WESTERN governments are trying to have it both ways: they want to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and they want to stimulate economic growth by us spending more money including on stuff. But this is not realistic.
Either the government impresses on the population that it must be content with less including smaller families, smaller houses and fewer pairs of shoes etcetera or there will be more emissions.
I’m happy to go along with less – I’ve never aspired to a luxurious lifestyle or a big family. But most of the rest of the population doesn’t seem to get it?
Viv Forbes does – see below, but Malcolm Turnbull doesn’t.
********************
Dear Jennifer
Australia’s Prime Minister, Kelvin Rudd, has woken up that Penny’s Ration-and-Tax (RAT) Scheme will destroy jobs.
But instead of killing the RAT Scheme, he proposes a massive carbon subsidy to offset the job destruction caused by the carbon tax.
Kevin and Malcolm [Malcolm Turnbull, Leader of the Opposition] need to make up their minds.
If they want to cut the production of harmless carbon dioxide, it MUST cause job losses in coal, power generation, cement, steel, farming and tourism.
But if job protection is important to them, they should abandon the RAT scheme immediately and concentrate on important matters.
Fiddling with it, achieves neither goal.
As for the subsidy, Kevin needs reminding that the money we get from Canberra is the money we sent to Canberra, less handling charges both ways.
A tax and subsidy policy always replaces real jobs in regional industry with fake jobs in the money laundering departments in Canberra.
Mr Viv Forbes
Rosewood, QLD 4340
28th July, 2009
**************
Dear Jennifer,
The Coalition supports, and supported when in Government, an environmentally effective and economically responsible emissions trading scheme (ETS) as part of a co-ordinated global response to climate change.
Indeed the first legislation to establish an ETS was introduced by me as Environment Minister in 2007.
However, it is vital that we get the design right. A well designed ETS will achieve substantial reductions in emissions and at the same time ensure that we do not sacrifice jobs and industries to other countries which do not have a comparable price on carbon.
Right now, every party and interest group except the Rudd Government agrees that Labor’s ETS legislation is flawed and must be improved.
Despite our view the ETS should not be finalised until after the US Congress has determined the shape of America’s ETS and the Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen in December has determined the global community’s next steps, the Prime Minister is determined, purely for political purposes, to force an earlier vote on this legislation.
So the Coalition has examined what changes would be needed for us to consider supporting the legislation prior to the end of this year.
So in that practical context, I have set out nine issues of principle which must be addressed in Labor’s scheme. First and foremost is that an Australian ETS should offer no less protection for jobs, small business and industry than an American ETS which is presently in the form of the Waxman Markey Bill approved by the House of Representatives but yet to pass the US Senate.
In addition, an Australian ETS should enable us to take advantage of the full range of agricultural offsets (“green carbon) which will enable much greater reduction in our overall CO2 emissions.
To read the full release and list of issues which need to be addressed in the Rudd ETS click here
http://malcolmturnbull.com.au/Media/LatestNews/tabid/110/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/541/Statement-regarding-an-Emissions-Trading-Scheme.aspx
You can also watch my interview with Barrie Cassidy on Sunday on the ABC Insiders program here
http://malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmTV/Videos/TabId/111/VideoId/106/Malcolm-Talks-With-Barrie-Cassidy-On-Insiders-.aspx
All the best,
Malcolm Turnbull
Leader of the Opposition
Federal Member for Wentworth
July 28, 2009
***************************************
The picture was taken in the Grose Valley, Blue Mountains, Australia, in February 2009. It costs nothing, except time, to go bushwalking in the Blue Mountains.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
This AGW fraud gets more stupid and more expensive every passing day.
Milne of the greens was yapping on the vic country hour today telling us that coal miners who lost jobs in NSW could probably be employed in the public service.
Who votes for these delusional fools, is this what the country needs, more paper shufflers graduating from the productive workforce to become useless layabouts?
One of the first things we need to do is to ensure that products are made to last and to be repaired.
How can it be that it can be cheaper to buy a whole new printer, than it is to buy a replacement cartridge? Why is it cheaper to buy a new fridge , wahing machine, dryer, microwave etc than it is to get it fixed?
