(January 18, 2012 at 1:22 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Retail is in decline thanks to taxes to support "climate change adaptation" which WILL come and there is nought you or I or any world government can do about that. Pollution control and "global warming" maybe and the greatest contributors to "greenhouse gases" are humans...so what are you suggesting??

The Australian economy if it wasn't for the demand for our commodities from China would have gone into a recession like the rest of the Western world had. Not as bad as the USA experienced but still a recession would have occurred.

I disagree on "we cant do anything about global warming" line. The nations of the world can implement measures which can achieve the cuts in greenhouse emissions we need. However the political will to undertake them. For instance; the carbon tax in Australia should have been supplemented with investment in non green emitting energy and technology. Along with better urban planning and building regulations so that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities can be reduced.

(January 18, 2012 at 6:59 am)Justtristo Wrote:

(January 18, 2012 at 1:22 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Retail is in decline thanks to taxes to support "climate change adaptation" which WILL come and there is nought you or I or any world government can do about that. Pollution control and "global warming" maybe and the greatest contributors to "greenhouse gases" are humans...so what are you suggesting??

The Australian economy if it wasn't for the demand for our commodities from China would have gone into a recession like the rest of the Western world had. Not as bad as the USA experienced but still a recession would have occurred.

I disagree on "we cant do anything about global warming" line.

Schmuck!! I didn't say anything like that!! I said MAYBE!!!

(January 18, 2012 at 6:59 am)Justtristo Wrote: The nations of the world can implement measures which can achieve the cuts in greenhouse emissions we need. However the political will to undertake them. For instance; the carbon tax in Australia should have been supplemented with investment in non green emitting energy and technology. Along with better urban planning and building regulations so that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities can be reduced.

You really do not have any idea what you are talking about do you??

"Non-green emitting energy" is preferable?? WTF??

Better Urban planning?? And you live in Sydney??

Green house gas emissions will be greatly reduced IF one reduces the total world population..is this what you are advocating?? Yay! *sarcasm ... maybe we can just sink all the economic refugee boats with the incumbent "asylum seekers" and this will help the overall global warming hot spots on the planet??


Non-sense...you are just sprouting greenie fascist nonsense...go away and really THINK about it!!

We had a chance to really make a difference with the Home -solar-panel- back to grid supplement and the federal govt scrapped it this year!! This is your 'greenies" in action buddy! Worthless!!

The "Greens" are fantastic in opposition but are just plain idealistic imbeciles when given a whiff of power..they are no better than the other two major parties.

(January 18, 2012 at 9:16 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote:

(January 18, 2012 at 6:59 am)Justtristo Wrote:

(January 18, 2012 at 1:22 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Retail is in decline thanks to taxes to support "climate change adaptation" which WILL come and there is nought you or I or any world government can do about that. Pollution control and "global warming" maybe and the greatest contributors to "greenhouse gases" are humans...so what are you suggesting??

The Australian economy if it wasn't for the demand for our commodities from China would have gone into a recession like the rest of the Western world had. Not as bad as the USA experienced but still a recession would have occurred.

I disagree on "we cant do anything about global warming" line.

Schmuck!! I didn't say anything like that!! I said MAYBE!!!

Noted,

I will remind myself to read other people's posts more thoroughly in future.

Quote:You really do not have any idea what you are talking about do you??

"Non-green emitting energy" is preferable?? WTF??

Better Urban planning?? And you live in Sydney??

Green house gas emissions will be greatly reduced IF one reduces the total world population..is this what you are advocating?? Yay! *sarcasm ... maybe we can just sink all the economic refugee boats with the incumbent "asylum seekers" and this will help the overall global warming hot spots on the planet??

Let me be a bit clearer, the main sources of greenhouse gas emissions are from energy, industrial processes, waste (garbage dumps) and agriculture. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions we need to do the following;

Firstly, find alternative energy sources for power, industrial processes and vehicles which does not produce greenhouse gases.

Secondly, change industrial processes so they dont produce greenhouse gases.

Thirdly, change practices in agriculture, forestry and waste management which will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

These will all require radical solutions both technologically and in practices.

I know they are very radical measures, however I see them as necessary.

Quote:Non-sense...you are just sprouting greenie fascist nonsense...go away and really THINK about it!!

A lot of Greenies passionately oppose nuclear power and genetically modified crops, which I support. The movement is infected with many people who subscribe to all sorts of New Age nonsense.

Quote:We had a chance to really make a difference with the Home -solar-panel- back to grid supplement and the federal govt scrapped it this year!! This is your 'greenies" in action buddy! Worthless!!

I would agree with you that scheme was not a good idea. Since the money could have been invested in research and development for cheap large scale solar farms. Imagine if the price of producing solar panels went down a lot and it became economical to build these solar farms, which the Australian outback would be ideal for them.

