Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to the Australian Academy of Science, soon every year will be a fire season like 2020. My question:- if the forests all burn down, surely we would run out of flammable woodlands?
‘Delay is as dangerous as denial’: scientists urge Australia to reach net zero emissions faster
Heatwaves to double and many properties will be uninsurable if global heating reaches 3C, Australian Academy of Science says
Lisa Cox
Wed 31 Mar 2021 03.30 AEDTGlobal heating of 3C would more than double the number of annual heatwaves in some parts of Australia, leave properties uninsurable due to flood and fire risk, and make many of the country’s ecosystems “unrecognisable”, according to Australia’s leading scientists.
The Australian Academy of Science is calling on the Morrison government to accelerate the country’s transition to net zero greenhouse gas emissions in a report that examines what Australia could look like in a 3C world.
The analysis paints a grim picture in which heatwaves in states such as Queensland would occur seven times a year and last for 16 days at a time, and unprecedented fire seasons such as the 2019-20 fire disaster become a regular occurrence.
…
Prof Lesley Hughes, an ecologist and pro vice-chancellor at Macquarie University, said there were steps the Morrison government could take immediately to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles, rather than inhibit it.
“Delay is as dangerous as denial,” she said.
“The main message we would have for the federal government is that what we do, as well as the rest of the world, in the next decade … that’s the critical thing.”
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/31/delay-is-as-dangerous-as-denial-scientists-urge-australia-to-reach-net-zero-emissions-faster
The Australian People’s Republic of Victoria has developed a solution.
A week ago Victoria celebrated the construction of a green hydrogen plan, which uses brown coal and steam reforming to produce green hydrogen.
Of course, the “green” part is a little theoretical, for now. All the CO2 produced by burning the coal is released into the air, which has led to criticism that the green hydrogen plant is actually very carbon intensive. But supporters claim the plant will be retrofitted with carbon capture as soon as the time is right.
If Australia increases coal exports, so everyone can copy the Victoria’s green hydrogen success, coal burning green hydrogen plants all over the world will be ready to be retrofitted with carbon capture systems, when the time is right.
By Carbon Capture being introduced when the time is right, I suppose that means when somebody figures out how to do that without tanking the overall energy output of the system? (which means never)
They have it all wrong. We don’t want to capture CO2, we want to release more into the atmosphere, because it is improving the climate. CO2 is food for plants and thus for us. CO2 is good and we should celebrate that.
A Green blight with intermittent/renewable energy is profitable on a forward-looking basis. A green Earth opens spaces for demos-cracy to spread.
Yeah, what a farce. Make “green” hydrogen and release CO2, the second most important GHG, in the process. Then burn the hydrogen and create/release H2O, the most important GHG, a two-fer of stupidity after wasting much of the energy put into the process.
What farce? The clown show is making money and they don’t even have to wear clown suits.
Laundered, socially inoculated, redistributive greenbacks and Green blight. A presumptive political mandate to generate intermittent/renewable energy.
Simon says “Jump off the cliff–now!”
how do you know it’s a con job?
…when they blame you….and ignore china
Yep.
Australia with it’s 1.4% of world emissions is obviously the critical factor in stopping the climate(s) from changing.
Australia must stop producing CO2 NOW! Otherwise, the whole world is doomed!
I suppose the proponents of such stupidty don’t realize just how crazy their proposals sound to sane people. That would make sense because the alarmists are insane.
I’m sure glad I don’t live in the delusional world of the Left and the climate change fanatics. The True Believers in these groups must live in a very scary world inside their heads. A make-believe world, but very scary to the delusional.
Most of carbon capture in the UK has been on hold for about 5 months now, with few days of sunshine and warm weather this years carbon capture is about to start revving-up.
Vuk,
I intend to do my part by capturing as much CO2 as possible in my tomato and jalapeño plants this summer! Last year I put a bunch of ripe, red jalapeños in the smoker with a brisket, so this year I have to double or triple my pepper production and get a bigger smoker!
Meanwhile….
China Generated More Than Half Of World’s Coal Power In 2020: Report (yahoo.com)
That’s because the Chinese aren’t stupid.
None of the Greenies have an idea about the dammage caused by carbonreducing or capture or what else BS.
“BUT WE DO ST !!!”
Why and what ?
Eric,
Yet another example of the madness of crowds!
That they have the audacity to call the hydrogen “green” shows utter disregard for truth and science!
I’m reminded of the US general in Vietnam who said, “We had to destroy the village to save the village!”
The Vietnamization of the environment continues apace!
Yep. The funny thing is most green groups seem onboard with the Victorian plan, the only objectors are those who genuinely take CO2 emissions seriously.
