Climate Change

Submitted: Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 17:00
ThreadID: 37850 Views:2797 Replies:15 FollowUps:35
This Thread has been Archived
Some of you may think this is a bit of subject......however if you really think about it unless we make some positive moves to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions 20 30 50 years down the track there may not be the places we now enjoy there for our Grandchildren and their children to similarly enjoy.
There is now overwhelming scientific evidence that Global Warming and Climate Change is alive and flourishing (our scientists have been telling us for 20 years or more of the consequences of increasing Greenhouse Gas Emissions) and unfortunately the Pollies in power still have a "head in the sand mentality"
So WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT IT?
My idea is for everyone reading this to write to their M.P. or P's expressing your deep concern at governments inaction. Also get you friends and their friends to do the same.
I refer you to s site</a which will give you a starting point for more information
The following is also a draft of a letter people could copy and send on.

CLIMATE CHANGE

The Hon.
………………………………………….
………………………………………….
………………………………………….

Dear……………………………………

My name is .............................................of....................................................................and I am deeply concerned at the Governments lack of firm policies in regard to “Global Warming and Climate Change”. I feel that the government has acted in a negative way to the crisis which we are now facing and I cite the following;

1. In the city of Kyoto in 1997 Australia negotiated a greenhouse pollution “reduction target” of + 8% while other countries such as those in the European Union agreed to REDUCE their pollution over the same time by 8%.
Given what we now know (and what we knew then) about global warming and climate change, this is an unacceptable situation.

2. The Federal Government shells out big bucks to prop up the oil and coal industries despite the contribution by them to Australia’s massive greenhouse problem. At the same time the Government has axed funding for clean energy research and development. For the first time since the 1970’s the Australian Government does not have a renewable energy Research and Development (R&D) funding agency. The Energy R&D Corporation which funded renewable energy R&D , was shut down several years ago. The Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO) ---- the Federal Government’s agency supposed to tackle greenhouse pollution----does not fund renewable energy research.

3. A recent Federal Government report also recommended that the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET) be abolished immediately. There is now overwhelming evidence that unless we have a target to reduce emissions by at least 60% of 1990 levels by 2050 and a short term target of 20% by 2020 we are going to be in a position where there will be IRREVERSIBLE damage to our already fragile environment.

4. Both South Australian and Victorian Governments have this year proposed legislation to address these issues.

As my elected Parliamentary representative I urge you to treat as a priority, legislation towards rectifying the problems outlined above and to support wholeheartedly anyone else who has the vision and sense to introduce measures designed to reduce Greenhouse gas emissions.

Yours Sincerely

……………………………………………

I really hope members will join me in this campaign so that future generations will have something of what we consider so precious

Richard

Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Member - Richard L (WA) - Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 17:09

Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 17:09
Sorry everyone the link didn't work........will try again

this site
AnswerID: 195353

Follow Up By: Member - Richard L (WA) - Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 17:11

Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 17:11
Got it that time
0
FollowupID: 453425

Reply By: Barnesy - Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 17:17

Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 17:17
Agree 100% Richard. The pollies use the excuse that reducing co2 emissions will harm the economy. Rubbish. Fossils fuels will eventually sink and the sooner we find alternatives the better. It's bad long term business for Australia.

We're currently having the worst drought in Oz history. More of that to come.

CSIRO state that we have the solar technology now to be able to power all of Australia within 20 years. Just needs the price to come down and surely increasing the MRET will increase sales and bring prices down.

Trying to catch co2 from coal stations will be a huge undertaking, even if it is shown to work (25 years away from knowing whether it works or not, sounds risky to me).

It is bizarre that our elected reps won't agree to Kyoto. Too many parties with vested interests have their foot in the door me thinks.

