Climate Change
BB - I love it when all you have to respond with is abuse . Makes my day .
I will be your boomerang .
Well actually it was humour, maybe try and have a laugh about some of this stuff.
gragagan wrote:Some of the Climate Council's article that Hutchy left out:
"However, to avoid a climate catastrophe, new emissions of greenhouse gas must be as low as possible. In other words, we need to get as close as possible to a real zero and only rely on offsetting when it is absolutely necessary. This means that we need to rapidly phase out fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas – and transition to renewable energy."
"At a federal level, Australia lacks credible climate and renewable energy policy to drive us towards that future, and our emission reduction targets are inadequate to meet our Paris climate commitments. What’s more, our exported emissions (in the form of coal and gas) are about 2.5 times higher than our domestic emissions. While these are not counted on Australia’s ledger, it’s still worsening climate change."
Cherry picking?
We are driving to the future without policy which is a much better way to be driven, because its based on economics which ensures success.
As mentioned many times before:
Per captia Australia has the fastest uptake rate of renewables in the world, per captia we lead the world in solar capacity, per captia 4th for wind generated energy.
At times recently we have hit over 50% renewable energy generation, at times the grid is predicted to met 100% demand with renewables by 2025.
As BB mentioned above energy production is the major emitter, policy is more important for other areas where its going to be very hard to reduces emissions like farming and mining etc
Transport will be driven by economic factors EV being cheap to run and maintain, once the ball starts rolling its likely to start moving pretty fast like happened with solar.
As for coal or gas exports, what we provide is the best quality in the world, like it or not many countries like China and India will still need to use coal for quite some time, many have been canceled from being constructed but many new coal power stations are still being built, they will need coal for quite some time, like it or not in most cases burning Aust coal produces less emissions than burning coal from their home countries or from places like Indonesia.
Just as point of interest, Germany is often thought of as the most green country in many regards, but crazy enough last May a new coal power plant was finished and went online. (doubt it will run for that long though)
Imagine if this happened in Aust you guys would lose your shit, our last one went online 12 years ago, yeah there has been talk of new ones, but let's be real they are tripping never going to happen makes no economic sense, gas peaking plants are a different story although gas is costly, they can come online much faster to support renewables at night etc and can easily be converted to run on green hydrogen, its not the only solution but just another piece of the puzzle.
BTW. Even with all the developed countries doing their part the cold reality is much of the developing worlds emissions will continue to rise for some time, China, India, Indonesia etc their population growth is huge and the middle class growing very fast increasing demand for energy and other things like general products and meat etc that all produce emissions.
I think the best summary of Australia's position is: we don't know where we are going, but we know how to get there.
Almost BB . We know where we want to go , but we don't know when we will get there .
We are doing it faster than most . When we get there we will be with very few others .
Haha hutchy very funny the complete opposite is true
Hutchy 19 wrote:We are doing it faster than most . When we get there we will be with very few others .
If you are comparing us to developing countries then yes 100%
If you are comparing us to other developed countries then maybe not true, it won't be renewables that are the issue, we will most likely get to 100% before or around the same time as other developed countries that have low levels of carbon free energy (Hydro & Nuclear)
It will be other areas that will be hard for Australia to reduce emissions in, being a country built on mining and agriculture
Our fugitive emissions are high from mining things like gas just under 10% of emissions.
Agriculture about 15%
Plus almost 5% land use change
Thats 30% of all emissions that will be in many ways hard to reduce and most likely need to be largely offset.
Add to that we have a growing population mostly from immigration that increase's demand all round that adds to emissions in many areas.
I admit I exaggerated on us being a leader in the developed world . I got too excited . I think ( hope ) it would be possible that we have improved the most in the last 10 years ( from a low base probably ) .
Due to our size , mining industry and agriculture it will be difficult to match other developing countries .
Developed and undeveloped countries need our minerals and our food . Our current account deficit needs them as well .
Sorry .
A quote from Greg Mullins, the former commisioner of Fire and Rescue NSW and one of those whose advice about the coming fire season was totally ignored by both state and Federal governments in 2019.
" But you know what, in twenty years or so it's not going to matter (about what kind of fire fighting aircraft are used). It's like the enemy has nukes and we'll just be working with conventional weapons. I have no answers. We're just going to have to harden the infrastructure and do mass evacuations while the fire grabs whatever it wants. "
from Currowan; The Story of a Fire and a Community During Australia's Worst Summer by Bronwyn Adcock.
