Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Joined
30 June 2008
Posts
14,510
Reactions
6,399
You talk about sea level rise as if one Friday afternoon all is fine and then over the weekend the ocean rises 100m. At last review it was still about 3mm per year.
As if.. For such a steady careful thinker Sean you certainly throw up fanciful ideas like confetti. I'm still trying to get my head around "a wealthy World with abundant and cheap 24/7 energy ". Just throw up that against the wall and see if it sticks .

As far as 100 m weekend sea level rises ? Another piece of Sean hyperbole.

Firstly no one needs 100 metres of sea level rise to create a human disaster. We don't even need a 10 metre rise to wipe out most coastal cities.

Anything between 1-3 metres of sea level rise would be sufficient to make most coastal cities uninhabitable in their present forms. And that doesn't take into consideration the effects of storm surges which would force storm water far further inland.

When would cities be threatened by rising oceans ? When will cities and economies begin to realise they don't have a future ? It won't be when they are underwater. It will happen far sooner than that as insurance companies recognise coastal regions are just uninsurable and make it impossible to sell properties in areas under threat. For example Florida

How lucky do we feel. Ice melt at the Poles has been accelerating at an exponential rate.


 
Joined
14 February 2005
Posts
14,419
Reactions
14,909
Thing is, I'm pretty sure there'd be far less pushback from those unconvinced of a problem if we all agreed to just get on and fix it.

We know what to do.

Trouble is the politics absolutely dominates both the climate and the solutions to it. :2twocents
 

Sean K

on permanent holidays
Joined
21 April 2006
Posts
20,849
Reactions
8,563
Blackout Bowen's promises were never going to come to fruition. Fanciful is the operative word.

How many windmills, solar panels and kms of transmission lines per day were required?

Screenshot 2023-11-23 at 12.29.46 pm.png


Chris Bowen’s market intervention to accelerate the rollout of renewables is a concession that Labor’s pre-election modelling was fanciful.
The Energy and Climate Change Minister is praying that his punt on underwriting clean energy projects will achieve Anthony Albanese’s promise to increase renewables in the grid to 82 per cent by 2030.

Bowen is locked in a 73-month race against time to slash emissions by 43 per cent and “supercharge” wind, solar, battery and pumped hydro capacity to replace coal and thermal generation by the end of the decade. With the government fumbling over fuel efficiency standards to support the take-up of electric vehicles, and finalising a 2035 emissions-reduction target to promote its bid to host a United Nations climate change conference, Bowen is under maximum pressure.

Ideological opposition to gas, nuclear and coal-fired power, delays in transmission upgrades to connect renewables, and growing regional opposition to offshore wind farms also spell trouble for Bowen. If the government fails to land its “clean-energy revolution”, Australian businesses and households face crippling blackouts and huge price spikes.

Other factors driving concerns around the renewables rollout include Australia’s reliance on China and other countries for components, including wind turbines and cables. The country is locked in fierce competition to access global supply chains, with marquee projects including the Marinus Link facing cost blowouts and delays.

Joe Biden’s centrepiece clean-energy fund – the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA – is also hoovering up capital and making it harder for Labor to deliver on its promise to establish Australia as a “renewable energy superpower”.

The massive expansion of the Capacity Investment Scheme announced on Thursday is a signal that business as usual was not going to deliver enough renewables in time.

Proponents of large-scale renewable generation projects had warned the government about their concerns around returns on investment.

Without government guarantees on their investment and commitments to streamline approval processes, some would likely have shelved their plans and walked away.

After more than 28 years in politics, including almost two decades in federal parliament, Bowen is desensitised to slings and arrows directed at him. However, he knows that failure is not an option given the high stakes for energy users … and lingering leadership ambitions.
 
Joined
28 May 2020
Posts
4,669
Reactions
8,504
Blackrock recently trumpeted its climate saving credentials by announcing a 550 mil investment in a carbon capture and sorage company.
from Reuters
Nov 7 (Reuters) - BlackRock Inc, the world's biggest money manager, will invest $550 million in Occidental Petroleum Corp’s direct air capture (DAC) plant in West Texas, the two companies announced on Tuesday.

Occidental has been shopping for investors since last year for its Stratos project in Ector County, Texas, the largest project designed to suck up carbon dioxide directly from the air, as it plans about another 100 plants of the kind.


