Game Day 2022 Federal Election!

Remove this Banner Ad

ScragCity

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 7, 2015
14,112
30,686
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Subject to what might be in LittleG's treatise, it's not only not up to Aus to save the world, it's well beyond our ability. Until storage is available, ask South Australia and Germany, renewables remain an impractical solution. If the Government can come up with the touted renewables exportable bonanza, great and is anyone not in favour of cleaning up the environment ? You have to be practical in your thinking and voting.

Fossil fuels are a finite resource. If we don't figure out how to utilise renewables then the lights will go out sooner than later. We might as well get started now. It'll take some courage and it will involve some short term pain, just like any other great endeavour in human history.

Don't leave it to the government. The market will need to play a role too. That starts with people choosing to invest in renewable energy tech so that businesses are incentivised to spend on R&D.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

D Mitchell

Premiership Player
Jul 28, 2006
4,287
1,813
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Footscray Football Club
Cherry picking? Maybe we could survey a more representative sample. Perhaps throw Tassie in there?
I'll give you Tassie's hydro electric. That's been there for 100 years. An exception. for the rest of Australia and the World, SA and Germany are relevant. Storage is just not yet available. Who knows how long it will take technology to catch up. Why not go Nuclear in the meantime ?
 

D Mitchell

Premiership Player
Jul 28, 2006
4,287
1,813
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Footscray Football Club
Fossil fuels are a finite resource. If we don't figure out how to utilise renewables then the lights will go out sooner than later. We might as well get started now. It'll take some courage and it will involve some short term pain, just like any other great endeavour in human history.
I'm coming 'round to your way of thinking about Nuclear. You are onto something, clean, safe (as long as Russia doesn't invade), cheap once set up ease of disposal. The boffins can take as long as they like to work out storage. Levity aside, you are right, I'm all for a clean environment but get some perspective.
 

ScragCity

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 7, 2015
14,112
30,686
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
I'm coming 'round to your way of thinking about Nuclear. You are onto something, clean, safe (as long as Russia doesn't invade), cheap once set up ease of disposal. The boffins can take as long as they like to work out storage. Levity aside, you are right, I'm all for a clean environment but get some perspective.

What perspective am I missing?

I'm well aware that we can't snap our fingers and transition to renewables overnight. I know that the tech isn't there yet. But it's up to us as voters, consumers and investors to incentivise the markets to design the tech. The more aggressively we are willing to invest, the faster the market will find solutions. If there's anything I believe in, it's human ingenuity and the power of markets.
 

D Mitchell

Premiership Player
Jul 28, 2006
4,287
1,813
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Footscray Football Club
We should. I haven't read a good argument against Nuclear.
Scroll back to 2020 Coronavirus/Covid 19 thread, during the first couple of lockdowns. I can't recall if you were part of the arguments but I do recall having to go away and read up on Energy policy in Germany and France to respond to a LittleG post. I even checked out my response with the ultimate authority, a bloke I went to school with.
 

D Mitchell

Premiership Player
Jul 28, 2006
4,287
1,813
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Footscray Football Club
We should. I haven't read a good argument against Nuclear.
Scroll back to 2020 Coronavirus thread, during the first couple of lockdowns. I can't recall if you were part of the arguments but I do recall having to go away and read up on Energy policy in Germany and France to respond to a LittleG post. I even checked out my response with the ultimate authority, a bloke I went to school with.
 

D Mitchell

Premiership Player
Jul 28, 2006
4,287
1,813
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Footscray Football Club
What perspective am I missing?

I'm well aware that we can't snap our fingers and transition to renewables overnight. I know that the tech isn't there yet. But it's up to us as voters and consumers to incentivise the markets to design the tech. The more aggressively we are willing to invest, the faster the market will find solutions. If there's anything I believe in, it's human ingenuity and the power of markets.
The perspectives are
1 The place of Australia in the World.
2. Thinking that electing 7 single issue loose cannons into the Parliament will make any difference. Your Greens aside, the ALP is as progressive on the issue as you can get and can do something about it, tempered by having to responsibly run the country.
 

ScragCity

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 7, 2015
14,112
30,686
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
1 The place of Australia in the World.

The tragedy of the commons. Defeatist and self-fulfilling.

