Discussion Random Discussion

[SaintsSeptember]

We’re taking action, coal is down, Brown coal will continue to decrease and renewables are increasing in terms of our energy production.

There are god knows how many proposals, some already have approval and funding some probably won’t pass muster like the second bass straight link to Tasmania. I think people simply push back against the more extreme and frankly meaningless woke demands.

We’ve just had an election and climate change wasn’t on the agenda for the majority of Australians let alone a top three issue. I see suggestions including from pacific leaders that we shouldn’t open any more coal mines etc, who are we to tell other countries what to do, I’m sorry but that’s a good recipe for a war or two.

I’ll tell you what I rarely read and that’s the population explosion that’s taken place, that’s a huge driver of omissions. The UN promised people money, loads of other people’s money and now it’s under threat some people are becoming a bit shrill.

If and when sea levels start rising rapidly then we’re all going under without massive investment we’ll all be displaced. Australia’s costal cities, New York, London etc. I’ll never understand how this ends up framed as the haves and have nots, there’s only one planet and we’re all on it. I did see that Australia didn’t address the issue of resettlement in the event of catastrophic climate change but I understand the position they’ve taken. It’s putting the cart before the horse and potentially opens up all sorts of claims.

Personally I have great faith in new technology, I see snippets here and there of discovery’s and breakthroughs that if they come to fruition will solve our energy problems.

Anyway all of my friends have retired including a former emergency services commissioner, a very senior deputy director of immigration etc. baby boomers are on the way out except for a fairly comfortable retirement for many we’re not making a lot of decisions and those that are soon won’t be. I’ll watch on with interest at how the next generation of movers a shakers go, I suspect you’ll see little change.

Even the worst forecasts don't suggest this. Most of the half sensible sources are talking of up to 2 metres by 2100.
Places that currently get inundated and flooded will have it more often.
Bangladesh. Parts of Vietnam, Shanghai, Netherlands, of course low lying pacific islands.

Flood Map: Elevation Map, Sea Level Rise Map

Flood Map shows the map of the area which could get flooded if the water level rises to a particular elevation. Sea level rise map. Bathymetric map, ocean depth. Effect of Global Warming and Climate Change.

www.floodmap.net

If it goes nuts ( 50 meters ) though, Frankston and Cranbourne end up on their own little island, paving the way to an "Escape from New York " type scenario .
I'd imagine Torak/Malvern Island will be very exclusive..

 

[gringo2011]

We are about 4% of the problem if you count exports.

And then if you count all the off-shore manufacturing that we now don't do it makes us look better. It's hard for countries that have heavy industry to make the same low impact on the environment. Also makes more sense that wealthy countries lead the way and then demand similar standards for their imports.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

We are about 4% of the problem if you count exports.

Surely the onus has to be on those who burn the stuff.

Technology now exists to make steel without a blast furnace.
You still add coal, but only the amount that ends up in the Steel ( carbon storage ).
We should be doing a deal with the developers and making it here.

If we start counting it based on where the minerals were, the Saudi's would be winning ( losing ) i think.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

And then if you count all the off-shore manufacturing that we now don't do it makes us look better. It's hard for countries that have heavy industry to make the same low impact on the environment. Also makes more sense that wealthy countries lead the way and then demand similar standards for their imports.

Consumerism is the real issue.
People think they are better off because cars are cheaper.
But we don't have local industry, and thousands ware being pushed into the retail/hospitality sectors where they will struggle to buy that cheaper car.
Because cars are cheaper they are thrown away rather than fixed.
Lots of resources are being used for cars, appliances, smartphones, so they can be thrown away in a couple of years.

If you sit down and work out the most efficient way to do something ( from a resources point of view ) shipping stuff around the world ain't it.
Capitalising on cheap labour overseas sucks. In some cases, highly efficient manufacturing can be closed in favour of cheaper inferior operations overseas.
Old fashioned trade taxes would actually improve Australia's environmental footprint, because we could be responsible for our own s**t.

