Current rates of atmospheric CO2 increase are not “natural”

[Mark E]

Comments from Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace.
Greenpeace Co-Founder: ‘Climate Crisis Is Not Only Fake News. It’s Fake Science’

Completely false and misleading.

Response from Greenpeace.

‘Patrick Moore was not a co-founder of Greenpeace. He does not represent Greenpeace. He is a paid lobbyist, not an independent source. His statements about @AOC & the #GreenNewDeal have nothing to do with our positions.
https://bit.ly/2Tf6LCA pic.twitter.com/TfwtwYZ98R’

More on the story behind your quote. Trump quotes climate change denier and Green New Deal critic Patrick Moore

 

[Blue heaven]

This is what gets my goat. By what right do they do this? How lame is the WA government not to have a law that says "You are welcome to sell electricity in our state, but if your customer produces electricity you must buy it all at a fair price."
Done. Maybe I should run for premier? Would I need to move?

Here's some trivia for you, The Western Australian Premier is originally from NSW, as a 22 year old he drove his 1988 Corolla across the Nullarbor to take up a Naval post in Rockingham, he'd never been here before and took a big challenge all those years ago.

 

[Dborn]

Completely false and misleading.

Response from Greenpeace.

‘Patrick Moore was not a co-founder of Greenpeace. He does not represent Greenpeace. He is a paid lobbyist, not an independent source. His statements about @AOC & the #GreenNewDeal have nothing to do with our positions.
https://bit.ly/2Tf6LCA pic.twitter.com/TfwtwYZ98R’

More on the story behind your quote. Trump quotes climate change denier and Green New Deal critic Patrick Moore

He has some good arguments though. Especially when taken with what the chief scientist has to say about the effect of a zero sum carbons emission from Australia making barely a jot of difference. Not really worth economic suicide pursuing, i would have thought and certainly not an election influencer except by some in the hysterical left.

 

[Vostok]

Mandating cleaner technology is way better for the environment than taxing polluters. A massive fine can then apply, so poor performers shut down.

That’s very interventionist and also after the fact. I prefer a market-based solution by properly pricing the externalities, something the Liberals used to support, but instead they now support picking winners and market intervention. Odd, eh.

And I prefer to tackle the problem at the source, where people can make economic decisions which then flow through the whole production chain, rather than try to fix the problem after the horse has bolted and the damage done, which will always be more ineffecient and costly, as well as less effective.

 

[Dborn]

That’s very interventionist and also after the fact. I prefer a market-based solution by properly pricing the externalities, something the Liberals used to support, but instead they now support picking winners and market intervention. Odd, eh.

And I prefer to tackle the problem at the source, where people can make economic decisions which then flow through the whole production chain, rather than try to fix the problem after the horse has bolted and the damage done, which will always be more ineffecient and costly, as well as less effective.

Any change needs to make economic sense and needs to NOT come from taxpayer dollars. I support everything, from cleaner coal AND distributed small scale nuclear to solar, wind, geothermal and tide/wave technology, but it MUST make economic sense. The small scale nuclear in particular is relatively quickly implemented and relatively safe, (think nuclear powered vessels).

 

[Vostok]

He has some good arguments though. Especially when taken with what the chief scientist has to say about the effect of a zero sum carbons emission from Australia making barely a jot of difference. Not really worth economic suicide pursuing, i would have thought and certainly not an election influencer except by some in the hysterical left.

Actually he doesn’t have any good arguments.

The view that “Of course climate change is real: it’s been happening since the beginning of time but it’s not dangerous and it’s not created by people … a completely natural phenomenon” is entirely provable as false as per my opening post in this thread. The rate of change (which is the real problem) is mathematically proved as faster than at any time over the past 800k years and not “natural” by any accepted scientific definition. This has nothing to do with ideology, this is what the numbers tell us, and you have not provided any alternative explanation to these facts.

