According to Foreign Policy magazine the world will remember 2005 for its natural disasters, the passing of a pope, and the ongoing insurgency in Iraq.
In terms of environmental issues that “fell through the cracks” the magazine focused on reduced greenhouse emission in the US and peak oil.
Reduced emissions in the US came in as no. 4 in terms of overall issues, it was reported as follows:
When it comes to emitting greenhouse gases, the United States is usually seen as the bad guy, content to belch out fumes at its pleasure. But reports released in late November show that U.S. emissions have fallen for the first time in more than a decade. Between 2000 and 2003, U.S. emissions fell by 0.8 percent. By contrast, global goody-two-shoes Canada saw a 24.2 percent increase in 2003 from its 1990 levels. Even the sanctimonious Europeans are set to miss their Kyoto targets by 6.4 percent. Uncle Sam’s emissions dropped partly because U.S. firms introduced clean coal technologies and reduced their methane emissions. So, is the United States turning into the Green Giant? Hardly. The most important reason for its drop in emissions was the migration of heavy manufacturing to industrializing countries such as China, the world’s second-biggest emitter.
At number nine was a peak oils story, reported as follows:
With oil prices soaring this year, the debate over the future of this precious commodity heated up. But lost in the mix was ExxonMobil’s report The Outlook for Energy: A 2030 View. The total oil output of non-OPEC producers, according to ExxonMobil’s projection, will peak around 2010, after which OPEC will have to add more than 1 million barrels per day, every year, to keep up with world demand by 2030. “In 2003, Algeria produced 1.1 million barrels per day,” wrote energy analyst Alfred J. Cavallo in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. “A new Algeria would need to be brought on line in the Persian Gulf each and every year beyond 2010 just to keep up with the projected increase in demand.” That’s no easy prospect. To make matters worse, most OPEC countries, including vital “swing producer” Saudi Arabia, do not allow independent audits of their oil reserves, so we may have even less warning of any future shortfalls. Under OPEC’s quota system, members have every incentive to inflate their reserve figures: The more they claim to have, the more they can sell. The price of a barrel of black gold just went up-again.
So few Australian environmental stories are properly reported in the mainstream media. But which is the really big one that “fell through the cracks”?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Ironic isn’t it – the US transfers manufacturing to China which is exempt from Kyoto.
The global warmers really are clueless, apart from being somewhat hypocritical, demanding us to reduce emissions and what do they do? Increase their own emissions.
As for Peak oil, that is another Greeny furphy based on ignorance, and faulty projections.
What the doomsayers fail to understand is human ingenuity via scientific discovery. Some of us wonder why protons spin, as they do, and what powers this spinning. Where is the energy coming from? And equally the earth has an enormous electric field with a voltage potential of 100v per vertical metre – another untapped source of energy.
New scientific discoveries are made when we grab a stick at the other end, rather than the one we usually grab.
The future is unpredictable hence the discovery of new energy sources cannot be dismissed as fantasy. Jules Verne thought of mankind going to the moon, and so we did.
So maybe someone will have one of those “aha” episodes and work out how to extract energy from the earth’s electric field.
The only areas of human activity which assert absolute certainy are religions.
At one stage water use was neglected. My impression is that land use (eg urbanisation, similar issues ) is now a bit neglected). What do thers think?
detribe, is not your post in the wrong topic?
So how did clueless global warmers increase emissions again? Did I miss something.
And so given the greens “furphy and ignorance” on Peak Oil (funny I didn’t think it was a green issue but anyway.. .. why introduce facts) – what’s your assessment on global oil supplies?
And on what basis do you assert that protons actually spin?
Phil,
Protons spin because we have instruments called Proton Precession Magnetometers.
These instruments utilise a small container of a proton source (kerosene) around which a coil of wire is wound.
At the time of measurement, an electrial current is introduced to the coil which forces the protons to orientate themselves around the, artificial, imposed magnetic field.
On release of the applied current, the protons then realign themselves to the prevailing field. Which we measure.
Post script – protons do not spin as a result of humans having instruments.
But what do the individual quarks do and how do you know you’re not measuring the hysteresis in the instrument.
Phil,
I am not sure how to say this, but you are drowning. In the ocean of your ignorance.
Proton Precession magnetometers were ” rig de’jeure” 20 years ago – since then we have made improvements.
Such as what?
Louis – and equally there is a huge fusion reactor in the sky that is largely untapped. Fortuneately we have technologies already to use this. Solar panels and wind turbines – lucky eh?
