21 replies to this topic

[psyche101]

www.news.com.au said:

TONY Abbott has promised to attack climate change with a $3.2 billion plan that does not cap carbon emissions but instead proposes direct action such as planting trees.

And while Kevin Rudd has ridiculed the direct-action plan as "a climate con job", most business groups have backed the plan, agreeing with the Opposition Leader's assertion it is "cheaper, simpler and more cost-effective" than Labor's proposed carbon emissions trading scheme.

Read more...

May I ask your opinions.

Is this going to have the effect claimed? Should we be voting this guy in?

[Br Cornelius]

psyche101, on 03 February 2010 - 05:54 AM, said:

May I ask your opinions.

Is this going to have the effect claimed? Should we be voting this guy in?

If you plant enough trees it might work in the short term.Once those trees mature then it stops been effective and many of those trees will starts to release their sequestered carbon. If you have done nothing about emissions in the mean time then the problem comes back even worse. It is obvious that business would be in favour because it minimises their up front costs and supports their profit margin.

Overall something to do as well as dealing with CO2 emission, rather than instead of.

Br Cornelius

[psyche101]

Br Cornelius, on 03 February 2010 - 07:44 AM, said:

If you plant enough trees it might work in the short term.Once those trees mature then it stops been effective and many of those trees will starts to release their sequestered carbon. If you have done nothing about emissions in the mean time then the problem comes back even worse. It is obvious that business would be in favour because it minimises their up front costs and supports their profit margin.

Overall something to do as well as dealing with CO2 emission, rather than instead of.

Br Cornelius

Could we harvest the trees before maturity and replace them?

Business seems to have some influence on climate change measures, as per car construction in the US, is the the case here, is this a genuinely viable option? If business is happy, and it works, it seems a winner of an idea?

Edited by psyche101, 03 February 2010 - 08:01 AM.

[Br Cornelius]

psyche101, on 03 February 2010 - 07:59 AM, said:

Could we harvest the trees before maturity and replace them?

Business seems to have some influence on climate change measures, as per car construction in the US, is the the case here, is this a genuinely viable option? If business is happy, and it works, it seems a winner of an idea?

It seems a sticking plaster solution to a problem of long term viability. Global warming is only one of a set of environmental problems and the solutions to all of them are much the same. Planting trees will not make our lifestyle sustainable - though it will certainly help.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 03 February 2010 - 09:09 AM.

[illuminol]

psyche101, on 03 February 2010 - 05:54 AM, said:

May I ask your opinions.

Is this going to have the effect claimed? Should we be voting this guy in?

Are you kidding? Tony Abbott?  He is NOT TO BE TRUSTED....at all!! he's a hard line Catholic Conservative. God help us if the libs get in since they lost their fuhrer - Howard.   We will we up the United States governments butt again at a time when China hates them. We need Rudd right now. The libs will do anything to get a foot back in door.

[psyche101]

illuminol, on 05 February 2010 - 05:26 AM, said:

Are you kidding? Tony Abbott?  He is NOT TO BE TRUSTED....at all!! he's a hard line Catholic Conservative. God help us if the libs get in since they lost their fuhrer - Howard.   We will we up the United States governments butt again at a time when China hates them. We need Rudd right now. The libs will do anything to get a foot back in door.

Opinions on climate change, I guess I should have specified, sorry, I thought that was obvious.
KRudd speaks Mandarin, and is expected and touted to be Australia's best ambassador to China, ever! Surely you have heard him brag about it on the telly!

Krudds a pathetic media hound who cannot do an interview without a decent hairdryer and a hot 3 course meal. He slammed a poor hostie because his meal wasn't up to scratch. He only got voted in by Facebook and giving away all our hard earned savings. We are rooted now. In case you didn't notice, most industries are at an all time low, unemployment is at a high, budget is at an all time low and the future is muddy, gee thanks for voting the cretin in. Blind support like this instead of realizing and stating facts is of no use to anyone. Might as well vote Labor in because by heck, Dad did, so did Grandad, Uncle John and Cousin Trevor! For goodness sakes, people need to start thinking at the polling booth!

For Pete's sake, leave the pathetic pollies out of this would ya!