Occidental’s first large-scale DAC facility is a crucial test of economics for a technology that the International Energy Agency says will play a key role in decarbonizing the global industry, but which has been too costly in early test efforts.

BlackRock's investment shows support for Occidental's ambitious plans on DAC, despite Stratos' repeated construction delays and cost increases in the past couple of years.


DAC strips CO2 from the atmosphere to bury underground or for use in making products such as concrete and aviation fuel. Both Occidental and Exxon Mobil Corp (XOM.N) estimate DAC could be a multi-trillion market for oil producers by 2050, as scale brings costs down.

“This joint venture demonstrates that direct air capture is becoming an investable technology," Occidental's chief executive, Vicki Hollub, said in a statement. "BlackRock’s commitment in Stratos underscores its importance and potential for the world."


Occidental on Tuesday increased project costs to $1.3 billion, the second price increase this year. The project was estimated between $800 million and $1 billion in 2022. Its start-up is planned for 2025, from 2024 previously.

Stratos is designed to capture up to 500,000 tonnes of CO2 per year, with construction works expected to employ more than 1,000 people about 30% complete, Occidental said.
So the plant is going to cost 1.3 billion so far to harvest 500,000 tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere.
There is no figure on the annual running costs, nor the costs of storage.
The alternative is to plant some trees.
A hectare of trees withdraws about 40 tonnes of CO2 per hectare per year (at least according to This Site . )
So Blackrock could get the same result by planting 11,000 hectares of trees.
Depending on the variety of tree, the soil, the climatic conditions etc, this could involve anywhere from 600,000 to 3 million trees.
The costs to plant these trees would be significantly less than 1.3 billion.
They also have very little maintenance costs, require no energy running costs other than the sun, water and Co2, have a longer useful life, and can be harvested to produce timber, woodchips, etc at the end.
And they are renewable.

Mick
 
Joined
30 June 2008
Posts
14,510
Reactions
6,399
Blackrock recently trumpeted its climate saving credentials by announcing a 550 mil investment in a carbon capture and sorage company.
from Reuters

So the plant is going to cost 1.3 billion so far to harvest 500,000 tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere.
There is no figure on the annual running costs, nor the costs of storage.
The alternative is to plant some trees.
A hectare of trees withdraws about 40 tonnes of CO2 per hectare per year (at least according to This Site . )
So Blackrock could get the same result by planting 11,000 hectares of trees.
Depending on the variety of tree, the soil, the climatic conditions etc, this could involve anywhere from 600,000 to 3 million trees.
The costs to plant these trees would be significantly less than 1.3 billion.
They also have very little maintenance costs, require no energy running costs other than the sun, water and Co2, have a longer useful life, and can be harvested to produce timber, woodchips, etc at the end.
And they are renewable.

Mick

Good story Mick. Certainly highlights how incredibly costly carbon capture and storage technology can be. Far better to not release it in the first place ! It would have been interesting to see what figure they had for the cost per ton of this CO2 harvetsing

The source you offer is very interesting. They certainly seem to have done the research. I did notice the figure of 40 tonnes of CO2 per hectare was at the absolute top end of possible C02 drawdown. In that context the acreage required to achieve the same result would be much larger (perhaps 1.5-5 times) than your suggested 11,000 hectares. But I agree with the overall sentiment.

But back to basics. The most effective way of reducing CO2 is not using fossil fuel in the first place. Other natural environment restoration offers excellent benefits but cannot be expected to drawdown the billions of tons of excess CO2 we have put in the atmosphere.
 

Sean K

on permanent holidays
Joined
21 April 2006
Posts
20,849
Reactions
8,563
Blackrock recently trumpeted its climate saving credentials by announcing a 550 mil investment in a carbon capture and sorage company.
from Reuters

So the plant is going to cost 1.3 billion so far to harvest 500,000 tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere.
There is no figure on the annual running costs, nor the costs of storage.
The alternative is to plant some trees.
A hectare of trees withdraws about 40 tonnes of CO2 per hectare per year (at least according to This Site . )
So Blackrock could get the same result by planting 11,000 hectares of trees.
Depending on the variety of tree, the soil, the climatic conditions etc, this could involve anywhere from 600,000 to 3 million trees.
The costs to plant these trees would be significantly less than 1.3 billion.
They also have very little maintenance costs, require no energy running costs other than the sun, water and Co2, have a longer useful life, and can be harvested to produce timber, woodchips, etc at the end.
And they are renewable.

