Kevin Rudd-- His TAKE on our carbon footprint.

> 10 years ago
Reply
Register to post, see what you've read, and subscribe to topics.
cisco
cisco
QLD
12365 posts
QLD, 12365 posts
25 Aug 2009 9:55am
Subject: Rudd's Hair - good analogy



Andrew Bolt Friday, August 14, 2009 at 11:45am

Michael Smith‘s editorial on 4BC yesterday seemed to go down very well:

Here’s a way to understand Mr Rudd’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere that we want to rid of human carbon pollution. We’ll have a walk along it.

The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.

The next 210 metres are Oxygen.

That’s 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go.

The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.

9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre.

A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre.

The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre – that’s carbon dioxide.

A bit over one foot.

97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It’s natural.

Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left. About half an inch. Just over a centimetre.

That’s the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere.

And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.

Less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a kilometre.

As a hair is to a kilometre – so is Australia’s contribution to what Mr Rudd calls Carbon Pollution.

Imagine Brisbane’s new Gateway Bridge, ready to be officially opened by Mr Rudd. It’s been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers till its 1 kilometre length is surgically clean. Except that Mr Rudd says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted – there’s a human hair on the roadway. We’d laugh ourselves silly.

There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about. It’s hard to imagine that Australia’s contribution to carbon dioxide in the world’s atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And I can’t believe that a new tax on everything is the only way to blow that pesky hair away.

Perhaps we all need to just take a few deep breaths.

(carbon dioxide is plant food rather than a pollutant. Plants produce the oxygen in the atmosphere)



This Global Warming hysteria is nothing but dangerous rubbish. And it will send Australia broke!

Ian K
Ian K
WA
4170 posts
WA, 4170 posts
25 Aug 2009 9:50am
97% produced by mother nature?

The famous 40 yr records from Hawaii :


The yearly zig zag is attributed to the respiration of the huge northern hemisphere forests in the northern summer.
But the overall rise since 1960 is way more than 3%
FormulaNova
FormulaNova
WA
15105 posts
WA, 15105 posts
25 Aug 2009 10:28am
Ian K said...

97% produced by mother nature?

The famous 40 yr records from Hawaii :

The yearly zig zag is attributed to the respiration of the huge northern hemisphere forests in the northern summer.
But the overall rise since 1960 is way more than 3%



Ian, how can you tell if these are rises caused by human development or by natural changes to the environment?
SMG
SMG
QLD
208 posts
SMG SMG
QLD, 208 posts
25 Aug 2009 12:35pm
cisco said...

Perhaps we all need to just take a few deep breaths.

(carbon dioxide is plant food rather than a pollutant. Plants produce the oxygen in the atmosphere)



Plant food....hmm... pity we're ripping through our precious forests!!

In fact, our coral reefs produce more oxygen than all the worlds forests.....but again, pity we've almost destroyed them too!



SMG
SMG
QLD
208 posts
SMG SMG
QLD, 208 posts
25 Aug 2009 12:47pm


Ian, how can you tell if these are rises caused by human development or by natural changes to the environment?


Sorry to jump in Ian....

Research on Antarctic drilled ice cores accurately show the different levels of CO2 in the atmosphere over thousands of years - and they do show natural fluctuations pre-human influence, but the levels have never been anywhere near the extent of the current recordings.

Hope that helps!?
Ian K
Ian K
WA
4170 posts
WA, 4170 posts
25 Aug 2009 11:29am
But each of the dips and peaks in the ice core CO2 records are a few thousand years long. What do we know of the time resolution and the possible smoothing out of short sharp peaks. Would todays short sharp peak to 380ppm show up in the ice records 20,000 yrs from now? Not sure, do we have an ice core expert on seabreeze?

But the Hawian Co2 measurements of the last 40 yrs are hard to fault. No doubt plenty have tried to fault those measurements, big points to be won by the scientist who does. What else could cause it, we have to be the major suspect.
FormulaNova
FormulaNova
WA
15105 posts
WA, 15105 posts
25 Aug 2009 11:48am
So, are the levels that different to previous levels before human industrialization?

Is there a way to determine if the relative change has caused a change in the environment, accelerated it, or if it may not have changed it?

It's very difficult to isolate any changes from other natural changes. It would be nice to know just if the changes to CO really affect the temperature of Earth, but I think even that is debatable.
Ian K
Ian K
WA
4170 posts
WA, 4170 posts
25 Aug 2009 12:19pm
FormulaNova said...



It's very difficult to isolate any changes from other natural changes. It would be nice to know just if the changes to CO really affect the temperature of Earth, but I think even that is debatable.


The next 10 years are going to be real interesting as the evidence gets stronger one way or the other.

leftfield
leftfield
WA
200 posts
Mobydisc
Mobydisc
NSW
9029 posts
NSW, 9029 posts
25 Aug 2009 4:13pm
Ian K said...