 

[CursingFijian]

Surely the onus has to be on those who burn the stuff.

Technology now exists to make steel without a blast furnace.
You still add coal, but only the amount that ends up in the Steel ( carbon storage ).
We should be doing a deal with the developers and making it here.

If we start counting it based on where the minerals were, the Saudi's would be winning ( losing ) i think.

How about basing it on where the actual consumption occurs?

 

[gringo2011]

Interesting article on how modern economies operate. More jobs don't always equate to a better economy. Paying less to employees doesn't drive demand. https://www.forbes.com/sites/steved...kJTSd7BoswwVBHoldMl8LSC1xq8hziaU#4bcabaa02d97

 

[gringo2011]

Consumerism is the real issue.
People think they are better off because cars are cheaper.
But we don't have local industry, and thousands ware being pushed into the retail/hospitality sectors where they will struggle to buy that cheaper car.
Because cars are cheaper they are thrown away rather than fixed.
Lots of resources are being used for cars, appliances, smartphones, so they can be thrown away in a couple of years.

If you sit down and work out the most efficient way to do something ( from a resources point of view ) shipping stuff around the world ain't it.
Capitalising on cheap labour overseas sucks. In some cases, highly efficient manufacturing can be closed in favour of cheaper inferior operations overseas.
Old fashioned trade taxes would actually improve Australia's environmental footprint, because we could be responsible for our own s**t.

Also the way we make stuff cheaper to replace than repair means we don't employ the expert repair man. Getting the washing machine repair man out costs $300 but they then have to do the actual repair on top of that. the guy has to drive out, potentially take it away, buy parts, install parts etc. But the new washer is about $450 so you throw the old one away and buy a new one instead. That's s**t so in 12 months you do it again and again.

Power tools are cheap but break now, same with appliances or clothes. My grandmother talked about how after the war they had the same dress for like 4 years and would change buttons and alter it to make it look new. Now we buy a shirt and chuck it after a season because it pills and looks s**t. It degrades and blocks up waterways with micro plastics.

 

[CursingFijian]

That's fine , and i can accept and respect that attitude, though i consider you are not doing anything specific for Australians, because its GLOBAL. That's a fact. The planet has only one atmosphere. If you are helping anyone , you are helping everyone.

I can't accept the opinion that "if Tony Abbot had done "THIS " or Kevin Rudd had done "THAT" or if we all voted for Greens then we would not have this bush fire problem.
Its total fantasy. Do the maths.

'Brutal news': global carbon emissions jump to all-time high in 2018

Rapid cuts needed to protect billions of people from rising emissions due to increase in use of cars and coal

www.theguardian.com

I accept that we could have gone 100% renewable in 2013 and we would still be facing the same challenges now. But the point I was trying to make is that when Tony Abbott sacked the Climate Commission that’s when the divergence between Australia’s scientific community and the Australian Government really began to ramp up.

Now it feels like they’re diametrically opposed.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Also the way we make stuff cheaper to replace than repair means we don't employ the expert repair man. Getting the washing machine repair man out costs $300 but they then have to do the actual repair on top of that. the guy has to drive out, potentially take it away, buy parts, install parts etc. But the new washer is about $450 so you throw the old one away and buy a new one instead. That's s**t so in 12 months you do it again and again.

Power tools are cheap but break now, same with appliances or clothes. My grandmother talked about how after the war they had the same dress for like 4 years and would change buttons and alter it to make it look new. Now we buy a shirt and chuck it after a season because it pills and looks s**t. It degrades and blocks up waterways with micro plastics.

Things last as long as you design them to, and whilst some things inherently wear out as part of their function , ( tyres , electrodes ), most things can be built strong enough to last as long as you like.

