What Carbon

[medhead]

You could not have put it better?

I guess this is a perfect example of a sarchasm

Did you actually have a look at the emission atlas link provided for you and others?

I could not have put it better myself - thanks for you inadvertent efforts!

"Also interesting that the rest of the world is acting..."

"Acting" being the operative word. Yes they are 'acting' for the cameras and spin doctors while they build dozens of new coal-fired power plants every year. Or in Germany's current (and past 6 years) have been running their existing coal-fired power stations at maximum capacity.

Actions do speak louder than groundless claims and the actions now have the greatest amount of coal burnt for electricity generation (for the world as a whole) then ever before. Total coal-fired power station emissions are expected to grow by the low single digits through to 2032 based on current contracted projects in India, China, sub-Saharan Africa and South America.

Those projections still have Germany reducing its coal-fired usage. An assumption that will inevitably be proven as wanting as their destruction of North American forests.

I know where the real embarrassment resides.

 

[Moody]

.. So contrary to yet another baseless claim - the facts show the world's most ardent Kyoto devotee will miss the target by more than the current Australian outlook post the dismantling of the Australian Carbon Tax. Despite locking in their population to power prices up to 6x that of the US and at a cost per person of EUR 12,500. That is for every man, women and child. (BTW all figures taken from the EU CC Commission)

Oops an inconvenient truth strikes again!

What baseless claim was that? That Germany has emission reduction targets of 40% by 2020, and 80% by 2050? Sorry - that's true.
Maybe someone claimed that electricity generation from renewables would top 30% this year. Sorry - that's true as well.
Or was it the claim that energy from renewables would exceed that generated by the nuclear power plants. True again.

You seem determined to undermine Germany's achievements in the field of renewable energy and carbon emission reductions. RAM doesn't happen to stand for "Really A Miner" by any chance?

 

[RAM]

Strange, that's not what was said at the UN last week. How could that be?

Nor what the noted experts in this thread have been saying - so who is correct President Obama claiming the US has reduced emissions the most or those world renown soon-to-be IPCC contributors Medhead & Moody?

Seems you just can't trust the "yes we can" (lie, mislead, misrepresent, deceive and deny any responsibility) President in this case can we?

U.S. carbon emissions rise despite Obama climate plan

USA TODAY 5:19 p.m. EDT September 26, 2014

U.S. emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide have risen 6% in the last two years despite the Obama administration's efforts to curb global warming, federal data show.

Reversing several years of declines, its emissions from burning fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) rose 2.7% during the first half of this year, compared to the same period in 2013, and 6% compared to 2012, according to the Energy Information Administration's "Monthly Energy Review."
This increase is a setback for President Obama, who touted U.S. progress in cutting emissions at this week's historic U.N. Climate Summit in New York, attended by representative from more than 120 countries.
"Over the past eight years, the United States has reduced our total carbon pollution by more than any other nation on Earth," he said, adding the U.S. is on track to meet his 2009 pledge to cut carbon emissions 17% below 2005 levels by 2020.
Indeed, until 2013, the U.S. was well on its way toward meeting that goal. Its energy-related carbon emissions had fallen 13.4% from 2005 through 2012, according to the EIA data. But given increases in the last 18 months, that decline since 2005 now stands at 10.7%. {Very clever editing here - increase in ALL US SOURCES of carbon emissions is greater due to increased transportation, industrial and commercial use in addition to electricity generation}

In his U.N. speech, Obama cited the U.S. surge in non-polluting energy sources such as wind and solar. While power generated by solar panels doubled during the first six months of this year compared to 2012 and that of wind turbines rose 31% in that two-year period, they remain a tiny share of U.S. energy production.

US carbon emissions have been stable or declined over the last decade. By contrast, Chinese emissions have increased over 170 percent while Indian emissions have increased over 90 percent. Therefore, climate policy requires a comprehensive approach incorporating coordinated legislation, international diplomacy and a thorough deliberative process. However, this proposal is risky, expensive, and will do nothing to address the global nature of carbon emissions. EPA’s proposal comes with real risks for the health and economic well-being of our country, and the proposal should not be finalized as currently drafted.