Many people seem to be in love with wind energy, but they are designed to only last 20 years and then be replaced.
The same goes with packaging, why is there so much of it!, do we need it? do we want it?
I don t like government telling me what to do, but we mostly recognise that we do need laws to control excesses and negative externalities. Perhaps legislation on packaging and repair should be a compulsory component of any products sale?
Firstly the good news – how to have MORE STUFF stuff and eat it too. Fuel agriculture, fix rangelands and be carbon negative !! “Top fuel tractor dragsters”
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Flwa.gov.au%2Ffiles%2Fnews%2F3518%2Ffinal-barney-foran-biofuel-release.doc&ei=n7NtSrrjAdWMkAXN7ZGQCw&usg=AFQjCNFxiYBgiCTqBTbx_tvV71kYWpfSIw&sig2=_iny55Xn8P2NehiTElQYgw – press release
The M Word:
If as a thought experiment, we decided to run our diesel infrastructure on methanol by 2019, what would be the result?
1. About 300,000 engines would have to be re-manufactured each year, fully employing the ailing automotive parts industry.
2. We are re-using existing engines, were suitable, capturing the value added in manufacture.
3. We are replacing many billion dollars of imported fuel with a local product.
4. Pressure on the health budget would ease as the health cost associated with diesel emissions disappears. The EPA estimates this to be $9,000 per vehicle per year for Euro 4 compliant vehicles, and almost $30,000 for Euro 1 vehicles. This does not include the PM2.5 particles that are currently unregulated, but are estimated to double costs. It also assumes the exhaust catalysts and filters are in working order.
5. Transport oil spills would no longer be serious. Methanol is water soluble, and degrades very quickly under microbial attack.
Barney Foran and Chris Mardon produced one of the many models of a methanol economy as part of a CSIRO Resource Futures program and concluded the following:
6. About 30 million Ha (or 4% of Australia’s landmass) of non-productive agricultural land can be sustainably planted with suitable wood crops. This would nearly double the size of the agricultural sector.
7. About 150 regional methanol refineries would be built, bringing much-needed employment to regional areas.
8. Urban sewage would be collected and refined to methanol.
9. And the CO2 from this fuel would become negative, as a solid carbon char is a by-product of methanol refining.
As we move through peak oil, the change to renewable fuels is inevitable, as oil becomes more expensive, and more energy is required to refine and deliver it to the market.
The technology to make an early transition exists now. Our engines are working as we speak.
The difficulty is not the technology, but the artificial barriers erected around existing mainstream products, and the policies that on one hand claim to want a greener outcome, but on the other actually protect and encourage the status quo.
The bureaucracy will always say, ‘We will not pick winners’, and ‘Let the market decide’. This is fine if the market is fair, but the market is far from fair. Subsidies to multinational companies, and to the users of their products, ensure that anything that is not mainstream seems expensive.
When I pointed out the government’s own figures for the health cost of diesel vehicles in an urban area was over $300-million a year, a senior official commented, ‘I know, but you will not get anywhere with that argument, because we meet national air quality standards.
If these attitudes are not reversed, and sustainability is not encouraged to flourish, then we are facing a very bleak future, as we run out of resources at an exponential rate.
The country has to pick winners, and nurture them. It is now obvious that new farm grown fuel industries must be of the highest priority to ensure our prosperity into the future.
The comprehensive report is here: http://lwa.gov.au/files/products/innovation/pn30178/pn30178.pdf 291 pages
BUT now the bad news on consumption of MORE STUFF –
A major extinction crisis looms in Oceania:
Published in the international journal Conservation Biology, the report is the first comprehensive review of more than 24,000 scientific publications related to conservation in the Oceanic region. Compiled by a team of 14 scientists, it reveals a sorry and worsening picture of habitat destruction and species loss. It also describes the deficiencies of and opportunities for governmental action to lessen this mounting regional and global problem.
“Earth is experiencing its sixth great extinction event and the new report reveals that this threat is advancing on six major fronts,” says the report’s lead author, Professor Richard Kingsford of the University of New South Wales.