Barnesy
AnswerID: 195358

Reply By: lindsay - Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 17:59

Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 17:59
Richard, not all scientists agree that global warming is caused by us humans and our cars. Did you know that 40 thousand years ago the black fellows walked across Torres straits to the cape and then walked to tassie. I read in a scientific book on the Australian coast and that book states that sea levels have risen 20 metres in the last 9 thousand years, that is just over 2 mm per year. It was warmer 10 thousand years ago than it is now, yet it is now warmer than it was 100 years ago. They say that we are among the highest green house gas producers per head of population. Has any one done a survey on our levels of green house gas produced and calculated into it all the trees and their carbon sink abilities and then made a calculation per square Km of Australia. You will find that we then produce a lot less than they are saying. If you read Australian history like I do you will find worse droughts than we have now, with huge areas totally destocked. Did you also know that the extra carbon promotes growth in the plants and trees to a degree, that if it was lower we may not be able to feed ourselves.
Richard don't listen to much to the greenies, they are trying to socially engineer us to where we will all be hunters and gatherers and walking around in loin cloths.
I was listening to a well known weather forcaster the other day and he stated that we do not have a long enough history in this country to predict trends, He predicts weather by sun spots and uses figures from Europe that are up to 400 years old. His father predicted a 10 year drought , the one we are now in, many years ago. And that was before global warming was a buzz word.
Greenies are like tomatoes, they start off green, then go red and then rotten.
Yes the climate is warming over these last few years but the jury is still out.
AnswerID: 195368

Follow Up By: Barnesy - Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 18:49

Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 18:49
Lindsay, I could argue each one of your points and be correct on each one. But i don't really have the energy right now. I suggest you do some research to find out how wrong you are.

I have also heard some scientists argue against global warming, but they were of different disciplines. Haven't heard of one CLIMATOLOGIST disagree with it.

Did you know that some people still think the earth is flat?

Barnesy
0
FollowupID: 453438

Follow Up By: Member - Duke (TAS) - Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 20:38

Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 20:38
lindsay,
I couldn't agree more. If we never had" Global Warming " as the green ones call it we would all be running around in Polar Bear skins.
Duke
0
FollowupID: 453460

Follow Up By: Barnesy - Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 21:09

Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 21:09
It shows that many people still don't understand the phenomenon that is happening. The earth has always gone through phases of ice ages and hot periods. The difference with this hot age is that it's occurring so fast. Whereas others happened over several thousand years this one is likely to happen over 100.

Humans will be able to adapt. Many other animals and plants will also. Many won't and will become extinct. This doesn't need to happen at all if we reduce pollution.

People in medieval England laughed at the bloke who discovered that sewerage and polluted drinking water caused illness. They thought that bad deeds made people sick.

People will come around, eventually.

Barnesy
0
FollowupID: 453470

Follow Up By: Nick R - Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 21:25

Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 21:25
Well said Lindsay....
yes it is marginally warmer now than 100 years ago but we are emerging from a mini ice age.
no one has stopped to ask themselves why is it that we are beating ourselves up about emissions when nearly all of the current warming cycle happened before the 1940s when the emissions ramped up.

it is currently the same temperature as when Iceland was settled, since then it has been cooler and we are now in a warming cycle, yes a cycle. it is roughly a 1500 year cycle of cooling and warming.
The science behind this is from ice cores from around the world which all support this, it just happens to correlate nicely with sun spot activity
mmmmmm
interesting

NickR
Carpe Cerevisi

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 453475

Follow Up By: ellmcg - Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 08:00

Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 08:00
Thanks for being brave enough to comment, Lindsay and others.

As you've said, no-one is denying that global warming is happening. Its just that there's little data to prove that its got anything to do with CO2 emissions. If you can find a graph of atmospheric CO2 vs average global temperature over the ice ages, there's no correlation - I've seen one somewhere, but can't find it again.
0
FollowupID: 453538

Follow Up By: Member - Captain (WA) - Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 08:43

Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 08:43
Hi Lindsay,

Nice to see some decent research and some facts to show there is more than one side to this debate. While the greenie argument sounds good, it starts to fall apart when you look at the facts and then try and blame it on one event (CO2 emmissions).

Lets hope this thread keeps to the facts rather than degenerate into emotive arguments and name calling.

Cheers

Captain
0
FollowupID: 453548

Follow Up By: Barnesy - Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 15:15

Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 15:15
It's more than just one event Captain. It all ties in together. example; Trees absorb co2 and release oxygen. Humans breathe in oxygen and breathe out co2. Industrialisation as we know it now releases disproportionally huge amounts of co2 into the atmoshphere. You add China and India to that equation now and even more co2 will be released.

