Home > Regular Features > Monday Message Board

Monday Message Board

November 20th, 2017

Another Monday Message Board. Post comments on any topic. Civil discussion and no coarse language please. Side discussions and idees fixes to the sandpits, please.

Categories: Regular Features Tags:
  1. hc
    November 20th, 2017 at 15:22 | #1

    The Economist claims we need to suck in CO2 not just cut emissions. But it is easier to think about markets for cutting CO2 emissions than markets for recovered CO2. A very pessimistic view of our climate future.

    https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21731397-stopping-flow-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-not-enough-it-has-be-sucked-out

  2. Smith
    November 20th, 2017 at 15:37 | #2

    @hc

    Governments could run reverse auctions to plant trees.

  3. hc
    November 20th, 2017 at 16:09 | #3

    They can offer a variety of subsidy schemes.

  4. Svante
    November 20th, 2017 at 17:23 | #4

    @hc

    @hc

    Mid ocean algae farming may do it and with lots on the side to sell!

    Google: tim flannery seaweed

    There on the first page of returns are a couple of Conversation articles: “How farming giant seaweed can feed fish and fix the climate” – fairly big on big markets – by Flannery (31/1/17), and “Sea the possibilities: to fight climate change, put seaweed in the mix” (22/8/17).

    Also linked is an ABC Catalyst program “Can Seaweed Save The World?” (22/8/17) available on iview, the recent Flannery books “Sunlight and Seaweed: An Argument for How to Feed, Power and Clean Up the World” (Penguin, 31/7/17), “Atmosphere of Hope: Searching for Solutions to the Climate Crisis” (1/8/16), and some reviews of those…

  5. Ken Fabian
    November 20th, 2017 at 17:38 | #5

    @Smith
    Unfortunately re-forestation is never going to “sink” as much CO2 as was released by the de-forestation that preceded it; especially given the needs of agriculture will take priority for land use. There are good reasons to engage in re-forestation but without being combined with near zero emissions it won’t take us to below zero. Certainly it can’t compensate for ongoing high emissions. And in the Australian context climate change itself presents serious problems for future forests, including heightened drought and fire risks; a lot of that carbon could just end up being turned back into CO2.

    The mostly hypothetical carbon capture possibilities of the future must not distract from the essential task of reducing emissions in the near term. Subsidies? End the de-facto one that is the continuing amnesty on externalised costs of energy production and low emission energy options begin looking economically sound.

  6. November 21st, 2017 at 04:21 | #6

    Yes. I’ve been banging a lonely drum for a while on the proposition that a revenue-neutral carbon tax is misconceived. The first claim on the tax has to be the equal and opposite subsidy for sequestration. However, that stops being effective as carbon emissions shrink to zero, since there will still be a lot of sequestration to pay for. Ikonoclast should be happy: the Kochs and Tillersons, by their successful delay of action on emissions, have guaranteed a century of state socialism for sequestration to get us back to a safe 350 ppm.

  7. sunshine
    November 21st, 2017 at 09:07 | #7

    The Qld one nation guy on the radio this morning said people around the world are realising the big parties cant help them anymore .I think he is right .Therefore the problem must be something that all the big parties agree on. But all he could come up with was high electricity prices. I imagine they probably think the big parties aren’t tough enough on Islam or refugees either. They are onto something but are looking in the wrong places for solutions.

  8. November 21st, 2017 at 15:04 | #8

    Nothing to see in the non return of MHRs to Parliament this week. Nothing to see when they do return, apparently next week. Parliament is as best spectacle; at worst irrelevant. The real action takes place among the lobbyists and endorsement of corporate actors to carry out government policy and add to the party coffers in return to ensure that elections are spectacles without substance. That democratic processes are missing is something that cannot be noticed. However, the evidence is there. A case in point is the citizenship problem. Founding Mothers may well have got this right in the first place, but should the people had got this wrong in the first referendum, they would not in the second attempt. We may need to make the democratic process more engaging by way of the internet. Surely. if it is possible to bank and buy, it is possible to vote.

  9. November 21st, 2017 at 22:50 | #9

    News item: Siemens is laying off 7,000 workers in its traditional power generation business. Orders fell 31% YOY. In particular, there is massive oversupply in the large gas turbine sector, split between Siemens and GE. We had expected renewables to cut into gas sooner or later. It seems to be sooner.

  10. November 22nd, 2017 at 07:28 | #10

    @Svante
    Thanks for this. I particularly like the potential for semi-automatic dumping of biomass onto the deep ocean floor for a long-term sequester. It should be easy enough to find out with robot subs what happens down there when you try.

    Seaweed research is the only field of science in which you can become a god. Or goddess, as actually happened to Kathleen Drew-Baker. This beats a mere Nobel any day.

Comments are closed.