Mick

Good prompt to remind everyone that Australia is a net CO2 sink. With our massive landmass (while mostly desert, but plenty of bush and forrest) we absorb more CO2 than we produce.
 
Joined
30 June 2008
Posts
14,510
Reactions
6,399
Good prompt to remind everyone that Australia is a net CO2 sink. With our massive landmass (while mostly desert, but plenty of bush and forrest) we absorb more CO2 than we produce.

Yeah nuh. In no real universe. Just another proven climate denier deception.
Exceptionally well debunked here.

Of course if trees were so great at sucking all the excess CO2 from the atmosphere as the clowns claim where did all the extra CO2 come from since 1960 ? In 1960 CO2 represented 318pppm in 2023 it is 420ppm

False claim Australian CO2 emissions and sinks prove climate change is a 'scam' | Fact check​

Isabella Fertel


 

wayneL

Digging myself a fallout shelter
Joined
9 July 2004
Posts
24,171
Reactions
10,395
But back to basics. The most effective way of reducing CO2 is not using fossil fuel in the first place.

So, no cars at all, no windmills or solar panels, no phones or computers, no internet, failing crops, very few cloths, mass starvation, etc etc.

Ah, leftist Nirvana.
 

Sean K

on permanent holidays
Joined
21 April 2006
Posts
20,849
Reactions
8,563
Yeah nuh. In no real universe. Just another proven climate denier deception.
Exceptionally well debunked here.

Of course if trees were so great at sucking all the excess CO2 from the atmosphere as the clowns claim where did all the extra CO2 come from since 1960 ? In 1960 CO2 represented 318pppm in 2023 it is 420ppm

False claim Australian CO2 emissions and sinks prove climate change is a 'scam' | Fact check​

Isabella Fertel



Isabella (she/they) seems like a good go-to for objective science.

Google is pro global boiling too, so that's all you're fed.
 
Joined
30 June 2008
Posts
14,510
Reactions
6,399
Isabella (she/they) seems like a good go-to for objective science.

Google is pro global boiling too, so that's all you're fed.

If you bothered to read the sources that explained why the claim was complete rubbish ... well you wouldn't would you ?

And as I pointed out the fact that CO2 levels are increasing year in and year out proves our natural environment is incapable of absorbing much of the additional greenhouse gases humans produce

Carbon emissions claim is barking up the wrong tree


David Williams
April 28, 2023


WHAT WAS CLAIMED​


The world’s trees absorb more than twice the amount of CO2 emitted.

OUR VERDICT​


False. All of the world's natural CO2 sinks combined absorb around half of our carbon emissions.

An Instagram post claims there is “no climate change” because the world’s trees absorb twice the about of carbon dioxide emitted by humans each year.

Experts say the claim is based on a false estimate of the amount of CO2 trees can absorb, and it also misunderstands the forest carbon cycle.

The post (archived here) claims the “climate scam” is “easy to debunk” by calculating the number of trees in the world and the amount of CO2 they are able to absorb, to give a gross figure that is almost double the amount of carbon emitted.
The man in the video cites Our World in Data as the source of his figures.
c5cadae8-9832-449f-8adf-cceed42a23ab.jpg

The post claims that the world’s trees absorb more carbon emissions than humans create.
“There’s an estimate of three trillion trees around the world,” he says in the video.

“The worldwide CO2 emission is at 37 billion tonnes. But the trees around the world absorb 72 billion, almost 73 billion tonnes of CO2, which means the trees around the world have the capacity to absorb twice as much carbon emission.

“Wake up. There’s no CO2 problem, there’s no carbon emission problem, there’s no climate change.”

It’s accurate that there are roughly three trillion trees. The scientific journal Nature published a research paper in 2015 that calculated the total number to be about 3.04 trillion.

It’s also roughly accurate to say the average annual carbon emissions from human activity is about 35 billion tonnes. The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has estimated a similar total on its climate website.

The most recent Global Carbon Budget also approximates annual carbon emissions to be about 36.3 billion tonnes plus or minus 1.8 billion tonnes, according to Future Earth, a research organisation supported by UNESCO, the UN Environment Programme, the International Science Council, and the Belmont Forum.
72b00cf4-46c0-4599-acd2-703e6d813606.jpg
Humans create about 37 billion tonnes of carbon emissions annually. (AAP Image/David Crosling)
However, the claim that three trillion trees absorb 72 billion tonnes of CO2 is not backed up by scientific evidence.

