Climate change

[Aractus]

I'm interested in the disproportionate COST of reducing GHG's for perceived benefit. I think it's more important to focus on practical responses to the threats associated with regional climate change particularly in Africa and other regions with developing countries that will feel the effects of changes in rainfall patterns, etc. over time. In Australia it's not something we're going to experience such a problem for - the data shows that rainfall will not decline, but that it will shift higher in our continent - so we have to plan for that and have water policies that recignise that overtime our landscape will require using more land in the north for farming and agriculture, and perhaps less land in the south. THAT data is fairly reliable, I don't disagree with it, and I think it is the most important thing that needs to be addressed when it comes to climate change.

Remember the anthropogenic component of climate change is a combination of CO2, CH4, and NO. CO2 is - at most - 47% responsible out of the anthropogenic components (figures from NASA 2010). So even eliminating CO2 emissions world wide from fossil fuels only has a potential to reduce global warming by 47% - and if natural variation is contributing to the climate (which it probably is because we've been coming out of the little ice age and climate was rising before human activity started contributing, then the effect is even less still. CH4 is estimated to be 28% or so responsible out of the anthropogenic components. Higher CO2 levels, however, are great for most vegetation across the world; in fact it's estimated that by 2100 vegetation will have a 20% greater yield due to the increased CO2 levels when compared to pre-industrial levels. Most greenhouses set their CO2 level to at least 700 ppm; and many set it at 1000-1200 ppm. In the future we should be able to trap much of the CH4 associated with animal rearing, and that can then be used directly as fuel just like we use LPG (C3H8 and 4H10) at the moment.