Man-Made Climate Change: Issues and debates

[MichaelBaron]

But is that what Net Zero requires?
I am not sure it is so the question is very biased.

Net Zero requires emissions reduced to ''zero''. This requires certain shifts in economic activities that are based on government regulations (if a government/international community aims at net zero). So enterprizes and government ventures have to adjust the ways they operate. Btw, I am all for reducing carbon foodprint and some of the steps undertaken are also economically rational (eg. paperless trade, spending less energy etc.) but it should be choice of enterprised/individuals rather than forced upon us. Forced ''Net Zero'' can be a clear interference with the market economy.

[Ian Murray]

We are talking about particular area. If a report claims that race factor is being considered - we should be able to assume that all of the races considered are represented in the area to a sufficient extent to form a sample.

But you went further, to "assume impact is same on all races...would be interesting to see how for women living in same area....some ethnica groups have been gaining greater benefits...if we assume polution was the main factor."

Black women in California have a higher pre-term birth rate than white women within more advantaged subgroups, but not within the most socioeconomically disadvantaged subgroups. It follows that, when the groups exhibit improved pre-term outcomes within an improved environment, the most disadvantaged subgroup will exhibit the greatest improvement (they're starting from a lower base).

[Ian Murray]

''The poll of 1,001 Australians undertaken in June for the IPA, asked respondents whether they agree or disagree with the following statement: “Australia should pause its commitment to the policy of net zero emissions by 2050, as the UK has done, until we have enough energy supplies to avoid blackouts.”

61% Agree
22% Neither agree nor disagree
17% Disagree
Source: https://www.2gb.com/podcast/aussies-...h7wE1OiGa3KOjg

The IPA poll seems to have only one question, or any other questions and their results are not revealed.

The results are at odds with the Lowy Institute poll in March, which is much more comprehensive, e.g.

Potential federal government policies on climate change.jpg
https://poll.lowyinstitute.org/chart...climate-change

[MichaelBaron]

The IPA poll seems to have only one question, or any other questions and their results are not revealed.

The results are at odds with the Lowy Institute poll in March, which is much more comprehensive, e.g.

Potential federal government policies on climate change.jpg
https://poll.lowyinstitute.org/chart...climate-change

Hosting a conference alone will only to contribute to emissions + cost money

[MichaelBaron]

But you went further, to "assume impact is same on all races...would be interesting to see how for women living in same area....some ethnica groups have been gaining greater benefits...if we assume polution was the main factor."

Black women in California have a higher pre-term birth rate than white women within more advantaged subgroups, but not within the most socioeconomically disadvantaged subgroups. It follows that, when the groups exhibit improved pre-term outcomes within an improved environment, the most disadvantaged subgroup will exhibit the greatest improvement (they're starting from a lower base).

Ian, we are talking about people living in the same area here & linking to ''politions'' - not only into the groups (which is another interesting study potentially ''should people be referred to as disadvantaged or are they putting themselves to disadvantage''

[Ian Murray]

The IPA poll asks a loaded question: Do you agree or disagree that "Australia should pause its commitment to the policy of net zero emissions by 2050, as the UK has done, until we have enough energy supplies to avoid blackouts"?

That question includes two false premises.

1. That the net zero by 2050 commitment and adequate energy supplies are mutually exclusive. In fact our recent energy crisis was caused by generator owners gaming the system to be paid to restart their capacity, combined with ageing power plant equipment breakdown. It had nothing to do with net zero.
Australia can reach net zero emissions much quicker than 2050. Here’s how

2. That the UK has paused its commitment to net zero by 2050. In fact the UK has not paused its commitment (so why should Australia?).
See AAP Factcheck Is Boris Johnson really ‘pausing’ the UK’s net zero pledge? (google it, as the AAP site explicitly prohibits, inter alia, its information being linked, shared onto social media or otherwise used.

[Patrick Byrom]

We are talking about particular area. If a report claims that race factor is being considered - we should be able to assume that all of the races considered are represented in the area to a sufficient extent to form a sample.

Yes, but the effect of the pollution is clearly going to be worse for those living closer - a group in which Black people are likely to be over-represented. You can't assume an even distribution of racial groups.

This is the same difficulty you (and a lot of other people) seem to have with understanding global heating - you ignore the physics.

[Ian Murray]

Hosting a conference alone will only to contribute to emissions + cost money

No-one I know of is suggesting we host a COP alone, and do nothing else.