“Our region has the notorious distinction of having possibly the worst extinction record on earth. This is predicted to continue without serious changes to the way we conserve our environments and dependent organisms. We have an amazing natural environment in our part of the world but so much of it is being destroyed before our eyes. Species are being threatened by habitat loss and degradation, invasive species, climate change, overexploitation, pollution and wildlife disease.”
More here http://scienceblog.com/cms/extinction-crisis-looms-oceania-landmark-study-23469.html
ABSTRACT from Conservation Biology
Major Conservation Policy Issues for Biodiversity in Oceania
R. T. KINGSFORD*††††, J. E. M. WATSON†, C. J. LUNDQUIST‡, O. VENTER†, L. HUGHES§, E. L. JOHNSTON*, J. ATHERTON**, M. GAWEL††, D. A. KEITH‡‡, B. G. MACKEY§§, C. MORLEY***, H. P. POSSINGHAM†, B. RAYNOR†††, H. F. RECHER‡‡‡, AND K. A. WILSON§§§
*School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, New South Wales 2052, Australia †Centre for Applied Environmental Decision Analysis, The Ecology Centre, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland 4072, Australia ‡National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, P.O. Box 11115, Hamilton 3251, New Zealand §Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales, 2109, Australia **Conservation International Pacific Islands Program, P.O. Box 2035, Apia, Samoa ††Guam Environmental Protection Agency, P.O. 22439 GMF, Barrigada, Guam, 96931 ‡‡Department of Environment & Climate Change, P.O. Box 1967, Hurstville 2220 Australia §§The Fenner School of Environment & Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory 0200, Australia ***Department of Conservation, Kauri Coast Area Office, 150 Colville Road, RD 7, Dargaville, New Zealand †††The Nature Conservancy – Micronesia Program, Kolonia, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia ‡‡‡School of Natural Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia 6027, Australia §§§School of Integrative Biology, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, 4072, Australia
Correspondence to ††††email rkingsford@science.unsw.edu.au
Abstract:
Oceania is a diverse region encompassing Australia, Melanesia, Micronesia, New Zealand, and Polynesia, and it contains six of the world’s 39 hotspots of diversity. It has a poor record for extinctions, particularly for birds on islands and mammals. Major causes include habitat loss and degradation, invasive species, and overexploitation. We identified six major threatening processes (habitat loss and degradation, invasive species, climate change, overexploitation, pollution, and disease) based on a comprehensive review of the literature and for each developed a set of conservation policies. Many policies reflect the urgent need to deal with the effects of burgeoning human populations (expected to increase significantly in the region) on biodiversity. There is considerable difference in resources for conservation, including people and available scientific information, which are heavily biased toward more developed countries in Oceania. Most scientific publications analyzed for four threats (habitat loss, invasive species, overexploitation, and pollution) are from developed countries: 88.6% of Web of Science publications were from Australia (53.7%), New Zealand (24.3%), and Hawaiian Islands (10.5%). Many island states have limited resources or expertise. Even countries that do (e.g., Australia, New Zealand) have ongoing and emerging significant challenges, particularly with the interactive effects of climate change. Oceania will require the implementation of effective policies for conservation if the region’s poor record on extinctions is not to continue.
Conservation Biology
Volume 23 Issue 4, Pages 834 – 840
Published Online: 13 Jul 2009
©2009, Society for Conservation Biology
Looked up the toxicity of methanol lately, Luke?
Duh is dat a fact?
Read the report properly you dropkick, pondered the tradeoffs – of course not. But then again you probably get off on sniffing diesel particulates.
I’m not sure you have done the sums Luke. Where are you going to get the energy to convert all this cellulose to methanol? How exactly will that happen?
OK – if you want to do a tradeoff discussion sooner than later
Pros, cons and further conversions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_economy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_fuel
Luke: good stuff, but what are the CO2 emissions from burning methanol?
Luke – this is typical of the scientific community whom I’ve completely lost faith in.
They say “Species are being threatened by habitat loss and degradation, invasive species, climate change, overexploitation, pollution and wildlife disease.”