The next 10 years are going to be real interesting as the evidence gets stronger one way or the other.




The problem is our federal government is determined to make us all start paying for 'our' emissions. The ETS will not reduce Australia's carbon emissions by one iota. All it will do is transfer wealth from individuals to the corporate and government sectors. The biggest carbon dioxide emitters will receive the biggest handouts.

The ETS will spawn a new income channel for all the lawyers, consultants and traders who get into it. Thus we will be funding their skiing holidays to Saint Moritz, the lease payments on their Ferrari and the construction of their ten bedroom mansions overlooking Sydney Harbour.



Ian K
Ian K
WA
4170 posts
WA, 4170 posts
25 Aug 2009 3:42pm
That's not an argument against an ETS. Traders have always made money on anything that became valuable. If the right to emit carbon remains valueless they'll just find another way to make money. Maybe when atmospheric Co2 hit 500ppm they'd prove it was bad for our health and sell us bottled air, certified at 220ppm.

The same people make the money no matter how you shift the goal posts.
samoht
samoht
QLD
111 posts
QLD, 111 posts
25 Aug 2009 7:38pm
Senator Barnaby Joyce Leader of the Nationals in the Senate
26th July 2009
GET TO KNOW YOUR ETS, TAKE IT OUT TO DINNER

It has become apparent that there is a general lack of understanding in the community about exactly what an ETS is. People may understand the sentiment that surrounds it but they donÕt really understand how it works and how it will affect them.

The ETS, which will be the Employment Termination Scheme or the Extra Tax System, take your pick, has not been properly explained to the Australian people away from the politics that surround it. There is a need to explain exactly what it is and how much it will cost the Australian consumer.
Over the weekend I addressed a meeting on the Tweed and clearly most people I spoke to were not aware of what MrÕs RuddÕs proposed scheme is going to cost them.
This morning while getting a lift on the Gold Coast the gentleman driving me said the same thing, Òwe donÕt actually know what an ETS isÓ, so I think that we in politics have a duty to start telling the Australian people exactly what the ETS means in very simple terms.

If your actions in work, enjoyment or at home, away from you actual breathing, involve the emission of carbon dioxide then you have you a problem and the Government is going to tax you to stop.
LetÕs look at some examples to bring this home to the dinner table. If you live in a cave with a candle you would probably be OK, but if your house is wired up for power then every electrical appliance will be attached to a power generator which in all likelihood will pay a tax and that tax will be passed on to you, the consumer. The price of toasting bread has just gone up, the price of ironing the school uniform has just gone up, the price of vacuuming the living room has just gone up and the price of watching the Sunday afternoon game on TV has just gone up.
If you live on a diet of naturally grown wild berries and lentils, which you scavenge for in your back yard, then youÕd also probably be OK. But if youÕre associated with the consumption of food, thatÕs either grown with the use of carbon intensive processes, or if you like to eat beef, mutton or lamb, which involves the emission of methane and is apparently a super form of carbon, then under Mr RuddÕs proposal, youÕll potentially have to pay for the privilege.

Put simply, a single beast, which ends up on our supermarket shelves as steak, roast, mince or sausages, emits about 70 kilograms of methene and according to the Kyoto protocol this has to be multiplied by 21 which means that each beast is responsible for emitting around a tonne and a half of carbon.
Utilising NAB modelling on the price of a carbon permit, a tonne and half of carbon, multiplied by about $50, is equivalent to an additional cost to the farmer of approximately $75 dollars per beast per year.
$75 dollars per beast per year = no beef industry in Australia !

If the consumer wants to eat beef and can afford to pay for it then you will be buying it from a country that doesnÕt have an ETS.
The price of beef in Australia will be above the price paid in other countries that donÕt have a beef industry which will result in you paying better than $100 dollars for a prime cut roast.
Quite obviously the quality of the Australian standard of living, as reflected in our diet, will be reduced.

When it comes to lamb and mutton, sheep emit around 10 kilograms of methane, so using the same formula; this means around 210 kilograms of carbon per year, per sheep which equates to Australian sheep farmers being slugged about $10 per sheep annually and this will ultimately drive sheep meat out of the market.
So, if you decided to have a lamb roast for dinner this Sunday, which the gentleman in the car giving me a lift today said he was planning to do, then expect to pay almost $100 dollars at the butcher for it.
This is the sort of reality that we as Australians have to understand weÕd be signing ourselves up for if Mr Rudd gets his way with his ridiculous Emissions Trading Scheme.

