Jump to content

News Forum - Australian PM unsure about appearing at UN climate summit


Thaiger
 Share

Recommended Posts

The Australian PM, Scott Morrison, who is facing pressure to adopt a 2050 net-zero carbon emissions goal said today that he may not go to this year’s UN climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland due partially to his extensive travels this year. Australia is noted for being the world’s largest coal exporter by value as well as still being dependent on fossil fuels for the majority of the country’s electricity. The Bangkok Post notes that Australia has not given a firm commitment toward its greenhouse gas reductions. In fact, the PM has asserted that Australia will mine and export fossil fuels […]

The post Australian PM unsure about appearing at UN climate summit appeared first on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bet he won't attend. No chance for him to "spin" anything good out of the very ordinary positions IMO Australia has taken on the subject under his Government. Better off allowing another Minister to cop the heat.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Australia is doing its part already in relation to this climate change scam forced on countries by the UN..

Just wondering what Thailand’s direct plan is... and for that matter China , India , and the rest of the mega polluters who are the main polluters...

How about countries clearing forests and killing the main thing that combats co2  as there are many managed tree plantations in Austrlia leading the world in tree farming.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find myself conflicted by the subject of climate change. On the one hand many respected scientists and international organisations support the theory of Man-Made climate change. On the other hand I remain unconvinced.  I’m old enough to remember predictions made by the same people 30 years and 20 years ago which means by now, London, Bangkok and most of Bangladesh should be under 2 metres of water.
 

I have no doubt the climate is changing and that global temperatures are rising, we can measure and see the changes. I also have no doubt CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing and much of that has occurred in recent years. I just remain unconvinced the two correlate in the way some would have me believe. 
 

It therefore seems like a massive cost countries are being asked to pay in order to stop or turn around something that perhaps we are unable to?  I also feel uneasy with the usual “lead” the Western nations are telling its citizens they need to take. 
 

In summary, if I was Scott Morrison, I’m not sure I would attend given the current direction of travel? A real tough topic with lots of potentially polarised views. 
 

Perhaps I should put my hard hat on now 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Johno said:

Australia is doing its part already in relation to this climate change scam forced on countries by the UN..

Just wondering what Thailand’s direct plan is... and for that matter China , India , and the rest of the mega polluters who are the main polluters...

How about countries clearing forests and killing the main thing that combats co2  as there are many managed tree plantations in Austrlia leading the world in tree farming.. 

I tend to agree @Johno . There is however the counter argument that many western developed countries are the ones who have caused the damage. The industrial revolution and its heavy industry and use of fossil fuels is what generated our relative wealth compared to many other countries. It’s often a hard point to counter. What I would say however, is that while places like India, Brazil and China may not have got the same direct wealth from the industrial revolution, they certainly indirectly benefited from the global technological advances made at that time.
 

I think one thing is for sure. If we as humans are wrecking the climate and as a result we are all doomed. Our global political classes won’t be able to agree a way to solve the problem until it’s far far too late. I would also say this isn’t about “saving the planet”. It’s about saving mankind. If humanity does die out then the planet will carry on and in my view be a much nicer place! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Soidog said:

I find myself conflicted by the subject of climate change. On the one hand many respected scientists and international organisations support the theory of Man-Made climate change. On the other hand I remain unconvinced.  I’m old enough to remember predictions made by the same people 30 years and 20 years ago which means by now, London, Bangkok and most of Bangladesh should be under 2 metres of water.
 

I have no doubt the climate is changing and that global temperatures are rising, we can measure and see the changes. I also have no doubt CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing and much of that has occurred in recent years. I just remain unconvinced the two correlate in the way some would have me believe. 
 

It therefore seems like a massive cost countries are being asked to pay in order to stop or turn around something that perhaps we are unable to?  I also feel uneasy with the usual “lead” the Western nations are telling its citizens they need to take. 
 

In summary, if I was Scott Morrison, I’m not sure I would attend given the current direction of travel? A real tough topic with lots of potentially polarised views. 
 

Perhaps I should put my hard hat on now 😂

You should be okay after some additions to your ignore list 🤣

One thing I definitely agree with is the fact that some countries are asking a lot from their citizens, whereas they are in no way large contributors to the problem. Always wanting to be seen as the best pupil in the class, at the expense of the taxpayers.

Even leaving the justification out of it, the supposed problem can only be controlled if everyone joins in.

