Listener Round Table

[stonehart]

I think were just postponing the inevitable we are in a stage between ice ages. I dont think that global warming is happlening as fast as people think look at all the weird weather changes.

Not saying this guy is 100% right but he makes some good points in other videos that are worth thinking about.

 

[Jimi H.]

I think were just postponing the inevitable we are in a stage between ice ages. I dont think that global warming is happlening as fast as people think look at all the weird weather changes.

Those weird weather patterns are predicted, a symptom of the warming. No surprise there, really. Bigger storms etc is totally expected because of the increased energy-level present in the atmosphere. It has to go somewhere.

 

[pixelsmith]

Those weird weather patterns are predicted, a symptom of the warming. No surprise there, really. Bigger storms etc is totally expected because of the increased energy-level present in the atmosphere. It has to go somewhere.

We were supposed to have all these hurricanes for the past 10 years too.. where are they? the himalayas were supposed to be melted by now, they aren't. our Chief "science" czar claimed back in the 70's we would all be dead from starvation and/or frozen from an ice age by the year 2000, then he cried global warming was going to kill us... unfortunately temps have not risen in any statistically significant amount in over 15 years SO... he calls it global climate disruption" in order to cover all bases. ... Our environmental movement from the 60s has been hijacked.

 

[mike]

That's a rather weird way of looking at it.

Clean air is not taxed, filthy air is taxed.

.

Air is air, what they are saying is if you want clean air, you have to pay for it.

Here in australia the carbon tax is a round robin affair, the Govt taxes the polluters and passes some of the tax on to consumers (keeping some for itself)
The polluters add the cost of the tax to the price of electricity, the consumer passes the money they got from the govt to the polluter, who passes it on to the govt who passes it on to the consumer, who passes it back to the polluter.......

The only thing that actually changes, is money and hands.

The net effect for the environment is nil.

The govt could enact legislation that actually does something, it could say by X date you need to be generating X percent of your product via green mechanisms
(but it gets no revenue from this)
It could say to vehicle manufacturers/importers by X date, you need to be producing X number of hybrid or electric cars, we are phasing out the gas guzzlers, but instead its set up a round robin scheme that does nothing to reduce carbon, and only serves as a revenue raiser.

So we have a Carbon tax, and here is treasurys own stats as far as what the environment gets out of this scheme

The Australian Government has stated an unconditional commitment to reduce greenhouse, gas emissions by five percent on year 2000 levels by 2020. However, in the absence of new abatement measures, Treasury led modelling indicates that Australia's emissions will grow from 553 million tonnes in 2000 to 774 million tonnes in 2020. This article disaggregates the Treasury modelling in order to estimate the contribution of population expansion to this growth. It shows that 83 per cent of the forecast increase in greenhouse emissions to 2020 will be attributable to population growth. The article concludes that it is very unlikely that Australia will achieve the five per cent reduction target by 2020 in the absence of attention to the population growth factor.

Population growth and Australia's 2020 greenhouse gas emission commitments. - Free Online Library

Population growth will eat up any "reduction" and add more carbon.

We get a tax, the govt gets money and the environment gets MORE carbon......

Its a bloody scam

Dont get me wrong i'm all for best practise and clean energy, but the same cant be said for the Govt

 

[pixelsmith]

No Pressure...​

 

[mike]

The other hilarious cycle of revenue we've had here would be funny if it wasnt so tragic

Companys were set up to visit homes and swap out old incandescant bulbs for compact fluorescent lamps, for free.......
Households pay nothing, the carbon credits attached to this process are worth more than the bulb. They then sell the "credits" to the polluters, but they noticed that energy usage dropped after this scheme took off (as you'd expect) so they upped the tarrif rates for electricity to bring profits back to normal.

