carbon emissions rising faster than worst case scenario - what does it mean?

I heard this a few days ago - surprised no one has posted it here.

what does it mean to us?

most likely - it means we have to collectively pull our fingers out and start addressing this issue. there is a lag tim e- the warming we are seeing now is the result of our actions several decades ago - and if CO2 emissions are rising faster than predicted - that means our children - or in my case grandchildren - and their children - will be paying the price for our inaction.

the evidence is clear - time to stop squabbling and start acting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ase-scenarios/2011/11/04/gIQA74r1mM_blog.html

 

Who is going to act?

Politicians want to stay in power, they will wave the green flag, and make grand, vague, statements on how they will save the planet to get elected, and won't do anything of substance.

Elections cost money, so congress may pass laws, and regulators enact regulations. But, that is so the offenders will pay them for an exemption.

Don't believe me, then why did CO2 go up as fast as it did? Don't we have all kinds of politicians supporting rules, that somehow never get passed?

 

we have just passed legislation here that at least is a start:

http://www.solarserver.com/solar-ma...n-in-support-for-clean-energy-industries.html

 

Had only 4 votes gone the other way.

1% of GDP. It will be an interesting experiment to see the multiplier effect increasing energy costs will have in the Australian economy.

 

still, it has passed - and in other developed nations there are also significant efforts being made.

China's emissions may be rising, although they have a long way to go before their per capita carbon footprint is anywhere near ours, but they are already committed to significant renewables - and they have the luxury of not needing to worry about how this will impact on the economy.

re 1% of GDP - sounds a lot, but GDP doesn't measure non monetary resources - and costs to the environment - which also have a significant value .... and these DO count in the grand scheme of things.

the discussion about the possible multiplier effects is just a scare tactic put out by the opposition and the denier lobby.

 

Or those in the US that saw gasoline go to $5 per gallon, quickly followed by increases in anything that required transportation, or fuel to be processed (like harvesting food).

My point is the increase in CO2 is the reality.

You are denying reality in thinking that taxing CO2 is the solution. Look at history, Europe did that as well.

The only solution is a lower cost source of CO2 neutral energy (biofuels aren't any better than gasoline). Spend your energy on that, and don't worry about the "deniers" - they will wait in line buy that energy, once you make it.

That is where I am spending my efforts, because energy is prosperity, and I want to live in a really prosperous planet.

 

your petrol costs haven't risen because of climate science - there have been other factors involved there, although increase in food costs in some parts of the world is linked to the use of ethanol - which anyone who calls themselves "green" should seriously question as a viable option.

the prices will continue to rise in any case, which is why you need to put alternative energy sources in place regardless of whether AGW is real or not.

if you want to bring about change, you combine education with hitting the hip pocket.

in the long run, you may not need the tax, but it helps people to make better choices in the short term.

also - there will be a sizeable investment in renewables and planning from the income received from this tax.

 

It doesn't matter what caused gasoline prices to rise. My point is those higher prices rippled through the economy. That is my source of the multiplier effect.

What is happening is true to human nature, your expectations are not.

People are well educated in the dangers of cigarettes, that smoking will kill you in a most unpleasant way. Yet few that smoke quit, and far too many continue to start. People are well educated in the dangers of obesity, driving under the influence, engage in unsafe sex, drive unsafe, etc., etc., etc. People feel safer when they think they are in control - the keep telling themselves "I'll stop before..." right up to the end.

On the other hand, people will organize to stop nuclear power plant construction because for fear of radiation, won't fly commercially for fear of a crash, etc. All, because they don't have that security of control.


Anthropologist use a statement to determine if evolution took place. "In a rapidly changing environment, an organism will do as little as possible to maintain a former way of life".

If you think about it, it applied to people as well. Therefore, alternative energy will only take when it allows the general public to maintain a former way of life. You can scream at the "deniers", but they don't create public policy. You can get the general public to go along, as long as you don't ask them to do anything.

 

not so.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features60Dec+2009

and:

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0146.pdf

increasing costs, along with education - are significant factors in influencing consumer behaviour.

I also recall after the OPEC crisis an increase in smaller, more fuel efficient cars coming on to the market, and that is still the case today in places which have higher petrol costs.

people will generally rally against change - especially if it is marketed as dangerous. a lot of other changes slip under the radar of popular opinion because they don't get the profile.

source? and how does this really relate to the conversation?

people adapt, and adopt new processes if they see a benefit, where the benefit is doubtful, there is resistance ... lols .. there is ALWAYS resistance from some secotrs .. but this capacity for resistance is one of the things that denialists and others have latched onto, by downplaying the costs of not acting, and overstating the impacts of acting on this issue.

anthropologists study people - so most likely they were talking about people - however my guess is the statement is taken out of context.

people will respond when their hip pocket nerve is hit, it shouldn't have had to come to this - science has been aware for a long time of the impact of fossil fuel consumption on our environment, and even with relatively low amounts of funding to date, there are already numerous examples where we can improve efficiencies/use alternatives.

 

But does that mean we cannot be more rational about what we are doing with energy consumption - we get Oranges from California - that makes NO sense to transport food all the way from one country to another, especially when they can be grown easily in the original country

Do you really need all the wrapping that producers put on things? Do we need water in bottles?

Lots and lots of ways we can be more rational about how we spend our "energy dollar" that would not affect our way of life and maybe improve it a little

 

really important points.