Sacrifices in Belgium and Luxemburg aren't going to make one bit of difference if in other countries they keep driving cars that run 20 miles to the gallon or keep burning coal...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Soidog said:

I tend to agree @Johno . There is however the counter argument that many western developed countries are the ones who have caused the damage. The industrial revolution and its heavy industry and use of fossil fuels is what generated our relative wealth compared to many other countries. It’s often a hard point to counter. What I would say however, is that while places like India, Brazil and China may not have got the same direct wealth from the industrial revolution, they certainly indirectly benefited from the global technological advances made at that time.
 

I think one thing is for sure. If we as humans are wrecking the climate and as a result we are all doomed. Our global political classes won’t be able to agree a way to solve the problem until it’s far far too late. I would also say this isn’t about “saving the planet”. It’s about saving mankind. If humanity does die out then the planet will carry on and in my view be a much nicer place! 

Well said, particularly the last couple of sentences. I tend to view the issue of climate change through a similar lens as the current pandemic. Public support requires a leap of faith. If the global warming issue is put aside, the transfer to renewable energy makes sense anyway. Not moving to renewable energy only delays the problems for future generations to deal with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bob20 said:

You should be okay after some additions to your ignore list 🤣

One thing I definitely agree with is the fact that some countries are asking a lot from their citizens, whereas they are in no way large contributors to the problem. Always wanting to be seen as the best pupil in the class, at the expense of the taxpayers.

Even leaving the justification out of it, the supposed problem can only be controlled if everyone joins in.

Sacrifices in Belgium and Luxemburg aren't going to make one bit of difference if in other countries they keep driving cars that run 20 miles to the gallon or keep burning coal...

Thankfully I don’t have an ignore list as such as most members are reasonable it seems (most!). Just one member blocked for me. I keep it for what I feel are  “Condescending, Opinionated, Conceited, Killjoys, and Sad people. (COCKS) for short!
 

Yes, it’s another global topic that means we either all do it or it’s pointless. That’s before we factor in natural causes. I wonder how much CO2 the  La Palmas volcano is spewing out each day? I know human emissions are on top of that, but there are many natural sources of “green house” gases. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Khunmark said:

Well said, particularly the last couple of sentences. I tend to view the issue of climate change through a similar lens as the current pandemic. Public support requires a leap of faith. If the global warming issue is put aside, the transfer to renewable energy makes sense anyway. Not moving to renewable energy only delays the problems for future generations to deal with.

Yes I totally agree. I’m all in favour of development of renewable energy for the reason you state. It also provides for a better balance of world order once you become less reliant on fossil fuels such as oil. Part of the problem with the climate warming debate is that it confuses many issues. I even hear people in the same sentence talk of global warming and plastic in the sea! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Soidog said:

Thankfully I don’t have an ignore list as such as most members are reasonable it seems (most!). Just one member blocked for me. I keep it for what I feel are  “Condescending, Opinionated, Conceited, Killjoys, and Sad people. (COCKS) for short!
 

Yes, it’s another global topic that means we either all do it or it’s pointless. That’s before we factor in natural causes. I wonder how much CO2 the  La Palmas volcano is spewing out each day? I know human emissions are on top of that, but there are many natural sources of “green house” gases. 

There are more of them. Give it time 🤣

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Soidog said:

I find myself conflicted by the subject of climate change. On the one hand many respected scientists and international organisations support the theory of Man-Made climate change. On the other hand I remain unconvinced.  I’m old enough to remember predictions made by the same people 30 years and 20 years ago which means by now, London, Bangkok and most of Bangladesh should be under 2 metres of water.
 

I have no doubt the climate is changing and that global temperatures are rising, we can measure and see the changes. I also have no doubt CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing and much of that has occurred in recent years. I just remain unconvinced the two correlate in the way some would have me believe. 
 

It therefore seems like a massive cost countries are being asked to pay in order to stop or turn around something that perhaps we are unable to?  I also feel uneasy with the usual “lead” the Western nations are telling its citizens they need to take. 
 

In summary, if I was Scott Morrison, I’m not sure I would attend given the current direction of travel? A real tough topic with lots of potentially polarised views. 
 

Perhaps I should put my hard hat on now 😂

If you don't believe it by now, it is unlikely you will ever believe it. I understand that if you can't actually see these events taking place in real time, it is possible to have doubts. But when there are new environmental events, the first thing the scientists do is ask, "What have we recently started doing that may have led to this.