Electricity prices in parts of Australia have increased at nearly four times the rate of inflation over the last 5 years according to new research released today.
New analysis of Australian Bureau of Statistics data, by the free market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs, reveals the increase in electricity prices in capital cities between 2005 and 2010:

Sydney 61.3%
Melbourne 56.8%
Brisbane 50.7%
Canberra 45.9%
Darwin 35.9%
Perth 35.8%
Adelaide 16.0%

Increase in consumer prices between 2005 and 2010: 16%
(Source: ABS, Catalogue number 6401.0)

Julie Novak, IPA Research Fellow said, 'Given that the typical household has a power bill of $1,000 it's no surprise families are suffering under the weight of rising living costs.'
'Australia has abundant sources of energy, but we are paying far too much for electricity. The blame rests firmly with state and federal governments. Renewable energy initiatives are hurting families because they push up the price of electricity.'
'Other reasons for these price increases include the fact that state governments have underinvested in electricity generation. In addition, energy companies are reluctant to make new capital investments because of uncertainty about carbon emission reduction schemes.'
'These prices rises are just the beginning. The introduction of a carbon tax is likely to cause electricity prices to at least double,' Ms Novak said.

And again what small savings are made by being more efficient will be swallowed up by population growth

The environment gets.......More carbon

 

[pixelsmith]

A very informative cartoon for my friends who believe in the propaganda spewed forth by "alarmists" and many "scientists" from the IPCC.

 

[mike]

The real equation is an elephant in the room

Carbon is produced by consumption, consumption is driven by population

This relationship has been evident for a long time. Calculations by the World Resources Institute (WRI) show that in developed countries where population growth is low, as was the case across most of Western Europe during the 1990s and early 21st Century, that there was little increase in total greenhouse emissions. The WRI's disaggregation of the sources of growth in greenhouse emissions show that this is largely because per capita economic growth has been offset by improvements in energy efficiency per unit of GDP. By contrast, countries like Australia and Canada where population growth was relatively rapid, show much higher rates of greenhouse gas emission growth. (14) This is mainly because reductions in emissions per dollar of GDP in Australia and Canada tend to be negated by additional emissions attributable to population growth.

But....... Govts love population grown, The govt has a technical term for population

Taxpayers..........

It cant address the root cause, because it would affect revenue growth.

Given Carbon is tied hand and foot to population, this graph also represents carbon emissions (and CT revenue), Any carbon tax scheme represents more money for the Govts, the biosphere gets more carbon in the process.

Carbon tax is a con job

Yet as this paper has shown, there is little prospect of Australia achieving even the CPRS-5 objective. The Treasury-led modelling shows that, under the reference case, Australia's emissions will increase from 553 million tonnes in 2000 to 774 million tonnes by 2020. This expansion will be driven by a booming minerals-led economy, as well as rapid population growth. The Australian Government is riding this boom and thus is unlikely to enforce a cap on emissions which would achieve the CPRS-5 objective, even if it gets the CPRS legislation through the Parliament.

There is a relatively painless option available, which is a commitment to stabilising Australia's population. We have shown that population growth contributes 83 per cent to the total growth in greenhouse gases projected in the Treasury's reference case to 2020. Thus population stabilisation could massively ease the pain of achieving the CPRS-5 or even the CPRS-15 objective.

The simple arithmetic is as follows. If Australia's population had remained at 19.2 million to 2020 the achievement of the CPRS-5 goal would only have required a per capita reduction in greenhouse emissions from 28.8 tonnes per head in 2000 to 27.3 tonnes per head in 2020. But if Australia's population reaches 25.2 million by 2020 the achievement of CPRS-5 will require per capita emissions to fall to 20.8 tonnes. A fall of this magnitude over the next decade is not plausible.

The population option has been ignored by most participants in the greenhouse abatement debate, perhaps because few of them appreciate the crucial role of population growth in Australia's emission burden.

We hope that this article will at least remove the excuse of ignorance.

Population growth contributes 83 per cent to the total growth in greenhouse gases projected in the Treasury's reference case to 2020.

So a Carbox tax combined with population growth = lots of revenue, and lots more carbon.........

Its a scam

 

[Wade]

First off, i was honoured to be invited to this one as a guest, but got Skype working a day too late.
A down time shunt via the 5th dimension from Zeta reticuli, and you'd think patching the mothership to a local version of skype would be easy

You all did very well, was a fun episode

Best and worst episodes of the paracast ?..........

