Climate Science: Shift from Carbon Sponge (ODT)
Climate Science: Shift from Carbon Sponge (ODT)
The power of Education vs the Misogynist and None (ODT)
“My first reaction was that it couldn’t be further from the truth, because I am so qualified and the reality is that it’s the complete opposite,” Tobin said.
The Trump administration has stopped promoting government-funded research into how higher temperatures can damage crops and pose health risks.
Australia’s most uncelebrated Academic ignored by our LNP government and the IPA who preferred to bribe universities to create space for Dr Bjorn Lomborg a globally ignored academic. Tony abbott’s view of progress was to cut funding to the likes of Professor Green (ODT)
“His fundamental and applied research has transformed the global energy sector and will continue to produce major economic and social benefits, both in Australia and worldwide.”
UNSW Dean of Engineering Professor Mark Hoffman said: “The global impact of the work of Martin and his research team has been profound. They have created the highest efficiency solar cells using techniques that have made them accessible to the world through commercialisation. And all of this has been achieved in Australia.
“We are proud of Martin’s inspirational leadership and pioneering research which is helping address the challenge of climate change.”
Professor Green said receiving the award was “a great honour”.
“The efficiency of solar modules is an area whose progress has been faster than many experts expected, and this is good news,” he said.
“We need to maintain the pace of research in Australia, not only to keep our international lead, but also to benefit society by providing a cheap, low carbon source of electricity.”
A NASA program that cost $10 million per year to track carbon and methane, key greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming, has been cancelled, a US space agency spokesman said Thursday.
The end of the program — called the Carbon Monitoring System (CMS) — which tracked sources and sinks for carbon and made high-resolution models of the planet’s flows of carbon — was first reported by the journal Science.
“Now, President Donald Trump’s administration has quietly killed the CMS,” the report said, describing the move as the latest in a “broad attack on climate science” mounted by the White House.
CSIRO has contacted the British Met Office to explore possible outsourcing of basic climate modelling work, which the senior executive in charge conceded would reduce Australia’s future capability in the field.
The best solution to Climate Change replaces processes which have a high additive impact upon atmospheric greenhouse gas levels, with those that have a low, neutral, or even negative impact. And it lets the market determine this.
Thus many advocate carbon credits, and things of that sort. But that creates a large unnecessary trading market, with additional (and completely unnecessary) secondary costs. It also is a bit more cumbersome to sensibly structure. It is not nearly as complete.
And it is also somewhat intrusive, though widely seen as the opposite. In other words, it assumes an inherent right to “pollute” in addition to what has already been polluted. And thus is a hidden tax, in the form of lost revenue that has to be made up somewhere else, and essentially forces the public, and each individual, to grant to manufacturers and others some set level of right to pollute or, in this case “damage” (really, just affect, which is not damaging at all, but is just damaging to us because we and the systems and species we rely on evolved under the current climate.) This is a burden on all individuals, and also not efficient.
It has more costs than what’s advocate below, though some don’t seen as real because they are hidden. But they are just as real, more burdensome, more expensive, and somewhat (though perhaps not enormously) less efficient.
It’s not a terrible approach. It’s just not anywhere near the best. The best maximizes all goods, and minimizes all bads (or bad/neutrals, since some people have differing opinions on certain basics of government), and individual rights.
The Best is Simple. It is Easy. (Though obviously many secondary questions, to implement it in the best way possible, will need to be answered.)
It is by far the fairest all around, taking everybody’s interest into account: individuals (along with the idea of individual liberty and responsibility and ability to make their own, within reason, adjustment decisions), and companies – all companies across the board, including ones that don’t yet exist because their existence has been inhibited by a lack of real market need (or motivation) and unfair and extremely high, if hidden, subsidization, to many competing businesses and processes,and one’s struggling or not getting nearly enough market share or profit for reinvestment, for the same reasons..
It not only captures the brilliance and entrepreneur spirit of the marketplace, it maximizes motivation while also maximizing efficiency.
It also fosters general independence, and energy independence.
It absolutely minimizes real government involvement, and limits most decisions to the secondary questions to be answered to most effectively, broadly, and sensibly implement it. (Which are also public policy questions, and not really pure government decisions.)
It is by far the lowest cost (though it’s questionable if in the long run any change to what we produce, and thus to how our GDP is composed – particularly if its to address, mitigate, or solve a problem – is actually a cost), for by far the greatest level of improvement.
It is revenue neutral while at the same time allowing for both affected business and individual transitional assistance, as well as assistance for the heavily disadvantaged.
And it is, to simply levy a user fee on the energy sources and processes that contribute heavily to the problem (and higher fees for higher contributions or additions, lower fees for lower additions), and thereby put them on a much more even playing field with all the energy sources and processes which don’t. Energy sources and processes, which, right now, critically, are being wildly inhibited and unfairly prejudiced because none of their enormous benefit (or in this case lack of such extensive harm, which is the same thing, since we are transitioning away from overriding harm), is integrated into the pricing structure. So, in in affect, all the wrong processes are receiving enormous, if hidden subsidies, in comparison. And the entire system is not only super counterproductive and counter productive habit reinforcing; but from this perspective – which simply takes more relevant information into account – it is super inefficient as well.
