An article claiming that climate change may cost Australia $100 billion per annum by 2038.
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/warning-sounds-over-cost-of-climate-change
Ouch.
And an alternative proposal.
Oh dear.
And more bad news.
2 Likes
Matt Canavan, discovered by accident in a very remote area, nobody knows how he has survived so long, the Wollemi pine of Australian politics: a living fossil.
Whatâs making news depends on who you are asking?
A slightly longer version drawing on the same analysis.
As of June 2019 (ABS Data) the majority of domestic Australiaâs energy needs came from petroleum products, coal and gas. 2286PJ or just over half of our energy needs were imported out of the total of 4,191PJ. A total of 192PJ was provided from renewables.
70% of all energy was used by âindustryâ. Aussie households used 30% (1268PJ) of the total. The Aussie household over the year spent an average $2560 on petrol/fuel, $1766 on residential electricity, and $928 on gas.
The ABS data report referred to was only recently published Dec 2020. Key Renewables combined met less than 5% of total Australian energy needs to June 2019. Per the rate of increase in new low carbon energy capacity (Clean Energy Council) this will be greater than 6% for the current FY.
IE 94% of Australiaâs current energy consumption comes from high Green House Gas emitting technologies.
P.S.
Australia also exported 19,523PJ of energy (coal and LNG mostly) in 2019.
3 Likes
Sadly these exports arenât counted against us for CO2 production, and it is difficult to even count the fugitive emissions from their production (estimates only are made).
3 Likes
Joe Biden hits the gas pedal against climate change.
Meanwhile, back in Australia.
1 Like
Not gone unnoticed. The National Accounts of Green House Gas Emissions only considers the direct emissions from their production.
Fact Check and the ABC assessed the final emissions from Australiaâs energy exports increase to 3.6% of total global GHG emissions.
There is a detailed explanation of the assessments within the reference. Also a discussion of the emissions from land use, agriculture etc included in the assessments. The alternate higher estimate of 4.4% is not based on global net zero carbon emissions. It considers only emissions from fuel usage.
3 Likes
The positioning of the new administration is not unexpected. The speed of the change in direction is!
If there were any doubts about the intent?
âWe are already spending the money, folks,â Kerry, the former secretary of state who is now Bidenâs climate envoy, said of the recent climate-fueled disasters. âItâs cheaper to deal with the crisis of climate than to ignore it. This is life or death, a challenge to the fibre of our society. The stakes on climate change couldnât be any higher than they are now. Failure is literally not an option.â
My bolding, although the whole statement has an emphasis, given the USA has long been the industrial and financial powerhouse of all nations.
2 Likes
âŠand one of the historically top polluters. Donât think the conservatives will roll over when they can attack about [low end and even higher end] jobs that will be lost as fossil fuels are diminished. Retraining to migrate into sustainable energy? That is work. That displaces workers.
I wish Joe well. Very well. But it is not going to be easy. The US energy barons make our fossil and mining magnates look like political amateurs in comparison since they have a friendly and reliable ear regardless of who is in government. The US sometimes has a government with a clue so the antagonists (fossil protagonists) need to be more sophisticated, and they are.
Climate deniers, unions protecting jobs, and lobbyists/sponsors will not roll over easily.
3 Likes
Only at the moment and to be overtaken by China in a few years time. It will be important what China and other eastern and southern industrialised Asian nations do, as they will dominate the worlds sectors and continue expand their processing and manufacturing sectors. If these nations are given a âget out if jailâ card in agreements, like that which has happened in the past, the hope to stabilise eCO2 emissions will be near impossible.
1 Like
The bar chart shows the annual energy consumption by region, in oil equivalent. There is one area of significant growth, pink = Asia.
The circle chart illustrates just how reliant the world still is on oil 31%, coal 26%, gas 23%.
There is no âget out of jail free anythingâ, if listening to the best informed commentators.
1 Like
Even the NSW Enviroment Minister is giving the Federal Government a serve.
Developing nations are given significant concessions (why China is refusing reclassification to developed) both economically and environmentally, including eCO2 emissions. There seems to be a belief in western political environment that developed nations caused the problem, so they should be penalised more moving forward because their economies have benefited most from non-renewable resources.
As the graph shows, in the future not taking developing nations on the same path as developed nations will only delay eCO2 emissions growth, not stabilise it. Trying to get equal acceptance of targets will be challenging in a number of different ways. Governmentâs of developing nations are often very different to developed, and beliefs/agendas very different as well.
Makes for interesting times.
1 Like
This could have gone in the COVI-19 thread, but itâs broader than that. Climate changed impacts consumers in many ways.
3 Likes
Blackrock is the worldâs largest investment funds and assets manager with US$8.67 trillions under management.
For the new year the CEO has released an open letter with his observations on the impacts of Covid and also on responding to Climate Change.
The world is moving to net zero, and BlackRock believes that our clients are best served by being at the forefront of that transition. We are carbon neutral today in our own operations and are committed to supporting the goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner. No company can easily plan over thirty years, but we believe all companies â including BlackRock â must begin to address the transition to net zero today. We are taking a number of steps to help investors prepare their portfolios for a net zero world, including capturing opportunities created by the net zero transition.
Ref.
3 Likes
Matt Canavan threatens to cross the floor over climate change.
I donât think that his sitting with a few nutters will result in anything.
These threats to âcross the floorâ are just bluff and bluster. What are they going to do? Vote with Labor on issues around climate change? Or anything at all for that matter.
1 Like
Another grim article regarding climate change and coal.
Will Matt Canavan save the day?
Bill Gates suggests using nuclear power to achieve zero emissions by 2050.
Meanwhile, back in Australia, Barnaby has an alternate proposal.
An article regarding reducing CO2 emissions.
1 Like
Great in it communicates very directly some key concepts, and lays out the magnitude of one part of the task. In itâs optimism it has not reconciled all sources of emissions in the USA, leaving some open questions.
Up until 2030 the article shows very little relative change. The most significant reductions in emissions follow a typical new technology change âS-curveâ with a slow start, rapidly accelerating until rolling off towards the end point. A rapid up take in new technology after 2030 appears to be offsetting a slow start over the next decade. One message others could take from this is there is no need to panic or rush today. It can all be achieved tomorrow. I donât think thatâs the intent. It just looks like we can keep doing things much the same for the next ten years?
Notes:
I could not understand why âSciTech Dailyâ neglected charting agricultural emissions and those from industrial processes. These account for a very significant portion of US emissions, as does gas production.
The suggested pathway continues to consume gas for electricity generation, increasing consumption. The USA generates more electricity from gas (38.4%) including CSG than any other fuel. Itâs use is shown to increase as 2050 approaches.
There is a massive gap in the short article failing to quantify responses to current emissions from agriculture (10%), non replaceable industrial processes and gas production (a portion of 22%) and emissions from gas used for generation (approx 9%) of current total.
The source paper may be more informative.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020AV000284
1 Like