This graph finishes in 2010. Updated for the figures to the end of 2013 would see it 10-11% higher.

... So putting up costs for Australian businesses and consumers, hastening the demise of energy intensive sectors was just a rounding error in the global equation.

 

[Moody]

Strange, that's not what was said at the UN last week. How could that be?

This is your most confusing opening statement yet. Were you responding to something I said or are you referring to other "voices" that echo the words "Global warming is cough" whilst you sleep?

... So putting up costs for Australian businesses and consumers, hastening the demise of energy intensive sectors was just a rounding error in the global equation.

So - it was an important move to tackle a global problem. Why should other nations (particularly developing ones) take ANY action when the highest emitters (like Australia) take none?

The climate scumbags now lead Australia, and are trashing our global reputation ... and by extension the global climate. You must be so proud .....

 

[medhead]

If someone is worried about the poor energy intensive industries. What about talking to the government about their inability to support low carbon emitting nuclear power? Do something positive instead of all the negative lashing out at people who what to reduce pollution.

Also worth noting the costs were out up from an extremely low base, to something similar to the costs of competitors. If an industry can't compete well the current policy is let them die.

 

[RAM]

This is your most confusing opening statement yet. Were you responding to something I said or are you referring to other "voices" that echo the words "Global warming is cough" whilst you sleep?

It is disappointing to see when the facts do not suit you then the response is to ignore them and launch an attempt to distract with personal attacks.

When the reality on ACC and 'actions' do not support the 'vision' then the proponents of putting up costs and driving employment out of their country resort to labeling anyone not so indoctrinated or self-interested as pariahs, use emotive terms like sceptics etc.

The opening line in my previous post

Strange, that's not what was said at the UN last week. How could that be?

directly responds to the repeated assertions made at the UN, as well as by you and another over the last few weeks that the rest of the world is doing much to DECREASE emissions. Emissions have been rising for nearly 2 years in the US meanwhile Obama was glossing over that 'inconvenient truth".

Focusing on the claims made in this thread and again by yourself that while Australia due to a change in Fed Gov is doing nothing. That claim is demonstrably false.

The actual facts show that the "Rest of the world" has been constantly increasing their emissions. By definition the "Rest of the World" is the world less Australia. You made a claim - that claim has been disproven. The two countries often quoted as leading the charge Germany and the US have started to have their emissions rise as their economies have begun to grow again. China, also oft-quoted in this thread as doing much to decrease emissions conversely is shown (by their own figures) to have increased emissions every quarter (QoQ) for the last twenty years - which is actually the worst possible outcome as normally there is a downturn in the summer months for most economies as the demand for heating in the northern hemisphere declines.

Australia's emissions have fallen over the same period. = Your claims are wrong.

Please take a moment to examine the graph of total world emissions in my previous post - a line heading up = increasing emissions. Indeed if you look at the period when the previous Federal Govt led the charge the actual rate of increase in global emissions was at its greatest. Coincidentally so was the rate of job loss for the Australian Industry ex Mining.

So - it was an important move to tackle a global problem. Why should other nations (particularly developing ones) take ANY action when the highest emitters (like Australia) take none?

The climate scumbags now lead Australia, and are trashing our global reputation ... and by extension the global climate. You must be so proud .....

To respond directly to your next 'item' (not disregard but deal with) - From 2007 t0 2013 the previous Fed Gov launched the most far reaching CC changes of any country in the world.

Guess what? The Rest-of-the-World increased its rate of carbon emissions - so that would also invalidate your above point. Aust took an extreme course and got praise from the NGOs and bureaucrats who rely on the ACC gravy train but the real decision makers continued on the same course - looking after their own country's economic future first and CC second. Germany completely cut their solar subsidy and FIT program - leading to their PV industry going bankrupt - guess which countries bought the carcasses? Mainly China, some from Korea and one from India.