I just want to know, is this a viable alternative? Can we accomplish the same result for less money in a far more environmentally friendly way? Are there facts to support Abbots position? Is the Krudd solution also a "Plaster of paris" solution, but more expensive and difficult, and damaging? Which solution is the lowest impact, and most effective? Do they offer the same result?

Where are al the UM scientists now?

MATTSHARK WHERE ARREEE YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

Edited by psyche101, 05 February 2010 - 06:08 AM.

[psyche101]

Br Cornelius, on 03 February 2010 - 09:05 AM, said:

It seems a sticking plaster solution to a problem of long term viability. Global warming is only one of a set of environmental problems and the solutions to all of them are much the same. Planting trees will not make our lifestyle sustainable - though it will certainly help.

Br Cornelius

Thank you Br (is that anything like a Dr? LOL)

Would this be a good stop gap until something better comes along? The alternative proposed simply offers a charge when one breaches a cap. This seems to me to be putting the control of the nation into the hands of big business, who will always choose the dollar. If profits are high enough, many will just pay the fine. It would make good business sense to do so.

This alternate plan seems to me to be directly attacking the problem. And continuously, but can we plant enough trees to be effective? Do we have to cover Oz twice over to reach any level of effectiveness? Is the solution too "long term"? Is it just a "con job" or is the conjob the smoke screen to put another plan into action? Or is this opening up a hole where business can go nuts and pollute more than any amount of tree's can compensate for?

[Karlis]

psyche101, on 03 February 2010 - 05:54 AM, said:

May I ask your opinions.

Is this going to have the effect claimed? Should we be voting this guy in?

Maybe the question could be rephrased? "Should we vote Labor back in?

[Br Cornelius]

Anything that allows us to believe that we can carry on as normal is bound to end in disaster. As part of a integrated plan of bioremediation, active population reduction, resource conservation, analysis of what it means to have "quality of life", energy diversification and general conservation - it has a significant role to play.
Since I see almost none of the other elements in his plan, then it is a sop to keep the punters happy and the business as usual.

Br Cornelius

[cerberusxp]

Br Cornelius, on 03 February 2010 - 07:44 AM, said:

If you plant enough trees it might work in the short term.Once those trees mature then it stops been effective and many of those trees will starts to release their sequestered carbon. If you have done nothing about emissions in the mean time then the problem comes back even worse. It is obvious that business would be in favour because it minimises their up front costs and supports their profit margin.

Overall something to do as well as dealing with CO2 emission, rather than instead of.

Br Cornelius

FYI most all plant life converts CO2 into oxygen. It does NOT "sequester" it, hold it or bury it to be released later. I can't believe there are so many who are this misinformed if not out right LIED to by teachers.

Edited by cerberusxp, 05 February 2010 - 07:29 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

cerberusxp, on 05 February 2010 - 07:27 PM, said:

FYI most all plant life converts CO2 into oxygen. It does NOT "sequester" it, hold it or bury it to be released later. I can't believe there are so many who are this misinformed if not out right LIED to by teachers.

Trees take carbon dioxide and converts it into carbohydrates, of which plant cellulose is the main one for trees. The oxygen is released as a byproduct of photosynthesis (the process of manufacturing sugars of which cellulose is a complex and stable form). The carbon is locked up in the cellulose until such time as fungus or bacteria or fire degrade it by oxygenation and release the carbon back into the atmosphere as CO2. The carbon cycle is completed and there is no overall loss of carbon to the system.

In your model what becomes of the carbon component of CO2 once some of the oxygen has been released to the atmosphere - does it just disappear. Remember CO2 is made up of Carbon and Oxygen. Does the term "Carbon Based Life Forms" not offer some clue as to where that carbon ends up.

Da.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 05 February 2010 - 08:03 PM.

[illuminol]

psyche101, on 05 February 2010 - 06:03 AM, said:

Opinions on climate change, I guess I should have specified, sorry, I thought that was obvious.


Where are al the UM scientists now?