I can understand all the points except 1. Climate Change. Man is responsible for all of them except>/i> Climate Change yet they appear to want to get us “off the hook” by adding climate change – which is more of an idea than a scientific fact – to the list. Last time I checked we are about same temp we were 30 years ago.
Yet I know we are destroying habitat and degrading some environments, invasive species like foxes and cats are devastating to wildlife while pollution and disease go hand in hand – so what exactly is climate change contributing to an already serious problem and how is it doing it??
Please don’t pull out the “GBR is dying!! MRB is dying! more floods and more fires! – we’ve been there, it’s bullshit!
Tim – they’re touting it to be GHG negative if you factor in biochar. Complex report.
Eyrie – yes I withdraw my curt response. The report discusses toxicity hazard (if you read it) but the alternatives also have health effects and it’s a question of technology. Anyway it’s a discussion paper not an investment proposal.
Janama – I’m not necessarily in disagreement about the “current” climate situation. All depends where it goes from here. Also the report is for the Oceania region not just Australia.
“so what exactly is climate change contributing to an already serious problem ” – well a change in drought frequency to an endangered population is perhaps all that is required to tip it over the edge into extinction.
Malcolm Turnbull has been saying “WE believe in an ETS – I put the first one together for JH.”
What he doesn’t say is the he did it to try and save their asses because the didn’y buy the climate change bullshit but had to appear to be doing something – now they’ve woken up and his team is saying let’s fight it yet he keeps on avoiding the confrontation.
Keating’s right – he lacks Judgement.
“well a change in drought frequency to an endangered population is perhaps all that is required to tip it over the edge into extinction.”
so all these species that have been through hundreds of thousands of years of evolution are about to Kark it because the temp has gone up .7C?
Not at all – it’s how the atmosphere and oceans react to the changed heat balance.
Will be because of an expanded tropics, drying sub-topics or a semi-permanent El Nino – or changes in sub-tropical ridge, southern annular mode or Indian Ocean dipole – all of which have things going on. And some “as predicted”.
And you’ve already gone back into a past where human pressures were smaller or not there. If you had populations of fish surviving in waterhole refugia that dry up in big ongoing dry sequences – well they’re gone. Or endangered wallabies, bilbies etc. Might be the ferals in the main doing the damage – but other pressures can cumulate which is the paper’s point. Cumulative pressure.
So why have you just jumped back to one pressure by itself?
Kevin Rudd (and now Malcolm Turnbull) commits the Australian population to the regime of an ETS. However neither of them, nor Penny Wong, nor the environmental lobby, have canvassed the actual effects of the ETS on our standard of living. Turnbull has forgotten that his job, in opposition, is to keep the government honest. This he has not done.
The ETS is presented as a moderate but tolerable increase in the cost of our electricity. But this grossly misrepresents the reality.
The method of operation of the ETS is to start by issuing and selling a number of permits to release CO2. The number of permits issued each year is progressively reduced, forcing us to use less energy. There is no choice for the population at large.
As the amount of available energy is reduced, we will be forced to consume less. There is no choice. The burden will mostly fall on households, because many fixed systems cannot reduce consumption, such as electric railways, hospitals etc. From Garnaut’s report, Table 4.2, we know that, at present, Australians emit about 26 tonnes per capita. Intended reductions will directly force us to cut back, personally, household by household. The current per capita emissions of some countries of South East Asia are similar to the Australian targets. So, how do they do it? We will be forced to live their lifestyle.
I have been travelling through the region, photographing how they live. Forget the multiple cars in the drive, not possible, maybe a small step through motorcycle; forget the air conditioning, it is rare in SE Asia; forget the big hot water system, most shower in cold water; forget big houses, forget the tinnie or the power boat. We will not have the energy to be able to operate them.
Get used to it, we will have no choice.
Mr Turnbull, start to speak the truth.