2. Thinking that electing 7 single issue loose cannons into the Parliament will make any difference. Your Greens aside, the ALP is as progressive on the issue as you can get and can do something about it, tempered by having to responsibly run the country.

I've never claimed to believe this. I think that the Teals represent the idea that climate change doesn't have to be a partisan issue. That's all.
 
Last edited:

dogwatch

Premium Platinum
Jun 17, 2009
25,419
40,908
Canberra
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Arsenal
At the risk of stealing a little bit of LittleG 's thunder ...

Here are the top 73 nations in terms of Carbon footprint (2020). For readability I have used a cutoff point of 0.1% of the world footprint but I can post the entire table of 210 countries if anyone's interested.

1653701931180.png


Source: World Population Review

The point of this is that everyone who wants to do nothing (or not enough) about reducing carbon emissions will simply point at the three biggest emitters - China, USA and India - and say "THERE'S your problem right there! Over half the world's carbon from just three countries. No point us doing anything because we are only 1.07%"

It's a flawed position argued out of arrogant short-term self-interest.

Over 25% of the world's carbon footprint comes from Australia and the other countries with less than 1.07% of the world total. Regardless of what the big 3 do, if those countries can all reduce their footprint by 50% over the next 8 years they will have contributed to a 12.5% reduction in the world's footprint (based on 2020 figures).

Secondly, and precisely because every country is looking after its own economic self-interest, the big three will not move on climate change if the rest of the world stands back and says "it's up to you". That would be sheer counter-productive hypocrisy. Conversely if every other country rolls up their sleeves and works toward steep reductions in carbon emissions there will be a greater moral imperative for the big emitters to do likewise. Now of course they are all fiercely nationalistic countries and we know they won't roll over meekly but don't underestimate the power of diplomatic and economic pressure and public opinion...

... which leads to the third point. For the first time (or the second time if you count the threat of a nuclear holocaust) human civilisation stands on the brink of a disaster capable of wiping out at least half of the world's population and much of its ecosystem over the next 80 years. As the manifestations of that crisis become clearer and greater, the pressure to do something, however late it may be, will ramp up. Until the LNP got thrown out we had already seen threats of the EU imposing tariffs on Australian exports because we were such obvious climate laggards, particularly in our targets over the next 15 years. This sort of international diplomatic and economic collaboration will be the most likely course of action to make the bigger emitters respond with greater urgency. And it won't be just the biggest emitters. All of those countries that fail to meet reasonable customised targets - even if they only have a piddly 1.07% of the world's footprint - will be susceptible to such international action.

Fourthly there is the moral argument that all of those countries that have progressed through industrialisation to become modern, affluent nations have already wrought their damage on the environment. Remember damage is cumulative, not just what we do year by year. Their transition path entailed a high carbon footprint, but they now have a viable roadmap ahead to use renewables and high tech and service industries to sustain their economies and their wealth. Are we to deny those undeveloped and developing countries the same opportunities? Or should the wealthier countries accept a greater level of responsibility for reduction of the world's carbon footprint? It's not an easy one, but it's an issue that will have to be addressed.

We also need to have a look at Australia's carbon export industries - mainly in fossil fuels - which don't form part of our measured footprint but do contribute greatly to our wealth. However that's a more complex argument so I'll leave that for another time.

Finally, here's the above table sorted by carbon footprint per capita. Makes interesting reading and has the potential to flip some of the moral positions around a bit. Outside the Middle East we have the highest per capita carbon footprint in the world (of those emitting 0.1% or more). We are 13th out of 210 countries. USA is 16th. China is 35th. India is 133rd.

No I'm not in any way suggesting those big 3 countries should get off the hook but it's a perspective worth pondering.

The world won't solve this problem peacefully with shouting and finger-pointing. We need to collaborate and we will all need to make some sacrifices along the way.

1653704263632.png
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

LittleG

Norm Smith Medallist
Nov 18, 2015
9,204
10,971
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
At the risk of stealing a little bit of LittleG 's thunder ...

Here are the top 73 nations in terms of Carbon footprint (2020). For readability I have used a cutoff point of 0.1% of the world footprint but I can post the entire table of 210 countries if anyone's interested.