For those who weren't there it might give some sense of what it was like to live through that time on the NSW south coast and an idea of what the future holds. Those who lived there (and the other areas burnt) know already.
BB - A quote from Greg Mullins, the former commisioner of Fire and Rescue NSW and one of those whose advice about the coming fire season was totally ignored by both state and Federal governments in 2019.
What was his advice ? Other than controlled back burning and proper clearing of land around homes and council areas what can we do ?
Good plans and effective infrastructure are needed to minimise the the damage and I hope we have learned from past experiences . The danger to professional firefighters and the CFA are unacceptable imo .
This is a really interesting read about 'living' fire breaks
https://www.thecrossingland.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Fire-Retar...
Thanks gragagan. I am on my phone now but will have a good read of that later.
gragagan - I am amazed at your link . It seems like the living fire breaks could protect forests , towns and homes ( although not sure how big they need to be ) .
Why aren't we madly planting these species ???
What is the catch ?
If it is only Australian plants that can do this imagine the Export potential .
Hi gragagan, thanks for the link. Had a quick read, and it seems generally petty good info there if some readers are considering this on their property.
But I really question some of the listed 'fire retardant' species - I would strongly recommend not using any 'dry sclerophyll' type species, so I'm a bit shocked to see various Acacias and Eucs and some others in that list. Absolutely avoid them, they'll burn/erupt, they are designed to. Stick with purely local rainforest species from the range of strata- canopy, mid and understorey/groundcovers. But even in the worst of conditions, they can also burn, but would do a better 'barrier' job than all others.
After reading about some of the fire storms I doubt any planting would have been effective. They have a role to play but when someone of Greg Mullins status says that there is no way to stop these fires, that should scare the hell out of anyone living in an area with any chance of bushfire.
One of the main things that came out of the book was that the RFS simply does not have the man power or the equipment to cope with the fires that are now occurring.
This is in no way a criticism as their incredible bravery and hard work saved countless lives and hundreds of millions in property. it is a reality check that we now live in a very different fire environment and need to change up.
BB - any reason why you think the planting would be ineffective other than fires are powerful ?
Since the 1900 the temperature might have gone up 2 degrees . Fires are terrible if its 40 or 46 .Wind , as the recent IPCC report showed has not changed in this time . We could double the amount of people power and equipment but they would not be able to contain any major fire . Black Friday in 1939 would still be Black Friday even with today's technology .
What does have a major effect is the fuel to feed the fires . Back burning ( our First Nations got it right ) is a disaster as everyone knows . They burned nearly the whole of Wilsons Prom . Same with effective clearing .
Why was this not a major topic in the report ?
A quick google search: Are eucalyptus trees fire hazards?
When the oils in the tree heat up, the plant releases flammable gas, which ignites into a fireball. This accelerates the eucalyptus fire hazards in a region and discourages firefighting efforts. ... The plants are considered dangerous in fire prone areas because of their habit of shooting sparks if they catch fire.
It might sound a bit drastic but clearing strips of eucalypt 50 or 100 metres wide, and replanting with fire resistant plants to act as firebreaks may have to be tried in the future. As a barrier between houses / residential areas and bushland. A few strategically placed fire barriers can help redirect fires, instead of full-steam ahead blasting through. May not stop a raging crown-fire but shouldn't let anything through at ground level
I agree gragagan but would add that they wouldn't have much chance against pyrocumulonimbus events......and there were 20 of them in two weeks during the fires. My view after living through the fires and reading the book is that there needs to be a huge investment in fire fighting aircraft and other equipment. And a large increase in the available man power. Local communities might be able to supply some of this but it probably needs the military to take a larger role as well.
More controversially, the priority of the RFS and other authorities is life and property in that order. What this means is that their capacity to limit the spread of fires is restricted as they are rushing to protect houses. The end result being the fire continues to spread threatening.more properties, which they then have to defend. This is not an effective way to deal with major fires.
Hey BB, who should foot the bill for firefighting aircraft etc? States or Federal? Should there be a national civil defence reserve perhaps?
And what exactly do you propose is the military role in this situation? If it is any different to what it currently does.
BB - as I said if we had double the amount of people and equipment they wouldn't have much( any ) chance against pyrocumulonimbus events.
We can't immediately reduce the temperature but we can immediately reduce the fuel of the fire .
By doing regular burning , clearing and planting trees that don't explode . Surely this can be mostly done with our existing resources .
