Climate change Australia

THIS BLOG HAS BEEN OPENED TO HOUSE ALL SORTS OF ISSUES ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGES, IT IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION TO THE PUBLIC, SO ANYBODY CAN COMMENT ON IT, IF AND WHEN THEY HAVE SOMETHING USEFUL TO SAY. THERE WILL BE ALSO SOME GARDENING DISCUSSIONS HOW YOU CAN HELP BY HAVING YOUR OWN BACKYARD KITCHEN GARDEN
-
WELCOME!
You are invited to browse and take part in the discussions that follow.
-
Climate change Australia
-
Here we are looking again what to do to help planet earth?
This report I found on the Internet.
Carbon report hamstrung by complexities
-
Adam Morton
June 9, 2011
-
Ads by Google
Say Yes to cutting carbon
-
www.sayyesaustralia.org.au/

Why more Australian are saying Yes to a price on carbon pollution
-
THIS is a confounding report that offers something for nearly everyone in the carbon pricing debate, except for one notable group: those who claim that Australia is acting ahead of the world on climate change.
The Productivity Commission was asked to examine what key countries were doing to cut emissions and express it as a number - an ''effective'' carbon price imposed on key industries when policies such as emissions trading schemes and renewable energy subsidies were added up. Its chairman, Gary Banks, decided almost immediately that this was impossible.
Why? Because attempting to turn more than 1000 policies - the US, for example, has more than 300 overlapping and contradictory schemes - into one number for each country would be meaningless.

Looking at what is happening these days in Japan, one should wonder whether humanity as a whole needs to learn how to be more careful, in order to avoid anything that may ruin our planet earth. We need to think that this planet is the only planet that we have, so let us make sure that we do not ruin it forever. We really need to learn from what is happening today in Japan, because if we don’t we may indeed slowly ruin our planet for good.
It seems to me that the most important thing is to keep the planet going as natural as possible, so that we may avoid any disruption to the normal ways of Mother Nature. Having said that it does not mean that we should not do anything at all, and that we should live the ways we have lived for thousands of years before now, because as we all know that would be impossible to do.
Humanity needs to learn how to find ways to generate more electric power using natural ways which will not damage the planet at all. Apart from what we are already using now to generate power, which may cause one way or the other some lasting unwanted changes in the atmosphere, which may cause some unwanted events, but I have to say that the greatest danger of them all is the nuclear power station, because it can get out of control and become very dangerous, like it is happening in Japan right now.
So, perhaps we should listen to the green party and follow their beliefs so to speak, therefore, we should try to generate power with wind turbine and solar panels, which do not disturb Mother Nature at all and are free for all to use, as they are of a natural occurrence.
Humanity needs to learn how to do all these things soon or later, even if they would be more costly than the power we are generating now. We have to keep in mind that human lives are more important than any money we can save in the beginning.
So, let us hope that this very unpleasant disaster that is unfolding in Japan right now may help the world to understand that going nuclear is not the right thing to do and let us hope that the best mind in the world solve this problem and save Japan the best way they can. Then they should start thinking how to generate power in a safer way.
------------------------------------------------------------
Instead, the commission has cobbled together its policy stocktake by asking: what are the current cost and cost effectiveness of major carbon policies in the nine countries investigated?
Most of the overarching findings are not surprising. It finds that all the countries are acting, and acting in a range of ways that vary markedly in effectiveness. Few policies have done much to cut emissions. But the commission finds that emissions trading schemes, as the multiparty climate committee proposes for Australia, have been the cheapest way to achieve cuts.
Beyond that, most of the analysis is so laden with caveats they add little to the debate. The commission added up the cost of cleaner energy subsidies and calculated it as a proportion of each country's GDP. Germany (up to 0.33 per cent) was easily spending the largest chunk. Britain (0.10) came next, following by Australia (0.05) and China (0.4), with the US (0.02) further back.
What does this tell us? On its own, not much.
So the commission has a stab at how much it cost for every tonne of emissions cut from the power industry in 2010. Australia made only a small cut in emissions - 12.5 million tonnes - at a relatively expensive price of between $44 and $99 per tonne.
Again, this places it in the middle of the pack, but the key comparison here is not with other countries - most of which were equally or less efficient - but with how Australia would have fared if it had a carbon tax or ETS. The commission estimates the same cut in emissions would have been much cheaper for industry: just $9 a tonne.
Of the countries examined, none had broad carbon taxes, but some tax fossil fuels. Britain taxes energy use; Japan is increasing a tax on crude oil and petroleum products.
Several countries have, or are considering an ETS. Britain and Germany are part of the European scheme, which covers power stations, iron and steel works, oil refineries and a range of factories - about 40 per cent of the continent's emissions all up. Its carbon price last month was $22-$23 a tonne.
In Britain, the ETS has led to some switching from coal to gas-fired power, cut emissions by 19 per cent and pushed electricity prices up 17 per cent. In Germany, the impact of the ETS has been swamped by generous subsidies.
Japan and South Korea have delayed proposed schemes; China has announced it will hold a limited pilot scheme.
In the US, where a national carbon price is off the agenda, the Environment Protection Agency has begun requiring polluters to hold a permit to emit, and will soon announce proposals for standards that will apply to permit holders. All countries examined have some form of renewable energy target or subsidies, and they always cost more in emissions reduction terms than a carbon price.
The commission's investigation is significantly weakened by the policies it didn't look at: research and development spending, energy and fuel efficiency schemes, changes in public transport.
And it squibs it on recommending a starting carbon price - there is just too much information missing.
-
This is what I found on the Internet, I hope they really do something about climate change.
-

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/carbon-report-hamstrung-by-complexities-20110609-1fv22.html#ixzz1Opi9toVz

Mother Nature Challenge
HELP MOTHER NATURE FOR BETTER CLIMATE
Climate change Australia
IS TO BE CONTINUED:
Next time with another thread.
--------------------------------------------
You are all invited to take part in these writings.
The shortest of any comment will do, if you don't have time?

All emails are free to use. So, email us at;
menfranco@gmail.com
-
Other links of interest:
-
http://mystartingblogpage.blogspot.com/

http://manfraco.blogspot.com/