Printable View
Shot the people that collect 3 or 4 cars, have 3 Tv,travel many times overseas sell or using useless gadgets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombie
The indians in Brazil (some people regard them as ferrals) are doing less damage that BP and Shell.
The poor nations do not have to pay for the useless luxuries of the few.
We develop and use more efficient systems, products and environments and when we do use them we use those that are more environmentally friendly. ie fit better insulation, fill that truck right up and put it on the train from Perth to Sydney, use energy saving lights when needed. A good one was that 20 of the mines produce waste gas which gets burnt off. Everybody except the mines want it, so they would be looking to redevelop this excess gas as a power source within the mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redback
Actually, using carbon black is a form of carbon sequestration, it's a good thing, so long as you don't do burn-outs.We re-calculate World CO2 production by square kilometre instead of per capita and we will be one of the lowest if not the lowest CO2 producing countriesQuote:
Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies
With that actitide we will never go a head, just give a bit and recognize that it is not the fault of the other countries if the town planners and authorities have stuffed Australia.
We like to leave beyond our capabilities in many ways and one is the large block of land and 20 square homes.
Look the density of population in Sydney and compare to other countries, is a luxury and we have to pay for it.
:D I love it - it's all too hard for poor little Australia, so let's change the rules...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies
Notably, if we did that, Mongolia has a much lower population density than Australia, and a similar economy (agriculture and mining) yet only 1/5 the emissions per capita. Sure they don't have the same level of wealth...
There are several other nations that have similar or lower emissions per capita and similar or lower population densities - we wouldn't look as good as you think.
We are a large country, but we are also a highly centralised population with lots of sun and wind. We could do things a lot more efficiently than we do at present. We also don't have the extremely cold winters that require lots of fuel/electricity for heating - Canada does, yet somehow they come out slightly in front of us in terms of per capita emissions (and a very similar population density).
We are also one of the fastest growing populations, so if we sit on our arses and do nothing, we will rapidly move towards the top - even if we change the metric...
Actually, carbon black is produced by sub-stoichiometric combustion of natural gas, so lots of CO, PAHs and other nasties are produced at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies
However you are correct about the sequestration, but whether it is beneficial or not???
We do that here at the Coke ovens...Quote:
Originally Posted by Slunnie
Coke ovens gas is used to fire the Pelletising Kiln, the BOS and fuel the Blast furnace which provides steam to the Powerhouse.
Steelmaking is certainly becoming more efficient, but there are still significant gains which can be made. e.g. Hismelt technology, using waste wood products as (a partial replacement for coal-coke) reductant instead of sending it to landfill, etc...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombie
However a carbon tax will help shift the balance in favour of recycled steel over new steel. Since the downturn the landfills in WA are having trouble getting the ferrous recyclers to honour their contracts to collect scrap.
There goes most members of AULRO then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucaro
Australia's population density has very little to do with town planners.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucaro
We have a land mass of 7,686,850 square kilometres and a population of 22 million with a resulting national population density of 2.7 people per square kilometre. It doesn't matter if all 22million lived in the same square kilometre of Sydney or we spread them out evenly across the country, we would still have the same density.
we have 1.5% of the World's land mass and produce 1.47% of the World's CO2 China has 1.88% of the World's land mass and produces 19.13% of the World's CO2 meaning that China produces about 104 times the CO2 /sq. km that Australia does.
Similarly USA has 1.9% of the land mass and produces 18.29% of the CO2 making 99 times the CO2 of Australia per sq.Km.
If we talk about human respiration created CO2 China is 45 times worse than Australia and similarly USA is 13 times worse.
It all depends upon the base that we calculate the carbon footprint.
BP and Shell only cater to a market, like all other businesses...Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucaro
No market demand, no business...
I know you get very passionate about it all, but you moved here for this lifestyle ;)
Wrong, if we have morre density in the cities then people do not need to travel long distance to go to work, roads with in the city will be shorter, electricity lines and other services will be more compact, etc, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies
There was a large area of productive land suitable for small crops near the cities which the towplanners alocated for residencial purposes.
I can go on and on.