The Climate Sceptics have a policy on biofuel which is broadly consistent with luke’s links to the methanol; provisos include preference for food production and relative pollution indicators. Generally the biosphere has been increasing during the AGW years or at least the CO2 increasing years; undoubtedly one reason for that is the increase in the plant sink; more CO2, more plants; generally speaking, more plants more animals. Sooner or later the contribution GM makes to this trend will have to be considered.
My take on the oceania extinction paper is that more advanced societies can do more to arrest such events and processes than third world or less developed societies. Even so in respect of such things as over-fishing collaborative efforts have been sadly missing.
Eventually, however, value judgements have to be made; pristine nature and extended habitats where economic intrusion by man is barred are possibly a luxury. In this respect the choice is plain; with population still increasing and SOL still associated with consumerism choices about which species continue to exist will have to be made; the issue is; should such choices be made cold as it were, or happen as a result of ad hoc human activity.
Luke thanks for your response “Tim – they’re touting it to be GHG negative if you factor in biochar. Complex report”. but thta’s not a straight answer to my question. Leave me to do the biochar once you have given me the CO2 emissions from burning methanol as a fuel. Thanks.
Is Malcolm really dumb enough to believe this AGW crap? I doubt it, but then many in the money business, economists for example, seem to be prone to falling for all this snake oil stuff. Birds of a feather, perhaps.
If he does, or pretends to, he is another Beasley, a pale reflection of the PM of the day, & will go the same way.
If he is only choosing policy to suit what he believes is public opinion, he’s not worth having. If he is just trying to avoid a double dissolution election, he is totally worthless, & must go quickly if we are to have any chance of getting rid of Rudd before he does much more damage.
So Mal, you only have one chance of future leadership. Get the facts, proclaim them loudly, & fight against any bull dust emission trading scheme, for all you are worth. You will gain much respect, & may even win. With a flag to rally under, I believe the numbers flocking to the cause will amaze, & horrify the alarmists. Any other course leads to oblivion, for you, & the Oz economy.
Luke, with these posts you have excelled yourself. You have probably cost the jobs of thousands. With that much bull sh1t lying around, at least one one major fertiliser company will have to close down.
I love the one about using urban sewage for methonal production. A great idea, if the 2 Bs Beattie, & Bligh, had not all ready harvested it for their policies, with the rest tipped into the public service, to top up the spin doctor numbers.
So with a few keystrokes I have “cost the jobs of thousands”. Gee Hasbo – wouldn’t be exaggerating a widdle bit would you? I knew I was good – but 1000s?
But then again an old dero metho drinker like you probably knows lots about methanol? Drink up and try changing your diaper.
The fraud gets more stupid by the day … And then the asteroid hits.
“But then again an old dero metho drinker like you probably knows lots about methanol? Drink up and try changing your diaper.”
You know even less Luke. Metho or methylated spirit is really ethanol de-natured with 10% methanol. But that is not important. What is important is your verbal diarrhoea on how to change the planet to a methanol based energy system without answering a fundamental question of where you would get the energy to convert the massive amount of cellulose to methanol. Come on Luke let’s have an answer or are you quite content to live in your fairy tale make believe world of the Green Mafia.
“metho” doesn’t actually contain methanol nowadays because of methanol’s toxicity. Just some small amount of a nasty tasting chemical to make it unpalatable.
Well Michael – how long have you been verballing now?
Tim – yep energy density is lower and straight CO2 per mile is higher than gasoline (if you have it). But all depends what you’re comparing it against, at what level of refining/synthesis. What land resources, additional benefits. You have to consider the proposal in its entirety.
Michael – “verbal diarrhoea on how to change the planet to a methanol based energy system” – did I say say “change the planet”. The report is quite specific. It’s a proposition with limited application national application and a comparative proposition. But a disingenuous verballing little turd like you simply overlooked that.
Where would you get the energy from? Gee I wonder how sugar mills do it now? Narrogin? Well the report discusses that – but given you have difficulty in reading we’d probably also assume you’d have difficulty in comprehension too.
Michael if you want to be a disingenuous little creep try pissing off. It’s much simpler and consistent with the general nihilistic denialist philosophy on anything remotely nearing innovation.