“I’m reminded of the US general in Vietnam who said, “We had to destroy the village to save the village!””
Got a quote?
You know there was a lot of disinformation put out about the Vietnam war by the anti-war, Leftwing Media over the years. Don’t believe everything you read because the Left treated the Vietnam war like they treated Trump: All lies, all the time.
“Delay is as dangerous as denial,” she said.”
True, neither have any danger associated with them.
You beat me to it ……
If they are correct, then isn’t timing pretty important here? Once they figure out what actually starts fires (mostly humans) and what keeps them going (mostly bad forest management), they could address those issues and actually make a difference within the next century.
So it looks like the main thing to address for Australian wildfire issues is human behavior. The climate being a minor factor, which just sets the stage for bad and/or stupid human behavior.
The best thing that could happen to Ozzie forests is annual patch burning: deliberate, anthropogenic, pre-planned, prepared for, expertly applied, historically respectful, smart. No more than a 20 year return interval on 90% of all acres. Waiting for Godot to do it is Theater of the Absurd.
While people may make forests burn faster — CO2 makes forests grow faster.
Mike
You are correct.
The vast majority of municipalities and state authorities susceptible to bush fire have plans to do what you say, however they are nearly all infected with a green cancer which doesn’t allow them to carry out theses plans.
Where I live, councillors of all persuasions are green; they all want to save the planet
Their implementation of the movie “Groundhog Day.”
“Delay is as dangerous as denial…”
Does that mean it is now time to panic?
No need to panic. John Kerry has everything under control …
https://newtube.app/user/RAOB/R8l9API
That’s pretty funny.
Not until it is as dangerous as the soft cushions.
It’s worse now than it was when we thought it was worse than we thought!
“For forty years and more people have been shouting from the rooftops about the imminent “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!”
In that regard, consider the following:
e·mer·gen·cy
əˈmərjənsē
noun
1. a serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action.
Call me crazy, but anything that has given absolutely no signs of showing up after forty years of endless warnings is not an “unexpected situation requiring immediate action”.”
– Willis Eschenbach
Words have meanings.
A year ago when the word ‘pandemic’ was being pushed by the mess (sic) media, my wife pulled the Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary from the shelf – “Their use of the word doesn’t match the definition.”
But it sure did sound good and scary…
And those who control the words and their meanings control the conversation. For example: go look up “facism” online and see what it says. Then find an old dictionary and see what IT says.
Climate Liars have to continue and expand their lies….
I think the Climate Liars have run out of lie expansion. It’s the same old (yawn) lies, just phrased a bit differently.
I think the Climate Liars are running out of gas. About all they can do now is find some severe weather somewhere and claim they see CO2 in it. They scream “unprecedented” when there is no unprecedented.
Here in the SE US, we’re currently experiencing a wide scale deep freeze bringing record lows, so obviously it’s due to CO2 and runaway warming.
They just have to get more creative. That’s why they’re making up medical emergencies, insurrections, and “white supremacy.”
More pie-in-the-sky crap invented by walking-talking carbon pollution.
And the only reason it was as high as 4% was the amount of fuel load that was allowed to build up.
I was on Kangaroo Is (South Aust) about 6 months after the fires last year. The headlines were all about how “Half the Island” was on fire and how they were lucky to save some towns.
I say they were lucky as well. There was about 3m high blocks of solid brush still uncleared within 5m of one of the houses in that town. Yes it had been cut back to some imaginary line, but beyond that line it was clearly not their responsibility.
You want to know who really causes bushfires? Greenies with their obsession on ‘protecting’ the unspoiled landscape.
They’re one part of the picture. But what makes it much worse is that residents love to build towns in the middle of forests and keep as much of the forest in place as possible, meaning no fire breaks around the houses and no possibility of enacting sensible “let the small forest fires burn unhindered” policies. Californians are not going to break this habit unless politicians become undemocratic enough to make them do it (or at least stand aside as the insurance companies make them do it). Well, neither are Australians.
“Global heating of 3C would more than double the number of annual heatwaves ….. “.
If they are “annual” they happen every year. How can you double the number if they happen every year anyway?
Maybe they mean that this increase would more than double the number of heatwaves every year, which is a different thing altogether.
Sloppy writing usually = sloppy thinking.
= sloppy target audience
The politician ask the the climate scientist “what’s the definition of a heatwave?”
The climate scientist replied “ what ever you want it to be “
Considering a heatwave is a period where the temperature deviates from the normal – you can have heatwaves in the Antarctic and still be 30degrees or more below freezing – I might be tempted to say that 3C heating may actually smooth the line and REDUCE heatwaves.