You cut down a large % of the earth's co2 absorbing and oxygen creating trees, increase co2 emissions and you don't have to be a scientist to work out what happens. You end up with an unhealthy balance.

We need to change the way we power and run our industries. Surely humans are smart enough to be able to do that?

Barnesy
0
FollowupID: 453617

Follow Up By: Barnesy - Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 18:10

Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 18:10
Read this site Lindsay.

Site Link

Most of your arguments will be debunked by what is here. (If you decide to open your mind that is). Many people get hung up on little uncertainties and miss the major points.
0
FollowupID: 453657

Follow Up By: Member - Captain (WA) - Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 18:41

Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 18:41
Hi Barnesy,

I have read the link and agree with all the observations like temperature rise, ocean current temps etc (facts)... however the conclusion that CO2 is responsible is a giant leap of faith and that is the point that I and many others question.

How does one distinguish between natural phenomena and manmade when you cannot separate the two? What about the effects of events like volcanoes (more gases can be emitted in a single event than years of emissions)?

As for being a scientist to work it out, well I am a Chemical Engineer and look at all the facts from both sides with an open mind and to date there is nothing definitive that can PROVE the CO2 theory. Yes, there are lots of theories but for every CO2 induced cause there is a counter argument thus back to the stalemate.

And the argument that if we do nothing it will only get worse, well thats just emotive. If CO2 isn't the cause, reducing CO2 will do nothing!!!

Cheers

Captain

PS. This thread has largely kept away from degenerating into name calling when others have an alternative viewpoint - good to see!
0
FollowupID: 453662

Follow Up By: Member - Bware (Tweed Valley) - Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 20:19

Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 20:19
This thread is an excellent read!
Although it may not be proven that our polution causes global warning, there is no denying that we generate a lot of polution. We also have decimated the forests which is how the planet deals with the toxins in the atmosphere. So whether it is volcanoes or whatever, the earth's ability to recover is influenced by us.

It reminds me of the issue about those huge overhead power thingies that people were saying were causing higher incidence of cancers. Because it can't be proven without a doubt, we wont stop building these things in your neighbourhood. Shouldn't it be the other way 'round? Shouldn't we stop doing something if it is suspected of being dangerous/harmful until such a time as it is proven to be benign?
0
FollowupID: 453685

Follow Up By: Nick R - Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 22:43

Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 22:43
Ahhhh yes, the precautionary principle, where would we be without it?
here are a few examples

Automobiles? Why would we let you loose in a two-ton gasoline-powered projectile that could destroy you and your neighbor’s house in a single moment of inattention? We’ll have no traffic jams, just horse manure clogging the streets.

Electricity? It causes fires, and even kills people accidentally. I’m content with the music from scratchy records on a wind-up Victrola. Or my wife’s humming.

Penicillin? At high doses, it kills guinea pigs and some people are allergic. Millions of people will die of infections and pneumonia without antibiotics but that is the natural way.

The Salk polio vaccine? It carries a slight risk of inflicting the disease. Banning it may bring back the crippling disease epidemic that haunted parents until the 1950s—but if we’re lucky the virus has disappeared. There certainly haven’t been many cases since vaccinations were made mandatory.

Do I need to talk about microwave ovens?
Nick
Carpe Cerevisi

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 453712

Follow Up By: Barnesy - Thursday, Sep 21, 2006 at 01:20

Thursday, Sep 21, 2006 at 01:20
So what are you saying Nick R? That we can continue to produce huge amounts (and growing every year) of air pollution and cut down forests indefinately without any consequences? Is that where you're heading with this?

It's been well proven that greenhouse gases trap in heat and industrialisation as we know it now releases huge amounts of these gases.

Put 2 and 2 together. Scientists don't know every single detail, we will in 50 years or so. It is entirely possible to reduce the amount of pollution we release.

Einstein was once quoted as saying along the lines of "it takes years of hard work to create something, but somebody can always use examples to disprove it in 5 minutes".

