Climate Change/ Global Warming (1 Viewer)

[Captain Gh3y]

Solar panels can store energy, so that for example your lights would still work at night time.
Can you covert that $50 per megawatt hour into how much the panels would cost each household for say, a week? I don't understand why it would cost money though..apart from the inital expenditure on the panels themselves.

I don't think the panels would be cheap to put in, (something like $13,000 to install but since it is a once off payment maybe if the government subsidised it) but they would still work during cloudy days, even rainy ones. I don't know that solar power is the best way to power our homes anyway, I think solar cars, buses, trains etc would be a much better use. It's not that difficult to do, its just at the moment in Australia its expensive.

No, they can't store energy, batteries can. And the cost estimates in the article I posted before don't even take the cost of the batteries (not to mention the environmental cost, which is quite significant) into account.

 

[hazaar]

Now with the most comprehensive report on the economic rammifications of global warming, what does everyone think?

If you haven't heard about Sir Nicholas Stern's report, you must be living under a rock considering the amount of media coverage it's been getting.

And aren't i glad! Finally something might just be done!

 

[HotShot]

Now with the most comprehensive report on the economic rammifications of global warming, what does everyone think?

If you haven't heard about Sir Nicholas Stern's report, you must be living under a rock considering the amount of media coverage it's been getting.

And aren't i glad! Finally something might just be done!

I highly doubt it - the problem of limited resources, pollution and chemical waste has been for ages - and we havent really done anything about it. what makes u think a few economists and scientists will change people mind? when the same people as in economists and scientists pointed out the same thing ages and ago and nothin has happened.

imo as humans we will adapt.

 

[hazaar]

the message isn't going away.....
just read some of the latest polls on climate change/global warming....
it's is now entrenched in mainstream australia......now all we have to do is debate what to do! that's a whole other issue.

 

[Skeeta]

I think that everyone is just waiting for the government to do something about it.

Some of the most effective things you can do yourself
- recycling
- short showers.. None of this 20 minute shit
- Turn lights/tv of when you're not in the room
- Turn appliances off at the plug... and unplug them
- Use halogen lightglobes
- Dont eat so much MEAT! They say to have at least one meat free day a week, but ithink decreasing meat consumption overall is also beneficial.
- Dont drive an effing 4wd if you live in the city and its your only purpose..

These things arent exactly rocket science, they're common sense. If everyone in a state, let alone a country or the world were doing these things, the burden on the environment will decrease bigtime. These things WONT take us back to the stone ages, its about using the resources more effectively.

People can bitch and moan about the politicians not doing anything, but fail to do many of these things themselves.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

- recycling

On everything other than metals I strongly disagree.

- Dont eat so much MEAT! They say to have at least one meat free day a week, but ithink decreasing meat consumption overall is also beneficial.

Is this for your health or the environment? I mean it's good for your health to not eat so much meat... but are you trying to claim that livestock is producing a huge amount of carbon emitions?

- Turn appliances off at the plug... and unplug them

lol wtf? Where do people get this sort of crap?

If everyone in a state, let alone a country or the world were doing these things, the burden on the environment will decrease bigtime.

It'd decrease a decent amount by current standards... but really not that much. There's little point of doing any of what you mentioned above unless the politicians change our current ways, which they won't.

- Dont drive an effing 4wd if you live in the city and its your only purpose..

Hmm... let's think about it. If they're not driving a 4WD they're driving a car right? So really there's only a marginal difference... I see no reason to pick on 4wd users for environmental reasons (given that they're not that much more of a culperate) I do think they're a hazard though as they block vision

 

[Skeeta]

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/NatureChallenge/

 

[malkin86]

I think it's methane that the livestock are producing.
In the older days (70s and 80s I think?), it used to be 'act locally, think globally', but now the push is more 'think locally, act locally, to have any hope of impacting globally'. The 'turning stuff off when you're not using it'/'shorter showers' approach is about being able to do something, and raising awareness.

I agree with you that the pollies won't change their minds - I think that in some ways, a pollie's job is to get re-elected, and they just run the country to fill in the time between elections.

Other points:
*Our Kyoto target was set at 8% easier to reach than other countries', because we bitched and moaned so much about being a coal economy.
*Out of all the Western countries, we are perhaps in the most danger. (Unless, perhaps, you include the increased tectonic/volcanic activity, in which case, it might be NZ.)
*The US failing to do anything about climate change could lead to another Great Depression. http://www.smh.com.au/news/WORLD/Dire-warning-over-climate-inaction/2006/10/29/1162056851839.html

 

[Skeeta]

I think it's methane that the livestock are producing.

Its not just that, its about land and water too:

* Meat production requires more water than raising crops. For example, 283 grams (10 oz) of beef requires 85 times more water to produce than the same amount of potatoes.

* Roughly one-fifth of the world's land is used for grazing. That’s twice the area used for growing crops. Much of this land once provided habitat for flora and fauna before being cleared for livestock.

* Feedlots can cause water pollution. Feedlots cause water pollution. Nearly 21 per cent of the average Canadian's contribution to common water pollution is caused by meat consumption from high-density farms. By designating just one “meat free” day a week you'll help reduce common water pollutants by as much as 21 kilograms annually.

