Aussie PM: There is a Link between Bushfires and Global CO2 Emissions

Link between climate change and drought
h/t JoNova – a slide from Professor Pitman’s presentation in June 2019

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Australian Prime Minister has upset greens by suggesting Australia has no significant impact on global anthropogenic CO2 emissions, though he accepts there is a link between bushfires and global CO2 emissions.

Scott Morrison says no evidence links Australia’s carbon emissions to bushfires

PM suggests Australia could increase emissions without worsening current fire season, and says government finalising plans to crack down on environmental protests

At first, Morrison appeared to accept that climate change was affecting the severity and frequency of bushfires.

“These are things that are very well known to the government – the contribution of these issues to global weather conditions and to conditions here in Australia are known and acknowledged,” he said.

“In February I acknowledged the contribution of those factors to what was happening in Australia – amongst many other issues.”

Morrison then said “the suggestion that any way shape or form that Australia, accountable for 1.3% of the world’s emissions, that the individual actions of Australia are impacting directly on specific fire events, whether it’s here or anywhere else in the world, that doesn’t bear up to credible scientific evidence either”.

“Climate change is a global phenomenon and we’re doing our bit as part of the response to climate change – we’re taking action on climate change,” he said.

“But I think to suggest that at just 1.3% of emissions, that Australia doing something more or less would change the fire outcome this season – I don’t think that stands up to any credible scientific evidence at all.”

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/21/scott-morrison-says-no-evidence-links-australias-carbon-emissions-to-bushfires

The Aussie Prime Minister is right, that even if you accept a link between CO2 and bushfires, Australia’s contribution to global CO2 is so insignificant nothing we do can affect outcomes.

Advertisements

95 thoughts on “Aussie PM: There is a Link between Bushfires and Global CO2 Emissions

    • Karabar

      Couldn’t agree more . Until you put up a fight on the science you won’t progress. It’s Scott Morrison who is now spooked by the lump of coal. Why they don’t just say they’ll underwrite a modern Hele coal plant and take on the greenies is annoying. The fact that Scott Morrison acknowledges that even if you believe something could be done our impact is so insignificant that it is futile . Therefore Why do anything at all?

      • CO2 emissions do NOT lead to Bushfires (although they do contribute to overall available fuel levels (AKA Plant Growth))
        BUT
        Bushfires do lead to CO2 emissions.

    • Its great that those kids looked at the data themselves, hopefully the start of budding science or engineering careers for them, but the conclusions are wrong, they ignore the impact of improving thermal hygiene. Early data from Alice Springs was only obtained in a Stevenson screen from 1895, and is now at a good airport location, not next to a Post Office. Tarmac is great, but it hasn’t warmed all the thermometers in the world.

      That NASA GISS website is also great, for finding weather stations in particular areas, but the from/to controls are seriously confusing, and for reasons unknown they ignore data before 1880.

  1. There is a link all right. As the bush burns it gives off CO2. Other than that any attempt at a link is speculative at best.

    • “Australians contribution to global CO2 consists mostly in bushfires”.
      More likely net neutral. All the evidence suggests that Australia’s contribution is zero. There is not much available from the OCO2 satellite, but I do not recall anything bushfire related registering on the imaging. I think that is why they spruik the CO flux. Here at 19°S 146°E there is sometimes a slight CO2 flux late afternoon on hot summer days when the airflow is off the Coral Sea. Could be out-gassing, or a flux in the stink from the mangrove swamps, but there is a slight increase anyway as the photosynthesis surge drops off in the afternoon. A bushfire upwind 5km away on the land side once produced a flux of about 50ppm for a few hours. My datalogger detected +20 ppm when the airflow was carrying back-burning on Magnetic Island 14km away.
      The device can detect a 10 tonne truck idling upwind 4m away, but doesn’t pick up my (badly maintained) lawn mower parked next to it. It might have detected me cussing the lawn mower on one occasion.

      • Recent OCO-2 images suggest Australia is a CO2 sink, not source. Won’t stop the idiot greens from trying to increase taxes to appease the storm spirits.

