Climate Change Performance Indicator

You are partially right. I'll quote from that leftist rag, The Australian. One of the main issues is that the window to safely conduct fuel load reduction is decreasing, due to climate change. Ideally, the NPWS would have lots of staff to allow it to conduct large scale fuel load reductions when it is safe to do so, but because of reduced staff, these activities have been reduced.

NoCookies | The Australian

Also looking at the NSW crime tool, arson is slightly down by 3.4% in the last 12 months. There hasn't been some crazy outbreak of lighting bushfires.

Crime Maps | BOCSAR

 

Can't say we weren't warned 40 years ago - the issue with the bushfires so not so much the rise in temperature, it's that the rise in temperature is affecting (and limiting) the rainfall, will is resulting in lower humidity and drier forest floor conditions.

Pity the CSIRO studies were subsequently shut down by those who wanted to promote the fossil fuel industry

'What could I have done?' The scientist who predicted the bushfire emergency four decades ago

 

So easy to concoct a set of deductions and make a claim as to what ever you want to proclaim.
So when we have major floods, is that not included. You do know it will rain again and plenty of it. Most droughts end with flooding. I wouldnt call that getting dryer and claim its why forest floors are getting dryer in the same breath.
Revisit when drought ends and floods consume, then we will see the next concocted set of claims regarding how CC has made it wetter and is to blame for flooding. Its a nice endless loop isnt it?

 

Not a climate expert or anything close to that here but from my understanding, Climate change is not just about hotter vs colder temperatures. It's more about extreme weather events than anything else which seems to be what is happening lately

 

Most of the areas these fires are hitting have been experiencing decreasing levels of rainfall (coupled with higher temperatures) for decades now. Over the same periods large swathes of the north and north east of the country have experienced more rainfall, which is expected given that a warmer climate leads to more moisture in the atmosphere thereby resulting in more rainfall in certain areas. Don't take my word for it, take the CSIROs.

Australia's changing climate - CSIRO

 

Thanks for that , very informative read.

 

Please revisit this thread after you have read the CSIRO research. Unless you have done your own research, and if so, I'd like to examine it. I would evaluate your assumptions, data collection methods, analysis methods, etc. That's how this science works, there is nowhere to hide.

 

- Australia's emissions are down per capita

- Our fossil fuel use for energy production is at roughly the same levels as 2004/05 (output), whilst renewable energy production has increased 150%. This is while our population has increased by 4-5million.
- Our renewables/non-renewables energy production split is approx 20/80
- We invest $600/person per year into renewable energy, whilst China (being the leader for investment in renewables) is @$87/person/year and US @$236/person/year. So our commitment is pretty good.
- Based on the above, we are tracking in the right direction for reducing our emissions for energy production, but energy production is only about 35% of our overall emissions. We sit above average on the global level @ 20% renewable

- What gets reported include emissions produced from products exported overseas Coal, Gas. If we stop exporting these, our emissions would drop considerably.
- Agricultural is a big contributor to our emissions, if we stop exporting these our emissions would drop considerably.
- Transport is a big contributor, but we are a huge country with super low density. Best way to mitigate this is to reduce car usage and increase public transport. (I believe this is the way NSW is tracking, cant speak for other states)

Our emissions will always remain high, and I will be happy for them to remain high whilst we are a rich nation where many individuals are lucky to pursue their dreams due to financial security. As soon as we look to reduce emissions considerably, we will sacrifice our livelihoods and what the country has been built on. (atleast to some point)

There is obviously more to the debate, and happy to hear your thoughts. Would you be happy to cut exports dramatically, cut our incomes, and the quality of our government services in order to drop global emissions 0.1-0.3%.... I personally am not keen, not in the short term (<10 years), whilst I continue to increase net worth.

I believe we need to come up with alternate sources of income prior to cutting fossil fuel exports. Maybe we need to build global quality theme parks and have a massive tourism drive with architectural master pieces. Or our incomes could be substituted by selling solar energy - As per the proposed solar farm provided power to Singapore.

 

I downloaded this website and list of countries and I don't believe that's it's a credible analysis, partly due to the per capita measurement and the actual weighting of data and the reality of each countries situation.
Take Australia's situation. Our total emissions in the last year was less than the yearly increase in Chinese emissions for the year.
Secondly take the UK which rated really high because it burns a lot of wood instead of coal and wood is not listed as an emitting factor. This wood is coming from the U.S. Via ships and trains to get it to the UK. Chopping down trees was the reason why environmental conservation. Started in the first place.
Then look at a country like Germany who are now outsourcing their electricity by buying nuclear from France and thermal from Norway,
Holland has borrowed lots of international money to build its wind turbines. The problem is that the money borrowed will be paid back in 18 years but the obsolescence is 15 years and now they are pulling them down.
Portugal have scored highly because of their solar power. However at night they are having to turn on diesel generator flood lights to power the panels.
I don't trust these publications because it's not a balanced document. Australians will adopt renewables and private enterprises will develop solar storage technology ( still 10 years away) but it won't be completely at the expense of shutting down the coal industry.

 

... regardless (although I do trust they information) ... it does not excuse Australia from such a pitiful showing at moving away from fossils

And don't start any but but but the rest of the world. We can only control our own patch and lead by example

 

Plus some others who are trying. They aren't government though so that's a downer.

You'll probably be interested in some of the projects from this mob @Lizzie.

MIT Climate - Learn, connect and act on climate change.

 

Did you read anything I wrote? Australia has not built/burnt/produced any more power from fossil fuels than we did 15 years.