For accidemics they do seem to use a lot of words that they don’t fully understand.
But these increasing annual heatwaves will make it impossible to get flood insurance. “leave properties uninsurable due to flood and fire risk”
Is there anywhere left in the world that has flood insurance, which still lets underwriters and not politicians determine who gets it and how much it costs?
The 3C is based on RCP 8.5.
Reality is closer to 1.5C or below going by the latest estimates.
And of course, Dr. Happer says CO2 is just about saturated at current ppm levels, so CO2 is just about done raising temperatures, even if CO2 levels go higher.
In other words, Dr. Happer says there is an upper limit to how much warmth CO2 can add to our atmosphere, and we are just about at that point today.
If that’s the case, then we can forget about trying to reign in CO2. And we can start revising the history that depends on CO2 for the temperature changes seen. Temperatures went higher in the past without the help of CO2, if Dr. Happer is correct.
And then there is Dr. Moller saying CO2 might result in net cooling of the atmosphere.
What to believe! What to believe!
One of these days we will get it all nailed down tight. One of these days.
While we’re making equivalencies; Climate Alarmism is as dangerous as Nazism was.
Bruce,
They may well be more dangerous! They cloak themselves in the protection of their Utopian ideals and cultlike religious beliefs, while attacking the very foundations of human civilization for the last few millennia; the family, the church and the pursuit of knowledge and excellence!
Given a free rein, they could easily outdo the excesses of the Maoist slave state; many alarmists happily state their aims to do so!
Shows what a bunch of loonies they are. They think they could turn American youths, who have way more ammo than them, into Hitler Youth 2.0.
….. and we already have had a preview of which side ….. well do I need to go on?
“… supporters claim the plant will be retrofitted with carbon capture as soon as the time is right …”.
So can new coal-fired generating plant for that matter.
Hurry up and get the legislation for Zero Carbon in place, before the upcoming cooling period renders all of the propaganda useless!
Quote: “soon every year will be a fire season like 2020.”
Drinks for everyone! good news people. The historically low wildfires of 2020 will continue so say numbties whose predictions have all failed .. oh wait. Darn it.
https://mailchi.mp/lomborg/jbpl570n9d-623631?e=bcd216d9bf
AAS es
There is no cure for stupid.
You know how stupid the average person is? Well, half of them are more stupid than that. May be a George Carlin quote.
A horse is dangerous from the front, a donkey from the rear, an idiot from all sides.
“… Global heating of 3C would more than double the number of annual heatwaves …”.
Presumably the good folk at the Academy are referring to assumed T effect of CO2 emissions.
The real-world effect of increasing CO2 concentration is not known but theoretically a doubling of the concentration results in +1C.
Therefore theoretically +3C will require an atmospheric concentration increase from 400 ppm to 3200 ppm.
At the current rate of increase that concentration would be reached around 3000.
A lot can happen in 1000 years.
There may not be enough fossil fuels available to reach that goal. We’d need to build lots of nuclear plants and process a lot of lime to get CO2 that high; maybe 1,000ppm is a more realistic goal! What could it hurt?
Certainly it wouldn’t hurt the plants and plankton! They’d love co2 to be that high!
April fools day encourages people to strap generators to the wheels & wind turbine to the roof of your car to recharge the batteries while you drive.
The AAS is correct – as there is no danger, denial and delay both carry the same repercussions – none.
Denial of climate? Semantic games? Em-pathetic appeal? Another Planned Parent/hood (PP) scheme? Perhaps diversity dogma that denies individual dignity, individual conscience. They want to deny life, and have her, too. They’re playing with a double-edged scalpel. Lose your religion. Denial is your legacy.
Here are the ”expert reviewers”
Where are the atmospheric physicists? How do they come to the 3C scenario?
Is the ”ECS” figure settled science now? Says who? How do they arrive at a doubling of heat waves?
Ian Chubb – medical
Peter Doherty – immunologist, microbiology
Jason Evens – water cycle processes over land
Michael Kingsford – marine biology
Sarah Perkins Kirkpatrick – Quote…”I research heatwaves, currently focusing on comprehensive methods of attributing heatwaves to climate change,
Martin Rice – ”Martin’s PhD research at Macquarie University was on integrated Earth System Science: research practice and science communication”
The only thing “Green” about Green Energy or “Renewable” energy of any type, is the amount of Carbon Dioxide and Water they add to the environment that all Flora requires to live. Green Renewable Energy all take minerals and metals and Fossil Fuels to create them which is no different than all other forms of energy. Water Vapor from steam is the main GHG is the major byproduct of Nuclear, Fossil Fuels and many Solar Mirror Farm types of electrical plants.
