-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
ETS
- Thread starter Rosy
- Start date
Tiger74 said:thats an appalling impersonation of Liverpool U2if you are gunna pretend to be Liv, you have to have at least 5 quotes and links from Andrew Bolt in your post :hihi
With a Harvard reference list. ;D
The ETS and other schemes from other countries don't tackle the real problem.
Population growth.
Every breath we take emits CO2.
With a planned increase of the world's population by around 3 billion people over the next 50 years, we have a serious problem.
These people all emit CO2. And they all need to be fed, watered, clothed and housed. And most will want consumer items such as cars, phones, tv's, etc.
I'm not saying ignore the ETS. But please, have a look at the big picture.
Population growth.
Every breath we take emits CO2.
With a planned increase of the world's population by around 3 billion people over the next 50 years, we have a serious problem.
These people all emit CO2. And they all need to be fed, watered, clothed and housed. And most will want consumer items such as cars, phones, tv's, etc.
I'm not saying ignore the ETS. But please, have a look at the big picture.
poppa x said:
Read up on the carbon cycle Poppa. The CO2 you (and the growing global population) exhale has no impact on net atmospheric CO2. This is because you are exhaling carbon that you ingested in the form of plants or meat that obtained that carbon from the atmosphere (as CO2) or from eating plants that obtained carbon from the atmosphere. Therefore the carbon cycles between the atmosphere and the biosphere without contributing to the issue of carbon pollution. It is also why alternative fuels, such as bioethanol/biodiesel are considered carbon-neutral because the carbon is obtained from biological sources. The problem is when we tap into carbon-reservoirs, such as fossil fuels which increase the total carbon in the atmosphere.
Having said that, population growth certainly has issues, it is just that the exhalation of CO2 doesn't happen to be one of them.
That's a bit of a strange argument, Pantera. If poppa didn't exist he wouldn't have eaten the plant or the meat (or at least given rise to the piece of land that hadto be cleared to grow said meat).
The ETS has become a bit of joke BTW. I doubt it will do *smile* all to reduce emisisons and just serves as yet another tax the hoi polli will have to bare to salve a few consciences.
The ETS has become a bit of joke BTW. I doubt it will do *smile* all to reduce emisisons and just serves as yet another tax the hoi polli will have to bare to salve a few consciences.
evo said:
He may not have eaten it, but something would have eventually, oxidising the carbon to CO2 for it to eventually be fixed again by some photosynthetic organism. The only ways for net atmospheric carbon to change is for it to be sequestered in some way (ie in lime deposits, coal deposits etc.), or for these sequestered forms to be liberated (ie burning fossil fuels).
Are you an anthropogenic climate change skeptic, skeptical of the ETS as a solution to the problem or skeptical that a solution is possible?
This is crazy. If poppa wasn't here we wouldn't have needed the field of cows or lettuce to feed him in the place. It would've been Amazon rainforest, European forest or Australian/New Zealand scrub.Panthera tigris FC said:
What? Trees store CO2 as long as they are alive and also convert some of it to oxygen. More live trees more stored CO2. Moreover my understanding is that if a tree is chopped down but not allowed to rot(ie used to build a house or table) it is still a store of Co2 as carbon - sequestered in other words.
Humans on the other hand consume oxygen and emit CO2.
No.
yes
maybe; but I don't see a problem in more green sustainable solutions for energy genertion anyway.(including Nuclear)
Freezer said:
A better question is how much will an Australian ETS reduce the world's carbon emissions?
Merveille said:
I watched all of the LateLine interview with the NASA Climate Scientist, and this is my summary of what he said.
1) An ETS is a total waste of time.
2) No-one at Copenhagen is dealing with the really big issue - the burning of fossil fuels.
3) Australia is leading the charge for Carbon reduction but at the same time expanding our ports to allow more coal to be exported. He thinks this is hypocrisy.
4) Substantial fossil fuel useage must occur and occur soon or the problem will become irreversible.
5) He didn't specify what alternative energy sources should be used. We can assume he means a combination of wind, solar and nuclear, allied to less consumption.
6) IMO he rejects the approach of both Rudd (hypocrisy) and Abbott (in denial).
2c.
evo said:
Not crazy, just mistaken.
Human activity through population growth can impact atmospheric CO2 levels primarily through mass deforestation. Less autotrophs (primarily photosynthetic organisms) and more heterotrophs (net CO2 emitters) must lead to some increase in atmospheric CO2. This is, of course, unless other autotrophic populations (ie phytoplankton, cyanobacteria etc) compensate for both the loss of plants (to take up CO2) and increase in hetertrophic populations (that continue to emit CO2). You would think that this would require a huge increase in biomass in these populations but I am not sure if there has been any response to elevated atmospheric and marine CO2 levels in these populations (I haven't looked). One of the benefits of carbon fixation in phytoplankton is that the much of the carbon does become sequestered as they sediment at the bottom of the ocean.
Agree with all of those positions (although I don't see nuclear as long-term sustainable due to issues with finite materials for fission and waste management - it may help reduce carbon emissions short term).
Freezer said:
???
I am not sure what you mean. We need a long-term, sustainable reduction in carbon output.
If we need to reduce emissions in the short term than we need energy generating systems that can achieve this. Of the technologies currently available it is highly unlikely that the truly sustainable ones (solar, wind, tidal, geothermal etc.) could replace fossil fuels as they currently stand. Nuclear power might be able to bridge the gap, but it is a massive economic investment for a short-term fix. I am not sure what the solution actually is.