The US NOAA’s aforementioned climate website states natural carbon sinks such as trees and oceans absorbed about half of the annual emissions from human activity between 2011-2020.

“Because we put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than natural processes can remove, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases every year,” the NOAA website says.

“The more we overshoot what natural processes can remove in a given year, the faster the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide rises.”

CSIRO chief research scientist Dr Pep Canadell says the estimated amount of carbon absorbed by carbon sinks is based on millions of observations of carbon fluxes and stocks on land, ocean and atmosphere.

“Scientifically, the following is super well established, with no uncertainties in saying that all natural CO2 sinks, including forest, other vegetation and the oceans, absorb about half of all CO2 emissions coming from the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation,” Dr Canadell told AAP FactCheck in an email.
ac01e0a0-21ff-44cf-a479-7dc304d1bfdf.jpg
Carbon sinks absorb only about half the emissions from burning fossil fuels. (AAP Image/Lloyd Jones)
Dr Sara Kuebbing, a scientist at the Yale School of the Environment, says a recent paper in Nature estimates that global forests absorbed about 15.6 billion tonnes of CO2 each year on average between 2001-2019.
That’s about 22 billion tonnes short of removing the annual CO2 emissions from human activity.
“The number isn’t double the fossil fuel emissions and it’s even lower than it could be because of forest loss and disturbance,” Dr Kuebbing told AAP FactCheck in an email.

She pointed out that the estimated 37 billion tonnes of anthropogenic CO2 emissions per year is for fossil fuel emissions alone, and doesn’t include emissions from land use change or other sources.

Dr Kuebbing also said the Instagram post oversimplified the forest carbon cycle and didn’t present the full picture of what’s happening with forests globally.

“Trees do sequester CO2, but trees (living in forests) also emit CO2 when the forests are disturbed or destroyed,” Dr Kuebbing said.
“And, unfortunately, humans are still causing a lot of forest destruction and disturbance … We are losing trees around the world at a faster rate than we are replanting them.
“This means that we don’t have a trillion trees each year of this equation, we (have) a trillion trees less the total number of trees lost in that year owing to human activity.”
She said the Nature paper also estimated that 15 billion trees are cut down each year.
0cb3c910-8116-4862-9a97-b0664fcba1fc.jpg
Forest loss impacts the amount of carbon absorbed by the world’s trees (AP Photo/Martin Mejia)
Dr Canadell agreed about the complexities of the forest carbon cycle, saying most of the CO2 absorbed by plants was released back into the atmosphere via plant and soil respiration.

In contrast, he said the emissions from human activity are constant and move in one direction, from the land to the atmosphere, “where half of it accumulates there and leads to climate change”.

He added. “To fix the climate problem we cannot use the sinks that already exist … we need to do something additional including reducing emissions and creating new CO2 sinks.”

A similar claim was debunked by AAP FactCheck last year.

The Verdict​

The claim that the world’s trees absorb more than twice the amount of C02 emitted by human activity is wrong on multiple fronts, according to experts.
Natural carbon sinks such as trees and oceans only absorb about half of the carbon emissions humans create each year. Additionally, the figures relied upon in the claim only refer to fossil fuel pollution, not all human-induced carbon emissions.
The claim also fails to take into account changing tree cover and the fluctuations in the complex forest carbon cycle.
False — the claim is inaccurate.
 

Sean K

on permanent holidays
Joined
21 April 2006
Posts
20,849
Reactions
8,563
If you bothered to read the sources that explained why the claim was complete rubbish ... well you wouldn't would you ?

And as I pointed out the fact that CO2 levels are increasing year in and year out proves our natural environment is incapable of absorbing much of the additional greenhouse gases humans produce

Carbon emissions claim is barking up the wrong tree


David Williams
April 28, 2023


WHAT WAS CLAIMED​


The world’s trees absorb more than twice the amount of CO2 emitted.

OUR VERDICT​


False. All of the world's natural CO2 sinks combined absorb around half of our carbon emissions.

An Instagram post claims there is “no climate change” because the world’s trees absorb twice the about of carbon dioxide emitted by humans each year.

Experts say the claim is based on a false estimate of the amount of CO2 trees can absorb, and it also misunderstands the forest carbon cycle.