Alan Finkel’s comment has been grossly misrepresented. And the argument that Australia contributes less than 2% of global emissions so therefore can do nothing is absurd. Perhaps I should stop paying my tax on that basis (Treasury won’t notice it, eh), or if there is a bushfire in my area and a call for volunteers and 50 turn up, I can get out my easy chair and watch them do their stuff because 51 volunteers won’t make any difference.

Australia is the world’s 15th largest CO2 emitter. Do you think only the top 14 should do something? And then #14 will say if #15 gets a free ride, I should get a free ride too. And so on.

And if we add the CO2 generated from others burning the coal we export, we are in the top 10 of world emitters, because really it is our pollution we are exporting.

 

[paulp]

That’s very interventionist and also after the fact. I prefer a market-based solution by properly pricing the externalities, something the Liberals used to support, but instead they now support picking winners and market intervention. Odd, eh.

And I prefer to tackle the problem at the source, where people can make economic decisions which then flow through the whole production chain, rather than try to fix the problem after the horse has bolted and the damage done, which will always be more ineffecient and costly, as well as less effective.

You are of course most welcome to your own opinion. I’m sticking with the proven reality that our government of either side have proven they cannot manage a specific tax, therefore I’m holding an opinion, which I’m entitled to do, that a tax solution will not work. Also the polluters already exist, so any solution is by default going to be after the fact.
Anyone for luxury car import tax - the tax to make local manufacturing more viable. It failed, local car manufacture is gone, we still have the tax.

 

[paulp]

Actually he doesn’t have any good arguments.

The view that “Of course climate change is real: it’s been happening since the beginning of time but it’s not dangerous and it’s not created by people … a completely natural phenomenon” is entirely provable as false as per my opening post in this thread. The rate of change (which is the real problem) is mathematically proved as faster than at any time over the past 800k years and not “natural” by any accepted scientific definition. This has nothing to do with ideology, this is what the numbers tell us, and you have not provided any alternative explanation to these facts.

Alan Finkel’s comment has been grossly misrepresented. And the argument that Australia contributes less than 2% of global emissions so therefore can do nothing is absurd. Perhaps I should stop paying my tax on that basis (Treasury won’t notice it, eh), or if there is a bushfire in my area and a call for volunteers and 50 turn up, I can get out my easy chair and watch them do their stuff because 51 volunteers won’t make any difference.

Australia is the world’s 15th largest CO2 emitter. Do you think only the top 14 should do something? And then #14 will say if #15 gets a free ride, I should get a free ride too. And so on.

And if we add the CO2 generated from others burning the coal we export, we are in the top 10 of world emitters, because really it is our pollution we are exporting.

You maybe should ask an economist for an opinion on what happens to Australia if we stop exporting coal. The economic outcome is horendous. The environmental outcome is unchanged as the coal just gets purchased elsewhere albeit at a higher price, which gives a massive gain to another polluting country.
Alternatively we could lead by mandating cleaner coal power generation for ourselves (as an interim to full removal), allowing us to then export the intelligence that the cleaner technology would create. At that point we can penalise dirty importers of our product with a big fat tax, with minimal harm to our economy as other countries that use our clean technology get their coal cheaper. The world will catch on......solar panels proove that. Yes its interventionalist, but so are our road rules, building rules, food laws etc.

 

[Dborn]

INTERESTING.

Hmmm - saving the planet - here we go!

Here's a small sample of how many coal plants there are in the world today.

The EU has 468 plants building 27 more for a total of 495

Turkey has 56 plants building 93 more total 149

South Africa has 79 building 24 more total 103

India has 589 building 446 more total 1036

Philippines has 19 building 60 more total 79

South Korea has 58 building 26 more total 84

Japan has 90 building 45 more total 135

AND CHINA has 2363 building 1171 total 3534

Here come our AUSTRALIAN politicians that are going to shut down our 6
remaining Coal burning plants and save the planet !!