Lucky you are Ender, but solar power is not a solution – I have been trying to make solar panels work for 10 years, and no.
The sun is a fusion reactor? Any evidence?
Phil, your last statement leaves me speechless.
Why’s that ?
Anyway moving on .. ..
So how did clueless global warmers increase emissions again?
And so given the greens “furphy and ignorance” on Peak Oil – what’s your assessment on global oil supplies?
Solar panel efficiency is reduced by heat,
http://www.partsonsale.com/highervoltage.html
Louis – “The sun is a fusion reactor? Any evidence?”
What the!!!!!! I think this question has been pretty settled for at least 60 years.
“Protons spin because we have instruments called Proton Precession Magnetometers.”
And your point here is?????????
rog – “Solar panel efficiency is reduced by heat,”
And your point is??????
The article compares a reduction in U.S. emissions from 2000 to 2003, a 3 year span, with an increase in emissions from other countries from 1990 to 2003 – 13 years.
This dodgy comparison makes that entire paragraph on global warming next to useless.
OK Ender I’ll bite; what is your point?
rog – what’s there to bite? You just posted “Solar panel efficiency is reduced by heat” and I was wondering what point you were trying to make. This is a well known and understood thing.
I’ll bite too.
Ender – there is no point except to make a contrary point whatever the point. It’s called marking the player.
In recent days we have seen the basic classification and divide on a ideological perspective. We’ve had left vs right, good vs evil, cafe lay-about and dole bludger slurs, the lesser evil of two presidents, socialism = evil, the market is infallible, climate change science always equals equals equals Kyoto, “kindly” (even though it only took 2 minutes to setup) an “offer” to quarantine our comments to an “outer suburbs” blog – offered as something we should even be grateful for, ….
all in all – pretty mean spirited stuff underlying the very deep divide in this country. Depressing stuff.
Although stunned to find Jen is buying free range eggs.
So it would be interesting to see if anyone thinks they have learned something from this blog or changed their opinions on anything.
I can say that I have learned heaps even on threads that I know little about (sorry we didn’t write more Roger Kalla!).
But maybe that’s just me.
No worries Phil. Good to know that someone is reading them. BTW I have got an article in the latest issue of IPA Review Vol 57 No 4 on Reasons to be optimistic about bird flu.
USA emissions, Just how trustworthy is the estimate of a 0.8% fall in emissions. Is there real independent verification or just an IPCC check on methodologies / documentation etc.
Richard – interesting question. Not sure. The detail involved is quite high – I think they would have to take the individual nation’s word on it.
Biological sinks and sources has lots of unknowns too. You could do some gross checks I guess on imports/production of coal and oil, vehicle fleets and power generation capacity.
Of course Australia has made little headway really – “compliance” (without signing) is all due to a one off swiftie from the Qld govt banning tree clearing. That is if you think compliance it was important anyway. Next round if it comes to it and we sign up (unlikely) – nowhere to hide. You’ve only got power and transport left.
Still we’re only 1.46% of the world’s emissions so our need to respond is only ethical, sharing the load or fear of trade sanctions/predjudice in the market.
We probably have a lot to gain keeping in the new technology Asia pact, and keeping up with the climate science (IMHO).
>Still we’re only 1.46% of the world’s emissions so our need to respond is only ethical, sharing the load or fear of trade sanctions/predjudice in the market.
So by that rationale: if i were to commit, say, 1.46% of murders in the world, then the need for the world to respond to me committing murders is only ethical, because limiting me in my murderous activities is only saving 1.46% max of murder victims?
Eeek – what an analogy.
Paul I am simply saying if there were a light switch called Australia and you turned it to off – it would make virtually no difference to the climate outcome.
Of course if everyone on the planet did this we wouldn’t get anywhere.
I get frustrated when some people think that if we undertake some Australian GHG saving actvity that we’ve saved the reef. We’re climate takers not climate setters in Australia.
That’s not to say we should not do our bit and help developing nations. I also would not advocate wrecking our economy short term to do either – but we need to start moving.
Anyway I feel the die is now cast – we’re going to experience global warming – probably already are. Let’s hope the effects are on the low side of the scenarios and there are no sudden shifts or surprises like conveyor belts.
Ender, I dont think that it is commonly known that solar cells lose efficiency in the heat.
Could be a legitimate reason why they are not more widely used.
They dont present a very good alternative power source in the Australian summer and thats when you need the frig to keep its cool.
In fact using the ubiquitous google (I google therefore I am) I can find no reference to solar cell power loss through heat.