MATTSHARK WHERE ARREEE YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU




Hi Psyche,

GEE I dunno!!! maybe they lost all their funding?  Less money, more money, enough or not enough, it's the scam that is at the root of our environmental problems right now!
The monetary system has reached it's use by date..It's not about accomplishing more for less anymore in my opinion. Even when a great policy is introduced, try and deal with the minions called Councils to get funded for setting up REAL grass roots projects.  Clover Moore just spent a million bucks on a bike path from surry hills to the opera house, complete with inedible shrubs and park benches as part of the city's s'sustainable Sydney' project...In the same breath a fully up and running voluntary community garden was 'dismantled' to make way for yet more development. It's all a bunch of bull and you know what i'm saying is true right?
It's the whole system, it's incredibly flawed.  We can accomplish the same result for no money all. We could just do the right thing for the environment right now. Just do it!..without our politicians, just because it needs to be done, using the knowledge, technology and resources we have right now. Unite and do it.
  Politicians are the puppets, the managers of a system that has no substance to it at all. The polling booth is a sad distraction, a make-shift delusion, a spectacle - that relies on us believing a particular set of political beaurocrats can actually make life better for a population and that the people have real power to make positive changes through governments. We don't, we have no power through governments at all. Money is the ruler of our lives so mesmerised are we. The banks aren't serving us anymore, we are serving them and saving the environment is expensive!!! haven't you heard?
- Look at the whole picture, go right back into the history of the economic and political world. Look at the patterns, they're repetitive and predictable - just like the stock markets, You can predict war through the stock markets.
it's a big farce and i don't even think it's a conspiracy anymore. I think it's just ignorance, arrogance, and fear of change.
Just like in the matrix, we are born feeding this system our lives in return for our birthrights.
We nurture a world system intsead if it nurturing the earth and us in return. there is no cyclical giving or regeneration. It's all take and it's eaten itself.
   The only reason i vote is to bring in the lessor of two evils it seems Rudd is fine for now, i prefer him to Abbott he seems a little unhinged to me, it's his energy...Costello was better actually. (hehe Abbott and Costello)
It's no use fighting it either, we just have to turn away from all this madness and go higher, do what has to be done.  

Edited by illuminol, 06 February 2010 - 02:48 AM.

[Mr Meowgi]

I don't trust Abbott one bit. He's a snake.

Planting trees isn't going to solve the problem, restricting the rate at which industry pollutes will. But the problem in that is, it would simply cost too much money. So, instead of doing what's right, they'll do whatever is the cheapest. In doing so, I believe, they have doomed us all.

To be honest, I don't like any politician. However, there is something about Tony that isn't quite right.

Attached Files

•  tonyabbott.jpg   16.13K   0 downloads

[psyche101]

Karlis, on 05 February 2010 - 01:58 PM, said:

Maybe the question could be rephrased? "Should we vote Labor back in?

If that is what you want to ask. I want to know if Labour is telling the truth. Regardless of if one wishes to subscribe to any other policy, is this one viable? Please have another look at the questions posed above your original post regarding numbers. Heck, it might be the best solution in the world, if we plant trees on top of each other. It might be used to grow trees to print more money of for the Pollies, I don't know.

Should both parties be held up to scientific scrutiny? Climate change has so many facets, one gets confused as to which way is up. Capping seems to me not to be viable. Or the least bit sensible. My car gets covered in dirt every day because the neighbor (a transport company) refuses to blacktop his yard. It makes a real mess of the whole street, trucks have to come in and wash the street down just to drive on it. The EPA has been alerted to the problem, and they have acted on it. They keep fining the fellow like 25K a pop. He just keeps paying. It is cheaper for him to do this than shut down the yard for the time it would take to develop it properly. The same will happen with Carbon emissions. Is this a solution that will clean up the mess no matter what? Will the trees keep working even when the companies refuse to pull into line?

[psyche101]

Br Cornelius, on 05 February 2010 - 03:50 PM, said:

Anything that allows us to believe that we can carry on as normal is bound to end in disaster. As part of a integrated plan of bioremediation, active population reduction, resource conservation, analysis of what it means to have "quality of life", energy diversification and general conservation - it has a significant role to play.
Since I see almost none of the other elements in his plan, then it is a sop to keep the punters happy and the business as usual.

Br Cornelius

Ahhh, THANK YOU

This is what I am looking for. So unless he assess the future growth of the nation, he has no idea if this measure will "be enough"?