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/NatureChallenge/

 

[The_highwayman]

I read a really intriguing chapter in Jared Diamond's newest book, "Collapse: How societies choose to Fail or Succeed"

It was all about Australia and climate change. It was really interesting reading, but was sort of bleak in the end. If you can get your hands on a copy i would very much recommend it.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

IMHO it's much better to be buying your food locally (i.e. If you're getting your meat from a local, small scale farm, you're doing better for the environment than someone who's getting their soy beans from south america). I'll explain futher my problem... you see to me the demand for meat outweighs the current supply, so all I can see lowering your own intake (or our country's intake) of meat doing is shifting the market and lowering the price of meat. What would actually need to be done is some regulations by the government.

 

[kelly_xxx]

Hi all: I'm sure most of you have seen/heard the campaign on Walk Against Warming, an initiative to raise awareness and urge government to take greater measures in our usage of greenhouse emission.

I would love to join walks like this but in stead, i'll probably stuck at home studying for my economics exam, and sitting there getting even more agitated as I learn about the current government's policies on environmental management. Please do not mistake me that this is not a personal attack on Howard, but an outcry to alter the government's attitude on this issue. Since the start of stuvac, I've been dating the television every afternoon by watching Parliament Question time (2pm ABC if you are interested). From what I gather, Mr. Howard would not sign Kyoto Protocol because this agreement does not incorporate countries like China, India and USA, and thus proving Kyoto as invalid. May I say for Gods sake that I am absolutely appalled by such argument. We, as Australians, are one of the worst offenders of green house emission and WE should be the PIONEERS of agreements of the like. We, as government and citizens should set ourselves targets and aim to achieve them, as well as developing actual environmental technologies. THe current government said that reducing green house emission will plunge the world into depression, but that is one big misleading statement. Perhaps in the short term, our economic growth will suffer through since our major product is commodities. Yes, I acknowledge this fact and I respect this opinion. However, by adopting a slack policy will see our agricultural community suffer in the long term. Our farms are already suffering from the devastation of droughts, are they not sufficient evidence to indicate this? When we no longer have agricultural products to export, when we have dried up our mineral resources... what then? what next? I fear the future if our government persist on its stance. That's why we need public opinion to overturn this issue.

I was also watching Bob Brown, the Greens leader and I admire him for his belief and plans for this issue. He said that politicians should exceed political barriers in order to work together and solve this global issue. Using the best of Labour, Greens, Democrats and LIberals, everyone, we need to be together on this issue. John Howard's approach is not a wise one, and not an adequate one and hopefully you guys will all be able to contribute to this issue in one way or the other. By talking to friends, by coming up with new solutions. That's another thing, if we pioneer green technology now, we can export them in the long term, giving ourselves a greater advantage in this global era.

 

[malkin86]

I am a firm believer that there is absolutely nothing we can do to stop or reverse global warming. The best we can do is prepare for the effects.

Unfortunately, the Stern report (comparing the impacts of climate change on the economy to the Great Depression) says that merely trying to adapt to climate change would cost more than it would to stamp out climate change. And I'm not sure it can be said that global warming's going to slow down without an effort from us. It could warm even further, which would then cause more damage.

His report, commissioned by the British government, has also demolished the argument of some economists that it is better to adapt to warming than try to halt it. He points out that the economic damage from climate change in this century alone could be 20 times the cost of solving it for all time. "Economically speaking, mitigation is a very good deal," Stern said when launching the report at the Royal Society in London on Monday. As Michael Grubb of Imperial College London put it: "The Stern review finally closes a chasm that has existed for 15 years between the precautionary concerns of scientists and the cost-benefit views of many economists."

 

[bassguy]

Plus climate change could a bane to solar, wind and hydro. Solar works where sunny days are a high % of total year, wind works in high % windy day area, and hydro needs rivers that maintain a resonably constant flow and dont dry up, things climate change could easily mess with in the long term.

Also lets not be too quick to jump on the CO2 bandwagon, our planet has happily cooled and warmed (such as the medieval warm period) without us doing anything.

That's true, it has been cooling and warming on its own. The difference is that this time it has warmed up by a vastly greater amount than any time previously. This corresponds to the rise of greenhouse gas emissions.

 

[Vangineer]

Wow someone posted in June so I can post now hehe.

seriously, I cant believe some of you people. It is true that climate change won't effect us for a few hundred years but your great great grand children or whoever is going to suffer dearly. They will be living in areas with increased temperatures by up to 6 degrees. (Imagine your summer at 51 degrees)

Nuclear energy doesnt work! It takes too long to build and maintain one of those things. Storing waste is a big money maker. I guess one day America, iran, britain are all going to dump their waste to us. So we are going as low as rubbish.

Wind energy takes space? are you stupid? Australia has fucking massive unused land!!! Open your eyes, like omg. They look ugly? so just cause they look crap you are going to refuse to use clean and free energy. Germany has plans to achieve 30000MW of energy in the next decade. And Australia has like 1000MW? or less?