  2. Again, we see that for the agw disciples, any nuance of interpretation of the full-on anthropogenic climate change apocalypse they yearn for will result in calls for social media stoning for the heretics.

  3. Eric,

    “Aussie PM: There is a Link between Bushfires and Global CO2 Emissions”

    Shouldn’t that be:

    “Aussie PM: There is *no* Link between Bushfires and Global CO2 Emissions”

    • There is probably a link with a warmer and drier climate, which applies to some areas of Oz over the past 50 years, but this may just be natural variability, especially in the case of rainfall. Why do BoM rainfall plots and stats only begin in the 20th century, when there is loads of data available from the 19th century?

      • Because it conflicts with the BOM and Bureaucratic narratives, plus gives people the impression that the weather naturally goes through decades of warming then decades of cooling, which we know it does. For instance:

        https://notrickszone.com/2018/05/03/its-here-a-1900-2010-instrumental-global-temperature-record-that-closely-aligns-with-paleo-proxy-data/

        ” … There is probably a link with a warmer and drier climate … ”

        Coral cores make clear we’re in a warmer wetter period, which does then increase fuel loads, and CO2 does promote growth, and bush fires do admittedly create CO2 via combustion, but that’s as far as a ‘link’ with CO2 extends.

        That does not constitute a ‘climate-crisis’, it’s a typical bushfire season, where almost all of the fires were lit by human arsonists. That’s the real ‘anthropogenic’ linkage. It ain’t CO2 that’s making the difference, Morrison lacks a balanced sense of proportion on the topic.

  4. WUWT, today in the Impeachment Testimony Dr Hill mentioned the Valdai International Discussion Club where she sat next to Putin. At the meeting, he expressed that Fracking in the US was the greatest threat to Russia. You should have someone do a report on this, and forward this video to people in Washington. Clearly this Dr Hill knows Putin very well. She sits right next to him, and she is working to impeach President Trump.
    https://youtu.be/F5mIM3_BYyQ

    Here if the testimony where Dr Hill claims that Fracking is scaring Russia, and they have a propaganda campaign to stop fracking in the US.
    https://youtu.be/rmi_PqbSvr4?t=9839

    • seriously?
      why would russia give a damn about usa frakking?
      they have their own EU and asian buyers
      just more russia bashing stupidity from the new redsunder beds mob

      • Its all about economics and supply and demand. Fracking has allowed to US to increase the world supply of oil and natural gas. Increase in supply drives prices down. Putin depends heavily on exporting oil and gas to the EU. He wants the prices high to maintain his revenue stream

      • ozspeaksup,

        This is why.

        Russian Efforts To Disrupt U.S.
        http://bit.ly/3291aye

        Massachusetts Gets A New Russian ‘Pipeline’ Thanks To Collusion, Hypocrisy, and Incompetence
        https://climatechangedispatch.com/massachusetts-gets-a-new-russian-pipeline-thanks-to-collusion-hypocrisy-and-incompetence/
        It just might be time to look into ties between Warren, Putin and Russia. Her actions only benefit Russia while harming US producers. What’s better for the environment-a pipeline for nat. gas frim another US State or, having Russia put nat. gas on a diesel powered ship and sending it all the way around to Earth to Mass. and New England? It still has to be gotten out of the ground, no matter who does it. You can bet the US does it in a far more environmentally safe way than Russia…


        Our “greens” have played right into Putin’s hands by ignorance, design or, bribes to politicians from Russia.

  5. Human emissions amount to about 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Australia provides about 1.3% of that 3% for about .04% of atmospheric CO2. There is no data showing CO2 warms the globe because , if it does, it is not enough to separate from the noise of the temperature data. Now we have the Connollys telling us the massive data analysis they did shows that CO2 does not warm the atmosphere because it is in thermodynamic equilibrium. So the effort to reduce Australian emissions are an effort to control the brush fires by changing something that has no effect by some small part of .04%. Sounds like a waste of effort to me.