This is the **** the media are throwing down your thoughts with one sided reporting. I am all for renewables, with renewable power use increasing 150% in 15 years. In that 15 years we went from a 10/90 split to 20/80 split for renewable/non-renewable energy production. Doesnt seem much, but consider we have grown by 20% in population in that time.

And if you are referring to moving away from fossil fuels you must be referring to exports, if this occurs just watch our economy crumble.
So please, clarify what you meant.

 

... we are showing poor leadership in moving away from fossil fuels - both locally and for export. Not sure why that was hard to understand. Madrid was a pathetic showing.

As for the economy ... Australia has the opportunity to be a world leader in renewable energy export, and if we don't start soon we'll be left behind as the rest of the world moves. So why aren't we moving in that direction rather than digging our heels on on a dying fossil industry?

These are the sorts of research/industries our government should be supporting before the knowledge and patents get sold overseas (you'll find plenty more on my "exciting developments" thread in the Living Room):

Australian Scientists Might Have Found a Way to Turn the World’s Plastic into Oil

 

I did read your posts and consider them misleading and basically a false dilemma strawman.


There is only 1 key issue. What is the cost later of poor action now? You think we can negotiate with the laws of physics and chemistry and get a better outcome by not doing what is needed?

Economic impact of Australia's bushfires set to exceed $4.4bn cost of Black Saturday

And this is ONLY bushfires. Can you even contemplate the rest of the damage climate change will cause? 1-2 billion people dead and potential for nuclear conflict over dwindling water resources (India/Pakistan). There is even a strong case for tectonic activity due to the staggering weight of ice being removed from certain places. Australian intelligence think tanks talk about 1 million climate change refugees per year coming to Australia.

I don't hear people complaining about the cost of fossil fuel subsidies, what affect does that have on the economy?

Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies Remain Large: An Update Based on Country-Level Estimates

I find it extraordinary that on an investment web site there is so little thought to prudential risk management in the context of climate change. And while people love to crap on about others spending to much money and not having savings later (the smashed avocado cry babies), they don't want to suffer carbon savings now for a better future later.

 

There is a big difference between showing leadership and actually doing something. I do agree with you, that Australia has a big opportunity but I think their communication and approach is poor. It seems as though they might be going down the right track, but how would you know when they can't communicate this publicly as it may scare off a huge source of income for the country.

Also there is over 100 years left of fossil fuels in the country. Not saying that we should exhaust the usage of them, but when China are building another 200 coal power plants, there still remains plenty of opportunity for economic growth

 

I found this an interesting read. Whether others do is up to them.

Investment Management, Risk & Advisory Services | BlackRock

 

What exactly was misleading? I just posted actual data.
You rave on about climate change causing the bushfires, it didn't and it wasn't a leading contributor. The lack of rain and drought, along with natural effects like wind and lightning caused them to be so severe. Mismanagement of the parkland and bush escalated the conditions to unforeseen levels, which is somewhat linked to the poor ability to reduce fire fuel throughout the cooler months. Yes, there is a link in there somewhere that the fires are worse due to a slightly longer fire season, and warmer conditions but it actually had very minimal impact. Poor mismanagement due to conditions imposed by the drought is the main one.

I didn't consider the cost later of poor action now, because what ever we do as a nation has a very minor impact on other nations and global direction. I personally don't want to fall behind in the short term <10 years, but I also said once we invest or take the opportunity for different income streams then we can reduce exporting fossil fuels. I am a big supporter of a changing landscape and am looking at ways myself to assist or invest, but right now I want to get ahead financially to ensure stability for for family in future years. There is a bleak future coming up, and I rather remain in the top 1% then left out to dry.

I don't like subsidies, I wish all of them were removed.

The best way to control things into the future is to impose birth limits. Without controlling the population there is no hope. No idea how this could be enforce though. I think people naturally are identifying the issue and realise they cant afford to have children, or are having less to the the demands of everyday living.

 

Once again a poor false dilemma stawman, based on the incorrect assumption that ALL countries contribute equally to climate change. The poorest 50% of the worlds population are responsible for 10% of emissions, but you want them to do as much heavy lifting as the rest of us, not only economically, but also socially.

World’s richest 10% produce half of carbon emissions while poorest 3.5 billion account for just a tenth | Oxfam International

So lets assume 50% of the worlds poorest disappear, where the majority of births are happening, we still only reduce the problem by 5%. This is your solution is it?

How about this for a solution. It is trivial in cost compared the upcoming damage.

Reforming Subsidies Could Help Pay for a Clean Energy Revolution: Report | GSI

 

I didnt mention CC once here.
"The best way to control things into the future is to impose birth limits. Without controlling the population there is no hope. No idea how this could be enforce though. I think people naturally are identifying the issue and realise they cant afford to have children, or are having less to the the demands of everyday living"

I get your response, but I wasn't really referring to CC at all.

In regards to the report. How much of the US372 billion is a 10 to 30 percent saving due to the reform. I assume the reform may reduce costs by 20%?, then 20% of this is US14bil for the transition to clean energy. Australia invests more than this alone. Can you clarify how much it would be because it seems rather insignificant ?

 

Read a previous post that I put up - linking to data that shows around 50% of those power stations will never be switched on

Heard comments on this today, and had to follow up - the UK has reduced electricity produced from coal from over 40% to around 2% in less than 20 years ... and with technology advancing even faster, the rest of the world should be able to achieve similar in less than 10.

Britain's electricity since 2010: wind surges to second place, coal collapses and fossil fuel use nearly halves

We need to change or we'll be caught in a death spiral