Quote:The "Greens" are fantastic in opposition but are just plain idealistic imbeciles when given a whiff of power..they are no better than the other two major parties.

I dont really expect the Greens to have more than a junior Coalition partner position in Government. My main hope is that the major parties will co-opt the better policies of the Greens.

Okay, admirable sentiments but let's THINK this through. Eh?

tristo Wrote:Let me be a bit clearer, the main sources of greenhouse gas emissions are from energy, industrial processes, waste (garbage dumps) and agriculture.

All anthropogenically generated...agreed. So right here we have as the MAIN source of "greenhouse-gas emissions" ...Humans and their activities.

tristo Wrote:To reduce greenhouse gas emissions we need to do the following;

Firstly, find alternative energy sources for power, industrial processes and vehicles which does not produce greenhouse gases.

So WHICH "green-house gases" are we looking to reduce?? Water vapour? CO2? Methane? Nitrosoxide?

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html
Many gases exhibit these “greenhouse” properties. Some of them occur in nature (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide), while others are exclusively human-made (like gases used for aerosols).

tristo Wrote:Secondly, change industrial processes so they dont produce greenhouse gases.

I think you will find that this has already happened. A recent News article regarding the use of Navgas has declared that the volume of Navgas use has not increased but there are more flights in the air. Recently it was pointed out to me that the use of Diesel fuel has become so efficient that companies that jumped on-board with Natural Gas vehicles are abandoning this very wasteful, expensive and inefficient fuel source for better more efficient diesel motors.

tristo Wrote:Thirdly, change practices in agriculture, forestry and waste management which will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

How are you going to reduce methane?? I am not up on the latest agricultural practices (used here in Australia) but much has been done over the last 20-30 years to improve the productivity and viability of our farms. The "Green-Movement" advocated the use of plantation trees...great idea so many farms set aside areas for such and have to wait 20 years for the end product. Pine is the worst as I have been told that you can only get two crops out of the soil before it is totally useless and only good for dust storms.

What is wrong with using non-THC Hemp?
http://www.livescience.com/16638-pot-gen...ation.html

tristo Wrote:These will all require radical solutions both technologically and in practices.

Very nice dear but I think you are a bit late to the table and still getting caught up in the enviro-mental pseudo-religious hype. I am hoping that I have at least shown you that Australia has been working on these solutions for decades if not longer (one report said 80years). The assumption that farmers are greedy and only want to rape the land is stupid in the exreme ill-informed at best. The mining companies that I have loosely worked with here in WA... BHP, Chevron, FMG, do seem go to great expense to obtain the valuable export materials with as minimal impact to the environment as possible. Not the least to mention providing jobs for an entire state. (Much much Larger than NSW)

tristo Wrote:I know they are very radical measures, however I see them as necessary.

They are not radical and have been happening over decades. What I think you have been told has been misleading at best.

What ever happened to the Household water tank idea??
10 years of El Nino drought

Why is the federal government cancelling the Solar panel subsidy just when it is now MANDATORY legislation that it must be part of all new domestic construction here in Australia?
Too expensive

Why is it that a scientist of a major, high profile research study has made his papers null and void to the Peer Review process by releasing information prior to the completion of the Peer Review Process?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...eague.html

And yes...
WHY hasn't consecutive governments here in OZ, initiated a major Solar powered Electrical grid a reality??

1.Too expensive when coal is so cheap.

2.Possibility of upsetting the Aboriginal people as it would be put onto "their native title land" Especially when you get non-sense like this.....
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/yacht...6015009203
(Prior to the Lake Eyre filling with water no-one gave a tinkers cus.. now it is suddenly sacred as it may make some $$)

Why make NBN such a higher priority and then threaten Internet censorship?

And I haven't even started on the repercussions of job losses and resultant lack of disposable income effects yet....

---

A few sites for your perusal....

http://www.ata.org.au/forums/topic/58

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=Sewrag...iQeSt8nTAw
70 odd pages some with a date of 1978

http://permaculture.org.au/

http://www.biomax.com.au/?gclid=CLiO4PWH...pgodIFAKmQ

(January 18, 2012 at 10:13 pm)KichigaiNeko Wrote: So WHICH "green-house gases" are we looking to reduce?? Water vapour? CO2? Methane? Nitrosoxide?

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html
Many gases exhibit these “greenhouse” properties. Some of them occur in nature (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide), while others are exclusively human-made (like gases used for aerosols).

The ones which need to be reduced in priority are Carbon dioxide, Methane, Nitrous Oxide along with CFCs (although emissions of those are regulated now).