Penny Wong has said publicly that she would not accept the proposition put by Malcolm Turnbull that would exclude agriculture, so lets not play ducks and drakes here, agriculture in Australia is going to suffer massively if Mr Rudd gets his way and the biggest losers in all this will ultimately end up being the consumer as they struggle to pay to fill the family shopping basket each week.
If Mr RuddÕs plan was actually going to make a difference then it would be slightly plausible, but the fact is, it is not. Mr RuddÕs ETS will not result in the planet being cooled and has not even the slightest prospect of doing anything for the global climate.

Mr RuddÕs ETS is merely a gesture, a token. There are all sorts of wonderful gestures we can offer as comfort for the worldÕs problems, however if imposing a tax on consumers, which Mr Rudd wants to do, is the right way to deal with things, then we may as well impose a tax to bring about world peace.
Mr Rudd keeps coming up with all these peculiar ideas.
Imposing a crippling tax on consumerÕs, forcing us to pay massively inflated prices at the supermarket for the food we eat and forcing Australian farmers out of business is implausible, short sighted and dangerous.


A teacher asked her 6th grade class how many of them were Rudd supporters.. Not really knowing what a Rudd supporter was, but wanting to be liked by the teacher, all the kids raised their hands except for the infamous Little Johnny, in the front row. The teacher asked Little Johnny why he has decided to be different. 'Because I'm not a Rudd supporter.' The teacher asked, 'Why aren't you a Rudd supporter?' 'Because I'm a Liberal.' The teacher asked him why he was a Liberal. Johnny proudly answered, 'Well, my Mom's a Liberal and my Dad's a Liberal, so I'm a Liberal.' Annoyed by this answer, the teacher asked, 'If your mom was a moron and your dad was an idiot, what would that make you?' With a big smile, Johnny replied, 'That would make me a Rudd supporter.'

elmo
elmo
WA
8895 posts
WA, 8895 posts
25 Aug 2009 9:28pm
I love all this vvank about the effects of emissions.

For those old enough there was a similar debate going on in the 80's about "Acid rain"

The exact same arguments were bandied around
It's bollocks
It occurs naturally
It'll ruin the economy
Companies won't be able to compete
and a whole lot of other crap

In the mean time
Forests were dying
Old buildings were being eaten by the rain
Lakes were turning toxic

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain

This is real, some of the science may not be 100% correct, but it's definitely more right than wrong.

As individuals we can do something about it on a personal level (I'm currently changing my down lights to LED down lights 50w vs 5w) got more fuel efficient cars (if you can)

But then again if you think global warming is a load of bollocks then you probably think:
Smoking is safe
Asbestos is an ideal pillow stuffing
You can drive perfectly well drunk
and
that I know what I'm talking about


laurie
laurie
QLD
3902 posts
QLD, 3902 posts
25 Aug 2009 11:48pm
This is an excellent book about the subject:

www.theweathermakers.org/

landyacht
landyacht
WA
5921 posts
WA, 5921 posts
25 Aug 2009 10:01pm
Heres a dilemna , on sunday my solar panels will produce their first 1000kwh.
do I stay home to celebrate or go sailing, converting wind energy to motion energy pushing me , and some mates around a flat surface just for the sake of it
hills
hills
SA
1622 posts
SA, 1622 posts
26 Aug 2009 8:53am
When you emailed this to me Cisco, I wondered what the reaction would be on here.

I read somewhere that CO2 increases are just another symptom of global warming and not the cause. Either way, I'm not prepared to take the risk and I certainly can't see any harm in being as "green" as possible.

(anyway if I had a 1Km sub to eat, I wouldn't want a hair in it )

Sailhack
Sailhack
VIC
5000 posts
VIC, 5000 posts
26 Aug 2009 9:32am
landyacht said...

Heres a dilemna , on sunday my solar panels will produce their first 1000kwh.
do I stay home to celebrate or go sailing, converting wind energy to motion energy pushing me , and some mates around a flat surface just for the sake of it


Got my meter hooked up a couple of weeks ago...can't work out how to read it, but have been watching the inverter and the kwh go up & down with sun intensity (although not much sun here this time of year).

To add to the debate...not sold on the ETS, I'd much prefer emission reduction, but with a growing population and high focus on profit, that's not going to happen for a long time...I'll do my bit & encourage others to do the same, and in the meantime I'll (attempt to) buy products that are manufactured under a 'green' banner.
Sailhack
Sailhack
VIC
5000 posts
VIC, 5000 posts
26 Aug 2009 9:39am
laurie said...

This is an excellent book about the subject:

www.theweathermakers.org/




Another good read....based on NZ living, but relative to our climate/lifestyle.

www.self-help.co.nz/shop/Green+Living/Living+Green.html

(The author is a work colleague...a bit of free advertising for her )
DL
DL
WA
659 posts
DL DL
WA, 659 posts
26 Aug 2009 7:44am
cisco said...

