Climate Change Debate Thread

Well since 1992 when there was the World Earth summit, we then subsequently had Kyoto and Paris agreement. In the almost 30 years many major emitting countries had reduced their emissions a fair amount. In under 10 years for example the US reduced CO2 emissions from 6000 billion tons to 5000 billion tons through solar, wind and agricultural adaptations. However with all these reductions made how is it that CO2 is still rapidly rising ?

 

Living through climate change (which is what we are doing) is incredibly uncomfortable, our pacific neighbours are experiencing direct impact on them, our fire seasons are catastrophic, our cyclones are happening more and later (ie. out of season) and flooding is happening always. Our buidings are starting to become close to high water, and the impacts day to day are profound where people are getting hotter for longer in our capital cities. Don't get me started on drought!!

On the positive side the planes are not flying and i hear that we will soon have a fartless cow (or is it a burpless cow).

No wonder the kids are annoyed with older generations.

The science has underestimated the impact, and our tipping point is passed. It isn't the future ..... it is here.

 

I don't even know why this needs to be debated. To argue on the other side of climate change makes a bold statement: I'm smarter than all the other scientists out there.

Ok I'm sure some of you might be, but I'm not. I'll go with what those smarter than me are saying.

 

What do you mean by that? What are the scientists saying? What did they say at Paris Meeting exactly ? What was said at the IPCC?

 

Not only China and India but the rise in emissions in the rest of fast-developing Asia have been considerable. The emissions of those countries you're referring to are still way too high to be sustainable despite declining. Also, it's not like all the CO2 emissions from the previous decades/years just suddenly dissolve into thin air, are no longer a problem and we suddenly get a clean slate every year. CO2 has an atmospheric shelf-life of between 300-1000 years.

 

I believe the broad consensus is that climate change is real.

 

But doesn’t CO2 get measured all the time otherwise how would you know what impact there would be if one burnt fossil fuels or renewables. There would need to be some impact?

 

Sorry I'm afraid I don't quite understand your question.

BTW you like a good conspiracy don't you? Well check out the documentary I posted at the end of the last page-it's actually a real one. You, me, your kid's futures, those heroic fire fighters that fought fires that were more ferocious than natural variability should allow, or farmers suffering from drought conditions that are only going to get worse- none of us mean jack s%%* to the fossil fuel firms that play with hundreds of billions of dollars for fun or to policy makers in Washington who see how integral oil is in maintaining the USD as the world's reserve currency.

 

I’m not suggesting it’s not real, what I was trying to work out is why CO2 continued to rise despite countries emitting less of the stuff since 1992. George stated that the CO2 can be still there for between 300 and 1000 years and Geoff stated that China is producing twice as much as the US and almost as much as the rest of the world.
If we are currently facing a climate catastrophe by 2027 unless we act right now how do we account for that rise so quickly all of a sudden if CO2 is retained In the atmosphere for between 300 and 1000 years. It would suggest that CO2 rapidly rising, so by acting really quickly are we reducing the CO2 right or are we slowing the rate of increase?

 

Sorry I haven’t been following this thread so I’m unaware of the nuance being discussed.

 

A lot of that excess man-made C02 still finds its' way into carbon sinks which are natural systems that suck up a lot of that CO2 (plants, the ocean and the soil) but the problem is there's still a lot of it being retained in the atmosphere. A lot of the excess heat is also being absorbed by the oceans.

 

And the sinks ... ie oceans ... have reached a point where they can no longer absorb the excess. Native forests are also being cleared at phenomenal rates ... Amazon, Indonesia, Australia

Combined with increased airborne topsoil particles (droughts) ... increased bushfires creating even more airborne particles (Australia,U.S., Russia) ... increased carbon output, yep particles (developing nations) ... we are pretty close to a tipping point leading to cascade effect

... and our government is still can kicking with a "perhaps, maybe, might try for 2050, while the test of the world is gearing up (we get on board or we're left behind)

Remember, nature will happily continue without humans polluting up the joint ... probably happier ...

 

Do you think China will decarbonise their economy by 2028 George ? I read that they did reduce it a bit but only after they increased by 80 percent between 2000 and 2014. If Australia bans coal exports to China will China switch to buying coal from Brazil! Also do you think renewables and electric cars have embedded processing that marginalises their carbon free benefits?
I checked the other day that the Solar farm in SA produces 100 mw, while one of the coal fired power stations in NSW produces 2600mw.

 

Hey Lizzie, do you believe biomass deserves to be considered as a renewable? I’m not really keen on it because I was thought that environmentalism was about saving forests, not cutting them down. What about the merits of oil from algae. I think it’s got better products, what do you think?

 

Biomass is vital to reducing carbon. Google Graeme Sait and have a listen to his reasons behind restoring topsoils.

Algae and kelps have also been widely overlooked in their potential to restore balance and uses because they are unseen ...

I'd also love to see what happens in the oceans, to ocean life, if all commercial fishing was banned for 2 years, but that's a pie in the sky dream

 

Unfortunately, with what has happened for decades in regard to the commercial fishing industry raping and pillaging our oceans at will, far longer than 2 years would be required to get it anywhere near healthy again.
As a side issue I recently read that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change identified population growth as an immediate driver of emissions.
If overpopulation is a root cause of climate change then why are people advocating for immigration?

 

The climate change reduction targets I thought were being set for individual countries. Is this the case or not? How are we going to reduce our emission levels here in Australia if we are increasing our population?

 

Partially because governments (and businesses) haven't learnt how to function with capitalism growth - growth means more consumers or consumers consuming more.

I was heartened by the actual global population decline figures - backed up by birth rate declines. I think, in the short term and until governments get a handle on it, Australia needs to allow immigration to stabilise numbers as our actual birth rate has us in quite significant decline

And if anyone still doubts climate change is a thing - they seriously need to turn there TV/internet to a reliable and independent (not propaganda paid for) news channel