I do believe that CC is man made, but here is where I can sympathise with your doubts, Are you old enough to recall the BSE/CJD epidemic? CJD was linked to the consumption of BSE infected Beef. Scientists looked for what man had been doing recently that might have led to this, and came up with the fact that we had recently started mixing rendered parts of dead cows into cattle feed. Effectively, cows were now becoming cannibals. There is a precedent for linking cannibalism to CJD. There were large scale outbreaks of a disease among the head-hunting tribes around Papua New Guinea called Kudu. This was very similar to CJD. Though head-hunting for cannibalism had stopped some years earlier, cannibalism itself had not. It was now being practised as a funeral rite. 

The tribes would eat part of the corpse, and depending on status, the "warrior" classes would get the best cuts, with women and children getting what might best be described as the "offal", Studies showed that the worst affected with Kudu were linked to offal consumption, but also that there was an incubation period of at least 10 years.

Scientists suggested that culling the infected herds and destroying the corpses to keep the meat out of the food chain, and a ban on cannibalistic cattle feeds might fix the problem. It's worth mentioning that BSE was very rare in organically farmed herds where no such feeds were in use. The advice was followed and quite quickly, BSE was eradicated, though there are still occasional outbreaks with an odd cow in a herd being detected. As well as this the sale of offal was banned for many years.

Did the scientists get it right? On the face of it, it appears they did. But for me, there is a great mystery as to why CJD infections also rapidly declined. Based on the PNG study, we might have expected CJD infections to carry on and even increase for a number of years as it worked itself out of the human system. But CJD rapidly receded to it's pre-BSE levels, when the incubation period for Kudu suggested that there should have many more cases in the pipeline. Not all the PNG tribes people were affected by Kudu, and perhaps for the western world and those affected by CJD, if it were connected to BSE, eating beef had a more rapid onset to those who were susceptible. 

However, on balance it appears to me that the scientists were right and the difference in incubation periods between Kudu and CJD remains unexplained.

Moving on to more recent events, when a huge chunk of the world cut or reduced aviation for a few days following 9/11 the average temperature recorded around the world, reportedly dropped by 0.2 C degrees in that period. I would not suggest that an event that only lasted a few days is conclusive evidence, but it was predicted that if we modified our behaviour, temperatures would decrease, and this does not contradict the prediction.  Apparently, the explanation is that the con-trails left by jets at high altitude adds to cloud cover, which in turn helps to keep the warm air closer to the planet

In summary, I can understand why people might have their doubts about the causes of CC, but the prediction that the more greenhouse gases that we pump out, the more temperatures will rise has yet to be contradicted, and temps have been rising for 50 years now.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

If you don't believe it by now, it is unlikely you will ever believe it. I understand that if you can't actually see these events taking place in real time, it is possible to have doubts. But when there are new environmental events, the first thing the scientists do is ask, "What have we recently started doing that may have led to this.

I do believe that CC is man made, but here is where I can sympathise with your doubts, Are you old enough to recall the BSE/CJD epidemic? CJD was linked to the consumption of BSE infected Beef. Scientists looked for what man had been doing recently that might have led to this, and came up with the fact that we had recently started mixing rendered parts of dead cows into cattle feed. Effectively, cows were now becoming cannibals. There is a precedent for linking cannibalism to CJD. There were large scale outbreaks of a disease among the head-hunting tribes around Papua New Guinea called Kudu. This was very similar to CJD. Though head-hunting for cannibalism had stopped some years earlier, cannibalism itself had not. It was now being practised as a funeral rite. 

The tribes would eat part of the corpse, and depending on status, the "warrior" classes would get the best cuts, with women and children getting what might best be described as the "offal", Studies showed that the worst affected with Kudu were linked to offal consumption, but also that there was an incubation period of at least 10 years.

Scientists suggested that culling the infected herds and destroying the corpses to keep the meat out of the food chain, and a ban on cannibalistic cattle feeds might fix the problem. It's worth mentioning that BSE was very rare in organically farmed herds where no such feeds were in use. The advice was followed and quite quickly, BSE was eradicated, though there are still occasional outbreaks with an odd cow in a herd being detected. As well as this the sale of offal was banned for many years.

Did the scientists get it right? On the face of it, it appears they did. But for me, there is a great mystery as to why CJD infections also rapidly declined. Based on the PNG study, we might have expected CJD infections to carry on and even increase for a number of years as it worked itself out of the human system. But CJD rapidly receded to it's pre-BSE levels, when the incubation period for Kudu suggested that there should have many more cases in the pipeline. Not all the PNG tribes people were affected by Kudu, and perhaps for the western world and those affected by CJD, if it were connected to BSE, eating beef had a more rapid onset to those who were susceptible. 