One was recorded in 2014 the other march of 2015................

Where those the ones that you and alex jones are going to be on ?

 

[mike]

You'd think one way to lower carbon emissions would be to leave the coal in the ground.

Higher coal prices have stimulated investment in the NSW coal industry with a number of new mining developments or major expansions to existing mines proceeding to development.

In the Hunter coalfield new coal mine developments, along with significant mine expansions are likely to result in continued production increases from this coalfield in the medium term.
Xstrata has received approval for the expansion of the Narama and Ravensworth mines that will extend existing operations and allow the extraction of 16 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) of run-of-mine (ROM) coal a year for up to 29 years. The Ravensworth Mining Complex, approved in February 2011, will also see the upgrade of the Ravensworth Coal Terminal and Coal Handling and Preparation Plant to allow up to 20 Mtpa of ROM coal to be processed by the complex. As well as supplying thermal coal to Macquarie Generation, coal will be railed to the Port of Newcastle for export.

The development of some large projects over the next few years is forecast to continue the upward trend in coal production from the Western Coalfield.

BHP Billiton received approval from the NSW Government for the $367 million Bulli Seam Project in December 2011. The project will involve the continuation of underground mining operations at the Appin Mine and West Cliff Colliery, extending the life of the operations by approximately 30 years. Continued development of underground mining operations within existing and new mining leases will facilitate a total ROM coal production rate of up to 10 Mtpa

New mines & projects in NSW - Coal | NSW Trade & Investment

Queensland’s world-class coal mines and infrastructure,
including electrified rail links from the coalfields, allow efficient
production and transport of coal to six coal-export terminals.
At these terminals, ships of up to 230 000 deadweight tonnes
load export coal for distribution to the world market.
Queensland’s saleable coal production in 2008–09 amounted
to a total of 190.5 million tonnes (Mt).

Exports totalling 159.3 Mt worth A$40.97 billion free-on-board
were made to 37 countries. An additional 27 Mt, predominantly
of thermal coal were supplied to domestic markets.​

​

​

Follow the money folks, on the one hand the talking heads tell the public, we need a carbon tax because carbon is baaaaaaad for the environment, a Tax will help cut and cap emissions.​

On the other hand, its approving new mines to dig up coal hand over fist, exporting it the world over where it will be burned generating carbon ..........​

​

The rank hypocrisy of this is astounding​

​

Actions speak louder than words, they care about the revenue.​

The public handwringing about the environment is a sham​

​

They have used this as a way to finally tax the very air you breath​

 

[pixelsmith]

when discussing "carbon" be sure you define carbon vs carbon dioxide vs carbon monoxide.

 

[mike]

Down here we tend to just use the term carbon emissions

Free coal and carbon counter widget script!

 

[mike]

Some typical politician spin in this one

Words like "big polluters" "releasing pollution into our atmosphere"

But of course at the same time, opening scores of new coal mines, riding the mining boom for every buck they can get.

And now the "credits" are being traded like a commodity

ANZ is one of the leading Australian banks in the provision of risk management products for carbon markets and has been trading in the Australian carbon markets since 2004.

THE European Union's flagship climate policy, its emissions trading scheme, saw the price of carbon crash to a record low on Thursday after a vote in Brussels against a proposal to support the struggling market.
The price of a permit to emit a tonne of carbon dioxide fell 40 per cent at one point to €2.81, far below its record high of €32, before recovering to more than €4 later.
The scheme, aimed at reducing emissions from Europe's entire energy and industrial sectors, has been plagued by an oversupply of permits due in part to over-generous initial allocations after lobbying by industry.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-price-plummets-in-europes-emissions-scheme-20130125-2dc90.html#ixzz2JPhz0d11

Carbon Credits – The New Commodity on the Block

Carbon-investments.co.uk is an informational portal bringing news, analysis and commentary on the carbon trading market.