Quote:How are you going to reduce methane?? I am not up on the latest agricultural practices (used here in Australia) but much has been done over the last 20-30 years to improve the productivity and viability of our farms. The "Green-Movement" advocated the use of plantation trees...great idea so many farms set aside areas for such and have to wait 20 years for the end product. Pine is the worst as I have been told that you can only get two crops out of the soil before it is totally useless and only good for dust storms.

What is wrong with using non-THC Hemp?
http://www.livescience.com/16638-pot-gen...ation.html

Introducing non-THC hemp into production on a widespread scale, would depend how much carbon can Hemp "trap" compared to say trees over a long period of time.

Quote:Very nice dear but I think you are a bit late to the table and still getting caught up in the enviro-mental pseudo-religious hype. I am hoping that I have at least shown you that Australia has been working on these solutions for decades if not longer (one report said 80years). The assumption that farmers are greedy and only want to rape the land is stupid in the extreme ill-informed at best. The mining companies that I have loosely worked with here in WA... BHP, Chevron, FMG, do seem go to great expense to obtain the valuable export materials with as minimal impact to the environment as possible. Not the least to mention providing jobs for an entire state. (Much much Larger than NSW)

I did not mean governments and companies have not done anything to combat Global Warming. Indeed I applaud the efforts done so far. However I was just merely stating what needs to be done in order to successfully combat Global Warming.

Believe me I am extremely rational in comparison to a lot of people in the environmentalist movement in Australia. They are way too technophobic and attached to superstitious thinking for my liking.

Quote:Why is it that a scientist of a major, high profile research study has made his papers null and void to the Peer Review process by releasing information prior to the completion of the Peer Review Process?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...eague.html

The bottom of the two graphs in that article only shows temperature changes over a period of a few years, to show an more accurate picture of climate change. The charts should be plotted over a period of say 50-100 years, with a 10 year mean line.

Quote:Why make NBN such a higher priority and then threaten Internet censorship?

The NBN (National Broadband Network) will reap enormous benefits in the long run, it is well worth the investment. I wish both state and federal governments were more willing to borrow money in order to construct new roads (especially highways and freeways) along with upgrading the railways. Although Governments aim towards fiscal discipline and only borrow money when it is necessary (like say if there is a war or to finance infrastructure projects).

In the last fifty years, the governments of Europe and United States (by running deficits) borrowed money for peacetime general government spending (as opposed to infrastructure funding or wartime spending) and that is one of the reasons why some of these nations are in the crisis they are in at the moment. In Australia in recent decades for the most part, governments at both state and federal levels have been reluctant to borrow money (even for infrastructure projects, which there is a estimated $700 billion backlog). With the Coalition parties (very likely) going to be in power in every state and territory, not to mention federally in the next few years. There will be a return back to trend of the last three decades of fiscal discipline and reluctance to rack up debt.

About the home water tank scheme, I believe the money would have been better spent in building water recycling plants and building new dams where they can be built. Not to mention more realistic pricing for irrigation water.

I do know about the desalination plant in Perth, however the one being built in Victoria is a waste of money. Because water recycling and building a new dam on the Mitchell River in Gippsland would have been a lot more cheaper.

Quote:Why is it that a scientist of a major, high profile research study has made his papers null and void to the Peer Review process by releasing information prior to the completion of the Peer Review Process?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...eague.html

Can someone please fucking show me a link OTHER than the shitmail?

Wikipedia (hint - hit 'esc' as it loads) and Google News shows nothing.

(January 18, 2012 at 11:30 pm)Justtristo Wrote:

(January 18, 2012 at 10:13 pm)KichigaiNeko Wrote: So WHICH "green-house gases" are we looking to reduce?? Water vapour? CO2? Methane? Nitrosoxide?

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html
Many gases exhibit these “greenhouse” properties. Some of them occur in nature (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide), while others are exclusively human-made (like gases used for aerosols).

The ones which need to be reduced in priority are Carbon dioxide, Methane, Nitrous Oxide along with CFCs (although emissions of those are regulated now).

Ah yes the easy ones first that contribute to the invention of a new global commodity - Carbon trading.

(January 18, 2012 at 11:30 pm)Justtristo Wrote:

Quote:How are you going to reduce methane?? I am not up on the latest agricultural practices (used here in Australia) but much has been done over the last 20-30 years to improve the productivity and viability of our farms. The "Green-Movement" advocated the use of plantation trees...great idea so many farms set aside areas for such and have to wait 20 years for the end product. Pine is the worst as I have been told that you can only get two crops out of the soil before it is totally useless and only good for dust storms.

What is wrong with using non-THC Hemp?
http://www.livescience.com/16638-pot-gen...ation.html

Introducing non-THC hemp into production on a widespread scale, would depend how much carbon can Hemp "trap" compared to say trees over a long period of time.