Can’t answer the question then Luke? Perhaps a little abuse will solve that? Well not with me it won’t. Just answer the question Luke and stop fudging. The reason you can’t answer is that the energy you need for your utopian methanol world has to come from either fossil fuels or nuclear fuels and you know that to be the case. By the way the sugar example is CRAP they burn the waste (bagasse) but you have no waste because you need to convert the entire product you collect to methanol. You really write a lot of nonsense Luke and your only response when challenged is abuse. Try just try to respond rationally you might just convince someone but not me.
Still verballing are we Michael – Try for once not being a turd and misrepresenting the paper’s intention. So you can just stop you pitiful attempt to marginalise any discussion into your narrow terms. In any case local demo plants as mentioned above leave me confident, so off you go now and play on the freeway. Toddle off.
Not so easy Luke. You still have not answered the question. Where are you going to get your energy to convert the cellulose to methanol? Just answer it Luke and I will happily “Toddle off” but you really don’t know do you or don’t you like the answer you must give? It’s a simple question why are you squirming so much. Try to leave out the abuse. Sorry that is perhaps the only way you have of expressing yourself.
As I said at 8:03- the Narrogin demonstration plant shows the way. But you pick something better like Choren.
If these two plants “show the way” Luke why don’t you just tell us how they are powered. What is their energy source? It is still a simple question but you have been deliberately avoiding an answer. Why is that? Come clean Luke you have been caught out and you have been slithering and squirming from the beginning. You know the primary energy source to run these plants but you have refused to say. But why is the primary source so important- because you will always need to use it to produce methanol. You will never be able to use the methanol you generate to produce more methanol you will always need to input more energy from other sources. That is the fundamental problem with any Green solution they all try to defy the second law of thermodynamics.
Nope !!!!!!!!!!! – they use a proportion of their feedstock. And that simply comes out in price of the feedstock, energy of collection, and overall efficiency.
These plants can produce exclusively bioelectricity and/or varying proportions of fast pyrolysis compounds, or methanol, or syn-diesel or di-methyl ether, or bioethanol.
And you knew that and I knew that from question one. I just like to see how long turds like you will come back for another nibble.
And here is where you are even more totally disingenuous (1) it’s not MY proposal nor a green mafia prospectus (2) it’s a discussion paper not a prospectus (3) the feedstock is proposed from rangeland regeneration (salinity etc) and in the context of a part of a further national energy system (4) it might even use conventional electricity or nuclear (doesn’t worry me) in a petroleum constrained or oil expensive world (5) “powering the world is NOT proposed” – so why do YOU say that it is – coz you’re a lying prick who likes to artificially marginalise debates (well non-debates here) (6) changes in production technology are underway so final efficiencies still under development (7). So turd – you are not obviously interested in any serious discussion of some new proposals for Australian agriculture – you have made a truckload of pre-suppositions about the proposal itself and my position – like most rednecks here – so piss off !
I won’t be “pissing off” any time soon Luke. You have excelled yourself with your use of abuse to attempt to win an argument. By the way burning all that cellulose to generate the energy necessary to produce methanol will release much more CO2 that you could possibly save by using the methanol you produce for use as a fuel. As usual the Greens and you have not thought through the implications in this “discussion paper”. You really should take a course in writing and in particular expressing yourself clearly without resorting to abuse. It might work in a children’s playground – oh it just dawned on me you must be still in the early stages of puberty.
I discovered the real cost of the AGW movement.
I have to calculate the “embodied GHG emissions at the gate” for precast concrete as part of a submission for a tender. This is on top of actually calculating the prices of all the components. I don’t get paid to submit a price and goodness knows if the lowest emitter will win or not or if this information is really relevant.
On top of this, I have to submit to another client, a summary of GHG emissions for work previously performed – but not previously requested. Apparently this is a requirement of our new Climate Change policy and GHG reporting (I am currently in disagreement) which will result in duplication in reporting about emissions. ie They report it and we report it – hey presto emissions doubled and apocalyptic change will surely result.
So Mikey – which Greens have not thought through the discussion paper?
Probably the Green nut who wrote it in the first place. But who cares the Greens come up with half baked stuff all the time.
