Climate Change - Biggest Money Making Con of the Century or Imminent Extinction of the Human Race

Albynsw

Well-Known Member
I was thinking of big industry and the drive to have it run 24x7, to feed our thirst for consuming things.
Back to the old days - just about everyone working a day shift only, factories stop at night, mining stops at night, shops close at night.
Sure, it wont work for many industries, but it could for plenty.

Even back to practically nothing being open in Sundays, only 'essentials' like the pub and servo. People just have to organise themselves better, find something else to do other than shopping for one day a week (I remeber when most shops were not open on Saturdays either)

Slow the pace.

Maybe I should join the Amish, minus the god-bothering part!

Regardless of the environmental aspect I think we should slow down for a better quality of life. Shops don’t need to be open 7 days and at night. It pisses me off that they trade on public holidays and Boxing Day. There is no opportunity for family time for a lot of workers
 

shanegtr

Well-Known Member
I just don't get it. As soon as you mention gas and even hydrogen everyone runs for cover.
50% of the worlds food production depends on ammonium based fertilisers and 1% of the worlds CO2 emissions comes from manufacturing NH3. Australia produces around 6% of the worlds production all from burning natural gas.
Wouldn't this be a far better way to cut emissions than relying on people to turn off their low energy LED's
Its not really technically burning natural gas. Most ammonia plants produce hydrogen by steam reforming of natural gas. Roughly 15% of the gas used goes to heating the reformers and the rest is feed stock for hydrogen production. That 85% that is reformed is where the bulk CO2 production is and not the heating side
 

Kippie

Well-Known Member
I just don't get it. As soon as you mention gas and even hydrogen everyone runs for cover.
50% of the worlds food production depends on ammonium based fertilisers and 1% of the worlds CO2 emissions comes from manufacturing NH3. Australia produces around 6% of the worlds production all from burning natural gas.
Wouldn't this be a far better way to cut emissions than relying on people to turn off their low energy LED's
There's no silver bullet. I believe that it must be a combination of technologies and behaviours to reduce CO2. But we have to start individually within the constraints of your specific circumstances. For example not everyone can afford solar panels, but reducing the amount of energy you use can be as simple as turning off unused lights.
 

peterfermtech

Well-Known Member
Its not really technically burning natural gas. Most ammonia plants produce hydrogen by steam reforming of natural gas. Roughly 15% of the gas used goes to heating the reformers and the rest is feed stock for hydrogen production. That 85% that is reformed is where the bulk CO2 production is and not the heating side
Um! So if you use semantics it's OK. However you say it CO2 is the by product.
 

peterfermtech

Well-Known Member
There's no silver bullet. I believe that it must be a combination of technologies and behaviours to reduce CO2. But we have to start individually within the constraints of your specific circumstances. For example not everyone can afford solar panels, but reducing the amount of energy you use can be as simple as turning off unused lights.
I think that concept might be a hangover from the days of incandescent lights. I think all the lights in my house now wouldn't add up to the 150 watt incandescent light we had in the loungeroom.
 

shanegtr

Well-Known Member
Um! So if you use semantics it's OK. However you say it CO2 is the by product.
I may have been a little anal on the point. Its only because I've previously worked in ammonia plants. However with current process's it may be possible to produce it cleanly, although no one has done it on an industrial scale yet I believe we wont be far off it happening. But yes CO2 is a major by product
 
Last edited:

discomatt

Well-Known Member
Not sure this is caused by a hoax, plenty of suffering and sacrifice in years to come
 

Colly18

Well-Known Member
I woke up to this news today - media reports that leading up to the COP26 climate change conference, the UN slams emission promises based on future technology breakthroughs and that countries need to do more now. That would be a clear swipe at countries like Australia. Day by day my belief grows that the stance the federal coalition government is taking on addressing climate change and the need to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions a.s.a.p., will ensure the government is not back in power after the next election.
 

Albynsw

Well-Known Member
I woke up to this news today - media reports that leading up to the COP26 climate change conference, the UN slams emission promises based on future technology breakthroughs and that countries need to do more now. That would be a clear swipe at countries like Australia. Day by day my belief grows that the stance the federal coalition government is taking on addressing climate change and the need to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions a.s.a.p., will ensure the government is not back in power after the next election.

Thats fine but keep in mind what goes on in this country is largely placebo effect so there is no point in trashing our economy for the “ feel goods” because it ain’t gunna feel good if our economy ain’t good.

I am all for the changes but you need to keep it all in context.
 
I woke up to this news today - media reports that leading up to the COP26 climate change conference, the UN slams emission promises based on future technology breakthroughs and that countries need to do more now. That would be a clear swipe at countries like Australia. Day by day my belief grows that the stance the federal coalition government is taking on addressing climate change and the need to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions a.s.a.p., will ensure the government is not back in power after the next election.

One of the technologies the Coalition are banking on is carbon sequestration through tree planting and soil carbon build-up on farms.

Having been around that space for decades, I'm convinced it will not work. There are not enough benefits & too many rules/red tape around these options for enough farmers to adopt to make a real difference. And also the risk of food production being reduced.

For some good insights on this, read here from one of the best economists I've worked with - https://www.pannelldiscussions.net/2021/04/346-soil-carbon-1/

I'd love to be around in 100yrs to see if this really was human-induced climate change or just normal climate variability. My thinking at the moment is, that if there is a possibility it is long-term climate change we have caused, and we can do something about it without entirely destroying our economy, we should act now. The fossil fuel & mining sector will take a hit, but we need to find a way to transition those sectors to renewables or at least cleaner systems (and many companies are already moving that way). If an infinite and cleaner resource will supply the energy we need, it makes sense to move away from a more polluting, finite source.
 

discomatt

Well-Known Member
I find it astonishing that so many say trust the science and screw the economy on one topic but have a total opposite opinion regarding science and economics when it comes to something that you will have a much deeper and devastating effect on mankind in the long term.
I put it down to “ what will effect me now “ mentality, much the same as one term short. sighted politicians
 

Albynsw

Well-Known Member
I find it astonishing that so many say trust the science and screw the economy on one topic but have a total opposite opinion regarding science and economics when it comes to something that you will have a much deeper and devastating effect on mankind in the long term.
I put it down to “ what will effect me now “ mentality, much the same as one term short. sighted politicians

nah the approach and method is consistent, it is all about analysing the facts and taking appropriate measures.
 

John U

Well-Known Member
Thats fine but keep in mind what goes on in this country is largely placebo effect so there is no point in trashing our economy for the “ feel goods” because it ain’t gunna feel good if our economy ain’t good.

I am all for the changes but you need to keep it all in context.
So you're saying leave it up to everyone else?
nah the approach and method is consistent, it is all about analysing the facts and taking appropriate measures.
That would be the same as saying I don't need to get the vaccine because it's just me, what difference will that make. Let every else get that vaccine.
 

John U

Well-Known Member
If the economy is effectively managed there are plenty of opportunities in reducing our carbon output. Our coal mining assets will become stranded assets because whether we do or don't adapt the rest of the world is heading in that direction. Australia will be financially punished if we do nothing. Countries/regions will do it of their own volition.

Business as usual will cost us financially and environmentally.
 
Last edited:

G_ute

Well-Known Member
The thing is it wont 'cost us' a great deal, but what of your offspring and their offspring?
We are/have made major changes to our environment on land/water/atmosphere in a tiny amount of time, in the scheme of things.
When 10,000 years is but a blip.
 
Top