 'The Australian' yesterday and is written by David Evans (the Rocket Scientist who advised the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.)
As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
(1) http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24036602-25717,00.html
(2) http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html
Maybe it will make you think about what our Government is trying to push on us. It certainly is time for some action. Get out your pen a jot a note to your local politician.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Chappy:
19 Jul 2008 8:18:05pm
Yes goober, they are VERY interesting articles indeed. At the moment you can also hear an interview of Dr. David Evans in the "hot topics" section on Radio 4BC Brisbane website. I tried to get the word out on this website at lunchtime Friday, through this ABC website, but was evidently censored - don't know why; it might have had something to do with me suggesting RUDD should stop dead in his tracks when there is SCIENCE like this around.
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Billy Bob Hall:
20 Jul 2008 6:39:21pm
Hi Chappy.... Yes you are right. It is quite often it seems that as thinking people we have trouble getting a word in here... because our views don't agree with ABC (thus ALP) policy. We just have to fight on.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
mike:
20 Jul 2008 8:46:29am
Two main things have been missed-- nuclear power, we are running short on uranium-- better, safer and also to get rid of nuclear waste is thorium power. China and India could easily get into this very quickly with technological help.
Also new houses/ buildings should be producing their own power using thin film solar technology.
The other thing is to use algae in a commercial way to capture carbon- this can and will become a major industry with the algae becoming a stock feed and fertiliser.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
JimC:
20 Jul 2008 11:12:35am
It seems like a good approach to focus on the likely technologies rather than just let the market decide.
The proposed ETS is a big disappointment. Giving free permits to the carbon fired power stations is going to reduce it's effectiveness sighificantly. Might as well not bother.
Also carbon sequestation is a crock. The carbon is already perfectly well sequested in the form of coal deposits. Best just to leave it there. It would be good to get some large solar thermal and heiliostat PV powerstations on line as soon as possible. They might not be able to provide significant baseload power at this stage but they could certainly save burning a lot of coal in the day time, particularly in the summer when everyone has their air conditioning running flat out.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Oscar:
20 Jul 2008 11:33:37am
After reading through all the posted comments here only one thing is clear to me, and that is that we as a species are flawed in the Darwinian sense in that we are quite happy to destroy ourselves for short term gain.
In the micro sphere individuals are getting fatter and fatter to the point where they are damaging their health and will die younger than they should. Greed (gluttony) provides short term gratification and laziness prevents action now (exercise) for a longer better future. Everybody knows the dangers and those who fail to address their problem can only be considered as denialists.
In the Macro sphere, greed says we cannot possibly forego the gratification of export sales in case somebody else gets to have some of what is "ours" and laziness means nobody wants to shift out of their comfort zone and do something today for a better longer future.
Which leads to the main thing to come out of this debate. The denialists are all worried about missing out on short term gains and their main argument is "what if we introduce an ETS and the global warming thing isn't for real?" Good question, but why do they never ask "what if we do nothing and Global Warming turns out to be a real and present danger?"Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
gp:
20 Jul 2008 1:11:10pm
if we have a carbon tax then it follows that there should also be a carbon import tax.
We have to get the starting parameters right though. The average Australians carbon emissions are 6 times the average Chinese and 10 times the average Indian. We are the worst polluters in the world and the mild carbon trading scheme so far announced will do little to change that.
If we are to have a carbon import tax then how do we decided on the level. Based on a countries overall per capita record of emissions (which would give China and other developing countries a big advantage since they pollute a lot less than we do) or by individual product. If you do it by individual product you would need a way of measuring carbon emissions by every product produced everywhere.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Solar4ever:
20 Jul 2008 2:42:08pm
Anyone who listened to Saturday's Science Show would have to wonder why governments and the private sector are not pouring investment into concentrated solar power generation. Scientists claim Australia's electricity needs could be satisfied by a 35km square CSP plant in the desert. Large scale CSP plants can be up and running in two years. Ergo, China could convert to CSP in a decade and still be the world's major industrial power house. Why, why, why are we not jumping towards the solar future?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Billy Bob Hall:
20 Jul 2008 5:45:40pm
Yes, let's get Peter Garret (and even Penny Wong) to tell China what to. That will work !
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
carlS:
20 Jul 2008 10:29:57pm
You can complicate and theorise issues and policies all you like.
The answer is simple.
Stop using coal.
And Australia - stop selling it!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Geoff:
21 Jul 2008 9:01:46am
In a world where natural resources are decreasing, while the 'need' for more resources is increasing, how do you expect future generations to act when they 'want' to use the coal this generation says we / they should not use.
OK so it is 'dirty' but rather than smacking someone on the wrist and saying " aaah, dirty, don't touch," shouldn't this generation do something to actually make it cleaner. If we expect future generations to act responsibly, shouldn't we act more responsibly, not bury our heads along with a natural and non-renewable resource.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
ram:
21 Jul 2008 9:14:12am
Australia does not need more paper shufflers engaged in Carbon trading, nor does it need more tax. It needs a competitive manufacturing economy. That will save energy and reduce emissions. It will also supply Australians with good jobs.
Geosequestration is just a subsidy for the petroleum industry. Alone it is energy negative. With Saudia Arabia's main petroleum field now in declining production we had better develop alternate energy sources and fast. Coal is too valuable as a Carbon ore to be used in steel making to be burning up as fuel.
Australia is better positioned than most countries to lead in alternative energy (including nuclear) technology and production.Agree (0) Alert moderator