Barnesy
0
FollowupID: 453741

Follow Up By: Barnesy - Thursday, Sep 21, 2006 at 02:58

Thursday, Sep 21, 2006 at 02:58
Captain, i found this whilst having a look around. You may be interested. I can't put the whole article in but it's from the CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research Division.

"In summary, climate research since the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report provides significantly stronger evidence for three of the main conclusions of that assessment. First, the surface of the Earth is warming globally. Second, the observed warming is beyond that expected for natural variability over the past 1000-2000 years and at a larger rate. Third, human-driven emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, are the major cause of the observed surface warming since 1950".

Barnesy
0
FollowupID: 453742

Follow Up By: Member - Captain (WA) - Thursday, Sep 21, 2006 at 03:19

Thursday, Sep 21, 2006 at 03:19
Hi Barnsey,

One thing I do agree is that with the amount of CO2 emmissions that it must be having some form of effect. However, just what that effect is the debatable part and something that will never be conclusively proven one way or another.

As an aside, nuclear power has much lower CO2 emmissions, but would you prefer more nuclear power stations and risk another Chenobyl? The point being is that the often "solution" poses other risks and are they any better?

At the end of the day, humans are just another animal on the earth so is their effect natural? This type of debate could continue for ever as it can never be a facts only argument as we simply cannot gather the data required (a control planet, will Mars do?) and thus will always rely on theorys and opinions.

Look, i fully respect your point of view and it certainly has a lot of merit. However, the bottom line is even if Australia stopped ALL emmisions, it would make virtually no difference as the Chinese economy will continue to grow at a huge rate, never mind any other economy.

Looking at the time you have posted, you are either an insomniac, a shift worker or overseas. Currently I am on business in Chile and looking at the pollution around here, well lets hope CO2 emmissions have minimal effect because the smog here alone is chronic. The view here of the Andes mountains would be spectacular, if only you could see it clearly!

Cheers

Captain
0
FollowupID: 453743

Follow Up By: Barnesy - Thursday, Sep 21, 2006 at 13:04

Thursday, Sep 21, 2006 at 13:04
Captain, i am a shift worker. There is obviously uncertainty with anything to do with science and predictions.

I think the value of Kyoto lies mainly in the whole world coming together to agree on the same thing. Not necessarily at these early stages achieving the set goal of so many % reduction in emissions within so many years. The chances of that happening for any country are slim without the US on board.

Australia are small players but that's no excuse to shun the rest of the world. We seem to have a close relationship with the US. If we agreed with the rest of the world then pressure would certainly go back onto the US to come into line too. They are the ones who can really influence the development of China and India.

Hope you get a chance to view the Andes.

Barnesy
0
FollowupID: 453812

Reply By: Member - Davoe (Nullagine) - Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 18:09

Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 18:09
I realized that the kyoto etc was a load of even hotter air when I found they were doing studies on the Mulga trees Nth of Kal to determine if they started mulga plantations in otherwise unused areas the carbon credits produced could be sold to countries which have sighned up so they can produce more co2 and still be Green WTF!!!!!
AnswerID: 195370

Follow Up By: Member - Bradley- Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 11:38

Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 11:38
Ahh yes old mate, the carbon credit trading scheme, what a gem for world buisness that is. Have a look at the ads for one of the major "greening" volunteer groups in aus, you bust your chops planting trees thinking you are doing the community a service and conveniently it is all sponsored by TOYOTA, hello very low cost carbon credits.

Yeah its a great set up, you can pollute the ringer out of one area as long as you throw a few seedlings in the ground in another, even better if you are involved in tax write-off plantations which will even make money for you 10-20 years down the track.

Keep sniffing out those rocks buddy, see ya Brad.
0
FollowupID: 453580

Reply By: Philip A - Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 18:28

Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 18:28
I have read the Kyoto Protocol and done some research,as I was until recently involved in forestry.

One of the most contentious issues with Kyoto is that emissions from coal purchased from Australia by say Japan for use in power stations are counted against AUSTRALIA .
This was why Australia was given a +8% target as it was always expected by the world community that usage of coal wouuld increase.
Also another large part of Australia's emissions is methane liberated from coal seams as the overburden is removed. Again 90% of this coal is exported.
In NSW the Government is encouraging coal seam degassification to reduce the emissions to atmosphere.( sydney gas) And the NIMBYS are fighting it tooth and nail.
I find the scoring of emissions at source quite difficult to understand.