I must compliment you on your dedication Luke; up until 1:10 am just to come up with that pathetic response.
Stop ducking turd and answer the simple question. You can’t which simply shows you’re a fabricator. A dirty little fabricator who likes to drop in unsupported bunk into his rhetorical sludge..
As for your libel on the paper’s the author – well that really now demonstrates your utter ignorance.
Gee it’s pretty basic isn’t it Mikey – may not be about CO2 at all – but Mikey don’t think. Mikey just rants.
But we’re replanting areas with no trees. No current sink. And then consuming that sink in a steady state. Carbon neutral.
Now Mickey. Piss off.
You must have stayed up all night waiting for my answer Lukie I appreciate the compliment. I on the other hand slept well and I will be around for a long time -no intentions of “pissing off”. You really should get some sleep you are losing it.
“Gee it’s pretty basic isn’t it Mikey – may not be about CO2 at all”
If it’s not about CO2 then why bother converting cellulose to methanol it is a very energy expensive process so why are you doing it. It doesn’t make any sense at all.
“Stop ducking turd and answer the simple question.”
I don’t know which Greens (It was your paper you should know) were involved in writing the paper so logically I cannot know who did not take the trouble to understand the full implications of what they have said. That may be a bit beyond someone with a limited grasp of logic but hey, that is your problem not mine. As for your use of language it does take a few years after puberty to understand that calling someone names has no debating value at all.
“I DON”T KNOW WHICH GREENS WERE INVOLVED IN WRITING THE PAPER” says Mikey.
You’re talking about THEM familiarly but you DON’T KNOW.
And now you’ve morphed it to “THEIR discussion paper”. You just can’t keep lying can you?
And then it becomes “my paper” – just can’t help yourself from “Adding bits”.
Why convert cellulose to methanol. mmmm. dat’s a hardun.
Well that would require what we call “reading”. “Reading” is a complex cognitive process of decoding symbols for the purpose of deriving meaning (reading comprehension) and/or constructing meaning
Look it’s really simple – the paper advocates a national collection of all garden trimmings and grass mowings as feedstock. Do I have to spell it out for you.
“I don’t know which Greens were involved in writing the paper ”
No grub – you’re telling the story. Now you don’t know.
“(It was your paper you should know)” Nope – not my paper.
You just can’t stop lying can you.
You little grub.
For anyone besides Mikey who might be curious about the future potential of fuel from wood products.
http://www.choren.com/en/energy_for_all/beta_plant/
http://www.avongro.com.au/Webpages/documents/AvongropublicpresentationbyEnecon080807.pdf
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=2131
There is no future in converting cellulose (in whatever form) to fuel and that is the point you don’t get. The energy necessary to just convert the cellulose to an alcohol (any alcohol) must, I repeat must, be greater than the energy that can be recovered from the use (burning) of the product produced. What you, and many like you, fail to understand is that there are always losses in any process. There is no perpetual motion machine. The implication is that you will always produce more CO2 than you save. It is much like carbon sequestration it just doesn’t work if the objective is to reduce CO2 levels.
Boring moron – if we create a NEW sink and then reuse that sink – it’s carbon neutral whichever way you want to split it. Are you so mental as to not comprehend that point?
And who says it’s about about CO2 anyway?
Now piss off.
Now before you go – just tell us “what Greens were involved in writing the paper” Either put the names and which party or be condemned for the shonk that you are.
That is about the 5th time you have told me to “piss off” aren’t you getting a bit bored with that stupid remark or is that all you have. I wasn’t aware that this was your blog or that you had the power to stop anyone posting to it.
You are however wrong again. If you create a new SINK and reuse it you will over time need to create an ever increasing SINK to take care of the additional CO2 you create each time you generate the same quantity of Methanol. You really don’t get it do you. You are trying to overcome the second law of thermodynamics and that is simply not possible. If the size of the SINK remains the same you will have created the very first perpetual motion machine and even you a pubescent Male (I think) could not possibly believe that – or do you?
