Countries Going "Green"

Quote:

Originally posted by Smileydoe

Sorry !!!
Just thought this was : WHATBOYSWANT site - not what worries - male/feel woman like issues ??

There are people here from a little bit of everywhere, and we can discuss jus bout any subject.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

...

Not everything in life is about porn.

He must be a Porn addict. Ha, another idea for a thread haha

Sorry Sugarpie, that shipping and mining is not to produce the car, just the batteries. Of course the construction is standard across all makes of car.

The hole in the ozone layer apparently is abit of a has been, I thought it had gone, but it appears not entirely, however is well on the way to being recovered from ( http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2010/05/100505-science-environment-ozone-hole-25-years/ )

Really, this site is not at all, all about porn, have a look at all the forums, heaven forbid people should have a discussion and exchange thoughts and ideas.

Josh

I just used the hole in the ozone an example because it came to mind without having to do any research, but there are literally hundreds of other examples of so called climate change. I knew it was on the road to recovery, I just didn't know to what extent. So do you think the Ozone hole was/is accredited to human caused climate control? Or do you think it was a natural phenomenon?

Quote:

Originally posted by lambie_49

2. Why in the last 10-15 years has the earth actually gone through a cooling trend?

It hasn't, you're just using the data incorrectly.



There's also this:

Quote:

The [World Meteorological Organization's] Annual Statement on the Status of the Climate showed also that despite the oft-reported global warming "hiatus," 13 of the 14 warmest years in recorded weather history have all occurred in the opening years of the 21st century.

Quote:

Originally posted by labie_49

3. Why did the IPCC change the name of Global Warming to Climate Change if Global Warming is whats going on?

Because people like you point to places like the northeastern US this past winter and say, "Look how cold it was, where was all that global warming?" because they don't know the difference between climate and weather. And so, to try to assuage that kind of nonsense they've embraced a more all-encompassing term.

People like me understand that intense cold can be caused by an increase in temperature. I know its crazy, im not even well educated. I am well read however.

"Two of the most embarrassing aspects of the Summary for Policymakers are (1) IPCC’s admission that global warming has occurred much slower than IPCC previously forecast and (2) IPCC is unable to explain the ongoing plateau in global temperatures" http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/09/26/as-its-global-warming-narrative-unravels-the-ipcc-is-in-damage-control-mode/

Sugarpie, the ozone was 100% man made. Something to do with freon gasses, so old refidgerants and aerosol cans

and when it gets checked, this is another interesting read. - http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/04/03/green-guru-james-lovelock-on-climate-change-i-dont-think-anybody-really-knows-whats-happening-they-just-guess-lovelock-reverses-himself-on-global-warming/

Given that this is supposed to be scientific in its research and approach, surely then the climate change scientists would encourage the debate and ongoing study of its data. As with any scientific discovery, once it has been proved, it will be disproved later when more information comes to light, it has happened for hundreds of years (Charles Darwin is a fantastic example, his book on anatomy was used for a very long time to conduct surgery on people, before they realised he had been drawing the anatomy of apes...). So why then are they so protective of their findings, why not embrace the opportunity for true and honest peer review's of their findings. If they are as true as they claim to be, then it can only enhance their position?

I had to laugh.

[youtube]tqXzAUaTUSc[/youtube]

Fucking awesome! Are they hiring?!

Climate change and you: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/05/06/national_climate_assessment_report_details_impacts_of_global_warming_on.html

A small snippet:

Quote:

Sectors affected by climate changes include agriculture, water, human health, energy, transportation, forests, and ecosystems. … The United States produces nearly $330 billion per year in agricultural commodities. This productivity is vulnerable to direct impacts on crops and livestock from changing climate conditions and extreme weather events and indirect impacts through increasing pressures from pests and pathogens. Climate change will also alter the stability of food supplies and create new food security challenges for the United States as the world seeks to feed nine billion people by 2050.

Barring massive changes most of humanity is pretty much fucked.

Carry on.

Climate impacts 'overwhelming' - UN

The impacts of global warming are likely to be "severe, pervasive and irreversible", a major report by the UN has warned.

Scientists and officials meeting in Japan say the document is the most comprehensive assessment to date of the impacts of climate change on the world.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26810559

Norfolk Virginia USA is already experiencing flooding from the rising Ocean. We have a Military base there that is threatened. NV is a low lying area. Other low lying areas around the world are the first to feel the effects of climate change. Doesn't take much of level increase in Oceans to effect low lying coast line areas

And the hits just keep on coming:

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/west-antarctic-ice-sheets-collapse-triggers-sea-level-warning-n103221

Quote:

Two teams of scientists say the long-feared collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has begun, kicking off what they say will be a centuries-long, "unstoppable" process that could raise sea levels by as much as 15 feet.

...

"It has passed the point of no return," the research team's leader, Eric Rignot of the University of California at Irvine, told reporters during a NASA teleconference on Monday. The second study projected that the glacial retreat in Antarctica's Amundsen Sea Embayment, which includes Thwaites Glacier, would result in 4 feet (1.2 meters) of sea level rise — and open the way to more

I read that article the other day Eric. States like Alabama (a low lying state) have don't nothing to reduce their contribution to green house gases. This according to another article I read. Half the USA thinks climate change is a tree hugging, sky is falling, joke.I don't see anything changing their attitude except the Ocean taking their property

[youtube]cjuGCJJUGsg[/youtube]

Since this has turned into my personal "freaking out about climate change" thread, I'll just leave this here: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/05/why-climate-scientists-are-inherently-conservative.html



The takeaway is that climate scientists tend to be conservative in their estimates of how bad things are getting, systemically. So when you hear alarming predictions from climate scientists, and you consider that they tend underestimate climate trends, then the time to get really concerned about it is now.