    • If you take the most rigorous selection of the NOAA GHCN V4 Monthly temperature data set, that is, stations with an unbroken series from January 1989 to January 2019, there are still 300 weather stations on Earth that show a negative trend. How does C02 warming theory account for those?

      • James A. Schrumpf

        Could you explain why you think that IF this CO2 is a warming agent, THEN all 28,000 V4 stations on Earth will have to show warming?

        Where does your theory come from?

  6. It seems to me that increasing CO2 are a factor in Australian and Californian wildfires, not in the way your average leftist, CAGW believing moonbat thinks.
    WUWT readers know that increasing CO2 reduces water loss through transpiration thus increasing “crop water productivity” in agriculture. Therefore, increases in water use efficiency in all plants will mean that arid areas get more vegetation with less rain, increasing brush fire risk.

  7. Besides, because the bush will regrow, bushfires would have to be considered to be renewable/sustainable, always taking up and giving off roughly the same amount of CO2, as the bush grows and subsequently burns. I thought that was why greenies liked burning biomass.

  8. “But I think to suggest that at just 1.3% of emissions, that Australia doing something more or less would change the fire outcome this season – I don’t think that stands up to any credible scientific evidence at all.”
    ____________________________

    That’s 1.3%, of 3.75%, of the annual human contribution to CO2 rise of the 0.04%, of the CO2 that’s present in the planet’s atmosphere.

    i.e. almost, but not quite nothing.

    If a boat’s hull represented 100% of the atmosphere, and Australia’s 1.3%, of the 3.75%, of the 0.04% of the CO2, represented a proportionally sized leak within that boat’s hull, you could make like Magellan and sail it around the planet for 18 months, and get back to Europe and retire, years before it ever sank from the leak, as the evaporation rate of the water in the boat would far exceed the rate at which the water was entering the boat, through said horrifically gushing next to imaginary leak.

    No effect. That’s Australia’s proportional contribution to “climate-crisis-ing” the Earth. Nix!

    “But thou shalt be crucified! For we are innumerate, and have no sense of proportions, and can not use a ‘dictionary’ to determine what such words mean, for we read the Guardian, and they do all that sort of stuff for us morbid dopes and fools.”

  9. “The Aussie Prime Minister is right, that even if you accept a link between CO2 and bushfires, Australia’s contribution to global CO2 is so insignificant nothing we do can affect outcomes.”
    Progressing from denying climate link to denying arithmetic. The Earth has one atmosphere, and over a hundred countries. Of course each contributes only a fraction to emissions. But it adds up to 100%. If each adopts that logic, then certainly nothing can be done.

    It’s like saying, why should I pay taxes? It’s only a tiny fraction of what governments spend. My contribution doesn’t achieve anything.

    • Hi Nick,

      bad analogy sport. In a democratic society with decent social programs I accept the need for such an impost (tax, whether it is being spent wisely is a separate discussion) and therefore I continue to participate. Having the CAGW BS thrust upon me (and bonus points for me, I’m South Australian) for absolutely no reason and to no effect defies your logic. If ‘we’ are supposed to be solving ‘climate change’ to any extent that it exists, get your arse over to China, India or the African continent and sell you r sh!t over there mate.

      Have a great day,

      Andy

      • “Thoughts on Climate”

        https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2019/11/08/15163/

        “At the same time, climate still refuses to change. I mean what the hell, I am an absolute believer in the basic fact that CO2 will “capture” heat and make the planet warmer than it otherwise would have been. I also fully understand that we DO NOT KNOW the amount of heat it will capture. Do not know, turned out to be amazingly true since 2009 climategate days, because NOTHING happened. ZERO. Still no melting. Still no change in sea level rise. Still no increase in tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, floods, shrinking fish, insects blah..blah.. blah…

        Complete NOTHING.

        How is that possible. How could I have been so wrong …. and right… at the same time?

        Well the answer is that climate stabilization mechanisms are more powerful than anyone predicted. We have completely FAILED to warm the planet despite our best efforts. We gave it one hell of an effort, but we failed spectacularly. The best humans could do is get ourselves confused and upset about a now obvious non-issue. How ridiculous that it took so much of our time and money. Even worse, common sense is still losing the non-argument.”