But as Coles and their milk price cuts demonstrated, you make money on your mark up, so if it costs $100 extra to build something , they want to sell their product for $1000 extra.
The biggest piece of crap thing i ever saw was the tyre lever for a Proton i had ( rest of the car remarkably durable ).
It just bent without taking the wheel nuts off. Yet a 3 size welded combo tyre wrench i got for $10 when i walked to Bunnings worked fine.
Pretty sure the additional cost of using stronger material would have been cents.

 

[bergholt]

Things last as long as you design them to, and whilst some things inherently wear out as part of their function , ( tyres , electrodes ), most things can be built strong enough to last as long as you like.

Why would you do that, though? People don't value it. I was at the supermarket on the weekend and watched people streaming out of Kmart on the other side of the shopping centre, bags full of terrible plastic s**t which they're going to give as a gift and which will be thrown away inside the month, if not inside the week or day. Somehow we've all become convinced that the only way to show your love is by buying s**t. I'm pretty happy my family does basically zero presents.

 

[bergholt]

Interesting article on how modern economies operate. More jobs don't always equate to a better economy. Paying less to employees doesn't drive demand. https://www.forbes.com/sites/steved...kJTSd7BoswwVBHoldMl8LSC1xq8hziaU#4bcabaa02d97

Good one. Similar to some of the arguments in this book:

Bullshit Jobs - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Joffaboy]

Surely the onus has to be on those who burn the stuff.

Technology now exists to make steel without a blast furnace.
You still add coal, but only the amount that ends up in the Steel ( carbon storage ).
We should be doing a deal with the developers and making it here.

If we start counting it based on where the minerals were, the Saudi's would be winning ( losing ) i think.

Like drug dealers, we only sell the s**t, not our fault it stuffs up lives and society

 

[gringo2011]

Too right it's Black Friday: our relentless consumption is trashing the planet | George Monbiot

Growth must go on – and it’s destroying the Earth. But there’s no way of greening it. So we need a new system, writes Guardian columnist George Monbiot

www.theguardian.com

 

[Yawkey way]

Also the way we make stuff cheaper to replace than repair means we don't employ the expert repair man. Getting the washing machine repair man out costs $300 but they then have to do the actual repair on top of that. the guy has to drive out, potentially take it away, buy parts, install parts etc. But the new washer is about $450 so you throw the old one away and buy a new one instead. That's s**t so in 12 months you do it again and again.

Power tools are cheap but break now, same with appliances or clothes. My grandmother talked about how after the war they had the same dress for like 4 years and would change buttons and alter it to make it look new. Now we buy a shirt and chuck it after a season because it pills and looks s**t. It degrades and blocks up waterways with micro plastics.

Depression, war etc people who had lived thru it had learnt to make do with less.

People kept everything and were inventive in finding uses for or repurposing things. It’s embarrassing the things people throw out around here these days, makes you feel guilty looking at perfectly good things going to the tip. I saw a woman tossing a new high end leather couch. I said to my wife have a look at that someone decided it doesn’t match the room and said out you go. She said nah it’s just being delivered, latter when I heading to the shops someone from down the block was carting it home haha.

Hard waste is every Wednesday, students could furnish an apartment on a good week. You’re right gringo the bloody repairman and parts is three quarters of the cost of a new appliance. They have some initiative at the st Kilda eco centre, take your small appliances and people will fix them for a donation which is a pretty good idea imo.

Once upon a time you donated things to a charity but not as many take furniture etc these days.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Like drug dealers, we only sell the s**t, not our fault it stuffs up lives and society

OK you can count it by who digs it.
Or you can count it by who uses it.
Or you can count it by who consumes the end product.

You can use whichever method you like, but some are hard to measure. Its wrong to combine the different methods.
Its like accounting , whatever system you use , you count it once.

At the moment who emitts it , gits it.
Except shipping, they don't count that even though its responsible for a huge amount of emissions.