Likewise in the US over the same time frame many US PV major companies have been bankrupted by the Govt's actions pouring billions into what amounted to be no more than 'get-rich-quick-schemes' by coincidentally donors to their political party (echoes of NSW all shades of Political Parties no?).

On the numbers Australia is quite likely to meet or exceed its targets - so your claim has no substance to it. The closure of the Aluminum industry, scaling back (near closure) of the Steel industry, scaling back and ultimately closure of the car industry (first large production cuts began in 2/08 btw) as well as the phasing out of incandescent light bulbs (60-85% power saving) and more energy efficient appliances are all reducing the power demand.

The actions of the 2007-2013 Fed Gov to introduce global parity pricing for Australian domestic gas prices will actually lead to higher carbon emissions as it makes coal a significantly cheaper fuel source. However where were the street marches and protests about that?

As always it comes down to watch what is done not what is spun!

Admittedly the numerous 'buy carbon credit schemes' that turned out to be fraudulent or the recently reported Aust Power Company that was charging its "Green Energy" customers for renewable energy but was purchasing coal-fired electricity and pocketing the difference - should trash their reputation and the atrocious compliance regime established under the previous Fed Govt.

The key point is that wasting scarce tax payer funds while special interest groups make tens of millions is WRONG. Real pollution must be dealt with such as the poisoning of nearly 70% of China's rivers (which flow into the sea and impact the whole world). Equally the news article a couple of weeks back (and picked up in Aust over the weekend) about a study in the US finding high levels of prescription drugs in local waterways - is equally alarming. Trouble is there is not the gravy train for big business and NGOs out of it.

Masquerading this under the emotive "Crusade" banner will achieve the same negative results as previous crusades not a positive outcome.

Misrepresenting, misleading or denigrating are traits normally associated with dictators and totalitarian regimes not democracies.

 

[RAM]

If an industry can't compete well the current policy is let them die.

Good thought it is just the selective exceptions that are the problem that the Fed Govt from 2007 -2013 has left us with. Admittedly the domestic car industry saga covers all sides of politics with shame at the near $17bn given to them and the increased costs to Australian vehicle buyers over the decades.

For example:

# the solar subsidies only benefited companies mostly based in or owned by China. These subsidies and increased costs to all Australian electricity customers (from the spreading of costs by the power companies).
# the abandoning of the domestic gas pricing regime and introduction of global parity pricing rewarding already profitable Gas companies (and going against the policies in virtually every other OECD country).
# the domestic car industry

 

[medhead]

Oh energy intensive business being hurt by other businesses. The carbon tax gone and the domestic gas bills projected to increase 26%. Tell me again how the carbon tax is to blame when it is still happening. Puts a lie to the stuff being spread here. Reserve Our Gas campaign launched to fight for lower gas prices

 

[RAM]

Oh energy intensive business being hurt by other businesses. The carbon tax gone and the domestic gas bills projected to increase 26%. Tell me again how the carbon tax is to blame when it is still happening. Puts a lie to the stuff being spread here. Reserve Our Gas campaign launched to fight for lower gas prices

Please read my posts directly above (the two immediately before your last post) where I explicitly state that exact point. In them it is pointed out that amongst the raft of actions taking during the 2007-2013 Fed Govt was the move to destroy the existing domestic gas pricing regime. You have answered my question for me on that point. It always pays to read before typing.

The actions of the 2007-2013 Fed Gov to introduce global parity pricing for Australian domestic gas prices will actually lead to higher carbon emissions as it makes coal a significantly cheaper fuel source. However where were the street marches and protests about that? As always it comes down to watch what is done not what is spun!

And I agree with your last statement just not in the way you intended!. It sure 'Puts a lie to the stuff being spread here'.

 

[medhead]

Please read my posts directly above (the two immediately before your last post) where I explicitly state that exact point. In them it is pointed out that amongst the raft of actions taking during the 2007-2013 Fed Govt was the move to destroy the existing domestic gas pricing regime. You have answered my question for me on that point. It always pays to read before typing.