Carbon credits, in their various forms, have been around for some time now. The commodity, established by the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, has been traded for a number of years now on several exchanges.
Like other commodity markets, the “global” carbon market is in fact a series of smaller, differentiated trading platforms and products

Its all about money, the environment gets nothing

A group of 14 giant "carbon bomb" projects that are currently in planning and development is on track to single-handedly increase global greenhouse emissions 20 per cent by 2020, making it near impossible for the world to avoid runaway climate change.
That is the stark warning contained in a report released today by Greenpeace and undertaken by consultancy Ecofys, which argues that keeping global average temperature increases to under the 2ºC mark agreed by governments is almost entirely dependent on cancelling these super projects.




Can anyone defuse the 'Carbon Bomb'?


The report, entitled, Point Of No Return, analyses the 14 largest fossil fuel projects currently in the planning pipeline around the world, including proposals for giant open cast coal mines in China and Australia, plans to increase offshore oil and gas extraction in the Arctic and off the coast of Brazil, and highly controversial plans to expand development of Canada's tar sands.

Taken together, the report calculates that the projects have the potential to add 6.3 gigatonnes of CO2 emissions a year by 2020, resulting in the release of 300 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent through to 2050.

Ecosys predicts that the projects would result in a 20 per cent increase in global greenhouse gas emissions by 2020

WHITEHAVEN Coal has confirmed the New South Wales government has approved an expansion of its Tarrawonga coal mine, the last of three controversial projects in the Gunnedah Basin that threaten the Leard State Forest.
Whitehaven and Japanese partner Idemitsu, which owns 30 per cent of the mine, have gained state approval to lift production at Tarrawonga from 2 to 3 million tonnes of coal a year and extend the project to 2030.

The Tarrawonga expansion project now awaits approval from federal Environment Minister Tony Burke, who is also set to announce a decision on Whitehaven's Maules Creek project and Idemitsu's Boggabri expansion, both nearby.
In a dramatic protest against the three projects, which will require most of the Leard State Forest to be cleared, earlier this month Front Line Action on Coal activist Jonathan Moylan grabbed national attention when he issued a fake ANZ press release purporting to withdraw a loan to Whitehaven.

The hoax sparked a run on Whitehaven shares, which fell 9 per cent within minutes but recovered after a trading halt put an end to the misinformation.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/whitehaven-confirm-coal-mine-expansion-20130125-2dc6j.html#ixzz2JPifxRSn

Makes a lie of the rhetoric in the video "seizing a clean energy future, we will cut carbon pollution......"

And yet carbon already sequestered underground, is being dug up at ever increasing rates....

The real truth is coal is being mined in expanding operations, population is increasing and carbon emissions are growing not shrinking

The "Tax" does one thing and one thing only, it raises revenue for the govt

 

[aldo poe]

I loved the round table ,and I am no tree hugger but I am in Ohio and it is 63 degrees today it is supposed to be a high of 18 degrees in two days time. That is not natural at all,politics aside nobody can convince me that there is not a climate shift going on

 

[Polterwurst]

Same feeling here. Temperatures have just gone from around -5 to +10° C within a day. Might be normal in other places, but here ... I don't think so. Even if the warming is probably much less man-made than some of the global warming people say, I think it's not a bad thing to at least try to keep air pollution and energy use low. The climate may be much more robust than these guys predict and it may be self-regulating, but that doesn't mean it'll be considering us when it's doing so.

 

[dyingsun]

Just wanted to say thanks to all of you, I'm only halfway in at the moment, but it's nice to hear the voices of people I've shared this board with.

 

[mike]

Climate change is very real, but im inclined to think it has more to do with solar activity

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

I am all for best practise, green renewable energy and getting our act together in regards to our duty to properly shepherd this biosphere.
We should be reducing our pollution, not just carbon emissions, but all the other pollutants we are creating

Our Stolen Future: Polybrominated flame retardants accumulating exponentially in the Canadian Arctic

Floating toxic plastic garbage island twice the size of Texas - Boing Boing

Human population is expected to exceed nine billion by 2050. Environmentalists don’t dispute that many if not all of the environmental problems—from climate change to species loss to overzealous resource extraction—are either caused or exacerbated by population growth.
“Trends such as the loss of half of the planet’s forests, the depletion of most of its major fisheries, and the alteration of its atmosphere and climate are closely related to the fact that human population expanded from mere millions in prehistoric times to over six billion today,”

Population Growth - How Global Population Growth is Creating Serious Environmental Problems

And this is what irks me about the Carbon tax /emissions trading scheme.