I recently read that all European countries HAVE NOT MET their Kyoto targets while Australia has met its implied target.

I think Kyoto is a crock or sh1t, engineered by the European Community to be easy for them to meet as a majority of their power is from nuclear. Germany was supposed to decommission its nuclear plants. Guess what. They haven't.
Regards Philip A
AnswerID: 195371

Reply By: kimprado - Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 19:14

Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 19:14
Here we go again.....

Kim
AnswerID: 195377

Reply By: Willem - Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 19:16

Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 19:16
Global Warming? Where?

Not here where I live. In fact it has been a tad cooler over the last few years.

Green house gases? HOle in the ozone layer? What happened over the millenia when volcanoes were spewing out Toxic fumes in to the atmoshere?

The earth is in a constant state of change and will be for the next million millenia.

Writing letters to unskilled people who have only been elected to office by means of a faulty electoral system is a WASTE of TIME and ENERGY

I think it is a big con.

My opinion as usual.

Cheers
AnswerID: 195378

Follow Up By: kimprado - Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 19:52

Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 19:52
My My Willem,

We are vocal tonight!

Calm down and have a stiff drink.

This post will lead you down the path of "enlighten delivery".

For example:

1. If the oceans are warming up, its Global Warmng
2. If the oceans are cooling, its Global Warming
3. Too much rain, its Global Warming
4. Too little rain, its Global Warming
5. If my dog is unhappy, its Global Warming
6. Problems with over weight children are caused by Global Warming

You really should take this matter far more seriously!

Regards

Kim

0
FollowupID: 453447

Follow Up By: Mad Dog - Vic - Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 20:00

Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 20:00
Yes a con for sure but it keeps a lot of people employed and gives some something to talk about.
0
FollowupID: 453449

Follow Up By: kimprado - Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 20:56

Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 20:56
Mad Dog,

Yes it does, but it also gives the population an unnecessary dim view of the future and creates hysteria in many sections of the community.

If I was an indigenous person with a life span of millions of years, would I be getting dim witted about vast areas of the continent receding into the sea over the millennia.

Climatic change is a fact of life and, not about research funding.

I'm certainly not against change, but I don't appreciate self serving political views.

I'll shut up now.

Regards

Kim
0
FollowupID: 453465

Follow Up By: Member - Doug T (W.A) - Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 01:59

Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 01:59
Yep I'll second that and third it as well . well said Willem
gift by Daughter

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 453526

Reply By: Member - Richard L (WA) - Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 19:21

Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 19:21
I have acheived my objective .......that is getting people to discuss.......do their own research.......look at what our Pollies arew doing
Of course there will be people on either side of the fence........but to the people who do not think we may have a problem DO YOU HONESTLY THINK WE(THE WORLD) CAN KEEP ON PUMPING BILLIONS OF TONS OF CO2 INTO THE ATMOSPHERE WITHOUT HAVING SOME EFFECT.......you don't have to be a scientist to come up with the answer

Keep it going everybody......at some stage perhaps it may dawn on the powers to be that there are ordinary people out there who are very concerned

Richard
AnswerID: 195382

Follow Up By: Member - Doug T (W.A) - Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 01:56

Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 01:56
Richard
Volcano's have over time spewed billions of tons of poisinous gasses into the atmosphere much more than humans could ever hope to achieve
gift by Daughter

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 453525

Follow Up By: Pajman Pete (SA) - Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 08:37

Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 08:37
Richard, typing your opinion in CAPITALS doesn't necessarily make it right. "you don't have to be a scientist to come up with the answer " but using the scientific method may help you to come to a reasoned conclusion.

Pete
0
FollowupID: 453547

Reply By: Member - Phil G (SA) - Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 20:04

Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 20:04
Just following on from Lindsay,
I was in Antarctica in February and had the fortune to visit a Research Base. They were studying Global Warming, and the Physicist who was showing us around showed us how their research pointed to this being a Natural Phenomena, and less likely to be related to what we have done to our environment.