      • bad analogy sport.

        Good comment Andy, but it might even be worse than that. I think we’re talking False Equivalence here, which is a much greater sin than mere sloppy thinking. If I’m right (and I think I am), then I say, “Tsk, tsk” on our friend’s Nickers.

        I mean, in the first place, if I look at this contextually, I’m pretty sure when Eric says “nothing we can do can affect outcomes,” he’s specifically talking about the brush fires; not overall CO2 emissions. But even if that’s not true (and thus not bad enough), in the second place, the set of all countries that emit the Demon Gas indeed do so at a combined rate of 100%, with each contributing some percentage. Yet in many countries the set of all citizens within any given country do NOT pay “their fair share” of all taxes. E.g., in the U.S., somewhere around 50% of all our citizens are bums where taxes are concerned. They’re getting their services for nothing off the backs of the those who work for a living (relax you “Picky Pickersons,” might I have just a modicum of literary license here please??). I’m pretty sure that’s true of Australia as well, since as I understand it they have even more of a regressively progressive tax system than we.

        Talk about “denying arithmetic.” Blech!

        That makes any attempt at equivalence more than merely a sloppy effort at being wrong; now we’re talking the unpardonable sin of logical fallacy. I dunno about you, but not only am I disappointed in Mr. Stokes’s laziness, but also at his rude insult to my intelligence.

        In the immutably ephemeral words of G. Thunberg – “HOW DARE YOU!!”

        • “now we’re talking the unpardonable sin of logical fallacy”
          So you’re counter is that we shouldn’t pay taxes because of progressiveness?
          Or what? Logic?

          • . . . we shouldn’t pay taxes because of progressiveness?

            No, nothing so silly as that. Different premise even. When it comes to taxation, I’m with you in spirit. My motto is “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” (after practicing a smart strategy of tax avoidance).

            Thanks, however, for the confusion. I’m mostly flattered!

            It’s like saying, why should I pay taxes? It’s only a tiny fraction of what governments spend. My contribution doesn’t achieve anything.

            It isn’t like that at all. From the set of all taxpayers contemplating the impact of their contribution to gubmint coffers there’s no comparison to the set of all countries contemplating the impact of their contribution to atmospheric CO2. No country escapes their contribution, while many taxpayers do. You ought to see that.

            You’re slippin’ dood; just like “Mosher.” What’s happened to you? To the both of you?

          • “No country escapes their contribution, while many taxpayers do. “
            Many here complain that they do escape. And others complain that the agreements are not enforceable.

            But the same principle applies. You can’t make people pay taxes with money they don’t have. And you can’t demand that countries with minimal per capita emissions make up the difference.

          • Many here complain that they do escape. And others complain that the agreements are not enforceable.

            Hmm, color me addlepate, but it sure looked like you were talking about actual atmospheric emissions here:

            The Earth has one atmosphere, and over a hundred countries. Of course each contributes only a fraction to emissions. But it adds up to 100%

            Did you really mean emissions according to some agreement? You’re not trying to go and Move the Goalposts on me are you? (You don’t have to answer; I’m pretty sure the question is rhetorical.)

            But the same principle applies. You can’t make people pay taxes with money they don’t have.

            Well that doesn’t seem like the same principle at all. In the first comparison, the principle was everybody pays. In this one, some don’t.

            At least we’re agreed the first comparison was bogus.

            You know, it’s just not as much fun when you’re not on your best game, so feel better buddy. I really do mean that.

    • Nick Stokes.

      The other 98.3% isn’t going away, either, and there is no reason to believe that we can influence that. It simply Is. Not. True that Australia can make a significant difference, let alone one that can affect bushfires in the near future by this means.

      To the degree that it depend on human activity, CO2 is going to continue to rise or the next few decades. There is no reason to believe that the developing world is going to keep their population in poverty and starvation now, to avoid an improbable apocalypse in a century. Or two. Or three…..
      So rabbiting on about what the rest of the world might – in some fictional scenario – do, should have no relevance to what we do, today.