We have to admit that we are just nearly like America with our pet PM John Howard following in the foot steps of texas ranger George W Bush. Whatever Bush does Johnny follows. The difference only is that America has started to install massive solar establishments and wind power farms. Australia is behind!!

Fair enough wind and solar energy is more expensive that coal fired power stations. But coal power stations are a dilema to our water shortage problems. Coal power stations need heaps of water too cool their towers. Additionally, even though electric or hybrid vehicles are feasible they are still pricier than petrol cars. WE HAVE to remove the subsidies placed on petrol prices. NO SUBSIDIES = more expensive fuel = cheaper renewable alternatives. If petrol prices are higher then people stop driving so much. We can then solve our transport crisis. We hit 2 birds with 1 stone! great work what else can you ask for.

Now then, it is the thought that counts i guess. My ranting probably wont help me or anyone else because there is quite a big difference from saying and doing. If we all vote for green or labour, sacrifice the economy, i am sure they can make a difference for our future climate conditions.

thanks

 

[Captain Gh3y]

like omg

Opinion noted.

 

[Slidey]

Erm actually climate change + fuel supply will affect us within the next 20 to 50 years. 20 in the case of fuel supply.

 

[cueBall]

Wow someone posted in June so I can post now hehe.

seriously, I cant believe some of you people. It is true that climate change won't effect us for a few hundred years but your great great grand children or whoever is going to suffer dearly. They will be living in areas with increased temperatures by up to 6 degrees. (Imagine your summer at 51 degrees)

Nuclear energy doesnt work! It takes too long to build and maintain one of those things. Storing waste is a big money maker. I guess one day America, iran, britain are all going to dump their waste to us. So we are going as low as rubbish.

Wind energy takes space? are you stupid? Australia has fucking massive unused land!!! Open your eyes, like omg. They look ugly? so just cause they look crap you are going to refuse to use clean and free energy. Germany has plans to achieve 30000MW of energy in the next decade. And Australia has like 1000MW? or less?

We have to admit that we are just nearly like America with our pet PM John Howard following in the foot steps of texas ranger George W Bush. Whatever Bush does Johnny follows. The difference only is that America has started to install massive solar establishments and wind power farms. Australia is behind!!

Fair enough wind and solar energy is more expensive that coal fired power stations. But coal power stations are a dilema to our water shortage problems. Coal power stations need heaps of water too cool their towers. Additionally, even though electric or hybrid vehicles are feasible they are still pricier than petrol cars. WE HAVE to remove the subsidies placed on petrol prices. NO SUBSIDIES = more expensive fuel = cheaper renewable alternatives. If petrol prices are higher then people stop driving so much. We can then solve our transport crisis. We hit 2 birds with 1 stone! great work what else can you ask for.

Now then, it is the thought that counts i guess. My ranting probably wont help me or anyone else because there is quite a big difference from saying and doing. If we all vote for green or labour, sacrifice the economy, i am sure they can make a difference for our future climate conditions.

thanks

okay lets go through this step by step

1. climate change probably will affect us sooner than later. The question is can we do anything about it? And i guess the other question is: are we causing it?

2. nuclear energy is the safest and most reliable energy source known to man. There has not been a single nuclear disaster or dumping problem in the first world. Chernoble (sprelling...) was due to bad maintenence.

3. wind energy is currently in its infancy not because we cant use it but becuase it is notoriusly unrelibable. The thing with wind enrgy is that you have 20km/s per hour one minute and 5km/h the next. If the wind drops below 5 most windmills will stop generating same if it goes over 35 i think (there is an upper and lower limit which differs between mills). All this energy goes into batteries. Once the batteries are sufficiantly full they get transferred to mains power. the problem is these batteries cost a lot and need to be replaced. The chemicals used to make them rival nuclear in terms of disasters: just look at what Union Carbide has done in HomeBush as well as India...

4. that pet thing is just unfounded. Yes we followed our allies with the Iraq war, but how have we been Bush's energy pet? Howard has been in for 12 years and we have not gone nuclear or done any other American power moves... The solar installations also currently use more energy to make than it is expected they will ever produce. Once again it is in its infancy. alternative power sources are very important but are currently in their infancy and are not ready to be implemented with great force what we need to do is look at tapping the tides as they are reliable in energy production and the heat in our deserts. But atm there is no viable way -- NB the word viable...

5a. coal is not really that cheap. the FC + VC are quite substantial.

5b. the water issue is really badly construed. You can use sea water if you want... You can use coolant... and it does not use that much water really

5c. and subs hmmm we dont really have them in Australia -- sorry.

5d. fuel efficiant cars are not expensive, esp. if you count running costs. What they are is badly designed -- did someone say ugly? People will drive what looks good on average at the end of the day...

5e. our transport crisis is centred around bad public transport! if we had good quality public transport like France then we would have substantially less car usage esp. if we stopped our decentralisation policy.

6. I think this point is misguided. E.g. when Germany went with the Greens many companies who made bad chemicals... just moved country. If we bring in new restricitive policies we dont solve the problem we merely move it -- oh and we rui the economy -- Germany has been in somewhat of an economic stagnation with the Greens...