However, on balance it appears to me that the scientists were right and the difference in incubation periods between Kudu and CJD remains unexplained.

Moving on to more recent events, when a huge chunk of the world cut or reduced aviation for a few days following 9/11 the average temperature recorded around the world, reportedly dropped by 0.2 C degrees in that period. I would not suggest that an event that only lasted a few days is conclusive evidence, but it was predicted that if we modified our behaviour, temperatures would decrease, and this does not contradict the prediction.  Apparently, the explanation is that the con-trails left by jets at high altitude adds to cloud cover, which in turn helps to keep the warm air closer to the planet

In summary, I can understand why people might have their doubts about the causes of CC, but the prediction that the more greenhouse gases that we pump out, the more temperatures will rise has yet to be contradicted, and temps have been rising for 50 years now.

Thanks for that, an interesting read for sure. Unfortunately for me I am old enough to recall the BSE outbreaks in the mid 1980’s!!
 

Yes I’m really sat on the fence right now with climate change. As I say, I certainly have no doubt the climate is changing and the earth is warming. It’s also clear that most warming has occurred in the last 100 years and more so the last 30. What I can’t decide is if this warming “coincided” (as in a coincidence), with increased fossil fuel usage or is it cause and effect? I also think the environmentalists don’t help by conflating environmental issues and confusing the public as well as giving climate sceptics lots to highlight. Loss of habitat, marine pollution etc are all things largely unrelated to climate change but get rolled up in to one big environmental apocalypse. It’s the same with major weather events. The media will publish the scary headlines and then the body of the article will say something like “The worst flooding since 1720”. Well 1720 was before the start of the industrial revolution and long before the steep rise in the use of fossil fuels. To a climate sceptic, it feels like they are “gilding the Lilly” to make a tenuous point.
 

As with a number of similar issues, the world,  and especially the world of social media quickly polarises and the finer points and ground for collaborative debate gets lost. 
 

Interestingly, nuclear energy is a source of energy largely clean from carbon emissions. However, the world has enough history of nuclear disasters such as Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island to make this politically charged. it is also another example of conflating environmental damage and climate change. 
 

There is clearly a logic that pumping oil and digging coal out of the ground and burning it is not a good idea. To me, it’s rather like the logic that applies to inhaling smoke in to your lungs damages them. I’d like to see far less fossil fuel burning (hard to say when I make two return flights to Thailand each year 😬) and far less deforestation. I’m also a supporter of reducing other environmental impacts such as marine and river pollution and better recycling of materials. But we are being asked as a generation to pay a massive cost in hard cash and changes to lifestyle. I would also like to see environmental campaigners spend more time lobbying high polluting countries then those showing good carbon reductions.   Clearly it’s worth doing all of this if the science is right. What if it’s not?….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Australia has continually been derided as having an unacceptably weak strategy by other world leaders and not invited to many world events anymore.

If you were skeptical, you might jump to the conclusion that the Australian PM's party was facing an election shortly and needed the votes of an allied party who represent large parts of coal country to stay in power. This summit would cause him immense political damage at home if he has to make statements or agree to anything. And you would probably be right.

To blame not attending on "covid travels" is just a slap in the face, especially when his policies have cause so many Australians to not be able to return or leave Australia. The upside is Thailand has likely seen an uptick in Aussies who have decided to ride it out here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Soidog said:

Thanks for that, an interesting read for sure. Unfortunately for me I am old enough to recall the BSE outbreaks in the mid 1980’s!!
 

Yes I’m really sat on the fence right now with climate change. As I say, I certainly have no doubt the climate is changing and the earth is warming. It’s also clear that most warming has occurred in the last 100 years and more so the last 30. What I can’t decide is if this warming “coincided” (as in a coincidence), with increased fossil fuel usage or is it cause and effect? I also think the environmentalists don’t help by conflating environmental issues and confusing the public as well as giving climate sceptics lots to highlight. Loss of habitat, marine pollution etc are all things largely unrelated to climate change but get rolled up in to one big environmental apocalypse. It’s the same with major weather events. The media will publish the scary headlines and then the body of the article will say something like “The worst flooding since 1720”. Well 1720 was before the start of the industrial revolution and long before the steep rise in the use of fossil fuels. To a climate sceptic, it feels like they are “gilding the Lilly” to make a tenuous point.
 