Our native forests have evolved since our first humans arrived to need regular burning . Before humans arrived eucalypts were only 5% of our tree species . If we ignore consistent burning we turn our fires into uncontrollable infernos . We then put at risk our native flora , fauna , firefighters and our population .
BB - I would like to know , if you are willing to tell me , if you believe that regular Controlled burning is needed to reduce fuel in native forests , each year , to reduce the incidence of Mega bush fires ?
If I may interrupt, I was going to mention this last night.
A few problems with controlled hazard reduction burns. The first being the number of suitable days to carry out the burns. They can't be done if it's too hot, too windy, too dry, too wet and so on. Apparantly the suitable days are becoming less and less as the climate changes.
Also hearing a RFS volunteers account from Nth NSW, where he reckoned that some hazard reduction burns in his area removed too much vegetation. This resulted in the ground being exposed, the soil moisture content dropping, which affected the larger trees, causing them to lose leaves, allowing more sun through to the ground and so-on. Basically what was left dried out and died in the sun. Then the fires ripped through.
So hazard reduction burns are needed, but they can also cause greater problems.
*Hazard reduction burns AKA traditional fire management techniques
Also next time you're on google maps, go to an area of bush that you're familiar with, and check it for scale against how much bush there actually is around say Melbourne. Then imagine how long it would take x amount of people to conduct hazard reduction burns where they should be done. It would be impossible to get them all done, there is so much bush out there
Another issue with traditional land management techniques is that after a couple of centuries of mismanagement, many forested areas are now very different. Locally we have huge tracts of regrowth with dense populations of young trees. My understanding is that most of these areas would have once been woodland with widely spaced trees. Regular low intensity burns would have kept the fuel load low. Now even if a burn successfully reduces the dead fuel load on the ground, the living fuel load is still very high.
Yep that's true.
Reading about the wildfires overseas in recent years in California and Portugal, groves of introduced eucalyptus trees that have grown out of control have been a major contributing factor.
Eucalyptus trees dominate our forests due to humans .
We have to develop sensible regular controlled burning practices to reduce the annual build up of ground fuel .
If not we will continue to experience fires that are so severe an army couldn't control them .
Our fauna and flora need us to look after them .
This is the only thing ( also plant new species ) we can NOW do . Most of our resources need to be devoted to doing this NOW .
good points Blindboy and gragagan - the key being most of our forests (eucs especially) are now very different. Put simply, they are just far too dense (see the Bill Gamage book - 'Greatest Estate on Earth') and so many areas are just waiting for that 'firestorm' weather event and they will erupt. I'm referring specifically to SEQ, where historically we didnt get that type of weather event (was largely a southern Aus phenomenon). But as we have now seen over recent seasons, we are now getting those events here and I fear that will continue and we've seen nothing yet in terms of tracts of dense Euc forests - often adjacent to urban areas, or now part of the urbanizing rural landscape - erupting, and taking much property and infrastructure, and maybe lives, with it.
I see broadscale forest thinning as a major part of the solution, alongside extensive carefully organised cultural burning regimes. Re the thinning, it will always be a tricky concept to get through politically - in Aus, politicians and hardcore greenies and just many everyday people who care about the 'bush' and nature need to understand that such thinning can be an ecosystem restoration strategy. That is broadly accepted in the US - they are implementing massive 'forest restoration' programs in response to the mega fires they are increasingly encountering, and these programs are essentially just thinning operations, returning the forests to the densities that reflect their original character, and making full use of the thinned materials, as you've got to get a lot of that woody material out of there or else it is just excessive fuel. But any 'native forestry' in Australia is now largely a dirty word/concept - in fact, most states are just locking up more native forests and ending sustainable selective harvesting. In my view, the are sealing these forests' fate of being wiped out by mega fires, and all that usable timber going up with them, massive C emissions..... Much of the small thinned materials (and residues of other larger higher value logs like sawlogs, poles etc.) that are available in these forests can be directed to the emerging bioenergy and biochemicals industries. We are way behind other nations on these areas...
Agreed.
The biggest problem would have to be funding it all. Not sure if the gov would be up to it. It might take a philanthropist like Twiggy or that other young Australian fella whose pledging 1.5 billion dollars towards green investment
Greenjam "I see broadscale forest thinning as a major part of the solution, alongside extensive carefully organised cultural burning regimes. "
I agree with the thinning . Am interested in BB response as I think it will cause more thinning of his hair . What is cultural burning ? Sounds woke to me .
Maybe we can call it cultural thinning for all the greenies .