And I agree with your last statement just not in the way you intended!. It sure 'Puts a lie to the stuff being spread here'.

As I said. It makes your claim that the carbon tax is destroying energy intensive industry a lie. This government is certainly doing nothing about gas prices. What happened a few years ago is interesting but what is relevant is what is happening now.

 

[RAM]

As I said. It makes your claim that the carbon tax is destroying energy intensive industry a lie. This government is certainly doing nothing about gas prices. What happened a few years ago is interesting but what is relevant is what is happening now.

Try to keep up please.

About 10 pages back I went through the economics of mothballing vs shutting down Aluminum plants, electric arc furnaces etc. Once the damage is done it is too late. The previous Federal Govt approved 30 and 40 year overseas supply contracts which together with the scrapping of the existing domestic gas pricing regime are irreversible unless Australia is prepared to pay billions and prospectively tens of billions in damages. The increased costs imposed by the carbon tax TOGETHER with the increased cost of gas were enough to wipe out the slim margins they operated on. The interest cost from mothballing a plant (no revenues, ongoing maintenance expenses etc) soon become too great and there was no way the dismantling of the domestic gas pricing regime can be rescinded due to all the contracts approved by the last Fed Gov.

Knee jerk reactions, poor governance and no real commercial understanding all in the name of ACC end up costing the entire population whilst the Pollies and their mates (and subsequent directorships/consulting positions) escape unscathed. It was all in the name of carbon emissions and tied up with the Carbon tax.

Did you take to the streets or blogs protesting about the dismantling of the domestic gas pricing regime - a move totally at odds with the rest of the OECD's practises?

Enough said.

 

[Moody]

Congratulations RAM - you have now taken over from drron as the most deceitful climate change poster on AFF.

Your works of prose certainly fill up the page, but are full of disingenuous "facts", blatant lies, and statistical hula-hoops.

Can you please, please quote me (you know how to do this - don't you) on a single fact that I have got wrong and then argue your case for the negative.

It's called debating, and they teach you how to do it in school these days.

 

[RAM]

Congratulations RAM - you have now taken over from drron as the most deceitful climate change poster on AFF.

Your works of prose certainly fill up the page, but are full of disingenuous "facts", blatant lies, and statistical hula-hoops.

Can you please, please quote me (you know how to do this - don't you) on a single fact that I have got wrong and then argue your case for the negative.

It's called debating, and they teach you how to do it in school these days.

Thank you Moody, But I have listed the errors in your claims, included links and copied information etc.

Indeed that is exactly what I did in post#666. Quoted your assertion and then presented facts to refute it. Perhaps it would be worth reading line by line.

Quite clear and in the format you have subsequently requested nearly 6 hours later. Such foresight!

Perhaps instead of resorting to character assassination you could identify an error in any number I have quoted. I have tried to use, where ever possible, sources that are judged to be in the pro-ACC camp to give you a running start. I find it is always worthwhile to read more than just the executive summary.

Much better than the 'empty vessel' syndrome.

 

[Moody]

Thank you Moody, But I have listed the errors in your claims, included links and copied information etc.

Indeed that is exactly what I did in post#666. Quoted your assertion and then presented facts to refute it. Perhaps it would be worth reading line by line.

Quite clear and in the format you have subsequently requested nearly 6 hours later. Such foresight!

Perhaps instead of resorting to character assassination you could identify an error in any number I have quoted. I have tried to use, where ever possible, sources that are judged to be in the pro-ACC camp to give you a running start. I find it is always worthwhile to read more than just the executive summary.

Much better than the 'empty vessel' syndrome.

Putting text in red lettering amuses small children and keeps the churls amused (apparently), but does not hide the fact that you have failed to make a single coherent point or successfully refuted one of mine.

Epic fail, even by your low standards.

 

[medhead]

Try to keep up please.

