So, this thread is reopened today. Coincidentally, the quote from my desktop flip page calendar thingy today says, "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored" - Aldous Huxley.
Just because some people don't feel that things have changed since the day they were born (while freely admitting that they had changed immensely in the eons before) doesn't mean that they haven't changed at all.
Let's look beyond climate averages, unseasonal firestorms, rampant coastal erosion etc. What is behind the sudden onset of delayed migratory patterns of certain bird species?
Salient from the following article is "For the past 30 years, the south-west Victorian population has arrived at Griffiths Island, near Port Fairy, a day either side of September 22. But this year, the day came and went without the usual flurry of activity."
What's going on, if it isn't due to an environmental change which is dictated by climate change or man made activity?
Yes, apparently someone objected to the views, comments and data presented and decided to Lock the thread.
Back to topic.
It think the general feeling in the community are things need to change and that there are negative impacts of sorts from the CO2 emissions as there was from chemical emissions, although the level of impact is certainly debatable.
The question on how to reduce CO2 emissions is on the how, is it practical, does it actually achieve anything, will it lead to us being at a disadvantage economically to others, who pays and who should be doing it?
- Industry doesn't pay, the end user customer pays
- The Govt doesn't pay, the taxpayer pays
Note: The customer and taxpayer are one and the same.
What are people doing themselves?
For example, are they Wag a day off school protesting, then front a function the next day wearing a once off outfit riding in a car?
What about ill thought through Govt CO2 taxes on rail, but not trucks OR PT but not petrol?
Is the plan to cut 24/7/365/40 available coal, but replace it with intermittent wind and solar at 3 x the price? If we are serious, does this mean the previous negatives views of nuclear are now considered null and void?
Or off shore CO2 to achieve statistical agendas?
In my industry a very respected consultant was telling me recently Iceland is under pressure to close its aluminium industry, which is very large compared to its small population and hence driving Icelands CO2/capita up despite its being powered by Geothermal. Meanwhile Australia's CO2/capita is going down and lower than Iceland despite our large coal power industry. Note nearly all growth in the aluminum sector for last 20 years has been on coal and gas and generally moving away from hydro and nuclear as their output gets redirected to growing population and/or closure of nuclear.
What about the elephant in the room? Population control, why are we still paying people to breed above replacement levels. Should there not be a longterm plan to allow the population to contract?
No side of politics has provided rational, practical solutions, however consider that Australia's CO2/capita is decreasing around 2% YoY mostly steadily since the mid to late 2000's (depending on source of data). Is this fast enough? On current trends it will achieve global average in 60 years?