      The more you claim to be sure that hotter and drier conditions are coming, the more responsibility you have to promote what we CAN do, right NOW to deal with the fires that we have NOW.

      That is fuel management, and it is grossly irresponsible to use “climate change” as a cop-out for not doing what we know works NOW.

    • Regarding the climate, 100% of almost nothing is still almost nothing.
      Regarding taxes, they throw you in jail if you don’t pay.

      Are you suggesting that leaders of countries should be thrown in jail if they refuse to go along with the deception perpetrated by the IPCC/UNFCCC in pursuit of their policy goals targeted to suppress economic advancement in the US and the rest of the developed world to the benefit of China, India and the developing world?

      • “Regarding taxes, they throw you in jail if you don’t pay.”
        That reflects the community view that people ought to pay their taxes. It’s the way we get roads built, schools and the military funded, etc. No one person’s contribution is essential for this, but together we make it possible, providing people don’t all say that they won’t contribute because each would be too small do affect the outcome. And it is the same with preserving our climate.

        • Any reduced CO2 in Australia will make zero difference.

          Almost certainly would increase global CO2 release.

          Already happening as most aluminium is now made overseas and imported. More CO2 released.

          Will happen with all CO2 intensive industry.

          • power outage at Portland Vic aluminium smelter this week stuffed another week or more for their biz
            not as much damage as prior but it wont be long before they sell up n we lose yet another industry

            thank daniel andrews yet again he may as well BE a green for all the damages hes caused this state

        • “providing people don’t all say that they won’t contribute”

          Analogy: China, India, Russia, Africa and the rest of the impoverished world.

          Checkmate. 🙂

          • To extend the analogy, not only do China, India, Russia, Africa and so on not pay their own taxes, they use the fact that they pay no tax and hence have a lower operating cost to compete against those countries (us if you will) who do pay.

            So we’d be stupid to both pay the tax AND give away our economy, wouldn’t we Nick?

            (I wouldn’t call this “checkmate” though. To be checkmate, Nick would have to be playing chess, like the great powers of the world are. Nick is still trying to figure out checkers)

          • “davidmhoffer November 21, 2019 at 10:22 pm”

            Nick would not be good at chess, his game would be too obvious. Do you know the person who invented “chess” lost his life because of the game?

    • Any Australian reduction in CO2 will mean CO2 releasing industries will move overseas.

      Less efficient industry, increased transportation = increased global CO2 emissions.

    • To pile on more: if no one were paying their taxes, with no penalty, then I likely would not either. Why should my family be the only ones to suffer?

      If you can’t get India AND China to play along, you are just asking the rest of us to suffer with no benefit if you believe carbon dioxide emissions are a problem.

    • Believers keep trotting out the irrelevant tax analogy. If you don’t want to pay your taxes Nick then don’t expect a taxpayer funded pension of taxpayer funded services, y’know, like health etc.

    • It’s like saying . . .

      I think it’s more like cooking, e.g., that classic recipe where Nick stokes himself a hot fire on the barbie to plate up some nice flaky Herring.

      The red one’s are your fav, aren’t they Nick?

      🙂

  10. Over 80% of the recent bushfires are attributed to arsonists. One “arsonist” in the making was a 9 year old boy trying to start a fire with a blow torch. No amount of CO2 reduction will stop bushfires started by people. What will stop bushfires from being as bad as they have been is proper forest management that Australia (And CA in the USA) used to do. Now decades of fuel load builds up and we have these massive fires, started by arsonists, that get out of control as quickly as they start. We now have the New South Wales Fire Chief stating these fires are a result of CO2 driven climate change.

    Stupid can’t be fixed.

  11. WUWT, sorry for the multiple posts on this issue, but you have a blockbuster story if you want to run with it. Dr. Fiona Hill exposed what we have all known all along. AGW is a Russian/Communist Hoax. Her testimony provides the motive, opportunity, source of resources to perpetuate this hoax. This needs to be a front-page story. It connects all the dots.