 

[valakos]

Yes agree. Neither deserve to govern. If the population agree we will end up with a hung parliament, and then some wacko will end up effectively controlling the country.

welcome to America

 

[meloccom]

A couple of points.
The LCT was introduced as a budgetary measure to help balance the budget, I don't recall it being proposed as way to assist the local industry, particularly as Australia made very few cars in the LCT range when it was first introduced. IIRC the Greens added the amendment for eco vehicles. If anyone can point me to a definitive history of the LCT, I did look, let me know.

As Global Climate Change is a global problem it needs all countries to reduce emissions. The way we (The Global Community) are handling this is at the Climate Summits where each country makes a case for how much they can do, or not do. If Australia goes back on any of these promises then that can break the trust required by the process and, if you care about it, CO2 will continue to be added to the atmosphere without limit.

Many people say that action on Climate Change is Industry wreaking, etcetera but few talk about how changes in climate will damage Industry, we already know that hot days threaten Coal Fire Power Stations as so many went off line this summer unexpectedly.

Also not talked about is the business opportunity that a transition to a low carbon world present, however that is not going to happen unless Our Government puts it's full support towards that transition. The current Federal Government have shown themselves to be unable to agree on even a policy in this regard and the NSW Government where I live has paid little more than lip service to the subject. (4 Electric Buses!)

So you pays your money and makes your choice. As Elon has said we can continue with the world wide chemical experiment that may blow up in our face or transition to a low carbon economy and endeavour to handle the risks and costs along the way. I'm personally for the latter.

 

[Vostok]

Also the polluters already exist, so any solution is by default going to be after the fact.

Yes, but the point of the tax is to discourage that from continuing and can be very effective because people will make different choices at the source. It’s the most efficient and effective way.

Economic dries should support pricing externalities, becuase not doing it is effectively socialism, where the entities or people causing the problem don’t pick up the tab for fixing it but instead everybody pays.

 

[Vostok]

You maybe should ask an economist for an opinion on what happens to Australia if we stop exporting coal. The economic outcome is horendous. The environmental outcome is unchanged as the coal just gets purchased elsewhere albeit at a higher price, which gives a massive gain to another polluting country.

Ah, the drug dealers defence. “If we don’t do it someone else will”. Why bother with principles?

The economic outcome in the longer run is even more horrendous if we don’t stop exporting coal. I’d like it to happen as soon as possible, and a smart government would have started planning for the transition 20 or 30 years ago so that it would not create an economic shock. Take it as an opportunity to diversify and become a world leader in some other industry like, you know, solar.

Delaying action simply means the economic shock, when it does happen, will be many times worse. We may not even control our destiny when it happens. If China or any other country decides to no longer buy our coal, it’s not like we can force them to. So why are we not making every effort to manage this transition ourselves rather than living in a fools paradise where our destiny is controlled by the whim of others?

I remember Joe Hockey getting incredibly worked up about how terrible it is to have intergenerational financial debt and the governmet’s single-minded focus should be to not let that happen. But what about intergenerational environmental debt? Crickets... and yet it is even a bigger problem.

 

[Vostok]

Alternatively we could lead by mandating cleaner coal power generation for ourselves (as an interim to full removal), allowing us to then export the intelligence that the cleaner technology would create. At that point we can penalise dirty importers of our product with a big fat tax, with minimal harm to our economy as other countries that use our clean technology get their coal cheaper. The world will catch on......solar panels proove that. Yes its interventionalist, but so are our road rules, building rules, food laws etc.

Well clean (or even cleaner) coal is an oxymoron. Spending money on it now would be a total waste. Wind and solar have won.

And it’s even questionable whether we need more grid generation. Rooftop solar is now at 22% of all dwellings nationally and continuing to grow at an incredible pace. Adoption is as high as 49% across an LGA (Somerset in QLD). Add a battery to those households and a huge chunk of grid demand disappears. The $4 Bn for Snowy 2.0 could subsidise an awful lot of batteries. It’s reached the point where governments subsidizing household batteries could be a better financial solution than building new generation.