Meanwhile, in Canberra....the plan that isn't a plan. Guesswork, imagination, delusion, Scotty's little fantasy? Who would know? What we do know is that it tells us NOTHING about achieving net zero....but then that was never the aim was it? Wink to the Nats, "Don't worry, we're not actually going to DO anything!" Load of crap to the public 'cos 80% (or so they think) are asleep or don't care.
Then there is this;
Anyone care to extract anything meaningful from that conglomeration beyond the unreality of its CCS expectations.
Scott Morrison just voted against legislating net zero by 2050.
— Anthony Albanese (@AlboMP) October 26, 2021
For all his hollow words, his actions speak louder. pic.twitter.com/nCNa9K08Ls
But this is probably more important and highlights Scotty's real motivation......preventing his fossilised mates getting stuck with stranded assets.
Problem with that idea BB is this whole idea of Fossil fuels vs Renewable companies is a myth, many big FF companies are heavily invested in renewables.
Take for example evil Adani who already holds the tittle of the largest solar energy provider in the world and is set to triple that capacity in the next 4 years.
Source of graphic https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2020/09/09/adani-becomes-worlds-la...
Scumo's climate change plan starts and stops at a handful of slogans, pissing away tax dollars to keep the lunatic Nats happy, and a shiny new pamphlet.
This POS PM has more chance of establishing a strong federal ICAC than doing anything meaningful to slow climate change.
This government is an absolute rabble.
Thrilled to announce that after a decade or so thinking about it, I am here to declare my plan to take both the WSL mens title and the Triple Crown in 2050. I will be continuing my current training regime of bongs, only going right and only surfing my local lineups under six feet and am relying on future improvements in surfboard technology and cell regeneration to get me in the shape I need to take on the worlds best around 2045 or thereabouts. Anyone who thinks I won't do it is just talking me down which is, frankly, unAustralian. That is my plan, called The Adam12 Way. Brochure available soon.
That made me laugh a12…
Well played sir
Forgot to mention an important part of The Adam12 Way moving forward is that until 2030 I will be only riding the same board Tony Abbott rides, which I believe is a 9'6" McTavish 2+1.
Mmm. An ‘in principle’ commitment? Not talkin’ you down or nuthin’.
Roker wrote:Mmm. An ‘in principle’ commitment? Not talkin’ you down or nuthin’.
but scumo had a shiny new brochure and a few new slogans.
Predicated these comments weeks ago, it was always going to be the reaction from some whom it would be impossible to keep happy.
The hard reality is technology is a huge factor in reducing emissions, without it it would be impossible to get to zero emissions.
Personally im very happy with LNP current stance, it will ensure some swing voters are kept happy on this issue, and any against will vote for parties like one nation or united Australia party with preferences going to LNP anyway, it also forces Labor to go a little more radical which will scare off a few swing voters off from off and any wanting more radical action will vote labor or greens anyway.
Good to get it all out the way now too, rather than closer to an election.
Interesting facts and comments .
My comment " It's not easy being GREEN " .
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/green-energy-bubble-unrealistic-expecta...
Summary
BlackRock’s CEO recently admitted that, despite what many are opining, the green energy transition is nearly certain to be inflationary.
Even though it’s early in the year, energy prices are already experiencing unprecedented spikes in Europe and Asia, but most Americans are unaware of the severity.
To that point, many British residents being faced with the fact that they may need to ration heat and could be faced with the chilling reality that lives could be lost if this winter is as cold as forecasters are predicting.
Because of the huge increase in energy prices, inflation in the eurozone recently hit a 13-year high, heavily driven by natural gas prices on the Continent that are the equivalent of $200 oil.
It used to be that the cure for extreme prices was extreme prices, but these days I’m not so sure. Oil and gas producers are very wary of making long-term investments to develop new resources given the hostility to their industry and shareholder pressure to minimize outlays.
I expect global supply to peak sometime next year and a major supply deficit looks inevitable as global demand returns to normal.
In Norway, almost 2/3 of all new vehicle sales are of the electric variety (EVs) – a huge increase in just over a decade. Meanwhile, in the US, it’s only about 2%. Still, given Norway’s penchant for the plug-in auto, the demand for oil has not declined.
China, despite being the largest market by far for electric vehicles, is still projected to consume an enormous and rising amount of oil in the future.
About 70% of China’s electricity is generated by coal, which has major environmental ramifications in regards to electric vehicles.