I am to understand that young trees sequester more carbon and so "Tree Planting is a priority. The Hemp idea is to stop the felling of forests to provide paper not as a CO2 capture initiative..I was trying to think outside the narrow CO2 box

(January 18, 2012 at 11:30 pm)Justtristo Wrote:

Quote:Very nice dear but I think you are a bit late to the table and still getting caught up in the enviro-mental pseudo-religious hype. I am hoping that I have at least shown you that Australia has been working on these solutions for decades if not longer (one report said 80years). The assumption that farmers are greedy and only want to rape the land is stupid in the extreme ill-informed at best. The mining companies that I have loosely worked with here in WA... BHP, Chevron, FMG, do seem go to great expense to obtain the valuable export materials with as minimal impact to the environment as possible. Not the least to mention providing jobs for an entire state. (Much much Larger than NSW)

I did not mean governments and companies have not done anything to combat Global Warming. Indeed I applaud the efforts done so far. However I was just merely stating what needs to be done in order to successfully combat Global Warming.

This is what you are implying and ALL that is and has been done is towards this goal. We still haven't addressed the North Pacific Garbage Dump...any ideas on 'carbon capture' for that??

(January 18, 2012 at 11:30 pm)Justtristo Wrote: Believe me I am extremely rational in comparison to a lot of people in the environmentalist movement in Australia. They are way too technophobic and attached to superstitious thinking for my liking.

Quote:Why is it that a scientist of a major, high profile research study has made his papers null and void to the Peer Review process by releasing information prior to the completion of the Peer Review Process?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...eague.html

The bottom of the two graphs in that article only shows temperature changes over a period of a few years, to show an more accurate picture of climate change. The charts should be plotted over a period of say 50-100 years, with a 10 year mean line.

Have a look again.

(January 18, 2012 at 11:30 pm)Justtristo Wrote:

Quote:Why make NBN such a higher priority and then threaten Internet censorship?

The NBN (National Broadband Network) will reap enormous benefits in the long run, it is well worth the investment. I wish both state and federal governments were more willing to borrow money in order to construct new roads (especially highways and freeways) along with upgrading the railways. Although Governments aim towards fiscal discipline and only borrow money when it is necessary (like say if there is a war or to finance infrastructure projects).

But so will erecting solar powered electricity grids...why have they not been looked at is my point so far

(January 18, 2012 at 11:30 pm)Justtristo Wrote: In the last fifty years, the governments of Europe and United States (by running deficits) borrowed money for peacetime general government spending (as opposed to infrastructure funding or wartime spending) and that is one of the reasons why some of these nations are in the crisis they are in at the moment. In Australia in recent decades for the most part, governments at both state and federal levels have been reluctant to borrow money (even for infrastructure projects, which there is a estimated $700 billion backlog). With the Coalition parties (very likely) going to be in power in every state and territory, not to mention federally in the next few years. There will be a return back to trend of the last three decades of fiscal discipline and reluctance to rack up debt.

You seen the latest figures the IMF want to support that borrowing?? Each country contributing...

(January 18, 2012 at 11:30 pm)Justtristo Wrote: About the home water tank scheme, I believe the money would have been better spent in building water recycling plants and building new dams where they can be built. Not to mention more realistic pricing for irrigation water.

These were done. I am talking about the home user here. Reasonable price for irrigation water from a river system that was dying??

(January 18, 2012 at 11:30 pm)Justtristo Wrote: I do know about the desalination plant in Perth, however the one being built in Victoria is a waste of money. Because water recycling and building a new dam on the Mitchell River in Gippsland would have been a lot more cheaper.

You know how opposed to new dams the "greenies" are here. I understand the de-salination plant in Sydney only services the Botany Bay industrial area. Still... it could be seen as a step in the right direction.

---

(January 18, 2012 at 11:44 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote:

Quote:Why is it that a scientist of a major, high profile research study has made his papers null and void to the Peer Review process by releasing information prior to the completion of the Peer Review Process?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...eague.html

Can someone please fucking show me a link OTHER than the shitmail?

Wikipedia (hint - hit 'esc' as it loads) and Google News shows nothing.

What's the problem Moros??

"War is a continuation of politics by other means. Politics is a continuation of economics by other means." - van Clausewitz

If you want to see real change in any political system then you need the money first. Instead of fighting this fact, work with it and create a better future.

There is one thing that both politics and economics share in common, and that is power. Is it possible to gain economic success with good morals? I think so. Is it possible to possess a positive outlook for the future and hold good morals? I believe so. Why not combine the two? - Thus is politics.

You either have a system of government run by the incompetent which is anti-progressive, or you have a system of government run by the competent at the expense of greed which promotes overall progress.

Sadly I don't see this with our current federal government Perhaps. Like most governments it appears to be only concerned with running around making popular decisions and policies that have not been well thought out or executed (for the ideas that had some fantastic potential)