“Global heating of 3C would more than double the number of annual heatwaves in some parts of Australia, leave properties uninsurable due to flood and fire risk, and make many of the country’s ecosystems “unrecognisable”, according to Australia’s leading scientists.”
Shouldn’t that read “..Australia’s lying scientists.”? or are the Universities so backward that they have never studied the Ideal Gas Laws or the work of Josef Loschmidt that shows that the Earth’s surface temperature is determined by the gravity-induced temperature-pressure atmospheric gradient? There is no such thing as a Greenhouse Effect except in common garden greenhouses and that has nothing whatsoever to do with CO2.
“Unwarranted Alarmism is More Dangerous Than Anything”
There, headline fixed.
If they really were worried about 3c warming wouldn’t they be trying to sue China to stop burning coal? Obviously anything Australia does will have zero effect on the climate. Government to force everyone to get an electric car right now and it would have no effect. They could have a total covid shutdown with everyone immobile and it would have no effect on the climate. They could nuke everyone in Australia and it would still not effect the climate.
The Greens are banging on about stopping coal exports as a solution to reducing carbon emissions
“Obviously anything Australia does will have zero effect on the climate.”
It’s obvious to every thinking person. Unfortunately, the world seems to be filled with people who have a hard time thinking straight. No doubt exaserbated by the constant stream of leftwing/alarmist propganda they are exposed to on a daily basis.
Every year around this time the greening of the northern hemisphere halts the co2 growth and starts drawing it down until the fall. So if the climate continues to warm (please please please please please … I live in Canada.. please please please please please) and co2 continues to grow, and then the north will eventually green enough on land and in the sea to draw down the co2 during the longer growing season enough to compensate for the increase during other times resulting in the co2 levels tapering off. So why do anything to stop that paradise from coming true?
They could run thousands of kilometers of soaker hose (powered by wind turbines and solar panels of course) to keep the fires at bay and it would be cheaper than the stupidity recommended by scientists. Have your cake and eat it too.
‘This new record, while impressive, may not stand for long, the researchers said.
“We found that these really cold temperatures seem to be becoming more common – with the same number of extremely cold temperatures in the last three years as in the 13 years before that,” said Dr. Simon Proud of the U.K.’s National Centre for Earth Observation’
Super-chilled thunderstorm unlike any other ever detected (msn.com)
Because we can actually measure these things now and the dinosaurs couldn’t. It’s called weather and it’s never settled.
Actually, Delay in going “green” will be the only thing that SAVES many countries
Germany on the other hand… looks like its in deep doo-doo.
https://notrickszone.com/2021/03/31/explosive-german-government-audit-report-energiewende-has-become-a-danger-for-all-of-germany/
“Actually, Delay in going “green” will be the only thing that SAVES many countries”
Excellent point. Let the exceptionally delusional go first. Climate alarmism needs some crash-test dummies, and we have several examples to chose from today. None of the crash-test dummies are doing very well in their quest to get off fossil fuels. They are all at just about their limits now. Pushing the limits more will not end well.
The first thing the government should do, after agreeing to the “scientists” demands, is to immediately sack them. You see, it will be explained to them that the transition to zero carbon will so impoverish the country that there won’t be any money to pay for luxuries like climate scientists. Any activity that does not contribute directly to providing the bare necessities will be eliminated. Your work here is done. We’re sure you will understand. Now get down to the farm. A plough and ox awaits.
I plant carbon capture device regularly. I like trees and plants in my garden.
greentards n NIMBYs just got a new pipeline for gas to come onshore to go to processing halted in Vic
when we have shrinking reserves and are still flogging what we have to china etc
sooner androoze has another fall n has to retire the better
“Green hydrogn”?????????
Just a question: isn’t hydrogen a flammable gas? Did I miss something there, like no reference to the spectacular explosions when ++H2 gets in contact with some flame-generating something-or-other?
Just askin’. I like to be informed.
Buy now! Limited time offer, don’t delay!
Now, where have I heard that before?
Never have I seen such a spurious argument propagated by a non scientific bunch of alleged scientists. At least under the early rules of the North American Free Trade Agreement geologists and their kith ranked as scientists while ecologists did not. The early insights were correct. With emerging economies increasing their unit consumption of energy per head of population while countries such as Australia and the US (under Trump at least) reducing theirs then the argument for energy reduction by Australia alone is as specious as it gets. Ever since Aardvark, sorry Arrhenius claimed CO2 was the sole cause of the greenhouse effect gas, there has been this movement to look only at CO2 and methane as the sole cause of global warming. Dating back 1 million years the never seen since changes in climate at both Antarctica and Greenland cannot be related to greenhouse gas emissions alone or indeed part. The minor changes in temperature from the end of the last little Ice Age make no sense if applied to the rise in CO2. In terms of weighted influence, the rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1850 is disproportionate to the rise and falls in temperature since the end of the Little Ice Age.
