Climate Change and our Land of Fire, Flood and Drought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Here's an interesting summary of where Australians actually stand on climate change.

If Australia were 100 people, here's where we'd stand on climate change
What Australians really think about climate action - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

---

Opinions, no matter how widely held, does not make it right, or even wrong for that matter , they are just an opinion

Or it could be a reflection of our excellent education system (thanks Mick) and the people have assessed the impact of C02,CFC,HFC,Deforestation,Population Pressure, Insecticides, Herbicides, Water Vapour, Solar Cycles, long and short term, micro plastics, ozone hole and one or two other variables and got it right on the money, we are the Smart Country after all.


In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo


IMHO
No doubt Climate Change is happening, it never stops, and humanity has it's contribution,Co2 is a great scapegoat for rent seekers led by people like Al Gore. Unfortunately its not that simple.

It seems that people who want to argue that we shouldn't do anything or that we can't do anything present an "all or nothing scenario".
They use extreme examples, arguing that we have to completely abandon every single thing that we rely on if we are serious about making a difference.
Surely any step in the right direction is worth consideration.
Isn't it the case that because of more efficient lights, fridges, washing machines etc, household energy consumption is down? It may have been balanced by population increase, but that is a separate argument.
About 30 years ago I was investigating building an energy efficient house just outside Yass.
One article I came across described an experiment by the CSIRO.
They took a standard Jennings project home, built a standard version and another version with simple, inexpensive or free modifications. They did things like orienting it on the block to take advantage of the winter sun. They changed the size and location of some of the windows. They may have changed the width of the eaves (I can't remember all the details; it was over 30 years ago). The point is, they were not radical, expensive changes.
For a year, they used computers to open and close doors and switch on appliances in both houses. They may have also been careful about when they opened and closed windows.
The modified house used something like 25% less energy than the standard house.
The point is they didn't have to do all the radical things that some people want to suggest is the only approach.
The house I built was not air conditioned, yet people who walked inside on a 37 degree day swore that it must have been because it was usually around 25 maximum on those days.
We don't have to go back to freezing in the dark to save energy.
We don't have to abandon every single modern convenience to head in the right direction.

the root cause of all this is population change.

Don't agree.
Electricity generation and vehicle exhausts are the largest sources of harmful emissions.
Land clearing reduces the absorption of CO2.
Bush fires are predicted to contribute about 20% of global emissions this year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Don't agree.
Electricity generation and vehicle exhausts are the largest sources of harmful emissions.
Land clearing reduces the absorption of CO2.
Bush fires are predicted to contribute about 20% of global emissions this year.

---

reduce the population results in reduced need for electricity and vehicles
no need for land clearing
bushfires have always been around and contributed to emissions. just like volcanoes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Don't agree.
Electricity generation and vehicle exhausts are the largest sources of harmful emissions.
Land clearing reduces the absorption of CO2.
Bush fires are predicted to contribute about 20% of global emissions this year.

---

Land is only cleared to either build on or produce for consumption.
Electricity is consumed by people!
Cars are driven by people!

Less people = less to feed, less to power, less to drive.

Root cause is people.

Prior to industrialisation people were far less environmentally friendly than they are now - burning wood and coal etc. what they had in their favour - there wasn’t many of them and they died quite young.

Once we kept the buggers alive longer, stopped plagues and developed vaccines etc we started exponential (viral?) reproduction. With this came capitalism, and once companies gained the same rights as people that was the beginning of a slippery slope for mankind.

Little changes in AU for instance will have almost zero impact on global emissions. In the short term they will destroy our economy and our standard of living - people are already complaining of wage stagnation - and it will get much worse for a generation before it even looks to get better, fine for those retiring in the next 5 years, not so good for others.

Each little step change is offset each year by population growth. Each year consumption increases... Capitalism grinds on.

Ironically, houses built in the 40s here were built with local climate in mind - it went progressively backwards as the decades marches on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tombie

Land is only cleared to either build on or produce for consumption.
Electricity is consumed by people!
Cars are driven by people!

Less people = less to feed, less to power, less to drive.

Root cause is people.

Prior to industrialisation people were far less environmentally friendly than they are now - burning wood and coal etc. what they had in their favour - there wasn’t many of them and they died quite young.

Once we kept the buggers alive longer, stopped plagues and developed vaccines etc we started exponential (viral?) reproduction. With this came capitalism, and once companies gained the same rights as people that was the beginning of a slippery slope for mankind.

Little changes in AU for instance will have almost zero impact on global emissions. In the short term they will destroy our economy and our standard of living - people are already complaining of wage stagnation - and it will get much worse for a generation before it even looks to get better, fine for those retiring in the next 5 years, not so good for others.

Each little step change is offset each year by population growth. Each year consumption increases... Capitalism grinds on.

Ironically, houses built in the 40s here were built with local climate in mind - it went progressively backwards as the decades marches on.

---

You are correct Mr T, pre 1940 houses had wide verandahs usually on 2 or 3 sides, later "architecture" seemed to dictate Eaves that were so narrow, they were useless at keeping the sun from the walls, so walls were usually in full sun all day.

The seemed to exist solely for holding the D Gutters up.



BTW, why don't we set an example then & have a Group Topping & that'd get rid of a whole bunch of folk for a start?[biggrin]

We could hire an oval if large numbers were expected. As for paying the Hiring Fees, who cares?[smilebigeye]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4bee

Why don't we set an example then & have a Group Topping & that'd get rid of a whole bunch of folk for a start?[biggrin]

---

Sounds like a plan... Natures already attempting it with its latest viral sensation.

Population growth is certainly a factor, but the effect depends on emissions per head. Australia has one of the highest emissions per head in the world. We could significantly reduce emissions per head and have the same population.

Greenhouse gas emissions by Australia - Wikipedia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Population growth is certainly a factor, but the effect depends on emissions per head. Australia has one of the highest emissions per head in the world. We could significantly reduce emissions per head and have the same population.

Greenhouse gas emissions by Australia - Wikipedia

---

Doesn’t work like that at all...Mathematically...

7.53 Billion x 100 (as a percentage) 753 billion “units”
Let’s drop each persons average emissions by 10%
677.7 billion “units”

By 2030 it’s 8.5 billion people at 90% emissions level
That’s 765 billion “units” of emissions. Or just shy of a 2% increase in emissions.

Considering current practice and assuming no changes occurred in outputs per person (avg) it’s even worse 11% increase.

Currently we are 0.003% of global population. Our impact isn’t worth squat.