As with a number of similar issues, the world,  and especially the world of social media quickly polarises and the finer points and ground for collaborative debate gets lost. 
 

Interestingly, nuclear energy is a source of energy largely clean from carbon emissions. However, the world has enough history of nuclear disasters such as Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island to make this politically charged. it is also another example of conflating environmental damage and climate change. 
 

There is clearly a logic that pumping oil and digging coal out of the ground and burning it is not a good idea. To me, it’s rather like the logic that applies to inhaling smoke in to your lungs damages them. I’d like to see far less fossil fuel burning (hard to say when I make two return flights to Thailand each year 😬) and far less deforestation. I’m also a supporter of reducing other environmental impacts such as marine and river pollution and better recycling of materials. But we are being asked as a generation to pay a massive cost in hard cash and changes to lifestyle. I would also like to see environmental campaigners spend more time lobbying high polluting countries then those showing good carbon reductions.   Clearly it’s worth doing all of this if the science is right. What if it’s not?….

All I can really say is that there are aspects of the BSE/CJD crisis that don't make sense to me, but the scientists said "This is what we suspect is happening, and if we do A, B and C, we think that will cure the problem". Coincidence or not, BSE was eradicated swiftly, but my only surprise was so was CJD. The likely model was that CJD related to BSE was going to take some time to work it's way out of the system. Maybe because it was beef, the ten year incubation did not apply in this case? That seems a likely explanation, because CJD followed on very rapidly from the mass outbreaks of BSE. The model should have suggested to me, that mass BSE outbreaks should have been around for 10 years or so, before the outbreak of CJD.

My point being in retrospect, Kudu being linked to cannibalism and the incubation period, does not confine the BSE/CJD to the same time scale, though I might have expected it to. But we followed the advice of the scientists and the problem was solved within a couple of years. Now we are being told by the scientists, that CC and temp change is closely following emissions of greenhouse gases. I am inclined to believe that we ignore this at our peril. The problem of course is that we have a "Jaws" scenario where there are many who want to keep the beaches open because closing them is bad for the economy. Perhaps the Great White Shark will go away? That's not dis-similar to those who oppose lockdowns.

Regarding the lobbying of other countries, I can see the argument made by countries like China and India, that now we are starting to drag our countries out of poverty through industrialisation, the rest of the world wants us to stop. On the other side of that argument, is that Mumbai, one of the most polluted cities on the planet, recently reported a case of stage 4 lung cancer, in an 18 year old non-smoker. Of course one case does not prove anything but...?

My own personal view is that we can mitigate carbon output by switching to "green electricity" more rapidly. For example, Richard Branson claims to be spending huge amounts on researching alternatives to Kerosene used in his aircraft. Because it's Branson, you have to be wary of his claims. However there are alternatives such as carbon offsets. I don't mean planting trees either, because these may take up to forty years to return the investment. Knowing the rapaciousness of some people, I have doubts that many of these trees will still be there in 40 years.

Solar energy is now by far the cheapest source of power if accumulated on a "solar farm". However, put a solar panel on your roof, and it takes about 30 years to pay for itself. The problem is that at small scale, photo-voltaic cells (PV's) are very expensive. But there is belief within that industry that research can drastically reduce the cost of these and reduce payback to as low as 5 years. To me, it makes more sense to invest in researching ways to bring down the cost of PV's so that they can be fitted to most buildings. Eventually places like China and India will get sick of the pollution and also start using PV's if they can become cheap enough.  But I think the west has to get the ball rolling, and not rely on developing countries to abandon their dash for growth.

Regarding your aviation carbon footprint, a return trip from W. Europe to TH generates one ton of CO2. The average UK house produces 2.7 tons. If they can all be converted to green energy by reducing the production costs, the decline in household emissions would more than eradicate the effects of aviation on CC (23 Mill dwellings). It currently produces 39.3 Megatons through aviation, but 62.1 MT's through household power consumption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

All I can really say is that there are aspects of the BSE/CJD crisis that don't make sense to me, but the scientists said "This is what we suspect is happening, and if we do A, B and C, we think that will cure the problem". Coincidence or not, BSE was eradicated swiftly, but my only surprise was so was CJD. The likely model was that CJD related to BSE was going to take some time to work it's way out of the system. Maybe because it was beef, the ten year incubation did not apply in this case? That seems a likely explanation, because CJD followed on very rapidly from the mass outbreaks of BSE. The model should have suggested to me, that mass BSE outbreaks should have been around for 10 years or so, before the outbreak of CJD.