Because of enormous energy demand in China this year, coal prices have experienced a massive boom. Its usage was up 15% in the first half of this year, and the Chinese government has instructed power providers to obtain all baseload energy sources, regardless of cost.
The massive migration to electric vehicles – and the fact that they use six times the amount of critical minerals as their gasoline-powered counterparts –means demand for these precious resources is expected to skyrocket.
This extreme need for rare minerals, combined with rapid demand growth, is a recipe for a major spike in prices.
Massively expanding the US electrical grid has several daunting challenges– chief among them the fact that the American public is extremely reluctant to have new transmission lines installed in their area.
The state of California continues to blaze the trail for green energy in terms of both scope and speed. How the rest of the country responds to their aggressive take on renewables remains to be seen.
It appears we are entering a very odd reality: governments are expending resources they do not have on weakly concentrated energy. And the result may be very detrimental for today’s modern economy.
If the trend in energy continues, what looks nearly certain to be the Third Energy crisis of the last half-century may linger for years.
Some extra detail re China
Due to exploding energy needs in China this year, coal prices have experienced an unprecedented surge. Despite this stunning rise, Chinese authorities have instructed its power providers to obtain coal, and other baseload energy sources, such as liquified natural gas (LNG), regardless of cost. Notwithstanding how pricey coal has become, its usage in China was up 15% in the first half of this year vs the first half of 2019 (which was obviously not Covid impacted).
Comments re Green Energy minerals .
As one of the planet’s leading energy authorities Daniel Yergin writes: “With the move to electric cars, demand for critical minerals will skyrocket (lithium up 4300%, cobalt and nickel up 2500%), with an electric vehicle using 6 times more minerals than a conventional car and a wind turbine using 9 times more minerals than a gas-fueled power plant. The resources needed for the ‘mineral-intensive energy system’ of the future are also highly concentrated in relatively few countries. Whereas the top 3 oil producers in the world are responsible for about 30 percent of total liquids production, the top 3 lithium producers control more than 80% of supply. China controls 60% of rare earths output needed for wind towers; the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 70% of the cobalt required for EV batteries.”
In several of the newsletters I’ve written in recent years, I’ve pointed out the present vulnerability of the US electric grid. Yet, it will be essential not just to keep it from breaking down under its current load; it must be drastically enhanced, a Herculean task. For one thing, it is excruciatingly hard to install new power lines. As J.P. Morgan’s Michael Cembalest has written: “Grid expansion can be a hornet’s nest of cost, complexity and NIMBYism*, particularly in the US.” The grid’s frailty, even under today’s demands (i.e., much less than what lies ahead as millions of EVs plug into it) is particularly obvious in California. However, severe winter weather in 2021 exposed the grid weakness even in energy-rich Texas, which also has a generally welcoming attitude toward infrastructure upgrading and expansion.
That's what happens when governments spend decades ignoring the evidence and abandoning all attempts at good governance. Thank you Donald, thanks Obama, thanks Tony, particularly warm congratulations to Scotty for an outstanding and unparalleled effort in obfuscation and do nothingism, and a special mention for good old Boris for remaining cheerful while buggering things up .
The Don and Tony were not around that long BB .
I think you need to go back further to a least 1990 . A transition to Green takes a long time . Obama , Bush , Clinton , Bush Snr ( 4 years ) in the states . Rudd ,Gillard ,Rudd, Howard , Keating , Hawke .
But you are right . The move to a Green Transition is in a shambles at the moment . No wonder Scomo has no idea what to do . Neither does anyone else .
Indo"Personally im very happy with LNP current stance, it will ensure some swing voters are kept happy on this issue, and any against will vote for parties like one nation or united Australia party with preferences going to LNP anyway, it also forces Labor to go a little more radical which will scare off a few swing voters off from off and any wanting more radical action will vote labor or greens anyway.
Good to get it all out the way now too, rather than closer to an election."
Indo the reason we are all in this mess and Australia is way behind other developed countries is because the issue is framed in terms of the electoral cycle here, just like you have done. The future of the animal kingdom which includes us primates is a bigger, more pressing issue than who scores points against Labor. This is the attitude that will see the PM and all of us humiliated at Glasgow. It achieves nothing. The LNP you support are a reactionary, radical libertarian-leaning group of corrupt politicians who act for the fossil fuel industries and billionaires. They are not conservatives. They dismantle the foundations of democracy and the Westminster system to suit their agenda, that is not conservatism.
What you think you support is not what it seems or promotes itself as. They are conning you and many other Australians.
.