What brought it to my attention was an article in the ABC Organic Garden magazine about some people who lived off their own produce for 6 months.
Their cells failed in the heat.
Others I know are less than enthusiatic about their solar, because of the low current (24volt vs 240volt) the cable sizes are relatively thick and expensive.
rog – in the solar design course that I am doing allowing for and calculating temperature derating is a part of the design process for a solar installation. In very hot areas you can use Unisolar or Kanake thin film triple junction cells that do not suffer from this nearly as much. They only lose about 5% in high temperatures. A monocrystalline or polycrytalline panel will lose 10% to 15% at 40 degrees C. This can be minimised by both tracking and making sure that the cells stay relatively cool. Even at very high temperatures most panels are still generating 60% or 70% of its rated power. Also this temp in a properly designed installation is only maintained for a few hours in the middle of the day.
A lot of the bad press that you might have seen often relates to badly designed and/or installed systems. This is exactly why now installers and designers have to be registered for the owners to receive the PV rebate.
I am not sure how much you know about it because solar panels can be combined into any voltage/current combination that you desire and can afford. Grid-tie systems use a grid connected inverter to supply 240V power to the grid when there is a surplus. Standalone systems can be 12, 24 or 48 or even 96 volts depending on the capacity required.
Google – solar panel temperature derating – and you will get a few more hits. I can send you the spreadsheet I wrote to calculate it if you want.
And finally we are only talking here about solar PV power. Large installations can be solar thermal power stations that do not have this problem.
Ender people want power not a course in electrical engineering.
Lets face it, programming the VCR was a major hurdle. Using solar just what sort of convoluted rigmarole do you have to go through just to do the weekly washing?
I remember Prof Harry Messel painting solar with the big brush 30 years ago. Nothing seems to have changed since then.
rog – all you have to do is push the button like anyone else. You asked a technical question so you got a technical answer. To a consumer of solar power it is not convoluted at all. Do you ask the electrician that wired up your house about how he/she does it and then decide not to if you cannot understand how a RCD works?
Exactly my point Ender, consumers just want to push a button like anyone else.
The solar system failed to deliver in the heat, dont want to know why just that it did, end of story
rog – no not end of story just a badly designed system. In our last blackout the fossil fuel system failed to deliver because of pole top fires. Some people were out for weeks.
More on grumpy old men at Xmas.
I note that the blog’s right wing extremers have decided that Wikipedia must be a leftie-greenie issue. It’s inaccurate they scream. Don’t know why – but is interesting to look at some facts
The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.
The British journal Nature examined a range of scientific entries on both works of reference and found few differences in accuracy.
Wikipedia is produced by volunteers, who add entries and edit any page.
But it has been criticised for the correctness of entries, most recently over the biography of prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler.
Wikipedia was founded in 2001 and has since grown to more than 1.8 million articles in 200 languages. Some 800,000 entries are in English.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
2/hi/technology/4530930.stm
From my personal observation many articles seem to be very well written and copiously referenced to back up assertions. Of course nobody is compelling anyone to read it and much of the information doesn’t exist elsewhere of is somewhat inaccessible. It’s not the ultimate nor perfect but I suggest the world is a net better place for its existence. And it tries to be politically neutral.
I’m wondering why our right-wingers on the blog aren’t up with the fear uncertainty and doubt campaign and taken a baseball bat to “open source computing” as well.
…………
Phil Done sent this to me with a request I post it on Friday – it was being blocked when he tried to post. Sorry it has taken me so long – was lost amongst other emails. Jen.
Ender – and speaking of solar in mainstream and some like it hot – would have thought White Cliffs in very hot outback NSW would have been the ultimate trial site for solar in harsh conditions and for whole communities – what do we know about its operation and reliability ? And are there any significant overseas like or better examples?
I found a some links to the Whit Cliffs station
http://www.uow.edu.au/~schaefer/rosi/solar_station.html
“The system is quite reliable with problems occurring only a few times a year. Initially, problems occurred with the tracking software, but now the main problem is with mechanical breakdowns of the old tracking motors. During strong winds and at night, the dishes are ‘parked’ in a position which minimises damage.”
This is how the White Cliff system works:
http://www.solarsystems.com.au/how_it_works.htm
Overseas there are many commercial plants
http://www.volker-quaschning.de/articles/fundamentals2/index_e.html
Getting back to the original question … the political prostitution of Australia’s environment must surely constitute its greatest drop through the crack!