It should not be an immediate enormous user fee dump. (And user fees – or taxes, or whatever the few inevitable opponents to any idea that puts costs in front our noses, instead of hides them, so we and businesses can make better decisions, prefer calling it – would have to be high to work.This isn’t a minor issues, and the changes will reshape us into the modern era in a far more productive way.) But one phased in for transitional industry and individual adjustment, with, the market, at all levels, working its magic. Or,more importantly, allowed to.
With revenue raised to be used for offsetting transitional assistance – short term heavily affected business and individuals, including workers transitioning, as well as the heavily poor, who will still be a big part of the solution in having major economic incentive (and thus benefit!) to make the most effective behavior changes along with everybody else, but receive some transitional supplemental help; as well as lastly, for a credit (sort of the other end of the user fee spectrum) for any processes or energy sources somehow net negative in contributory affect. This in turn will prompt the most brilliant and important innovation and businesses of all, and work to not only cease adding to the harm, but work to offset some of the ongoing additions to atmospheric levels that, of course, for a while will inevitably continue, though will lessen far more rapidly than under any other plan, and again, at a fraction of the overall imposition, cost, and disproportionate “choosing” type of inequity. And of course, with the negative user fee in contrast to the highest end user fees, these processes that convey the highest level of benefit – the ones we want- will have the highest level of incentive for selection, by consumers and business alike.
It won’t solve the “Climate Change” problem. It’s already probably going to be a big deal. But it will keep it from being a much bigger deal. Which we are otherwise on a very serious, extremely fast (it’s not the time frame of the lagging and non linearly increasing changes that matter, but the additions), track toward, and more.
And, with the world leader (that’s the U.S.), and long time, big time, world leading contributor to the problem, showing the way, and leading, it will be easy to get the world to follow suit (or use their own form of this or a similar structure that fits in with their political systems). And will provide a way to minimize any seeming costs to still developing countries (both on wealthy countries’ and the poor countries’ ends).
Despite what “economists” like Bjorn Lomborg and some others may incorrectly argue, the only real cost will be short term economic transitional shifts. There is otherwise no cost. The user fees are an illusory cost, because they are being simultaneously used to convey an equal benefit, while simultaneously providing heavy mitigation, an enormous, additional, net benefit.
One that by not sensibly acting, we are giving up. (It is, in those silly economic terms, thus “costing” us not to act. And, given the likely potential, and with each addition far more radically increasing harm (each addition makes underlying yet enormously critical stabilizing system condition like ocean clathrates, permafrost carbon, sea ice, ice caps, etc increasingly likely to destabilize or more completely destabilize), it is a huge unrecoverable cost, every hour of every day. Accumulating in units. And, due to the basic nature of the issue, increasing in level of harm, per unit.)
The ABC and staff are so above Newscorp and Andrew Bolt
“If you think arguments on global warming are best settled by credentials, then don’t read another word. I’m an idiot.”
Even Andrew Bolt get’s it right sometimes. He certainly didn’t finish his Arts Degree he barely started it and merely deprived someone else of the opportunity. It’s the idiot aspect that reveals itself and the lack of either rationality or balance.
“Viewers would have concluded no scientists question that the world is heating dangerously and man is to blame. The sceptical scientists I know personally must just be hoaxers.”
He sounds like a child ready to throw a tantrum not an adult open to a discussion. On this topic it is precisely what he is a moron.
Bolt doesn’t prove or disprove anything he merely states the obvious that there is a minority of scientists that don’t necessarily agree with all the results put forward by the majority for a case of Global Warming. But that’s the nature of science disagreement. You could argue because all the scientific errors made throughout history is the reason science and the world progressed. Bolt offers no alternative to progress and investigation. The majority of climate scientists seem to believe there is a necessary reason to move foward.
Bolt the self-confessed idiot only believes in incontrovertible laws of which there are very few. Not Newton, Not Einstein, Not Quantum Physics so the idiot is simply asking for the impossible. If one believes money and power influence science then the skeptics certainly exemplify the conservatives, much the same as flat earthers did in their day. The majority of scientists are progressives as their results demand a necessary change foward which however sits against the financial interests of Capital. Why would the most rational thinkers of the world ask the most wealthiest to change? After all isn’t that where their finance ultimately comes from?
Bolt doesn’t broach the question he merely uses it as a vehicle to have ago at the ABC as a leftist organization with some bias against his fatuous conservative position. The man failed his Arts degree he didn’t just finish it.
His side of the capitalist ledger always turns to the maintenance of profit to justify reasons not to change. The ABC in 1984 had a budget of approx $900 mill today it’s $800 mill and has 84% support of the Australian population. More importantly 80% believe in its integrity. That alone places it so far in front of Newscorp and Bolt it’s lickspittle