View attachment 1410468

Source: World Population Review

The point of this is that everyone who wants to do nothing (or not enough) about reducing carbon emissions will simply point at the three biggest emitters - China, USA and India - and say "THERE'S your problem right there! Over half the world's carbon from just three countries. No point us doing anything because we are only 1.07%"

It's a flawed position argued out of arrogant short-term self-interest.

Over 25% of the world's carbon footprint comes from Australia and the other countries with less than 1.07% of the world total. Regardless of what the big 3 do, if those countries can all reduce their footprint by 50% over the next 8 years they will have contributed to a 12.5% reduction in the world's footprint (based on 2020 figures).

Secondly, and precisely because every country is looking after its own economic self-interest, the big three will not move on climate change if the rest of the world stands back and says "it's up to you". That would be sheer counter-productive hypocrisy. Conversely if every other country rolls up their sleeves and works toward steep reductions in carbon emissions there will be a greater moral imperative for the big emitters to do likewise. Now of course they are all fiercely nationalistic countries and we know they won't roll over meekly but don't underestimate the power of diplomatic and economic pressure and public opinion...

... which leads to the third point. For the first time (or the second time if you count the threat of a nuclear holocaust) human civilisation stands on the brink of a disaster capable of wiping out at least half of the world's population and much of its ecosystem over the next 80 years. As the manifestations of that crisis become clearer and greater, the pressure to do something, however late it may be, will ramp up. Until the LNP got thrown out we had already seen threats of the EU imposing tariffs on Australian exports because we were such obvious climate laggards, particularly in our targets over the next 15 years. This sort of international diplomatic and economic collaboration will be the most likely course of action to make the bigger emitters respond with greater urgency. And it won't be just the biggest emitters. All of those countries that fail to meet reasonable customised targets - even if they only have a piddly 1.07% of the world's footprint - will be susceptible to such international action.

Fourthly there is the moral argument that all of those countries that have progressed through industrialisation to become modern, affluent nations have already wrought their damage on the environment. Remember damage is cumulative, not just what we do year by year. Their transition path entailed a high carbon footprint, but they now have a viable roadmap ahead to use renewables and high tech and service industries to sustain their economies and their wealth. Are we to deny those undeveloped and developing countries the same opportunities? Or should the wealthier countries accept a greater level of responsibility for reduction of the world's carbon footprint? It's not an easy one, but it's an issue that will have to be addressed.

We also need to have a look at Australia's carbon export industries - mainly in fossil fuels - which don't form part of our measured footprint but do contribute greatly to our wealth. However that's a more complex argument so I'll leave that for another time.

Finally, here's the above table sorted by carbon footprint per capita. Makes interesting reading and has the potential to flip some of the moral positions around a bit. Outside the Middle East we have the highest per capita carbon footprint in the world (of those emitting 0.1% or more). We are 13th out of 210 countries. USA is 16th. China is 35th. India is 133rd.

No I'm not in any way suggesting those big 3 countries should get off the hook but it's a perspective worth pondering.

The world won't solve this problem peacefully with shouting and finger-pointing. We need to collaborate and we will all need to make some sacrifices along the way.

View attachment 1410508

FYI:
We don’t have 80 years, we have about ~25 years before things get too bad for the current population. Maybe 40 years before our planet can only support ~500,000 people.
 

D Mitchell

Premiership Player
Jul 28, 2006
4,287
1,813
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Footscray Football Club
At the risk of stealing a little bit of LittleG 's thunder ...

Here are the top 73 nations in terms of Carbon footprint (2020). For readability I have used a cutoff point of 0.1% of the world footprint but I can post the entire table of 210 countries if anyone's interested.

View attachment 1410468

Source: World Population Review

The point of this is that everyone who wants to do nothing (or not enough) about reducing carbon emissions will simply point at the three biggest emitters - China, USA and India - and say "THERE'S your problem right there! Over half the world's carbon from just three countries. No point us doing anything because we are only 1.07%"

It's a flawed position argued out of arrogant short-term self-interest.

Over 25% of the world's carbon footprint comes from Australia and the other countries with less than 1.07% of the world total. Regardless of what the big 3 do, if those countries can all reduce their footprint by 50% over the next 8 years they will have contributed to a 12.5% reduction in the world's footprint (based on 2020 figures).