Its wrong to count for example coal exports as an emission against Australia.
It might go to China for use in a blast furnace, which means bad emissions.
Or it might go to Sweden where they can put it in steel without burning it using a new process.

Carbon trading works but it needs to be global.

Coal. No carbon cost, but carbon cost associated with mining it.
Shipping coal to china = add the carbon cost of the ship engines.
Blast Furnace = huge carbon cost .
etc.

If it costs more to produce the Eco steel in Sweden, we would hope that the carbon tax makes the Blast furnace coal cheaper.
It would also encourage more processing local to the mines.

But ....

Unless everyone is taxing carbon emissions ( including ships) the same way, it won't work.
The idea of an Australia only carbon tax was not going to work.

You could do it if you set up an eco trading zone. Would china sign up? The shipping companies? Would they all be above board with reporting their emissions?
It would be a big tax , and it would need to be offset by drops of general consumption taxes.

There are other issues too, everyone would want to buy the cheap ( untaxed ) solar power, but then on that cloudy day, they would expect someone to be running a gas station or something , just for a few hours so they can still stream netflix.
Gas station operator says, nahhh no way i get payback. So we have frequent random brownouts endemic with large solar /wind systems with insufficient backup. I'm thinking that electricity is a Utility and should be provided by the government.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Depression, war etc people who had lived thru it had learnt to make do with less.

People kept everything and were inventive in finding uses for or repurposing things. It’s embarrassing the things people throw out around here these days, makes you feel guilty looking at perfectly good things going to the tip. I saw a woman tossing a new high end leather couch. I said to my wife have a look at that someone decided it doesn’t match the room and said out you go. She said nah it’s just being delivered, latter when I heading to the shops someone from down the block was carting it home haha.

Hard waste is every Wednesday, students could furnish an apartment on a good week. You’re right gringo the bloody repairman and parts is three quarters of the cost of a new appliance. They have some initiative at the st Kilda eco centre, take your small appliances and people will fix them for a donation which is a pretty good idea imo.

Once upon a time you donated things to a charity but not as many take furniture etc these days.

I repaired my own Fisher Paykal dryer.
It was 20 years old and started making a horrible screeching noise.
A friend in the repair trade said "yeah it'll be a such and such bearing and he got me one "
Now the bearing fixed it (along with some careful disassembly / re-assembly , amid much swearing ....but no way was it a $50 bearing. it was such a pissy little thing.

Certainly getting my mate to fix it would have cost more than it was worth. ( however he'd have been happy to take it off my hands , fix it on his own time and sell it to someone ).

Items sold to car companies for $5.00 often cost $50 to $300 as spare parts. They don't REALLY want you to fix it, they'd rather you buy a new one.
Seriously , should breaking your headlight write your car off?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

How about basing it on where the actual consumption occurs?

That's the best way , but its challenging to track the carbon footprint of every little item.

 

[Dr Spaceman]

 

[BigPowerForward]

The draft thread made me think of this joke

A New Zealander walks into the bedroom with a sheep on a leash and says....
"Honey, this is the cow I make love to when you have a headache."

The wife, lying in the bed reading a book, looks up and says,
"If you weren't such an idiot, you'd know that's a sheep, not a cow."

The guy replies, "If you weren't such a presumptuous b1tch, you'd realize I was talking to the sheep."

 

[pebblesofsand]

Even the worst forecasts don't suggest this. Most of the half sensible sources are talking of up to 2 metres by 2100.
Places that currently get inundated and flooded will have it more often.
Bangladesh. Parts of Vietnam, Shanghai, Netherlands, of course low lying pacific islands.

Flood Map: Elevation Map, Sea Level Rise Map

Flood Map shows the map of the area which could get flooded if the water level rises to a particular elevation. Sea level rise map. Bathymetric map, ocean depth. Effect of Global Warming and Climate Change.

www.floodmap.net

If it goes nuts ( 50 meters ) though, Frankston and Cranbourne end up on their own little island, paving the way to an "Escape from New York " type scenario .
I'd imagine Torak/Malvern Island will be very exclusive..

