The Land of Oz has just had the Riot Act read by a most capable professor, Boss CarNo.
With the rest of the world, we are entangled in a climate change mess. This mess is the result of natural processes that have affected global climatic fluctuations over very broad periods of time, and of the interaction of human society with the global environment over a relatively narrow period of time. Deleterious effects of the human contribution to this mess mostly flow from the highly excessive production of carbon dioxide and other carbon compounds. High quantities of these compounds interfere with the protective layer of ozone that surrounds our planet at high altitude. When intact, that layer protects us from bombardment by dangerous levels of ultra-violet radiation which can have profound direct effects on our individual health and well-being and on the temperature of the surface regions of the planet in which humans dwell and feed.
With the exception of plants, which can produce food by the process of photosynthesis, whereby carbon dioxide, in the presence of chlorophyll and sunshine, is converted to sugar and oxygen, all species undergo only respiration, whereby they burn substances in the presence of oxygen to produce heat and carbon dioxide. Even plants undergo respiration during the dark hours of the day, but overall, they can produce more oxygen during the day than they produce carbon dioxide during the night. The plants are undoubtedly our friends. We must protect them and nurture them.
More important to the enrichment of our air with oxygen, are the oceans of the world. They, too, are our friends, and must be protected and nurtured.
The fact that the animals of the world, including us humans, are giving off carbon dioxide just by being animals, is significant enough, but we humans compound this situation by an enormous factor by virtue of our industrialization. This phenomenon has grown to problem proportions mainly over the last two centuries. Industrialization allows us to produce an enormous quantity and variety of consumer goods. Hereby lies most of our problem. Industrialization uses enormous amounts of energy. No matter how that energy is derived, it has mostly involved the production of heat by the burning of carbon compound substances (that is, organic substances) such as coal, oil and trees. Thus, industrialization has required energy production or energy transformation, and has yielded carbon dioxide along with its consumer products. However, the problem does not end there. Most of the humans on this planet utilize these products, and such utilization, in turn, requires energy input and consequently an indirect consumption of energy that has given off carbon dioxide in its production. We thus produce carbon dioxide in manufacturing goods, and we produce carbon dioxide in using them.
Technologies are already available to produce energy by harnessing renewable sources such as wind power, solar power and tidal power, none of which produce carbon dioxide as a by-product. Unfortunately, we have been collectively loathe to embrace these technologies. Despite the fact that these technologies will take time and vast expense to replace the current prevailing technologies, we must grasp the nettle and do so with the utmost urgency. Professor Boss NoCar has stressed this urgency in his report, and we must listen to him and obey.
The Good Professor has focused on the question of the introduction of an Australian carbon trading scheme. Basically, such a scheme involves the selling of carbon licences to businesses to limit the amount of carbon dioxide that their pursuits can be responsible for producing, and to “tax” such licences on a quantum basis. Companies will be able to buy and sell these licences in a type of carbon trading exchange similar to a stock exchange. The “taxes” so derived would be directed to the development and introduction of non-carbon-producing technologies. He correctly points out that all levels of our society from governments to manufacturing industries to servicing industries to individual people, must be involved in this fundamental revision of our activity.
People are already complaining that we “battlers” will have these “taxes” passed on to us by industries and companies, and that we will thus be the bearers of the “burden” of this radical move. The ultimate consumer has always been the bearer of whatever costs are involved in the production of those goods and services that we choose to consume. Irrespective of the political economy involved, be it capitalism or socialism, the consumer has always borne the cost in one way or another.
However, there is a way out for us “battlers” or anyone else, for that matter. The answer is simple: CURTAIL CONSUMING !
Let us examine very carefully which electrical appliances we think that we need to purchase and run. Let us examine very carefully our modes of transport. Are our feet and bicycles cheaper to run (with a smaller carbon footprint) than sedans and four-wheel drives? Can we substitute healthier fruits and vegetables for meats, chickens and fish that we need to cook? Are the cigarettes, wines and beers really necessary? Can we follow the example of our grandparents and plant our back yards out with fruit trees and vegetables? Even if we live in apartments, can we plant some vegetables in window boxes or verandah boxes? Do we really need to go to Venezuela next year? Can we wear this year’s clothes and shoes until they wear out? The list of tactics goes on and on.
Let us show our Aussie nation and the rest of the world, that we Aussie Battlers, to no small degree, can control our own planetary destiny.
Battler
With the rest of the world, we are entangled in a climate change mess. This mess is the result of natural processes that have affected global climatic fluctuations over very broad periods of time, and of the interaction of human society with the global environment over a relatively narrow period of time. Deleterious effects of the human contribution to this mess mostly flow from the highly excessive production of carbon dioxide and other carbon compounds. High quantities of these compounds interfere with the protective layer of ozone that surrounds our planet at high altitude. When intact, that layer protects us from bombardment by dangerous levels of ultra-violet radiation which can have profound direct effects on our individual health and well-being and on the temperature of the surface regions of the planet in which humans dwell and feed.