My point being in retrospect, Kudu being linked to cannibalism and the incubation period, does not confine the BSE/CJD to the same time scale, though I might have expected it to. But we followed the advice of the scientists and the problem was solved within a couple of years. Now we are being told by the scientists, that CC and temp change is closely following emissions of greenhouse gases. I am inclined to believe that we ignore this at our peril. The problem of course is that we have a "Jaws" scenario where there are many who want to keep the beaches open because closing them is bad for the economy. Perhaps the Great White Shark will go away? That's not dis-similar to those who oppose lockdowns.

Regarding the lobbying of other countries, I can see the argument made by countries like China and India, that now we are starting to drag our countries out of poverty through industrialisation, the rest of the world wants us to stop. On the other side of that argument, is that Mumbai, one of the most polluted cities on the planet, recently reported a case of stage 4 lung cancer, in an 18 year old non-smoker. Of course one case does not prove anything but...?

My own personal view is that we can mitigate carbon output by switching to "green electricity" more rapidly. For example, Richard Branson claims to be spending huge amounts on researching alternatives to Kerosene used in his aircraft. Because it's Branson, you have to be wary of his claims. However there are alternatives such as carbon offsets. I don't mean planting trees either, because these may take up to forty years to return the investment. Knowing the rapaciousness of some people, I have doubts that many of these trees will still be there in 40 years.

Solar energy is now by far the cheapest source of power if accumulated on a "solar farm". However, put a solar panel on your roof, and it takes about 30 years to pay for itself. The problem is that at small scale, photo-voltaic cells (PV's) are very expensive. But there is belief within that industry that research can drastically reduce the cost of these and reduce payback to as low as 5 years. To me, it makes more sense to invest in researching ways to bring down the cost of PV's so that they can be fitted to most buildings. Eventually places like China and India will get sick of the pollution and also start using PV's if they can become cheap enough.  But I think the west has to get the ball rolling, and not rely on developing countries to abandon their dash for growth.

Regarding your aviation carbon footprint, a return trip from W. Europe to TH generates one ton of CO2. The average UK house produces 2.7 tons. If they can all be converted to green energy by reducing the production costs, the decline in household emissions would more than eradicate the effects of aviation on CC (23 Mill dwellings). It currently produces 39.3 Megatons through aviation, but 62.1 MT's through household power consumption.

Some interesting stuff there @JohninDubin . As I said previously, even if you are a man made climate change sceptic such as myself, there are still plenty of good reasons to move away from fossil fuels. The pollution and health impact in cities like Mumbai as you quoted are horrendous. A few years ago I did work in Delhi and there were several days where you simply did not want to be out in it. You could feel it the instant you went outside. I also think there are good political and environmental reasons for moving away from fossil fuels. Some of the largest resources of gas and oil sit under some countries with dodgy governments (cue U.S bashers)! The environmental impact on wildlife and people in parts of Africa and the polar regions is also a good reason to advance alternative sources of energy. 
 

As you elude to, solar energy surely has to be the way forward. For millenia life on Earth has known of the power of the sun. We have the technology to harness that power and we should be developing it much further. Much of the limiting capability as I understand it relates to power storage and battery technology. Much of the battery technology in use today is also damaging to the environment.
 

One of the best things we could do as a species is get serious about population size. Less people means less energy demand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Soidog said:

One of the best things we could do as a species is get serious about population size. Less people means less energy demand. 

Here is where you and I might have a serious difference of opinion (but remain friendly). You've conflated resource consumption with power consumption.

Large families are very much a 3rd world thing. Children become the pension plan of parents in these countries. A large family makes it more likely they will be cared for in their old age. The main problem that they create is consumption of resources, mainly food and water. and not energy use. Look at the countries with the lowest CO2 footprint per capita and you will see most are among the poorest countries on the planet.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/carbon-emissions-per-person-capita

I have reformatted this data into a sortable Excel Doc to make it easier to read: The 2nd, 3rd and 4th Columns are total CO2 output per country

CO2 Emissions by Country.xlsx

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

Here is where you and I might have a serious difference of opinion (but remain friendly). You've conflated resource consumption with power consumption.