Rather than address the root issue, we ignore it.

People see the CT and say oh well the govts are doing something about it.........

Meanwhile population/consumption/emissions/pollution keeps increasing

We are using 50 per cent more natural resources than planet can sustain
Posted: 15 May 2012
The human population of our planet is now consuming 50 per cent more natural resources than it can sustainably produce, according to the latest Living Planet Report. As a result, it is taking 1.5 years for the Earth to absorb the CO2 produced and to regenerate the renewable resources that people use within one year.
The biennial report, issued by WWF, is based upon research by the Zoological Society of London and the Global Footprint Network. It says that ‘our ever-growing demand for resources is putting huge pressure on the planet’s biodiversity and threatening our future security and well-being’.

Launching the report today from the International Space Station, Dutch Astronaut, André Kuipers, said: “We only have one Earth. From up here I can see humanity’s footprint, including forest fires, air pollution and erosion – challenges which are reflected in this edition of the Living Planet Report.”

If everyone in the world lived like a resident of the United Arab Emirates, which has the world's highest per capita Footprint, we would need the equivalent of 6 planets to regenerate our resources and absorb the CO2 emissions. If everyone lived like a resident of the United States, we would need the resources of 4.5. Countries on the other end of the spectrum such as Afghanistan and Bangladesh have per capita Footprints that, in many cases, are too small to provide for basic needs. These countries may well need to increase their access to resources if they are to bring large segments of the population out of poverty.

 

[dyingsun]

You are doing it right though, Mike. Honestly meaning that, I sadly don't have the space to grow vegetables (nor steak ) , and wouldn't buy any 'special' seeds, but Garden cress still grows on my window sill.

 

[mike]

With its population growing at a near-record 3.5 percent a year and with water tables falling everywhere, Yemen is fast becoming a hydrological basket case. Aside from the effect of overpumping on the capital, World Bank official Christopher Ward observes that "groundwater is being mined at such a rate that parts of the rural economy could disappear within a generation."

n Yemen, a country of 19 million, the water table under most of the country is falling by roughly 2 meters a year as water use far exceeds the sustainable yield of aquifers. In the Sana'a basin in western Yemen, the estimated annual water extraction of 224 million tons exceeds the annual recharge of 42 million tons by a factor of five, dropping the water table by 6 meters per year.

Pakistan, a country with 150 million people and growing by 4 million per year, is also overpumping its aquifers. In the Pakistani part of the fertile Punjab plain, the drop in water tables appears to be similar to that in India. Observation wells near the twin cities of Islamabad and Rawalpindi show a fall in the water table from 1982 to 2000 ranging from 1 to nearly 2 meters a year.21
In the province of Baluchistan, a more arid region, water tables around the provincial capital of Quetta are falling by 3.5 meters per year. Richard Garstang, a water expert with the World Wildlife Fund and a participant in a study of Pakistan's water situation, says that "within 15 years Quetta will run out of water if the current consumption rate contin

Scores of countries are overpumping aquifers as they struggle to satisfy their growing water needs, including each of the big three grain-producing countries—China, India, and the United States. Their populations, along with those of other countries where overpumping will measurably reduce the food supply when aquifers are depleted, exceed 3 billion people, or half the world total.

His concerns are mirrored in a World Bank report: "Anecdotal evidence suggests that deep wells [drilled] around Beijing now have to reach 1,000 meters [more than half a mile] to tap fresh water, adding dramatically to the cost of supply." In unusually strong language for a Bank report, it foresees "catastrophic consequences for future generations" unless water use and supply can quickly be brought back into balance.