Secondly, and precisely because every country is looking after its own economic self-interest, the big three will not move on climate change if the rest of the world stands back and says "it's up to you". That would be sheer counter-productive hypocrisy. Conversely if every other country rolls up their sleeves and works toward steep reductions in carbon emissions there will be a greater moral imperative for the big emitters to do likewise. Now of course they are all fiercely nationalistic countries and we know they won't roll over meekly but don't underestimate the power of diplomatic and economic pressure and public opinion...

... which leads to the third point. For the first time (or the second time if you count the threat of a nuclear holocaust) human civilisation stands on the brink of a disaster capable of wiping out at least half of the world's population and much of its ecosystem over the next 80 years. As the manifestations of that crisis become clearer and greater, the pressure to do something, however late it may be, will ramp up. Until the LNP got thrown out we had already seen threats of the EU imposing tariffs on Australian exports because we were such obvious climate laggards, particularly in our targets over the next 15 years. This sort of international diplomatic and economic collaboration will be the most likely course of action to make the bigger emitters respond with greater urgency. And it won't be just the biggest emitters. All of those countries that fail to meet reasonable customised targets - even if they only have a piddly 1.07% of the world's footprint - will be susceptible to such international action.

Fourthly there is the moral argument that all of those countries that have progressed through industrialisation to become modern, affluent nations have already wrought their damage on the environment. Remember damage is cumulative, not just what we do year by year. Their transition path entailed a high carbon footprint, but they now have a viable roadmap ahead to use renewables and high tech and service industries to sustain their economies and their wealth. Are we to deny those undeveloped and developing countries the same opportunities? Or should the wealthier countries accept a greater level of responsibility for reduction of the world's carbon footprint? It's not an easy one, but it's an issue that will have to be addressed.

We also need to have a look at Australia's carbon export industries - mainly in fossil fuels - which don't form part of our measured footprint but do contribute greatly to our wealth. However that's a more complex argument so I'll leave that for another time.

Finally, here's the above table sorted by carbon footprint per capita. Makes interesting reading and has the potential to flip some of the moral positions around a bit. Outside the Middle East we have the highest per capita carbon footprint in the world (of those emitting 0.1% or more). We are 13th out of 210 countries. USA is 16th. China is 35th. India is 133rd.

No I'm not in any way suggesting those big 3 countries should get off the hook but it's a perspective worth pondering.

The world won't solve this problem peacefully with shouting and finger-pointing. We need to collaborate and we will all need to make some sacrifices along the way.

View attachment 1410508
Thanks, DW (Should I refer to you, now as HW, given your impolite dismissal of King Harold ?) for that research. I couldn't work out hte author but, so what, thsoe figures look about right to me.

1. Let's leave adjectives like 'arrogant' out of an observation, the children might be watching.

2. Every country in the World, particularly Parliamentary Democracies, have first priority their national interest, that's how elections work.

3. Clever working of math's there HW, 25 % of the bottom .075 % ? My calculator, low on battries notwithstanding, show that Australia emits .000675 ? I don't trust my own maths so I went to the highest authority I know, a bloke I went to school with, If I persuade Unkle Ted to give up smoking, that might help. (apols, sarcasm is just something we all slip into)

4. Moral argument. Good luck with that, however the Chinese and Russians might be interested (sorry, there's that old slippery sarcasm again).

5. The Per Capita argument. Sshh, don't tell anyone.
 
Last edited:

ScragCity

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 7, 2015
14,112
30,686
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
FYI:
We don’t have 80 years, we have about ~25 years before things get too bad for the current population. Maybe 40 years before our planet can only support ~500,000 people.

That's 0.006% of our current population. Seems a bit extreme for a 40-year forecast. Even if at that point we are forced to eat each other, I reckon there will still be more humans surviving on Earth than the current population of Tasmania.
 

dogwatch

Premium Platinum
Jun 17, 2009
25,419
40,908
Canberra
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Arsenal
FYI:
We don’t have 80 years, we have about ~25 years before things get too bad for the current population. Maybe 40 years before our planet can only support ~500,000 people.
Not disagreeing with your time frames. (Not sure about your numbers, but a population collapse of some degree is certainly a strong possibility)

If nothing much is done over the next 10 years the damage will be wrought over the next 80. There are any number of apocalyptic scenarios so you can choose which way you want to go out:

Excessive heat waves for longer periods of the year​
Collapse of agriculture ==> mass starvation​
Desertification and the drying up of glacier-sourced river valleys (Ganges, Mekong etc)​
Floods, cyclones, storms and other extreme events (including cold ones too)​
Inundation and loss of agriculural land due to sea level rise​
Conflagrations (bushfire, forest fire)​
Wars over resources and water (almost certain)​
New crossover diseases from the need to encroach further into wilderness areas (e.g. Covid)​
Add your own ...​
 
Last edited:

LittleG

Norm Smith Medallist
Nov 18, 2015
9,204
10,971
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
That's 0.006% of our current population. Seems a bit extreme for a 40-year forecast. Even if at that point we are forced to eat each other, I reckon there will still be more humans surviving on Earth than the current population of Tasmania.

Whether we are reduced to 500,000 in 40 years or 80 years, the damage will be done in those first 40 years and it isn’t going to be pretty.
 

Mick F

Mighty Snr
Dec 26, 2013
4,777
8,006
AFL Club
Collingwood
1. Let's leave adjectives like 'arrogant' out of an observation, the children might be watching.
Whereas “single issue loose cannons” is?? …. condescending, arrogant, obnoxious, repugnant???

They are independent community leaders, duly elected by voters who preferred them as the person best placed to represent their views and concerns.
 

D Mitchell

Premiership Player
Jul 28, 2006
4,287
1,813
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Footscray Football Club
Whereas “single issue loose cannons” is?? …. condescending, arrogant, obnoxious, repugnant???

They are independent community leaders, duly elected by voters who preferred them as the person best placed to represent their views and concerns.
 

D Mitchell

Premiership Player
Jul 28, 2006
4,287
1,813
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Footscray Football Club
None of your adjectives, dismissive, 'Ill agree to but only of the 7, not of the electors. Hindsight is the clincher. In this case, those 7 are superfluous, if they or any of them had any decency, he/she/they should resign and stop impeding government.. Will any ? No. What bigger ego trip than to be elected to Reps ?
 

LittleG

Norm Smith Medallist
Nov 18, 2015
9,204
10,971
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
ScragCity
Temperature variations increase in ferocity and frequency for each 1C hotter. These variations are 0-15C above or below average temperatures. India is in famine conditions and without their government stepping in to prop up their market (subsidies), ~200 million people would die there this year. The subsidies are unsustainable and another drought like this year will make things very difficult for the Indian government. It may force some changes to their society that were unthinkable only 2 years ago.

Nearly all tropical reefs will die at 2C warming. Nearly all kelp forests too. Krill are in major decline and 2C will probably end them. This massive decline in the ocean systems will release a huge amount of CO2. The oceans currently absorb CO2 but that is likely to not happen at 2C.

At 2C, that is ~3 meter sea rise, taking out large amounts of arable land and large population centres.


When the Ocean stops being a Carbon sink, then we are in trouble with our current farming techniques.
 

ScragCity

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 7, 2015
14,112
30,686
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
ScragCity
Temperature variations increase in ferocity and frequency for each 1C hotter. These variations are 0-15C above or below average temperatures. India is in famine conditions and without their government stepping in to prop up their market (subsidies), ~200 million people would die there this year. The subsidies are unsustainable and another drought like this year will make things very difficult for the Indian government. It may force some changes to their society that were unthinkable only 2 years ago.

Nearly all tropical reefs will die at 2C warming. Nearly all kelp forests too. Krill are in major decline and 2C will probably end them. This massive decline in the ocean systems will release a huge amount of CO2. The oceans currently absorb CO2 but that is likely to not happen at 2C.

At 2C, that is ~3 meter sea rise, taking out large amounts of arable land and large population centres.


When the Ocean stops being a Carbon sink, then we are in trouble with our current farming techniques.

Damn bro I wish you'd told me all that before I started nutting in my wife
 

LittleG

Norm Smith Medallist
Nov 18, 2015
9,204
10,971
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Damn bro I wish you'd told me all that before I started nutting in my wife

I have two little boys, there is hope. Lots of hope.
Train your kids in how to survive, just in case what we will be doing doesn’t work fast enough.
 

Remove this Banner Ad