Large families are very much a 3rd world thing. Children become the pension plan of parents in these countries. A large family makes it more likely they will be cared for in their old age. The main problem that they create is consumption of resources, mainly food and water. and not energy use. Look at the countries with the lowest CO2 footprint per capita and you will see most are among the poorest countries on the planet.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/carbon-emissions-per-person-capita

I have reformatted this data into a sortable Excel Doc to make it easier to read: The 2nd, 3rd and 4th Columns are total CO2 output per country

CO2 Emissions by Country.xlsx 18.2 kB · 5 downloads

No, I think we are agreeing. My point about population growth relates to the downstream effect on these developing counties. While it’s true today that developing countries have a lower carbon footprint per capita, this won’t always be the case. You can see that in many developing countries where their consumption of power is increasing. It’s also true that more people means more food means more meat consumption. That in itself is always a contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.
 

A few years ago there was a program which looked at the “theoretical limit” of what the earth could sustain with current consumption profiles and increasing population. That figure was around 11-13 Billion people. The world population has doubled since 1965 (although its rate is decreasing) and sits at 7.8 Billion.  So in approximately 50-60 years from now there could be 14 billion people on the planet. Surely you would agree that is an  issue to consider?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Soidog said:

No, I think we are agreeing. My point about population growth relates to the downstream effect on these developing counties. While it’s true today that developing countries have a lower carbon footprint per capita, this won’t always be the case. You can see that in many developing countries where their consumption of power is increasing. It’s also true that more people means more food means more meat consumption. That in itself is always a contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.
 

A few years ago there was a program which looked at the “theoretical limit” of what the earth could sustain with current consumption profiles and increasing population. That figure was around 11-13 Billion people. The world population has doubled since 1965 (although its rate is decreasing) and sits at 7.8 Billion.  So in approximately 50-60 years from now there could be 14 billion people on the planet. Surely you would agree that is an  issue to consider?

I agree that it is something that requires urgent attention, but only because the population timebomb is a lot closer than their rapid increase in carbon footprint size.

Regarding the figure where resources are overwhelmed by demand, the figure I read was 9.5 BN. The correct figure doesn't really matter so much, as the fact that unless action is taken, it will happen. But sticking with my 9.5 BN figure, that is projected to happen in 2050 (ish).

I listened to an interview given by the late David Cornwell (aka John Le Carre), in which he predicted that by 2050, there would be major wars fought over resources with mainly the US, Russia and China offering to "protect" weaker nations in exchange for payment through those resources. He suggested that even Canada might find itself in conflict with the US over fresh water. But there will be other potential client states. For example, the Philippines may have to decide between being protected by either the US or China. 

Does that seem plausible? Take the UK which already occupies a substantial chunk of Ireland. An island with a population of nearly 7 mill, but produces enough food to feed 40 mill. Ireland is a neutral country, and though a member of the EU, has an opt out from the Lisbon Treaty regarding their contribution to a European Defence Force, some that Europe might well need in the event of another Trump type personality trashing NATO.

The UK on the other hand, has been food deficient since the 19th Century, is not a member of the EU and has had to import food to feed itself for over 100 years now. It almost cost them two world wars as a result of U-boats. You may have seen the more recent stories of huge queues of trucks at Dover Port when it looked like there would be a "no deal Brexit". That's how perilous the supply chain is to the UK. Imagine a scenario where Russia looks at Ireland as a potential "client state" because of their food resources. They could probably have the country taken over in three days. However, the UK will see that not being in the EU has already made sourcing food a bit more difficult.  The thought that they could also lose the "larder" across the Irish Sea would require a serious response. So the UK also offers Ireland "protection". Who the Irish choose is irrelevant. That's the likely dilemma for the resource rich countries if Cornwell's prediction is correct.  

I can't remember exactly what he said, but I have a recollection of one of the Bush's saying something to the effect that if it kept down the price of petrol for his fellow Americans, He was prepared to go to war. I'm pretty sure they would have the same mindset for other raw materials too. 

But population is a different though equally important problem, and eventually that too will feed into the problems of climate change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

I agree that it is something that requires urgent attention, but only because the population timebomb is a lot closer than their rapid increase in carbon footprint size.

Regarding the figure where resources are overwhelmed by demand, the figure I read was 9.5 BN. The correct figure doesn't really matter so much, as the fact that unless action is taken, it will happen. But sticking with my 9.5 BN figure, that is projected to happen in 2050 (ish).

I listened to an interview given by the late David Cornwell (aka John Le Carre), in which he predicted that by 2050, there would be major wars fought over resources with mainly the US, Russia and China offering to "protect" weaker nations in exchange for payment through those resources. He suggested that even Canada might find itself in conflict with the US over fresh water. But there will be other potential client states. For example, the Philippines may have to decide between being protected by either the US or China. 