The post (archived here) claims the “climate scam” is “easy to debunk” by calculating the number of trees in the world and the amount of CO2 they are able to absorb, to give a gross figure that is almost double the amount of carbon emitted.
The man in the video cites Our World in Data as the source of his figures.
View attachment 166161
The post claims that the world’s trees absorb more carbon emissions than humans create.
“There’s an estimate of three trillion trees around the world,” he says in the video.

“The worldwide CO2 emission is at 37 billion tonnes. But the trees around the world absorb 72 billion, almost 73 billion tonnes of CO2, which means the trees around the world have the capacity to absorb twice as much carbon emission.

“Wake up. There’s no CO2 problem, there’s no carbon emission problem, there’s no climate change.”

It’s accurate that there are roughly three trillion trees. The scientific journal Nature published a research paper in 2015 that calculated the total number to be about 3.04 trillion.

It’s also roughly accurate to say the average annual carbon emissions from human activity is about 35 billion tonnes. The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has estimated a similar total on its climate website.

The most recent Global Carbon Budget also approximates annual carbon emissions to be about 36.3 billion tonnes plus or minus 1.8 billion tonnes, according to Future Earth, a research organisation supported by UNESCO, the UN Environment Programme, the International Science Council, and the Belmont Forum.
View attachment 166162 Humans create about 37 billion tonnes of carbon emissions annually. (AAP Image/David Crosling)
However, the claim that three trillion trees absorb 72 billion tonnes of CO2 is not backed up by scientific evidence.

The US NOAA’s aforementioned climate website states natural carbon sinks such as trees and oceans absorbed about half of the annual emissions from human activity between 2011-2020.

“Because we put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than natural processes can remove, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases every year,” the NOAA website says.

“The more we overshoot what natural processes can remove in a given year, the faster the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide rises.”

CSIRO chief research scientist Dr Pep Canadell says the estimated amount of carbon absorbed by carbon sinks is based on millions of observations of carbon fluxes and stocks on land, ocean and atmosphere.

“Scientifically, the following is super well established, with no uncertainties in saying that all natural CO2 sinks, including forest, other vegetation and the oceans, absorb about half of all CO2 emissions coming from the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation,” Dr Canadell told AAP FactCheck in an email.
View attachment 166163 Carbon sinks absorb only about half the emissions from burning fossil fuels. (AAP Image/Lloyd Jones)
Dr Sara Kuebbing, a scientist at the Yale School of the Environment, says a recent paper in Nature estimates that global forests absorbed about 15.6 billion tonnes of CO2 each year on average between 2001-2019.
That’s about 22 billion tonnes short of removing the annual CO2 emissions from human activity.
“The number isn’t double the fossil fuel emissions and it’s even lower than it could be because of forest loss and disturbance,” Dr Kuebbing told AAP FactCheck in an email.

She pointed out that the estimated 37 billion tonnes of anthropogenic CO2 emissions per year is for fossil fuel emissions alone, and doesn’t include emissions from land use change or other sources.

Dr Kuebbing also said the Instagram post oversimplified the forest carbon cycle and didn’t present the full picture of what’s happening with forests globally.

“Trees do sequester CO2, but trees (living in forests) also emit CO2 when the forests are disturbed or destroyed,” Dr Kuebbing said.
“And, unfortunately, humans are still causing a lot of forest destruction and disturbance … We are losing trees around the world at a faster rate than we are replanting them.
“This means that we don’t have a trillion trees each year of this equation, we (have) a trillion trees less the total number of trees lost in that year owing to human activity.”
She said the Nature paper also estimated that 15 billion trees are cut down each year.
View attachment 166164 Forest loss impacts the amount of carbon absorbed by the world’s trees (AP Photo/Martin Mejia)
Dr Canadell agreed about the complexities of the forest carbon cycle, saying most of the CO2 absorbed by plants was released back into the atmosphere via plant and soil respiration.

In contrast, he said the emissions from human activity are constant and move in one direction, from the land to the atmosphere, “where half of it accumulates there and leads to climate change”.

He added. “To fix the climate problem we cannot use the sinks that already exist … we need to do something additional including reducing emissions and creating new CO2 sinks.”

A similar claim was debunked by AAP FactCheck last year.