    Here are the details:
    BOMBSHELL: Dr. Hill Exposes Russia’s Propaganda Campaign to Kill US Fracking Industry
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2019/11/21/bombshell-dr-hill-exposes-russias-propaganda-campaign-to-kill-us-fracking-industry/

    Here is the Video Clip on Grabien:
    Fiona Hill: Banning Fracking in America Would Play Into Russia’s Hands
    ‘In November 2011 I actually sat next to Vladimir Putin at a conference in which he made precisely that point’
    https://grabien.com/story.php?id=261971

  12. There is no link between wildfires and ”climate change” (global warming) unless you consider a down turn a link…
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303504221_Global_trends_in_wildfire_and_its_impacts_Perceptions_versus_realities_in_a_changing_world.
    There is no link between drought in Australia and climate change (global warming) Look here at the 2018 red patch over NSW. That is the current drought. Now look at 1902, 1929 or 1940. There is a link between drought and fires.
    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/history/rainfall/

    • And the current drought is because of cold sea surface temperatures above and below the Australian continent.
      …. not because of warmth.

      • I thought it was the positive Indian Ocean Dipole which was causing the issue. I think that’s warmer water.

        • Positive Indian Ocean Dipole

          Warmer water near Africa, cold water near Australia.
          Floods in Africa.
          As for Australia lower evaporation from the ocean off the NW of Australia, less moisture, less rain in NW Australia, dryer, higher temeperature, hot winds drawn down to SE Australia exacerbate bushfires

  13. Every major enquiry into Australian bushfires for the last 80 years has concluded that we need to be doing more fuel management.

    Last year, the government agency responsible for the management of the largest amount of forested public land in the State of NSW, achieved about HALF of the recommended MINIMUM.

    Blaming “climate change” is one way of dodging obvious negligence.

    • Of course the latest Government Gumnut, Mullins, has told a breath taken audience that bushfire smoke kills. I thought household smoke killed also.

    • yeah and if you look where they burnt?
      I would bet you see they keep burning the ame easier access areas repeatedly
      but the damned state parks full of weeds undergrowth and an absolute firetrap all over the nation dont get burnt
      well they sure are being cleaned out now

      any idiot buying land cos its cheap near a nat park, is sooner or later going to find out WHY its so cheap.

  14. I’ve often wondered in really stupid people feel pain when they try to think? Could somebody ask Australian PM? Thanks.

  15. I think sceptics, to be more effective, should shift focus from just whack-o-moly on whatever rubbish the consensus puts out there, to the real nail in the coffin of the elitist global plan.

    The elephant in the room now is that decarbonization by the west is completely moot now, whether or not we decarbonize. The developing countries are going to be pumping out CO2 for the balance of this century and longer if the fuel supply supports it.

    We are now irretrievably going forward with the great CO2 emission experiment. There is nothing we can do to stop it! Nor do we appear to be inclined to stop it given the huge costs and disruption to sicieties and civilization to do so. We are going to find out whether CO2 is a net problem or a bounty (so far it is looking like the the latter). We are going to know exactly what ECS CO2 has. Climate science is going, kicking and screaming, to the inevitable truth of it all. Hey, we can say to the consensus: you could be partly right or horribly wrong, we might as well start taking notes and see.

    Policy: I can see no alternative but to develop world economies, to pursue global prosperity as the best employment in case we need to mitigate, develop new technologies, support real environmental and ecological goals, checkout alternative living space in the cosmos, etc.

  16. Didn’t Scott Morrison once say ‘Come on baby, light my fire’… maybe not. What is up with the Morrison’s and fire?

  17. ” he accepts there is a link between bushfires and global CO2 emissions”. I say, show me the evidence. Hmmm?
    There is none.

  18. I voted for the Liberals here in Oz because I thought Morrison had some nous. This guy is clueless and has lost me. He is just a spinner like most of his parliamentary colleagues.

  19. On e of PM Morrison’s earlier jobs wasin Advertising. He still thinks that way.

    Tip the hat towards the Green end, then tip it towards Coal, lots of needed votes in Queensland.