Just interesting to see both sides.
AnswerID: 195392

Reply By: Member - JohnR (Vic)&Moses - Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 20:35

Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 20:35
Perhaps Richard you would also like to tell us which countries have kept their Kyoto Protocol agreements and which ones haven't. Many of the European ones have gone over their agreed level signicantly.

You get a proper perspective thinking that if Australia shut it's industry today, it would equal a 10 month pause in China. That is all, then be overtaken again after that one 10 month pause. Kyoto is out of date.
AnswerID: 195401

Reply By: Member - Richard L (WA) - Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 22:08

Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 22:08
It is great to see people voicing their opinions.........but there does seem to be a trend towards making exuses instead of perhaps looking for solutions.......I say again.... just have a look around you....IS THE AIR QUALITY WHERE YOU LIVE THE SAME AS IT WAS 30 YEARS AGO.......I know in Perth 30 years ago I could see the city clearly from the top of Greenmount.......not anymore I'm sure glad I don't live on the coastal plain with all that polluted air

A small thing maybe but you let a snowball roll and it tends to get bigger,and bigger,and bigger

Thanks everyone for your contributions
Richard
AnswerID: 195428

Follow Up By: fisho64 - Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 00:39

Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 00:39
Richard-are YOU prepared to give up your car now? What are YOU doing about it directly? and what is your suggestion for the government to do to stop you, us, and others from using our cars and electric lights? The ONLY way is to tax fuel, power etc far more heavily than now. It wont happen if the gov just ask people nicely.

One thing I cannot understand for the life of me is how a country the size of ours can be a polution danger when a country like Singapore, Japan etc, dozens of times the cars and people in an area the size of Tassie isnt?
0
FollowupID: 453520

Follow Up By: Member - Richard L (WA) - Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 13:12

Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 13:12
Fisho64......I use energy efficient globes for lighting....have booked vehicle in to run on diesal/gas.........solar power for water heating. These are all little things but the thing is to start to do things that may aid in reducing emissions

What does the Gov'nt need to do........put a lot more money towards research that will provide greenhouse gas neutral energy

Fisho.............every country in the world is a polluter that's the problem.......everyone needs to start to stop that snowball.

Richard
0
FollowupID: 453592

Follow Up By: Member - Andrew W (SA) - Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 16:25

Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 16:25
Why not run Biodiesel Richard - with or without gas?

Biodiesel can be produced Net Carbon Neutral.

Cheers
Andrew.
0
FollowupID: 453635

Follow Up By: Member - Richard L (WA) - Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 18:02

Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 18:02
Yes Andrew.....I Have seriosly looked at making my own.......easy enough to do but the major obstical is a reliable source of feed stock......here in W.A. the "Fat Away" companies have it all tied up. Their is a guy who makes and sells it over here but he lives a long way from me......something to keep in mimd for the future though

Richard
0
FollowupID: 453654

Follow Up By: Member - Andrew W (SA) - Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 18:31

Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 18:31
Yes, WVO is a commodity with an ever increasing value it seems.

There is somebody in WA selling Biodiesel commercially I think - Gull, as I recall.

You might also take a peek at www.biofuelsforum.com/perth_biodiesel/

Cheers
Andrew.
0
FollowupID: 453659

Reply By: Member - Blue (VIC) - Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 00:34

Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 00:34
Will global warming reduce my gas bill in winter...???

That's right, bored on night shift... :-))
AnswerID: 195449

Reply By: Member - Doug T (W.A) - Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 00:44

Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 00:44
Richard
How are you mate
I appreciate your concern for the future of our planet,good on you, the trouble is mate lindsay is right in what he wrote, and it will not make a scrap of difference what we do , even if there was no humans at all this process which is a natural occurrence that has taken place many times over the millions of years will keep regardless of what we do, it cannot be stopped,I can remember my parents saying things about the atomic bombs and how it will split the earth open , in comparison they were mere little crackers.
quote

A huge meteor, between 12 and 30 miles in diameter, smashed into the Earth 3.5 billion years ago with the energy of 1 billion atomic bombs, vaporizing the surface where it struck and creating a tsunami more than half a mile high that raced around the world at 500 miles per hour.
When people go to the Canning Stock Route this is what they pass near