So what do you think the people of Lakes Entrance should be doing and who should pay for it if sea level does increase by a 0.74 metres?

http://coastalrisk.com.au/viewer

 

[gringo2011]

So what do you think the people of Lakes Entrance should be doing and who should pay for it if sea level does increase by a 0.74 metres?

http://coastalrisk.com.au/viewer

That link is dead Pebbles. Indonesia is moving Jakarta so the people of Lakes might have to move the caravans in 200 meters from the shoreline themselves.

 

[pebblesofsand]

That link is dead Pebbles. Indonesia is moving Jakarta so the people of Lakes might have to move the caravans in 200 meters from the shoreline themselves.

Yeah - need to go to the home page then plug in a location.

Coastal Risk Australia

coastalrisk.com.au

Latest info for Lakes Entrance from the Insurance Council of Australia (based on mid range sea level rise 0.5+) is 800 to 1000 properties totally uninsurable by the end of the 21st century.

But in will become the Venice of Victoria way way way before that if the predictions are anywhere near correct.

 

[Moral Decay]

I get it. Or at least I think I do. Bush fires are an integral part of the Australian landscape and have been since time immemorial. And it's hard fighting bush fires in Australia due to our vastness and rugged terrain. But I still think you're letting the politicians off lightly. There are a number of factors surrounding bushfires that most experts agree on:

1. Bush fire season is lengthening. Substantially so. Which greatly reduces the opportunity to implement strategies like fuel reduction.
2. Bush fire conditions are growing increasingly more dangerous every year. It is becoming harder and more dangerous to fight bush fires when they ignite in Australia.
3. The cost of fire fighting is increasing as a result of the burgeoning bush fire season, and it's getting harder to share resources when fires are being fought in every state.

So how does less money and resources for fire fighters help?

And when you do take backward step, a few deep breaths and ask yourself why is this happening and how can I prevent it then you inevitably end up in a conversation about the climate. We need to remember that Abbott and his cronies crushed the Climate Commission in 2013 on the pretext it would save half a million dollars a year. On their very first day in office no less. Nothing to do with big business. No sir. How could you even think that?

Are we reaping what we sow? Or is this all swings and roundabouts and we'll be all lapping it up when the easier times come around again soon?

I'm on the side of most young people. And that is, I believe the science that is telling us its all going to get worse and it's going to get even harder and more expensive. So lets not worry about whether we get it perfectly right or not; we just need climate action now on multiple fronts.

Sorry but there are some things that need to be rethought, because while the things you say are true they are only the top layer of a long running and much bigger lower layer.

Bush fires aren't an integral part of the Australian landscape, or no more than any other landscape, before human settlement Aus. was forested across the continent from about Brisbane and Nth, south of that ran into grasslands, importantly the forest was made up of only 10% fire regenerative species and 90% other, with the introduction of fire, mass extinction of mega fauna that would control flora, we have gradually changed that forest mix to 90% fire regenerative and 10% other. When we look at the landscape regardless this is 60,000 years of human creation, the Australian landscape is as man made as the most perfectly manicure English lawn. More so for the amount of time we've been doing it.

The very nature of fire burns off ten 10% of phosphates and nitrates making the soil less fertile which suits fire regenerative species, the leaves of these species do not break down after one or two seasons but just get drier for 8 years providing perfect tinder for the next cycle, and it will take 200 years of no fire for land to get to the same levels of fertility making things even harder to recover from.

It has suited both sides of politics to play with the environment for political purposes, when we log a forest we look to regrow the logged species which suits left and right, but the forest not so much. A Victorian forest such as it is would have a 500 year cycle of flora where the wattles grow first, they act as pioneer species having a 40 to 60 year life span, then the next layer of trees grow through them as the wattles die out, depending on landscape, height and access to water the next lot off tree will be messmates, mountain ash, alpine ash, manna gums etcetera, who will have their span and then die and rot out as rain forest species like myrtle beeches, huon pine etcetera grow through, this is a 500 plus year cycle with every stage having different stages of undergrowth and fauna.