The theory behind the alarums expressed by the authors representing the AAS is just sheer bunkum. They could raise the IQ of the Academy by resigning immediately.
WORLD AND US PRIMARY ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND CAPITAL COST
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-total-energy-consumption
World energy consumption is projected to increase to 736 quads in 2040 from 575 quads in 2015, an increase of 28%, according to the latest from the US Energy Information Administration, EIA.
See URL and click on PPT to access data, click on to page 4 of PowerPoint
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/
Most of this growth is expected to come from countries that are not in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, and especially from countries where demand is driven by strong economic growth, particularly in Asia.
Non-OECD Asia, which includes China and India, accounted for more than 60% of the world’s total increase in energy consumption from 2015 through 2040.
PARIS AGREEMENTS
China, India, and other developing Asian countries, and Africa, and Middle and South America need to use low-cost energy, such as coal, to be competitive.
They would not have signed up for “Paris”, if they had not been allowed to be more or less exempt from the Paris agreements
Obama agreed to commit the US to the Paris agreements, i.e., be subject to its financial and other obligations for decades.
However, he never submitted the commitment to the US Senate for ratification, as required by the US Constitution.
Trump rescinded the commitment. It became effective 3 years later, one day after the US presidential elections on November 3, 2020.
If the US had not left “Paris”, a UN Council likely would have determined a level of renewable energy, RE, spending, say $500 billion/y, for distributing to various poorer countries by UN bureaucrats.
The Council would have assessed OECD members, likely in proportion to their GDPs.
The US and Europe would have been assessed at 100 to 150 billion dollars/y each.
The non-OECD countries likely would continue to be more or less exempt from paying for the Paris agreements.
SUMMARY OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, CAPEX
The analysis includes two scenarios: 1) 50% RE by 2050, and 2) 100% RE by 2050.
The CAPEX values exclude a great many items related to transforming the world economy to a low-carbon mode. See next section.
50% RE by 2050
World CAPEX for RE were $2,652.2 billion for 2010-2019, 10 years
World CAPEX for RE were $282.2 billion in 2019.
World CAPEX for RE would be $24,781 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 5.76%/y
US CAPEX for RE were $494.5 billion for 2010 – 2019, 10 years.
US CAPEX for RE were $59 billion in 2019.
US CAPEX for RE would be $7,233 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 8.81%/y
100% RE by 2050
World CAPEX for RE were $2,652.2 billion for 2010-2019, 10 years
World CAPEX for RE were $282.2 billion in 2019.
World CAPEX for RE would be $60,987 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 10.08%/y
US CAPEX for RE were $494.5 billion for 2010 – 2019, 10 years.
US CAPEX for RE were $59 billion in 2019.
US CAPEX for RE would be $16,988 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 13.42%/y
THE BIGGER CAPEX PICTURE FOR THE WORLD AND THE US
World More-Inclusive CAPEX
The above CAPEX numbers relate to having 50% RE, or 100% RE, in the primary energy mix by 2050, which represents a very narrow area of “fighting climate change”. See Appendix for definitions of source, primary and upstream energy.
This report, prepared by two financial services organizations, estimates the world more-inclusive CAPEX at $100 trillion to $150 trillion, over the next 30 years, about $3 trillion to $5 trillion per year
https://www.investmentexecutive.com/news/research-and-markets/funding-the-fight-against-global-warming/
US More-Inclusive CAPEX
The ratio of World CAPEX for RE / US CAPEX for RE = 16,988/60,987 = 0.279
A more-inclusive US CAPEX could be $27.9 trillion to $41.8 trillion
The US CAPEX could be less, because, at present, the world is adding a quad of RE at about $58.95 billion, compare to the US at about $102.78 billion.
It is unclear what accounts for the large difference.
Part of it may be due to differences of accounting methods among countries.
NOTE: The CAPEX numbers exclude costs for replacements of shorter-life systems, such as EVs, heat-pumps, batteries, wind-turbines, etc., during these 30 years. For comparison:
Hydro plants have long lives, about 100 years.
Nuclear plants about 60 years
Coal and gas-turbine plants about 40 years
Wind turbine systems about 20 years
Solar systems about 25 years