Bookstore - Plan B: Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble | Chapter 2. Emerging Water Shortages: Falling Water Tables| EPI

Another resource we are using faster than it can replenish, since there was so much stockpiled by nature, we can do this for while. But when the crash comes it wont be pretty

A good doctor treats the cause of the problem, not just the symptoms.

We are ignoring the cause, letting it grow and trying as best we can to treat the symptoms.

Thats not a cure
And neither is a carbon tax/emissions trading scheme

 

[Muadib]

This thread is pretty typical of the global warming argument over all, the people that recognize that anthropogenic global warming is real want to talk about the science behind it and the opponents want to talk about the politics. Al Gore, the Club of Rome, the guy at the IPCC writing porn, the allegations of conspiracy and carbon tax have nothing whatsoeverto do with the many decades of data that prove anthropogenic global warming is happening.

As much as Pixel wants to talk about the scientific method, he doesn't follow it, at all. If he did he would have a viable alternative hypothesis that explains the decades worth of varied sources of data that prove anthropogenic global warming is happening. Instead, he just throws out every untested, unproven counter argument from The Global Warming Deniers oops, Skeptics handbook by Joanne Nova oil company shill extraordinaire, in an attempt to cloud the issue further. That is not how science is done. It's typical of his entire side, it's a lot like the tactics that creationists employ when debating the age of the Earth and it gets about as much traction in scientific circles as the idea that the Earth is 6,000 years old. As I've explained time and time again, if you want to claim that you value science, you have an obligation to follow the scientific method and that includes the process of falsification. Until you do that, you can claim science all you want but it's about as convincing as Noah's Flood or Adam & Eve sharing the Earth with the dinosaurs.

This, is scientific reasoning:

So we can see that, like any scientific experiment, there are going to be predictions that are wrong, this is part of science, which is never 100% right the first time. Einstein's static universe theory was a failure, should we throw out relativity as well? Jefferson liked to impregnate his slaves, should we throw out the Constitution because he was a bit of a freak? No, the idea that we should throw out their work because someone wrote some porn or developed a theory that didn't pan out is patently ridiculous, the only thing I can think of that's worse is to throw out all of the ideas and data of many different people over several decades because you think that a few individuals might be corrupt. Which part of the scientific method is that?

Do I support carbon tax for corporations (which is what I think of when I hear "big polluters" btw) Absolutely. The idea that they're going to police themselves is completely and utterly at odds with the facts, which have shown time and time again that corporations will do whatever they have to do, at the expense of everyone else, to make a profit. How many times have you heard of a corporation moving into a small town, decimating their local economy and ecology through illegal practices and then paying a fine later as recompense? Too many to count, Pixel can verify that himself, just look at the history of Monsanto. So yeah, I think something that tells them that breaking the rules is no longer going to be economically feasible is a damn good idea, because money is the only language that they understand. Period.

I don't support a carbon tax on individuals because unlike corporations, people can and will change their behavior when we realize the impact that we're having on our environment. And we are having an impact, whether you want to admit it or not. The idea that pumping 27 gigatons per year of CO2 into the atmosphere is good is complete and utter nonsense. I don't know why I'm going over this again, we played this out to the extreme in the other thread but I can see that even after having every unproven alternative hypothesis rejected and proven mistaken, Pixel still hangs onto the idea that AGW is some big conspiracy. That's the biggest problem with him claiming science, science demands that your hypothesis be falsifiable and there's nothing any of us could say or do to convince most of these so called global warming skeptics that they're wrong. Most of them won't even admit the possibility that they could be wrong. You can throw out all the unproven conclusions that you want about ice ages and CO2 being great, but until you do the work to prove that, you have nothing but what you want to believe. There's a Nobel Prize waiting for one of you global warming skeptics to claim when you can disprove AGW through data and evidence and come up with a new hypothesis that explains the decades of verified research. It is a falsifiable hypothesis, unlike allegations of conspiracy.

Until you do that, all you have is belief, unfalsifiable, infallible belief, and that's not science.

/thread, for me anyway.