Comments on: Climate report biased against Australia

By: Hyper

Hyper — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 22:28:56 +0000

Meski’s suggestion, while it should be considered, is by no means a solution - our problem here is that we are over populating the planet, far beyond what it can support. Switching to nuclear energy may lessen the strain on current non-renewables, but simply moves the reliance onto another non-renewable.

Some people believe technology can save us, but that is as useful as putting faith in the rapture coming to save the souls of the believers. Using something which doesn’t exist as an excuse for current practices will get us no where.

Population & density was mentioned, this is the key issue here - global overpopulation. We should be discussing solutions to address this, rather than looking to make token efforts with emissions tradings, nuclear energy and the like.

By: John Spresser

John Spresser — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:02:30 +0000

Gee - the light bulbs come on.
Why were the Europeans so quick to sign Kyoto - it suited them.
All you have to do is ponder why cotton growers do not get the carbon credits for the carbon absorbed but the spinners do and you will get the answer.
But there again, the Europeans have had to diversify their energy requirements for decades and nuclear power is not a dirty word.

By: Roger Clifton

Roger Clifton — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:57:14 +0000

It’s more than our electricity generation. Including industry, Australians each release about 7 kW of heat into the environment. Roughly half of this is due to burning gas and oil products, the other half due to coal. However only 2 kW of that thermal energy went into creating our 1 kW of electricity. We release a lot of energy in transport and the creation of goods, particularly in smelting steel.

If we really are to remove hydrocarbons from our sources of energy, we must look much further than our power stations. What is to power our trains, buses, trucks and cars? How are we to create aluminium, copper and steel?

These are exciting questions, not excuses for depression. “Meski” offered a solution earlier today. It is time for every reader to think about solutions.

By: Robert Garnett

Robert Garnett — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:12:56 +0000

Australia with around 20 million people is one of the most urbanised countries in the world and all of its major cities, Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Pert have large ports. In contrast the US has an estmated 304 million people, but only three or four are bigger than Sydney or Melbourne. The argument that this gives us a “disadvantage” compared to the Euro’s seem a little thin. Especially when most of our emmissions are due to electricity generation not transport.

By: Will Grant

Will Grant — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 06:33:41 +0000

“We have the third-lowest population density in the world, with only global titans Namibia and Mongolia below us.”

Yes, if you simply divide population by total administrative area. But that calculation is essentially meaningless. Though our total area does influence a variety of policy outcomes (rural and remote health being the most striking), we are by and large an urban country - more urban than the great bulk of the world: http://is.gd/3fjQA

By: james mcdonald

james mcdonald — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 05:44:18 +0000

John I think it’s not a “not” that’s missing but a “that” in place of the first comma in para 3.

“In case you were under any illusions [that] a heavily coal-reliant economy, with no effective carbon abatement policy to speak of and none likely for another decade, was well-positioned to make the transition to a low-carbon economy …”

By: Dermot McGuire

Dermot McGuire — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 05:03:05 +0000

Ah no tom it’s the US one of the early financial rescues was the world’s largest reinsurerAmerican International a US company.

By: meski

meski — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 04:55:38 +0000

Solutions? You want solutions? Build nuke power plants.

By: John Bennetts

John Bennetts — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 04:44:56 +0000

Bernard, I think that there is a missing “not” in the third para.

Sorry about the double post, but I should correct my own two typos.

That aside, what point are you trying to make? I think that we all know that Europe is denser than Australia. Is there a message for Australian readers anywhare in the article?

By: John Bennetts

John Bennetts — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 04:43:47 +0000

Bernard, I think that there is a missing “not” in the third para.

That aside, what point are you trying to make? I think that we all know that Europe is denser than Auastralia. Is ther a message for Australian readers anywhare in the article?

By: Adam Gilbert

Adam Gilbert — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 04:43:37 +0000

Ah, so what? Australia keeps digging the graves of the future with its coal and oil dependence.

Because Europe already invested in its low-emission infrastructure at great cost while Australia laid down highways and built airports (instead of high-speed railways) it is to their credit, not unfair against Australia.

We need to stop making excuses to be treated as an exception, it is far to easy to talk ourselves into being a special case. If everyone in the world dug as deep into their excuse bag as Australia’s businesses, politicians and media commentators then we will never get anyway.

Enough!!!

By: Tom McLoughlin

Tom McLoughlin — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 04:32:39 +0000

Assuming all this is true where is the global re-insurance industry based that Australia depends on for most if not all economic dealings (just think HIH but for everything, and everyone)?

Yep, it’s Europe. And what the re-insurance industry says is a pre-requisite to manage risk in a climate change impacted world, will apply here. They will say jump and we will say how high.

By: james mcdonald

james mcdonald — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 04:09:46 +0000

While there’s no doubt the Europeans have pursued carbon agreements for the right reasons, something about the reference year 1990 does suggest an additional reason why it was easy to convince them to push the rest of the world so hard.

In 1990 the EU inherited a lot of inefficient, unsafe, and highly pollutive power stations from the disintegrating USSR and Warsaw Pact bloc. They had to embark on an immense power upgrade program, using the latest technologies.

As a side-effect, this caused an immense reduction of carbon pollution in the EU. The push for carbon trading is mainly driven by the wish to save the world, but the opportunity to make the rest of the world pay for Europe’s power-station refresh program certainly sweetens it for them.

By: Roger Clifton

Roger Clifton — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 04:07:44 +0000

Never mind those excuses. What are your solutions?