About 10 pages back I went through the economics of mothballing vs shutting down Aluminum plants, electric arc furnaces etc. Once the damage is done it is too late. The previous Federal Govt approved 30 and 40 year overseas supply contracts which together with the scrapping of the existing domestic gas pricing regime are irreversible unless Australia is prepared to pay billions and prospectively tens of billions in damages. The increased costs imposed by the carbon tax TOGETHER with the increased cost of gas were enough to wipe out the slim margins they operated on. The interest cost from mothballing a plant (no revenues, ongoing maintenance expenses etc) soon become too great and there was no way the dismantling of the domestic gas pricing regime can be rescinded due to all the contracts approved by the last Fed Gov.

Knee jerk reactions, poor governance and no real commercial understanding all in the name of ACC end up costing the entire population whilst the Pollies and their mates (and subsequent directorships/consulting positions) escape unscathed. It was all in the name of carbon emissions and tied up with the Carbon tax.

Did you take to the streets or blogs protesting about the dismantling of the domestic gas pricing regime - a move totally at odds with the rest of the OECD's practises?

Enough said.

I see we have another case where you are going to deny the very words you've written. As with your claim that China is doing nothing, your words are all there in black and white. You are correct about one thing, there is no more to say to someone who can't even own their words.

 

[drron]

Congratulations RAM - you have now taken over from drron as the most deceitful climate change poster on AFF.

Your works of prose certainly fill up the page, but are full of disingenuous "facts", blatant lies, and statistical hula-hoops.

Can you please, please quote me (you know how to do this - don't you) on a single fact that I have got wrong and then argue your case for the negative.

It's called debating, and they teach you how to do it in school these days.

From you Moody being called deceitful is in fact praise.
You still have not accepted the science I posted very early in this thread from the scientific working party to input the latest IPCC report.I have provided the link before.

But I will state it again the consensus view of those scientists,the majority of whom do believe in AGW,was that the change in the Earth's temperature for the 10 years up to 2013 was +0.05C +/- 0.10C.
As you obviously do not understand what this means I will point out that the confidence interval crosses Zero.Therefore the most you can say from that result is that there has been a tendency for the planet to warm in the last 10 years which is not statistically significant.
It is equally valid to say that there is a chance that the planet cooled in the last 10 years.
So Moody keep up your personal attacks.It makes it so much easier for to ignore your opinions.

 

[mannej]

As a fence sitter in this thread, I can see one side insult and post little in the way of rebuttal.
A bit ironic if you ask me.

 

[Moody]

From you Moody being called deceitful is in fact praise.
You still have not accepted the science I posted very early in this thread from the scientific working party to input the latest IPCC report.I have provided the link before.

But I will state it again the consensus view of those scientists,the majority of whom do believe in AGW,was that the change in the Earth's temperature for the 10 years up to 2013 was +0.05C +/- 0.10C.
As you obviously do not understand what this means I will point out that the confidence interval crosses Zero.Therefore the most you can say from that result is that there has been a tendency for the planet to warm in the last 10 years which is not statistically significant.
It is equally valid to say that there is a chance that the planet cooled in the last 10 years.
So Moody keep up your personal attacks.It makes it so much easier for to ignore your opinions.

drron - you are like a breath of fresh air. Ok ... that is possibly an exaggeration, but at least you are coherent.

I am not privy to the full details of this working party (as you seem to be) so can you please quote the summary where this figure is published. Just to get the context. If this is too onerous for you then a link to the document will do fine.


BTW - I don't make personal attacks, just don't hold back on lies and stupidity.

 

[Moody]

As a fence sitter in this thread, I can see one side insult and post little in the way of rebuttal.
A bit ironic if you ask me.

Feel free to jump in to the topic with something useful to say. No one likes a fence-sitter .... except maybe the people who rely upon apathy to get their way.

 

[mannej]

Feel free to jump in to the topic with something useful to say. No one likes a fence-sitter .... except maybe the people who rely upon apathy to get their way.

I have much better things to do with my time than be flamed for an opinion that you feel may be idiotic (in reality it may be a case of differing opinions, not stupidity as you suggest).