Does that seem plausible? Take the UK which already occupies a substantial chunk of Ireland. An island with a population of nearly 7 mill, but produces enough food to feed 40 mill. Ireland is a neutral country, and though a member of the EU, has an opt out from the Lisbon Treaty regarding their contribution to a European Defence Force, some that Europe might well need in the event of another Trump type personality trashing NATO.

The UK on the other hand, has been food deficient since the 19th Century, is not a member of the EU and has had to import food to feed itself for over 100 years now. It almost cost them two world wars as a result of U-boats. You may have seen the more recent stories of huge queues of trucks at Dover Port when it looked like there would be a "no deal Brexit". That's how perilous the supply chain is to the UK. Imagine a scenario where Russia looks at Ireland as a potential "client state" because of their food resources. They could probably have the country taken over in three days. However, the UK will see that not being in the EU has already made sourcing food a bit more difficult.  The thought that they could also lose the "larder" across the Irish Sea would require a serious response. So the UK also offers Ireland "protection". Who the Irish choose is irrelevant. That's the likely dilemma for the resource rich countries if Cornwell's prediction is correct.  

I can't remember exactly what he said, but I have a recollection of one of the Bush's saying something to the effect that if it kept down the price of petrol for his fellow Americans, He was prepared to go to war. I'm pretty sure they would have the same mindset for other raw materials too. 

But population is a different though equally important problem, and eventually that too will feed into the problems of climate change.

Yes some scary scenarios you highlight there. It has worries me for a long time the amount of food the U.K. imports. It seems the slightest of knocks can upset the supply chain in many areas. We are seeing that now with the shortage of truck drivers etc. Whatever, the future, one thing is certain. Wars will happen just as they have in history. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Soidog said:

Yes some scary scenarios you highlight there. It has worries me for a long time the amount of food the U.K. imports. It seems the slightest of knocks can upset the supply chain in many areas. We are seeing that now with the shortage of truck drivers etc. Whatever, the future, one thing is certain. Wars will happen just as they have in history. 

Well, they've started lowering the CO2 output already, having run out of petrol 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Soidog said:

Yes some scary scenarios you highlight there. It has worries me for a long time the amount of food the U.K. imports. It seems the slightest of knocks can upset the supply chain in many areas. We are seeing that now with the shortage of truck drivers etc. Whatever, the future, one thing is certain. Wars will happen just as they have in history. 

And yet Western Europe has enjoyed 76 years of peace. That's the longest in recorded history of 2500 years. I don't know about you, but I blame the EU for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

And yet Western Europe has enjoyed 76 years of peace. That's the longest in recorded history of 2500 years. I don't know about you, but I blame the EU for that.

I think the formation of the EU has helped, but I’d also say the post war fear of nuclear war and the effects of the Cold War helped peace. There have obviously been a few smaller conflicts in areas bordering Europe but nothing major. I also think the move to a more globalised world helps with regional peace. There are a number of other factors such as the growing role of UN peacekeepers and the UN itself. Changes to social behaviours such as, dare I say, the greater role of women in politics has also helped. Without doubt the EU played its role in economic terms and levelling up poorer areas of Europe, in particular Eastern Europe following the failure of the Soviet Union. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, JohninDubin said:

Solar energy is now by far the cheapest source of power if accumulated on a "solar farm". However, put a solar panel on your roof, and it takes about 30 years to pay for itself. The problem is that at small scale, photo-voltaic cells (PV's) are very expensive.

The project to build the world’s largest PV array (ironically in Australia) looks like it might have legs. 
 

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/09/24/developer-calls-worlds-largest-solarstorage-project-the-first-of-many-to-come/
 

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/world-s-largest-solar-farm-to-pipe-power-internationally-from-australia-under-the-sea/amp
 

if it does get up (est. on stream in 2027) most of the energy is destined for Singapore. 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Join Thaiger Talk Today!

    Sign up in 30 seconds and join the discussion on everything Thailand!

  • Latest Posts

    1. 17

      News Forum - Bank of Scotland brands Thai wife ‘criminal’

    2. 2

      News Forum - Bangkok man electrocuted to death charging his phone

    3. 55

      What are Health Services like in your country?

    4. 55

      What are Health Services like in your country?

    5. 55

      What are Health Services like in your country?

  • New Topics

  • Tell a friend

    Love Thaiger Talk? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By posting on Thaiger Talk you agree to the Terms of Use