By reducing that cycle to one species of say mountain ash as the most valuable/easiest to mill species needing a 40 to 180 year span it allows millers to have an undisturbed resource and the greens to lock up the rest of the forest, we then plant pinus radiata as a resource which grows so very well because there is nothing else in the environment that coexists with it, a pine forest is a mono culture a veritable biological desert that after 2 generations or about 120 years completely depletes any nutrient from the soil.

These is just a very basic overview of the forests, the problem of fighting fires is even a misnomer, after the Linton fires it was decided that actively fighting fires was too dangerous and from now on in Victoria fire would be managed, the 2003 fire that started out the back of Hotham is a prime example, the fire could have been put out but the decision was made to let it run a little, the end result being 1.3 million hectares burnt and the guy who made the decision to let it run given a medal.

And this is getting too big, but there are things that can be done to change the forest makeup to reduce the frequency and severity of fire, firstly recognise that this is a man made environment, then when we have fire replant non fire regenerative understory and non fire regenerative canopy, plant broad leaf deciduous trees and take responsibility for ecological management not just put out the fire.

Look at coastal planting of trees, 100m of trees on the coastline will drag rain 100km inland, rewilding with the introduction of elephants to control forest growth and return a savannah landscape with rhino, bears along with the existing deer, and cattle but accept the need to have hyena, mountain lion and other large predators to control those species, stop building cities on our most fertile land, population control.

There are lots of things that can be done to bring about change but we need to recognise the scope of the problem, and every answer will be imperfect, every choice will be between something that is bad and something that is worse. This an issue that is as long as the history of anatomically modern humans, it exists on every continent to greater and lesser extents, Australia is just the worst. Politicians are only interested in an election cycle of 3 to 4 years, business is only interested in 5 year cycles and most of us are only interested in the rationalisation of our anger and fear. I have no idea how bad it will have to get before people are willing to think in terms of the thousands of years it will take to turn the environment from degenration, that is either fast or slow.

 

[Moral Decay]

Yeah - need to go to the home page then plug in a location.

Coastal Risk Australia

coastalrisk.com.au

Latest info for Lakes Entrance from the Insurance Council of Australia (based on mid range sea level rise 0.5+) is 800 to 1000 properties totally uninsurable by the end of the 21st century.

But in will become the Venice of Victoria way way way before that if the predictions are anywhere near correct.

From memory Lakes have regulated for transportable only homes at coastal fringe/sea level. They know change is coming.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

* In 1889 the sea surged over 3000 sandbags and flooded several homes.


Its true , places that have been flooded by the ocean before , are at risk of being flooded by the ocean.
Who should pay for the relocation of homes that were built in this risky place?
Who should pay for the insurance of places that are built in low lying area's?

Incidents and Warnings - VicEmergency

Victoria's combined source of emergency information and warnings, helping the community to prepare for, respond to and recover from emergencies across the state.

www.floodvictoria.vic.gov.au

Lakes Entrance, VIC - Aussie Towns

www.aussietowns.com.au

Meanwhile, Lakes Entrance was originally not a permanent harbour. The original entrance often closed up in low river flow conditions.
By dredging out a new permanent entrance , salinity has increased dramatically through the lakes system.
Effect on flooding.. may have helped, in which case people would have then proceeded to build houses at a lower level.


Honestly i've seen developers establish housing estates near inland creeks , and all the oldies look at it shaking their heads and go..."they are building houses there"?
Then by incredibly bad luck all the houses flood a few years later.

Even down near Koo Wee Rup and Tooridin i scratch my head when i see where some people are building houses.
People who, now days have surely heard the rumours of global warming and rising sea levels.