The Bedout structure 300km west of Broome, in the Canning Basin off the coast
home.alphalink.com.au/~dannj/craters.htm read that,

Another major threat will be the Son of Krakatoa , mate when that one goes off ,which it will we'll all be in the crap ,Krakatoa, west of Java, erupted with such fury in 1883 that it reportedly was heard as far away as Bangkok and Australia. It blew the island of Rakata to pieces and killed more than 30,000 people. Some scientists say it was the biggest bang in recorded history.
If you have not read about it before do so ...it's mind blowing .

Site Link
Site Link

Anyhow Richard thanks mate for showing some concern, should be more people do the same,sorry for rambling on but it just happens to be one of my favourite subjects

Doug
gift by Daughter

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

AnswerID: 195450

Reply By: Member - Andrew (QLD) - Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 12:17

Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 12:17
The problem with this whole letter is that it is not written by the signatory, rather by someone wanting others to propagate their agendas. I am not necessarily saying that the information contained is incorrect (as i don't know all the facts), rather that i could not sign a letter that i didn't know was 100% factual. As an example, in point number 3, where is the "overwhelming evidence"?

Also, what has SA and Vic Governments got to do with all of this. Just because they do it, does that make it necessarily right? Why should me, as a Qlder, urge my local MP etc to do something about it based on the fact that 2 other States are "proposing" legislation. That is a very poor argument IMO for what is potentially a contentious issue.

Andrew
AnswerID: 195494

Follow Up By: Member - Richard L (WA) - Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 12:57

Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 12:57
I see S.A. and Vic as being proactive in starting to tackle the problem as opposed to those who do nothing.........the letter was intended as an example which people could change to their liking.

Sure what we do in Aus may make stuff all difference........but if we are seen to be making some effort then maybe others(in time) will follow suit.

I am a bit surprised at the number of negative reply's when the MAJORITY of scientific evidence points the other way. Please note I said MAJORITY not ALL.

Cheers
Richard
0
FollowupID: 453589

Follow Up By: ellmcg - Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 14:03

Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 14:03
What scientific evidence? Looking only at the data for the last 50 years doesn't sound very scientific to me.
0
FollowupID: 453607

Follow Up By: Barnesy - Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 14:54

Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 14:54
Richard L, I too am surprised by the number of negative replies.
Two examples in the US: contributing significantly to the end of the Vietnam war and also to civil rights for black Americans. Both movements were dominated by young people.

The young have this ability to choose what is right and wrong and act on it without the problems of vested interests or out-of-date ingrained habits. May I suggest you take this letter to a University, you will get a very different leaning in replies.

Barnesy
0
FollowupID: 453613

Follow Up By: Member - Andrew (QLD) - Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 15:07

Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 15:07
Please don't confuse negative replies with alternative viewpoints.....

Andrew
0
FollowupID: 453615

Follow Up By: Member - Richard L (WA) - Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 16:17

Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 16:17
Point taken Andrew

Richard
0
FollowupID: 453630

Follow Up By: Barnesy - Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 17:28

Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 17:28
Good point but there are a number of negative replies here Andrew. Richard L has been very forthright in his request and when people do this it usually annoys me. Not with this cause though. The replies after Willem's response were very negative and didn't argue any point. You will always get that i suppose.
0
FollowupID: 453647

Follow Up By: Member - Richard L (WA) - Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 18:06

Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 18:06
Excellent idea Barnesy re the Universities will give it a go.........and thanks for your support

Richard
0
FollowupID: 453655

Reply By: Footloose - Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 23:18

Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 23:18
30 years ago I was teaching children about the hole in the Ozone layer above the poles. I had parents ring the school and ask what sort of teacher was teaching their kids? Holes in the sky ? (Yes, dhrugz and magic mushrooms were mentioned :)
In fact I had to point the school in the direction of Dr David Suzuki's videos before the pack mentality finally abated.
I am not a tree hugging card carrying greenie. But regardless of the state of play , all the garbage we throw into the air can't be good for us.
AnswerID: 195610

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (9)