The Verdict​

The claim that the world’s trees absorb more than twice the amount of C02 emitted by human activity is wrong on multiple fronts, according to experts.
Natural carbon sinks such as trees and oceans only absorb about half of the carbon emissions humans create each year. Additionally, the figures relied upon in the claim only refer to fossil fuel pollution, not all human-induced carbon emissions.
The claim also fails to take into account changing tree cover and the fluctuations in the complex forest carbon cycle.
False — the claim is inaccurate.

The sink claim is from an Instagram post? That guy with a big red cross over his head? That's the source of the claim?

Even so, the article is about World sinks, not Australia. "The world’s trees absorb more than twice the amount of CO2 emitted."

Just why are CO2 emissions 'increasing year in and year out'?
 
Joined
30 June 2008
Posts
14,510
Reactions
6,399
The sink claim is from an Instagram post? That guy with a big red cross over his head? That's the source of the claim?

Even so, the article is about World sinks, not Australia. "The world’s trees absorb more than twice the amount of CO2 emitted."

Just why are CO2 emissions 'increasing year in and year out'?

Did you read the article Sean ? At all ? :cautious:

The claim was the the worlds trees absorb more twice the amount of CO2 emitted. This is just as spurious as the claim that Australia absorbs more CO2 than it emits.

The facts are they don't. Read the science .

Why are CO2 emissions increasing year by year ? Because human activity has been relentlessly adding more CO2 than can be absorbed by the carbon sinks of the world. This has been rising steadily since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and increasing at an exponential rate in the last 60 years.

1700820903147.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • 1700820772690.jpeg
    1700820772690.jpeg
    41.5 KB · Views: 2
Joined
30 June 2008
Posts
14,510
Reactions
6,399
How can scientists prove that human produced CO2 is the culprit in global heating ?
Simple. Not all carbon is equal.

Why are rising CO2 levels caused by burning fossil fuels?


r909668_9329006.jpg

Levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have significantly risen since the industrial revolution. (Reuters: Vikter Korotayev)

How fast are carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere rising? How can you tell that rising carbon dioxide levels are caused by burning fossil fuels and not natural causes such as bushfires, volcanoes, rising ocean or soil temperatures?


 

Sean K

on permanent holidays
Joined
21 April 2006
Posts
20,849
Reactions
8,563
Did you read the article Sean ? At all ? :cautious:

The claim was the the worlds trees absorb more twice the amount of CO2 emitted. This is just as spurious as the claim that Australia absorbs more CO2 than it emits.

The facts are they don't. Read the science .

Why are CO2 emissions increasing year by year ? Because human activity has been relentlessly adding more CO2 than can be absorbed by the carbon sinks of the world. This has been rising steadily since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and increasing at an exponential rate in the last 60 years.

View attachment 166174

Read it. You must have missed any other science because you only read the Guardian.

Who is causing the increase in emissions?

I wonder why the last 60 years have seen that exponential growth.

Please consider it.
 
Joined
30 June 2008
Posts
14,510
Reactions
6,399
Good prompt to remind everyone that Australia is a net CO2 sink. With our massive landmass (while mostly desert, but plenty of bush and forrest) we absorb more CO2 than we produce.

This is Seans claim. The source of this claim appears to Professor Ian Plimer.
As usual with Professor Plimers work it is misleading and as honest as Donalds Trumps property valuations.
His argument is found here

This analysis points out the deception behind Professor Plimers calculations. The simplest reason is just double counting. But there is much more than simply that.


The same specious argument was used by other people to "prove"the worlds natural environment is already effective at absorbing all CO2.
That statement is manifestly wrong as evidenced by the rapidly rising CO2 levels.

The consequences are the rapid increase in global temperatures caused by these emissions.

We are part of the problem. We are facing the consequences rising temperatures.
 
Joined
30 June 2008
Posts
14,510
Reactions
6,399
These are where we can make a difference in absorbing CO2 emissions and protecting our coastlines and marine environment and land environment.


 
Joined
14 February 2005
Posts
14,419
Reactions
14,909
Only problem I have with that photo, in the context of climate change, is most people won't understand what they're looking at.

They'll see the water vapour coming out the cooling towers and incorrectly think that's the CO2.

The actual CO2 is coming out the much taller but narrower stacks to the left. Doesn't make for such a good photo since there's nothing to see to the naked eye or standard camera, CO2 being invisible.

For the record that's Loy Yang A power station, Victoria with B station mostly hidden in the background. :2twocents
 
Top