If it is not about lowering CO2 levels then what is it about and why are you going to all that trouble to produce methanol? What is useful about methanol?
How old are you? You might wish to use methanol as a cleaner burning fuel, to assist with a future petroleum constrained world (peak oil), revitalise regional economies, remediate salinity water tables. But doofus to know that would actually require what’s call reading THE frigging REPORT
2nd law of thermodynamics – crap – so we plant 100 ha of mallee trees in an area that currently has no trees, and (for argument) we use 50 ha as fuel to produce whatever methanol we can from the remaining 50ha (or whatever the optimum ratio of burn/liquefy is).
The sink has been created from scratch – then harvested, burned as fuel or converted to methanol which produces CO2, and then the CO2 re-sequestered as mallee in the future. Carbon neutral. (that is if being carbon neutral is your overall aim – which it may not – see above).
Of course some incidental biochar production provides another soil carbon sink opportunity and soil ameliorant (e.g. see terra preta)
Of course it’s not exactly the same sink (exactly the same area of ground) – it’s a region in a cropping rotation but notionally it’s the same. And the trees take years to grow. It’s obviously not an annual crop.
Strange I now know the sugar industry is ceasing to exist for breaking the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I wonder what their secret is?
Now before you go – just tell us “what Greens were involved in writing the paper” Either put the names and which party or be condemned for being a fabricator.
You really are a fool Luke but that is your problem not mine.
Now don’t throw the towel in – argue your point. Unless you’re …. “chicken”.
Where do I start it would take a week to cover just the nonsense you have in your last post but I will give it a bit of a go. You have related the 2nd law of thermodynamics to the demise of the sugar industry. How is that? It’s so far from the truth that is says more about the working of your brain than anything else. You obviously don’t understand the laws of physics or you could not write what you have written. It’s rubbish nothing more nothing less – straight out of the Louis Carroll novel “Alice in Wonderland”- complete with your nonsense ending of a perfect machine to produce methanol. Why don’t you spend some time learning some basic physics, some basic chemistry and take a course in logical thinking and then come back and post on this blog.
Luke July 29th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
“If as a thought experiment, we decided to run our diesel infrastructure on methanol by 2019, what would be the result?”
“And the CO2 from this fuel would become negative, as a solid carbon char is a by-product of methanol refining”
Luke August 2nd, 2009 at 10:57 am
“And who says it’s about about CO2 anyway?”
This is just one of your many inconsistencies Luke. Do you get the whole picture now? You keep shifting the ground you are inconsistent and you have no idea of the principles behind what you say. You are a fool.
Everything I have written was available if you had undertaken a cursory skim of the report, including authorship by a distinguished CSIRO scientist, including heaps of review.
You are the one that has made a shabby ruse attack on the involvement of greens, and myself in report ownership.
As to your 2nd law objection. Spare us the rhetorical bluster.
Spell out the detail. You seem unable. A serious person making an attack would easily show why the proposition does not add up. But you can’t – COZ YOU DON’T KNOW !!!
And now you you’re saying the sugar industry is in demise? It is? fuck eh? – well I wonder how they’re survived all this time. Perhaps they have violated the 2nd law. ooo – wah
Or you could just – “piss off”.
From the press release
“Australian Forest Growers Chief Executive, Warwick Ragg, said Mr Foran’s paper was a timely addition to an important debate about the integration of farm forestry into the agricultural landscape. There are likely to be economic benefits for both companion industries and for timber income. These will be important considerations for the farm sector and its enterprise mix.”
Yes typical greenie – NOT !!
Michael- you’re such a clown !
As for “thought experiment” – I had inadvertently left off the attribution – http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2009/2634392.htm
The CRPS is a do nothing policy for a non-problem.
“Global Warming” is bullshite and we all know it.
Why on earth would we grow a gazillion hectares of wood for methane conversion when we have hundreds of years of cheap coal resources just sitting there? Why would any sane country do this?
Coal for the next few decades, and lets rip it up and use it and sell it as quick as we can – and in the meantime we convert to nuclear.
Its past time for rational beings to reject entirely the AGW thesis for the fraud that it is.