Subject: Rudd's Hair - good analogy

Andrew Bolt Friday, August 14, 2009 at 11:45am

Michael Smith‘s editorial on 4BC yesterday seemed to go down very well:

Here’s a misleading way to understand Mr Rudd’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.



That is a crap analogy. why include the oxygen, nitrogen and water in the "kilometer"? They have nothing to do with the problem of carbon emissions.
cisco
cisco
QLD
12365 posts
QLD, 12365 posts
26 Aug 2009 11:57am
I have no problem with being a conservationist. That is why I drive 20 year old cars in excellent condition.

If I was to make my house energy independant with solar and wind power, I would not be feeding into the power grid. The purpose of doing it would be energy independance and getting my name off their data base.

The CSIRO did this experiment with a house in Canberra many years ago and it worked. They ran a purpose built house with all the electrical mod cons that was energy independant for a whole year.

Why don't Wuddy, Wong and Gawwet dig up the data from that and insist that all new housing be built to those specs

"Global warming and climate change" is still highly debateable as is the effect of human activity on world conditions. Many very credible scientists are of the opinion the the earth is heading into another "Ice Age". These guys of course are not part of the mainstream scientific community because no one is prepared to fund their research because they cannot turn it into a money making scheme.

Successful laboratory experiments have been conducted with cold fusion. This has the potential to solve the energy requirements of the world forever. Why is this research getting major funding

Opinions are very polarised as exampled by the responses in this thread. Some are emotionally charged and the odd one not quite relevant.

For further interesting reading try "Worlds In Collision", "Earth In Upheaval" and "Ages In Chaos" by Immanuel Velikovsky. In comparison to the events that happened at the time of Moses the current mass hysteria about "Global Warming and Climate Change" is quite insignificant. No one has yet proven this guy's theories wrong and later research has gone towards confirming them.

Another interesting read but more contemporary is "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. A fiction but built around statistical data. Cheers.
FormulaNova
FormulaNova
WA
15105 posts
WA, 15105 posts
26 Aug 2009 10:32am
cisco said...

I have no problem with being a conservationist. That is why I drive 20 year old cars in excellent condition.

...

Successful laboratory experiments have been conducted with cold fusion. This has the potential to solve the energy requirements of the world forever. Why is this research getting major funding




Yeah, it is interesting to compare buying a new economical car with an older slightly more inefficient car and see who is doing the best by the environment... I wonder if a new car helps much at all.

As with most science, you need to validate the experiments. I haven't looked at this for a while, but I thought this was resolved to be a mistake in the experiment or the analysis of it.

I think if they really did have a breakthrough with fusion (whatever temp) we would know about it.


Squid Lips
Squid Lips
WA
708 posts
WA, 708 posts
26 Aug 2009 12:02pm
cisco said...

Many very credible scientists are of the opinion the the earth is heading into another "Ice Age".


Isn't this said to be caused by the effects of climate change on ocean currents, rather than being an argument against climate change?

I don't know what to think about the whole thing. Talking about changes over 40 years seems a bit rediculous to me, that is such a miniscule time in the life of the earth. Whatever the truth is, anything that reduces pollution can't be a bad thing and it's better to try and clean up our act and be wrong about climate change than do nothing and be right. Can't help thinking that Australia's contribution is irrelevant compared to China or India though.
Sailhack
Sailhack
VIC
5000 posts
VIC, 5000 posts
26 Aug 2009 3:30pm
Changes over less than 100 years will be important as it's really only in the last 100-150 years that we've been producing these emissions...hard to compare it when comparing the data with centuries of no human emmissions...?

Either way, the chemicals we're pumping into our atmosphere can't be good.

In response to cisco's question re; 'off-grid' homes...this is very achievable, and the numbers are growing. With 8 & even 9 star homes being achieved, it will only be a few years, and the technology will be economical enough to be viable for the public...$ speak at the moment.
landyacht
landyacht
WA
5921 posts
WA, 5921 posts
26 Aug 2009 9:08pm
Sailhack said...
[

Got my meter hooked up a couple of weeks ago...can't work out how to read it, but have been watching the inverter and the kwh go up & down with sun intensity (although not much sun here this time of year).

.

it was easier to read the old meter in conjunction with the inverter stats.
. we record the Kwh imported 007, and Kwh exported 107, and our Kwh (solar total) from the inverter.
today we punched out 14.4Kwh for the day. will hit our first 1000Kwh on sunday!!!

kk
kk
WA
953 posts
kk kk
WA, 953 posts
26 Aug 2009 9:13pm
I think the Thumbs (red vs green) show the difference between the vocal minority and the silent (thumb clicking) majority.

No doubt everyone agrees that less pollution is good, less agree that CO2 is pollution.

But if you haven't worked out that the ETS is just a tax nothing but a tax then the chances are you are part of the religious sect that Al Gore is the supreme leader of.
Please Register, or first...
Topics Subscribe Reply