And we could have invested a lot more in being a world leader in solar 30 years ago... Martin Green at UNSW and all that... but we didn’t.

 

[paulp]

Ah, the drug dealers defence. “If we don’t do it someone else will”. Why bother with principles?

The economic outcome in the longer run is even more horrendous if we don’t stop exporting coal. I’d like it to happen as soon as possible, and a smart government would have started planning for the transition 20 or 30 years ago so that it would not create an economic shock. Take it as an opportunity to diversify and become a world leader in some other industry like, you know, solar.

Delaying action simply means the economic shock, when it does happen, will be many times worse. We may not even control our destiny when it happens. If China or any other country decides to no longer buy our coal, it’s not like we can force them to. So why are we not making every effort to manage this transition ourselves rather than living in a fools paradise where our destiny is controlled by the whim of others?

I remember Joe Hockey getting incredibly worked up about how terrible it is to have intergenerational financial debt and the governmet’s single-minded focus should be to not let that happen. But what about intergenerational environmental debt? Crickets... and yet it is even a bigger problem.

I stopped reading about where you suggested I was a drug dealer and then you selectively quoted me suggesting nothing occur, when in fact I gave a reasonable description on how we can offload coal and strengthen our economy.
But hey, say whatever you want, dont care. I’ve stated my opinion.

By the way, I enjoy emmissions free motoring, my home generates more power rhan it uses, and my invesrment building is the ‘greenest’ office bldg in Adelaide. I have no guilt. What action are you personally taking?

 

[Blue heaven]

I stopped reading about where you suggested I was a drug dealer and then you selectively quoted me suggesting nothing occur, when in fact I gave a reasonable description on how we can offload coal and strengthen our economy.
But hey, say whatever you want, dont care. I’ve stated my opinion.

By the way, I enjoy emmissions free motoring, my home generates more power rhan it uses, and my invesrment building is the ‘greenest’ office bldg in Adelaide. I have no guilt. What action are you personally taking?

The over rated footballer defence may have been a better choice of words, "I'll take the $600,000 a week if the Chinese Super League have money to throw away"

 

[Vostok]

Here's a small sample of how many coal plants there are in the world today.

Which merely illustrates the scale of the problem. Every single one of those will have to close down at some point. As to all the “planned” new plants, it’s good Minerals Council PR, but many of them will never be built or will be abandoned. Many are little more than lines on a PC screen. Investors are running away left, right and centre. Who wants to put money in what will become stranded asset as renewables spiflicate their economics?

It’s taken 150 years to create this problem (the worst in the last 60 years). Unfortunately we don’t have 150 years to fix it. And every time we add to the problem, we’ve just given ourselves an uppercut because it gives us one more thing to undo later. Really silly, short-sighted stuff.

Here come our AUSTRALIAN politicians that are going to shut down our 6 remaining Coal burning plants and save the planet !!

I take it by that comment that you are a leaner not a lifter? You think we should not do our fair share, or take responsibility for the mess in our own backyard? Not only do we need to shut down those 6 plants, we need to transform transportation (you know, like with the Tesla you drive), get serious about agricultural emissions (meat eaters should go full-roo), and the rest. We need to tackle every front. It’s rather serious we do.

And no-one can prove that our 1.5% won’t be the 1.5% that tips the planet over the edge. So yes, we need to do it and it will make a difference. And we can hardly lecture other countries about their pollution if we don’t get our own house in order. So there is also a moral imperative.

 

[Vostok]

I stopped reading about where you suggested I was a drug dealer

Using the drug dealers defence does not make you a drug dealer. But the “if we don’t do it someone else will” is the drug dealers defence, is a pathetic argument, and needs to get called out. Every single time. If you don’t like it, then stop using that argument.