With the exception of plants, which can produce food by the process of photosynthesis, whereby carbon dioxide, in the presence of chlorophyll and sunshine, is converted to sugar and oxygen, all species undergo only respiration, whereby they burn substances in the presence of oxygen to produce heat and carbon dioxide. Even plants undergo respiration during the dark hours of the day, but overall, they can produce more oxygen during the day than they produce carbon dioxide during the night. The plants are undoubtedly our friends. We must protect them and nurture them.
More important to the enrichment of our air with oxygen, are the oceans of the world. They, too, are our friends, and must be protected and nurtured.
The fact that the animals of the world, including us humans, are giving off carbon dioxide just by being animals, is significant enough, but we humans compound this situation by an enormous factor by virtue of our industrialization. This phenomenon has grown to problem proportions mainly over the last two centuries. Industrialization allows us to produce an enormous quantity and variety of consumer goods. Hereby lies most of our problem. Industrialization uses enormous amounts of energy. No matter how that energy is derived, it has mostly involved the production of heat by the burning of carbon compound substances (that is, organic substances) such as coal, oil and trees. Thus, industrialization has required energy production or energy transformation, and has yielded carbon dioxide along with its consumer products. However, the problem does not end there. Most of the humans on this planet utilize these products, and such utilization, in turn, requires energy input and consequently an indirect consumption of energy that has given off carbon dioxide in its production. We thus produce carbon dioxide in manufacturing goods, and we produce carbon dioxide in using them.
Technologies are already available to produce energy by harnessing renewable sources such as wind power, solar power and tidal power, none of which produce carbon dioxide as a by-product. Unfortunately, we have been collectively loathe to embrace these technologies. Despite the fact that these technologies will take time and vast expense to replace the current prevailing technologies, we must grasp the nettle and do so with the utmost urgency. Professor Boss NoCar has stressed this urgency in his report, and we must listen to him and obey.
The Good Professor has focused on the question of the introduction of an Australian carbon trading scheme. Basically, such a scheme involves the selling of carbon licences to businesses to limit the amount of carbon dioxide that their pursuits can be responsible for producing, and to “tax” such licences on a quantum basis. Companies will be able to buy and sell these licences in a type of carbon trading exchange similar to a stock exchange. The “taxes” so derived would be directed to the development and introduction of non-carbon-producing technologies. He correctly points out that all levels of our society from governments to manufacturing industries to servicing industries to individual people, must be involved in this fundamental revision of our activity.
People are already complaining that we “battlers” will have these “taxes” passed on to us by industries and companies, and that we will thus be the bearers of the “burden” of this radical move. The ultimate consumer has always been the bearer of whatever costs are involved in the production of those goods and services that we choose to consume. Irrespective of the political economy involved, be it capitalism or socialism, the consumer has always borne the cost in one way or another.
However, there is a way out for us “battlers” or anyone else, for that matter. The answer is simple: CURTAIL CONSUMING !
Let us examine very carefully which electrical appliances we think that we need to purchase and run. Let us examine very carefully our modes of transport. Are our feet and bicycles cheaper to run (with a smaller carbon footprint) than sedans and four-wheel drives? Can we substitute healthier fruits and vegetables for meats, chickens and fish that we need to cook? Are the cigarettes, wines and beers really necessary? Can we follow the example of our grandparents and plant our back yards out with fruit trees and vegetables? Even if we live in apartments, can we plant some vegetables in window boxes or verandah boxes? Do we really need to go to Venezuela next year? Can we wear this year’s clothes and shoes until they wear out? The list of tactics goes on and on.
Let us show our Aussie nation and the rest of the world, that we Aussie Battlers, to no small degree, can control our own planetary destiny.
Battler
4 comments:
Well said Battler. I was in the market for a new car but, have decided to give that a miss and get at least another three years out of my present car. Might mean I pay more for petrol but it also means I will not suffer the fantastic depreciation on any new car. Also watch out for hybrid cars as they are not as envrionmentally friendly as we have bben told. Each hybrid contains a huge battery pack which costs up to $7000 to replace and they must be replaced on average every 3 to 4 years. These cars are expensive to service & maintain and as such they cost more to run than a large petrol guzzling V8.
That's probably a good move on your part, Anonymous.
The electricity for a hybrid vehicle is either generated within the vehicle itself, mainly as a by-product of the accompanying internal combustion engine, or comes from the electricity grid during its re-charge phase. Electricity from the grid is still dominantly generated in power plants that consume fossil fuels and produce carbon dioxide. So, at this stage, hybrid cars are not a total win situation. However, they are an innovative half step in the right direction, and their technology will most probably have a generous feed-in to the development of vehicles that will derive their power from renewable energy sources whenever we get the guts to attack the problem in a full-on manner. Until that time comes, Aussie battlers will have to advance the class strategy of CURTAILING CONSUMPTION. We can afford to do that, even though we cannot currently afford hybrid vehicles, and very soon we won't be able to afford petrol vehicles at all.
Battler
Great stuff, Battler. That's the first understandable explanation I've had, and I listen desperately to talk shows trying to understand the concepts. My worry is that the Victorian govt is now planning to build more super highways, instead of spending the billions of $ extending train lines and providing more and better public transport. We won't eb able to afford the petrol to drive on these wretched highways, and there'll be no infrastructure to switch to public transport. It's so damned short-sighted. - Ronnoc
About expert Garnaut. For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert.
Post a Comment