Post by MightyMousePost by XenoPost by MightyMousePost by ClockyPost by MightyMousePost by Keithr0Post by Mighty Mousehttps://www.instagram.com/reel/DEo8jp_hOwn/
It was on Instagram so it must be true? The guy is a right wing
wanker, trying to twist things to suit his agenda (and yours).
so is he wrong? I think not.
That bloke is a far right fruitloop and hasn't a clue.
The fact that you have to look that far to the right to find a voice
that aligns with your biased POV says it all really.
so answer the question.. is he wrong?
Yes, he is most definitely wrong.
He makes one rather large assumption - said carbon sink is still the
same as it was. Well, let me point out that the tree cover over
Australia has been retreating apace since 1788. Fly over any part of
the non desert areas of the country and observe the forest clearing
for *pasture land*. Now, what do we put on that newly cleared pasture
land? Well, for one we put ruminants on there, we *breed* ruminants on
that land. Guess what they belch out? Methane. Guess what methane does.
Now take a look at the biggest carbon sink in the world - the Amazon
rainforest. It is being deforested at a great rate of knots and what
will be replacing it will be doing the opposite - pasture land and
palm oil plantations.
https://infoamazonia.org/en/2023/03/21/deforestation-in-the-amazon-
past-present-and-future/
You cannot take a snippet of science and use it out of the greater
context. That is what Malcom Roberts is doing and it is deceptive,
deliberately deceptive, but, as you can see from the comments, his
deception is working.
If we want to keep using oil, and we need to otherwise society as we
know it would grind to a halt, then we need to be *increasing* the
forest coverage, increasing the size of the carbon sinks, not just
retaining it at the present size. We also need to be reducing our use
of oil as much as possible. The only ways to reduce the CO2 in the
atmosphere is to use less fossil fuel and create larger heat sinks.
Note just one critical point, the Gaia Effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis
was in a rough balance *before* industrialisation. It hasn't been since.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-
change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
Observe the 2nd chart on the above link, the one that shows
correlation between global emissions and atmospheric CO2 levels.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (blue line)
has increased along with human emissions (gray line) since
the start of the Industrial Revolution in 1750. Emissions
rose slowly to about 5 gigatons—one gigaton is a billion
metric tons—per year in the mid-20th century before
skyrocketing to more than 35 billion tons per year by the
end of the century.
The above chart should be all you need to realise that Malcolm Roberts
is talking through his arse. His premise, that we already have carbon
sinks, does not account for the *shrinking/destruction of said carbon
sinks nor does it account for the *massive* amounts of CO2 overload
that we have placed up said carbon sinks since the dawn of
industrialisation.
But he's talking about Australia. those charts are for global emissions.
Yes, and so was I. The reality however is the world does not have a *CO2
border* . CO2 released elsewhere *travels everywhere* and affects *every
country*. Same with the oceans.
The point however is that we are punching way above our weight when it
comes to pollution.
https://climateanalytics.org/press-releases/australias-massive-global-carbon-footprint-set-to-continue-with-fossil-fuel-exports
Australia has a global carbon footprint that far exceeds its
economic size and population - and is responsible for around
4.5% of global fossil carbon dioxide emissions, with 80% of
those emissions coming from its fossil fuel exports.
We *export* 80% of our emissions by shipping coal, oil and gas overseas
to be burnt elsewhere. Ditto with iron or where it is *smelted* overseas.
Post by MightyMousewhere is the data to refute his claim that Australia is currently minus
carbon neutral? considering the minuscule contribution Australia's co2
Where is the data to back up his claim? Roberts is specious in his
claim. Where does he begin his *current carbon sink claim*, the first
fleet in 1788? Or now after massive deforestation has already taken place.
7 or 8 years ago I took a flight down to Tasmania. In years past I
used to enjoy flying over the vast tracts of forested hills and
mountains, a continuous carpet of green. I was shocked this time, that
carpet was looking decidedly threadbare - vast tracts of bare earth
littering the landscape. It just blew me away just how much of
Tasmania's forest cover was gone in just a few decades.
What I also noticed, on that flight and others previously, was the
increasing prevalence of photochemical smog, the sort of thing that
regularly afflicts the skies over California. I had first seen this smog
when flying over Asia in the 70s, a time when the air over Tasmania was
pristine and clear. On a clear day, I could see for miles in the air
over Tasmania, but not so in Asia, the smog layer hampering visibility
even on what would normally be clear days. Since 2000, the smog layer is
becoming ever thicker, ever more dense, a deeper and deeper brown hue.
What's more, that smog now seems to be a permanent feature in the skies
above Tasmania and, dare I say it, the world.
It doesn't matter where the smog is generated, it will, through the
action of wind currents, permeate throughout the atmosphere of the world
- even the Arctic and Antarctica. There already exists hard evidence for
that. Let's not get into the matter of ocean warming and the effects it
will have on ocean currents and, in turn, global climate. Bottom line,
it doesn't matter who burns the fossil fuels, or where, all of us will
be *equally* burdened by the effects of CO2 on climate. This was
predicted in a climate change document, one of the first of such
documents, way back in 1983 and we are now seeing all those predictions
come to pass - the LA fires being but the most recent example. Australia
is already a hot dry country, can you imagine what it will be like just
a few degrees hotter and, more importantly, drier. I experienced
extremes of hot and dry when I worked in WA in the 70s. But that was in
a desert back then. Soon city dwellers will get to experience such
extremes, and that's when the AC will die on you. Without due care, and
AC, you will be next.
Post by MightyMousemakes to the the global total, it's clear even if we do nothing to
reduce our emissions, it will still have no effect on increasing global
warming. we are using a sledge hammer to swat a fly!
We are *collectively* responsible for 4.5% of *global emissions*
including what we dig up and sell and what we burn here. That is a lot.
We are punching above our weight when releasing CO2 into the atmosphere,
we need to punch above our weight in our efforts to reduce our CO2
emissions. But, most importantly, we need to *accept* the responsibility
for what we do. Only then can we as a nation move forward.
Post by MightyMousePost by XenoThe Gaia effect assumes a self balancing tendency, the *adaptability*
of organisms to create compensation factors. The problem with that is
the minor detail of *time*. It took billions of years to create that
balanced environment but the upset, thus far, has taken only 300 years
or so. We humans, as a species, cannot adapt as fast to the changes
that are coming and nor can most other species on this planet. We are
screwed.
The path to the future is clear, it was clearly identified 40+ years
ago, and it is only the scientifically illiterate who cannot see it.
Unfortunately there are way too many of them. And they, like Malcolm
Roberts, are loudmouths!
--
Xeno
Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)