    But way South in Inner Melbourne lurk Greenies, and they hate coal.

    Hopefully this hot Summer we will see brown or even total Blackouts in Victoria, followed by South Australia.

    MJJE VK5ELL

    • A lot is created by yeast and released into the atmosphere from beer cans. Aussies are not alone in promoting this planet destroying activity in this but are responsible for their fair share.

  20. …In the course of evolution, eucalyptus trees (70 % of all trees in OZ) have ‘learned’ to multiply only after a fire. Wehre the huge amount of CO2 did come from in the past, to trigger such an development in last x-hundred thousand years? Are the aboriginis to blame?

  21. China has 19% of the world’s population, but consumes 53% of the world’s cement, 48% of the world’s iron ore and 47% of the world’s coal. And the majority of just about every other major commodity.
    In 2010, China produced 11 times more steel than the United States.
    There are more pigs in China than in the next 43 pork producing nations combined.
    China currently has the world’s fastest train and the world’s largest high-speed rail network.
    China is currently the number one producer in the world of wind and solar power, but don’t use it themselves.
    Whilst they manufacture 80% of the world’s solar panels, they install fewer than 5% and build a new coal-fired power station every week.
    In one year they turn on more new coal powered electricity than Australia ‘s total output.
    China currently controls more than 90% of the total global supply of rare earth elements.
    In the past 15 years, China has moved from 14th place to 2nd place in the world in published scientific research articles.
    China now possesses the fastest supercomputer on the entire globe.
    At the end of March 2011, China has accumulated $304 trillion in US foreign currency reserves! — the largest stockpile on the entire globe.
    Chinese people consume 50,000 cigarettes every second.
    They are already the largest carbon dioxide emitter and their output will rise 70% by 2020.
    We think we’re saving the planet?! It will not make one iota of difference what we do in New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the United States or anywhere else in the world for that matter.
    All that the politicians in the West are doing is increasing our cost of living and making Western manufacturers noncompetitive in the world market, whilst China is growing and consuming at these extraordinary rates.

  22. There is one aeroplane that can carry more than 250 tonnes of water , (but it does not ) it has 3 unassembled brothers in the warehouse , what is needed is a fleet of such like aircraft to “clean-up ” the air, if you believe the press releases Germany alone has spent (and is spending on subsides ) enough money to buy and operate hundreds of such firefighting monsters . BUT !!! with politicians involved name me one case where there is logic ,,,,

    • or could save the money on the planes and get the unemployed working on strip fires all through parks in winter.
      thin out by logging the better trees under 50yrs old for wood
      and stop thegreen inspired nature corridors that simply funnel fires right to the farm houses and to suburban fringes.

      the amount of wildlife maimed and burnt by the greens stupidity in stopping clearing and burning lies directly at their door.

  23. Maybe a bit nit-picky, but… “Analogy: China, India, Russia, Africa and the rest of the impoverished world.”
    and ” To extend the analogy, not only do China, India, Russia, Africa and so on not pay their own taxes, they use the fact that they pay no tax and hence have a lower operating cost to compete against those countries (us if you will) who do pay.”
    You can’t consider China, India and Russia as impoverished nations, ranked, second, fifth, and eleventh respectively in terms of GDP according to the World Bank. They do pay taxes, and Africa is a continent, not a country. Just sayin.

  24. Re. Ozssspeakup, the Greenies are not into “”Saving the Planet”” They want to destroy the economies of the mainly “”Western” countries so that they can then “”Offer”” their version of Communism mark 2. The one they say will work.

    They seem to think that they the true believers will automatically become
    the new bosses.

    I would suggest that they look at the history of the Communests t in the old USSR, and the fight for power. Lenin warned that Stalin was dangerous before he died.

    Todays true believers would be the first to be kille3d off in their “”Brave New World””.

    MJE VK5ELL

  25. Perry ums it ups perfectly . So why are the politicians who preach Green ideas not telling us about India and China ? Such b ad examples, so tell them off.

    Greta where are you.

    MJE VK5ELL

Comments are closed.