Just like this Country, it depends on who is in power as to whether Governments take Climate change seriously. Here we see Australia going in a different direction due to a change in Political leaders. If Republicans control the USA next election , then you can look for the same thing to happen:


http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?docId=1376-N57QGR6S972N01-133BD670RQ904FK02VI57MN8I1


"Australian About-Face Bodes Ill for Global Warming Talks: Energy
Mike AndersonMay 23, 2014 8:53 am ET

(Updates to add comment in sixth paragraph.)

May 23 (Bloomberg) -- Australia’s program to rein in pollution is losing momentum, the latest in a series of setbacks for the international effort to tackle global warming.

With the highest per-capita fossil fuel emissions among industrial countries, Australia’s participation in United Nations-led climate talks is seen as crucial to sway China and India to step up pollution controls even as developed nations backslide. Now, Australia’s environmental stance is undergoing an about-face as the country’s new government and its political opponents haggle over the best way to dismantle earlier regulations.

The shift in Australia comes just ahead of a series of global climate talks set for later this year. The UN is aiming to craft an agreement in 2015 that would include 190 nations. That pact would limit emissions in both industrialized and developing nations for the first time. Yet China and India have signaled their reluctance to join without broad participation from richer industrial nations, including Australia.

“It feels like a 180-degree turn for Australia,” said Jake Schmidt, director of international climate policy at the New York-based Natural Resources Defense Council. “That’s the hardest thing for the international community to take.”

Closer to home, environmentalists worry that the new government’s stance will set back years of effort to rein in pollution.

‘Fundamental Challenge’

“There is a likelihood of Australia becoming a climate policy wasteland,” said John Connor, chief executive officer of The Climate Institute in Sydney. The country’s unforeseen budget crunch, leading to proposed spending cuts and a levy on higher incomes, is hurting the goverment’s popularity, he said. “The budget drama is significantly diminishing the authority of

the goverment and emboldening opponents across the spectrum.”

The Australian government sees things differently. Yes, it wants to do away with world’s highest priced carbon permits, which allow companies to emit greenhouse gases. The A$24.15-a- ton ($22.28) fee is levied on more than 300 companies from Chevron Corp. to Rio Tinto Group and is almost four times the charge for allowances in Europe.

Yet Prime Minister Tony Abbott, fulfilling a campaign promise, has vowed to replace the levy with an alternative that he says would still effectively reduce emissions. His plan, though, is under attack by Clive Palmer, the mining magnate turned politician who controls three critical seats in Australia’s senate. While Palmer also wants to do away with the carbon levy, he is opposing Abbott’s program, arguing it’s a waste of money................."

theres alot of shit going on in Australian federal politics at the moment, but how much of it actually gets through the senate is another thing. The current govt has already tried to change the climate change legislations and change alot of the policies of the last govt, but has not managed to change much if anything in the senate. Now with its hugely unpopular budget, the govts landslide federal election win looks like it was just a dream.
but most of the climate change policies arent happening at the federal level, theyre happening at the local level. Where I live, I got a subsidy grant to purchase solar panels for my home. I spent a total of 3.5k (after subsidy) to install a 4kw system in my home. Since I installed them 2 years ago, I havent paid an electricity bill. I generate power for the utility, in turn they provide me with a credit to my bill (which currently sits at a $900) granted, I may never see that as money, but I also dont pay bills for my AC all summer or my heating in the winter. Ill most likely be doing it for my rental propertys too, make them more appealing with the tennants not paying electricity and also my way of doing something for the environment.

so a waste of money? no, I dont think so.

Quote:

Originally posted by Latino

theres alot of shit going on in Australian federal politics at the moment, but how much of it actually gets through the senate is another thing. The current govt has already tried to change the climate change legislations and change alot of the policies of the last govt, but has not managed to change much if anything in the senate. Now with its hugely unpopular budget, the govts landslide federal election win looks like it was just a dream.
but most of the climate change policies arent happening at the federal level, theyre happening at the local level. Where I live, I got a subsidy grant to purchase solar panels for my home. I spent a total of 3.5k (after subsidy) to install a 4kw system in my home. Since I installed them 2 years ago, I havent paid an electricity bill. I generate power for the utility, in turn they provide me with a credit to my bill (which currently sits at a $900) granted, I may never see that as money, but I also dont pay bills for my AC all summer or my heating in the winter. Ill most likely be doing it for my rental propertys too, make them more appealing with the tennants not paying electricity and also my way of doing something for the environment.

so a waste of money? no, I dont think so.

Is there an agreed value for the power you produce or are you tied to market rates?

there is an agreed value for the power I produce, it used to be alot higher (75% of retail) but it has gone down in recent years as they wind back subsidys etc..
but either way, I think its worth doing. I produce more than twice what I spend in money terms, so even if they reduced the value of the power I produce, I still would not pay a bill.

Pretty good going; especially as all we hear in NZ is how cheap power is in Aussie. Various political parties here have mooted legislating the price paid for power produced by individuals; it's interesting to see how the rest of the world is managing the same issue.