I really cannot understand why we need californian oranges here, when we can get fresh home grown oranges virtually all year round anyway ...

its to satisfy a trade agreement which honours the production of oranges in california (probably subsidised) a process which employs underpaid illegal immigrants in the US, while disregarding the real costs of production and transport.

housing design - a bug bear of mine - if twenty years ago I, with no training whatsoever, could figure out that positioning your house to get maximum passive solar benefit could reduce home energy costs - why do professional architects and designers working in the industry still ignore this?

packaging - too right, Bower - back in the early eighties I did some research on the increased costs to the consumer, while passing on no real benefit ....

none of this stuff is new - and if you look at how much energy we consume now ... would it REALLY make such a difference to our lives if we started being smarter in how we use resources?

It wouldn't.

only scaremongerers pretend it would.

 

Why do you get oranges from California, and us Californians get fruit from Chile? Because that is the cheapest source for out of season fruit.

I hate all the extra packaging, some of the plastic packaging is hard to open. That is the point. The cost of tampering and theft is higher than tamper proofing and theft reducing packaging.

And there are lots of good reasons we don't.

The entire world isn't involved in some anti-MMGW conspiracy. They are going about their business. They will continue to do that.

 

see my post above

the increase in packaging began long before tampering and theft became as "common" - and besides, for many items you can still get similar items with less packaging:

http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com/ways-reduce-reuse-recycle-2661.html

there are thousands of sites which mirror this advice - why do they say this? because there ARE choices where minimal packaging is used for the same or similar items.

which kind of counters what you said earlier when refering to what anthropologists allegedly claim: "In a rapidly changing environment, an organism will do as little as possible to maintain a former way of life".

although I agree there is no conspiracy ... we accept without question a whole lot of new things - but when it means we have to consciously think about our behaviour - thats a different story.

for example, a lot of people don't think about where there oranges come from .. it wouldn't occur to them that they are imported because they never were in the past. but if they do have to think about this, they may either regard it as an imposition that they have to, or they will think its a good idea and take this into consideration whem making choices.

a lot of people will argue the time factor (as well as a perception of cost) will influence their choice - but if imported oranges were more expensive because the real cost of transport was factored in, the decision might be a lot more straightforward.

 

This is not about dredging more money out of the little guy - this is and always will be about more money for the big guys

We have more and more "factory farming" to produce cheap meat etc but to maximise profits for the big business owners these are centralised and in the end you are probably paying MORE for the produce than if it were local - and on top of that the local variety would not be crammed full of antibiotics and growth hormones

http://www.themeatrix.com/

Half packaging is actually advertising - often you get more advertising than explanation about how the product actually works

And don't even go there with advertising bumf

 

Why does Austrailia import oranges?

Can you buy these products in your local stores?

?!?

Sometime back, I asked for the real cost for energy. As I recall, if that was factored in, my electric bill would go up $0.001 per KW hour - I pay $0.35 per KW hour. I expect the same applies to the cost of shipping oranges.

Like reduced packaging products mentioned above, people may think about how to be more energy efficient, but, until they can be bought at their local store....

Thus, my assertion that if you want to reduce CO2, you have to make it easier to use CO2 neutral energy than not.

 

http://portal.hud.gov:80/hudportal/...lic_indian_housing/programs/ph/phecc/strat_h5

Why do old bags and poor people live better than I do, even though I can afford to heat my house to beyond 70 Fahrenheit? Perhaps because conservation involves sacrifice? Tell that to the old bags and poor people.

 

free trade agreement with the US.

we produce oranges in winter, spring and summer - and valencias have along shelf life, so virtually last through autumn until the early navels appear.

not likely.

good point - which is why investment incentives are important.

which a CO2 tax, which uses funds to invest in alternatives, will do.

which is why introducing schemes to encourage better design etc will help.

 

The poor pay the CO2 tax in there electric bill and the funds used to invest in alternatives go to the rich who get a tax credit on their $50,000 dollars worth of solar panels. The black guy who bought the old house in the formerly upscale white hood in the now 99% black hood in DeKalb County told my fishing buddy that his solar panels do not work, and he did not know why those Carter era panels didn't, as the simple fact is that solar panels do not trickle down and only the CO2 tax does (just like unregulated ethanol production, voted on by Senator Obama back when I was arguing against burning food to go zoom, only tricked down to higher food costs to those who were living in empty houses in the hood where truck driver Bernita Jones got a loan for a $180 grand house, pushed the DTI or cost of living too high so they could no longer buy food and pay the ARM in the community reinvestment hood); so why do you support harming the poor and subsidizing the rich going off grid?

 

the world is not the US ...

 

I guess CO2 taxes and crap only trickle down in my universe.

 

The "invest in alternatives" did not register, I must have missed and could not from that assume this:

"At that time polluting industries will pay $23 per tonne of carbon emissions and households will be compensated for extra costs through tax cuts and increased benefits." http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-08/carbon-tax-passes-senate/3652438?WT.svl=news0

Maybe you could explain to us what the tax cuts and benefits are? If like here the rich man gets enough free solar panels from his tax credit for a poor person to run their house, is it like that much?

Anyway, you can pretty much bet my Tea Party representative voted for tax credits for those that can afford the $50,000 panels, but anything else is not happening, we are fracked.

 

Yet, you import from California. People buy those imports, so they can't cost significantly more, despite shipping costs.

Get me the numbers on the "true cost", and we'll see. MMGW has way too much guessing and opinion.

Back to my broken record - that has been the status quo in Europe for years. How much do you think the public will pay?

 

Ummmm.....crops will grow faster and bigger? More food?

 

get an education.

 

You mean an indoctrination, don't you?