By the way, I enjoy emmissions free motoring, my home generates more power rhan it uses, and my invesrment building is the ‘greenest’ office bldg in Adelaide. I have no guilt. What action are you personally taking?

OK, you asked, here’s a list:

• I have been a 100% greenpower customer since 2000.
• I finally found a carbon offset gas product 4 years ago and switched to that.
• I purchased a Nissan LEAF in 2014 to expressly get off petroleum.
• I will buy a Model 3 this year to become a BEV-only family
• I catch public transport to work.
• I always carbon-offset my airplane flights.
• Six years ago I completely divested from fossil fuel investments and put all of my super into an ethical and sustainable investment fund. It done very nicely, thank you!!
• I am getting solar panels installed next month with a PW2 to reduce my grid consumption by 90% (and like you I hope to export more power than I consume hopefully to get zero power bill). I have a small roof so most of the delay was waiting for the technology to reach the point where net zero consumption was feasible.
• Even getting approval for the solar panels was a bit of a saga. I am meeting with the Lord Mayor of my local council in April to explain how their planning policies are hurting the adoption of solar panels.
• I recently wrote to my local member and the opposition Energy minister identifying how two different state planning instruments actually contradict each other and has the effect of stymieing the adoption of rooftop solar in NSW (we are #4 out of 6 states in adoption rates). They both thanked me for drawing it to their attention and, I hope, will act on rectifying it.
• I’m also spending a lot of money to greatly improve the energy efficiency of my house.
• I have all but stopped eating beef and instead eat kangaroo which has much less environmental impact (in terms of land degradation and CO2/methane emissions)
• And probably other stuff I’ve forgotten about.

None of this is perfect but the point is to get better. I have the financial means to do this, so it would be extremely hypocritical of me not to. None of it is “virtue signalling”. And I don’t care if anyone thinks it is. Better than being a hypocrite.

Anyway (and this is not directed at you), arguing for perfection is only used as a crutch by some to delay or prevent action. The “if we can’t solve the problem 100% then we should not do anything” logic. I have reduced my carbon footprint by over 80%, and will be well over 90% once the panels are in, and yet live a comfortable and modern lifestyle (apparently impossible with renewables, according to some). I’m doing everything I can as soon as it’s practical and possible to do so.

Now just imagine if everyone did what they practically could to reduce their own footprint within their own financial means and constraints. It can be a little bit at a time, but over 25 million people it would sure add up fast. It would show up just how pathetic our Paris targets are.

 

[paulp]

Using the drug dealers defence does not make you a drug dealer. But the “if we don’t do it someone else will” is the drug dealers defence, is a pathetic argument, and needs to get called out. Every single time. If you don’t like it, then stop using that argument.


OK, you asked, here’s a list:

• I have been a 100% greenpower customer since 2000.
• I finally found a carbon offset gas product 4 years ago and switched to that.
• I purchased a Nissan LEAF in 2014 to expressly get off petroleum.
• I will buy a Model 3 this year to become a BEV-only family
• I catch public transport to work.
• I always carbon-offset my airplane flights.
• Six years ago I completely divested from fossil fuel investments and put all of my super into an ethical and sustainable investment fund. It done very nicely, thank you!!
• I am getting solar panels installed next month with a PW2 to reduce my grid consumption by 90% (and like you I hope to export more power than I consume hopefully to get zero power bill). I have a small roof so most of the delay was waiting for the technology to reach the point where net zero consumption was feasible.
• Even getting approval for the solar panels was a bit of a saga. I am meeting with the Lord Mayor of my local council in April to explain how their planning policies are hurting the adoption of solar panels.
• I recently wrote to my local member and the opposition Energy minister identifying how two different state planning instruments actually contradict each other and has the effect of stymieing the adoption of rooftop solar. They both thanked me for drawing it to their attention and, I hope, will act on rectifying it.
• I’m also spending a lot of money to greatly improve the energy efficiency of my house.
• I have all but stopped eating beef and instead eat kangaroo which has much less environmental impact (in terms of land degradation and CO2/methane emissions)
• And probably other stuff I’ve forgotten about.

None of this is perfect but the point is to get better. I have the financial means to do this, so it would be extremely hypocritical of me not to. None of it is “virtue signalling”. And I don’t care if anyone thinks it is. Better than being a hypocrite.

Anyway, arguing for perfection is only used as a crutch by some to delay or prevent action. The “if we can’t solve the problem 100% then we should not do anything” logic. I have reduced my carbon footprint by over 80%, and will be well over 90% once the panels are in. I’m doing everything I can as soon as it’s practical and possible to do so.

Now just imagine if everyone did what they practically could to reduce their own footprint within their own financial means. It would show up just how pathetic our Paris targets are.

Dude at no point have I ever said that "f we don’t do it someone else will" or even a derivative thereof. I absolutely agree with the notion that even though we are a small environmental player, as a country we must act. Like I said, you took a sentence in isolation without connecting the balance of what I said. That I'm afraid is entirely your problem, not mine. It's quite sad that you chose to extract a sentence in isolation, and print it in isolation, to try to make yourself and your position look superior.

Taken you a while to make your purchases that all seem to be happening in the future. You should have acted for the environment 10 plus years ago in a more substantial manner, like I did.

I'm not even sure why I'm participating in this stupid discussion. Oh and FYI, as an architect I've also designed Adelaides most energy efficient hi-rise hotel, hi-rise apartment building, resort, office tower (was the most energy efficient in the world for a few years before it became fashionable) and aged care facility. They have all won awards for that. I started direct action in a manner that was commercially viable for everyone some 20 years ago. It's not that hard. Lazy people want a tax instead.

Over and out for me.

 

[paulp]

A couple of points.
The LCT was introduced as a budgetary measure to help balance the budget, I don't recall it being proposed as way to assist the local industry, particularly as Australia made very few cars in the LCT range when it was first introduced. IIRC the Greens added the amendment for eco vehicles. If anyone can point me to a definitive history of the LCT, I did look, let me know.

As Global Climate Change is a global problem it needs all countries to reduce emissions. The way we (The Global Community) are handling this is at the Climate Summits where each country makes a case for how much they can do, or not do. If Australia goes back on any of these promises then that can break the trust required by the process and, if you care about it, CO2 will continue to be added to the atmosphere without limit.

Many people say that action on Climate Change is Industry wreaking, etcetera but few talk about how changes in climate will damage Industry, we already know that hot days threaten Coal Fire Power Stations as so many went off line this summer unexpectedly.

Also not talked about is the business opportunity that a transition to a low carbon world present, however that is not going to happen unless Our Government puts it's full support towards that transition. The current Federal Government have shown themselves to be unable to agree on even a policy in this regard and the NSW Government where I live has paid little more than lip service to the subject. (4 Electric Buses!)

So you pays your money and makes your choice. As Elon has said we can continue with the world wide chemical experiment that may blow up in our face or transition to a low carbon economy and endeavour to handle the risks and costs along the way. I'm personally for the latter.

Yes you are right about the introduction of LCT....kind of.
I did some reading to refresh myself on the matter as I felt sure it was introduced to help the local industry.

LCT was introduced with the GST to take place of sales tax on cars....good old GST, the only tax we will have iin the future, which lasted about 1 day.
Then in 2008 Wayne Swan increased it to assist the local industry (that the bit I remembered). Here is aquote from the parliamentary web site;

"Funding for the $500 million Green Car Innovation Fund in the 2008-09 Budget and the increase in LCT which will raise $555 million foreshadow the government s intention to take pre-emptive action to support the local industry by increasing the cost of imported luxury cars and investing in production of an Australian hybrid car."

Like I keep saying, you cant trust politicians with a tax.