[Patrick Byrom]

The IPA poll asks a loaded question: Do you agree or disagree that "Australia should pause its commitment to the policy of net zero emissions by 2050, as the UK has done, until we have enough energy supplies to avoid blackouts"?

That question includes two false premises.

1. That the net zero by 2050 commitment and adequate energy supplies are mutually exclusive. In fact our recent energy crisis was caused by generator owners gaming the system to be paid to restart their capacity, combined with ageing power plant equipment breakdown. It had nothing to do with net zero.
Australia can reach net zero emissions much quicker than 2050. Here’s how

2. That the UK has paused its commitment to net zero by 2050. In fact the UK has not paused its commitment (so why should Australia?).
See AAP Factcheck Is Boris Johnson really ‘pausing’ the UK’s net zero pledge? (google it, as the AAP site explicitly prohibits, inter alia, its information being linked, shared onto social media or otherwise used.

As Kevin has repeatedly pointed out, the results of a poll which ask loaded questions cannot be relied upon, and this is a classic example. The information it provides isn't even correct. The so-called 'pause' that it claims for the UK seems to be based solely on a false statement by Matt Canavan. And Australia already has more than enough energy supplies to avoid blackouts, so that statement is also misleading. This poll is worthless.

[Ian Murray]

Ian, we are talking about people living in the same area here ...

No we're not. Read Casey et al

We assessed the appropriateness of the comparison group (10–20 km) by comparing maternal and neonatal characteristics across exposure bins in the period before retirement. The 0–5-km bin included a higher proportion of Hispanic mothers (49%) and a lower proportion of non-Hispanic black and white mothers (8% and 23%, respectively) compared with the 5–10-km (30% Hispanic, 6% black, 35% white) and 10–20-km (38% Hispanic, 13% black, 31% white) bins (Table 1).

[Patrick Byrom]

Net Zero requires emissions reduced to ''zero''.

No it doesn't!!

This requires certain shifts in economic activities that are based on government regulations (if a government/international community aims at net zero). So enterprizes and government ventures have to adjust the ways they operate. Btw, I am all for reducing carbon foodprint and some of the steps undertaken are also economically rational (eg. paperless trade, spending less energy etc.) but it should be choice of enterprised/individuals rather than forced upon us. Forced ''Net Zero'' can be a clear interference with the market economy.

Government subsidy of universities is also a clear interference in the market economy. I assume that you are also opposed to that?

[Ian Murray]

We can change the question around to '' Would you be prepared to pay higher price for energy as well as slow-down development of the Australian economy if this is what Net Zero requires?

Speaking of loaded questions Net zero is an opportunity, not a liability. The rest of the world is on board - do you really want to see Australia left behind?

Carbon light: How Australia can power ahead in a net-zero world

[Patrick Byrom]

Yes, but the effect of the pollution is clearly going to be worse for those living closer - a group in which Black people are likely to be over-represented. You can't assume an even distribution of racial groups. This is the same difficulty you (and a lot of other people) seem to have with understanding global heating - you ignore the physics.

Race is a confounding variable. From Casey et al: "Within 5 km, non-Hispanic black mothers lived an average of 2.1 (standard deviation, 1.4) km from power plants, compared with 3.4 (standard deviation, 1.0) km for non-Hispanic white mothers and 2.8 (standard deviation, 1.3 km) km for Hispanic mothers (Web Table 1)."

[Ian Murray]

The next industrial revolution: Transforming Australia to flourish in a net-zero world

Australia needs a 21st Century industry policy so we can become an industrial success story as the world moves to net-zero carbon emissions.

The policy should embrace heavy manufacturing but push down emissions from existing facilities, encourage low- or zero-emissions refurbishments and new facilities, and support export-led industries that can flourish in a net-zero world.

Unless governments manage the coming industrial revolution well, Australia’s social fabric could tear, especially in the regions of NSW and Queensland where tens of thousands of coal-mining jobs will disappear between now and 2050.

Coal and gas will inevitably decline, which is frightening for people who rely on those industries for a living and challenging for governments that rely heavily on those sectors for economic growth.

But if government and industry can forge a new strategic partnership, Australia will be able to create jobs and boost prosperity in a net-zero world by building export-oriented industries based on our vast renewable energy and mineral resources. ...

[Capablanca-Fan]

Studies Show The Electric Vehicles Democrats Insist You Buy Are Worse For The Environment And Lower Quality
BY: HELEN RALEIGH, The Federalist, 11 Jul 2022
Two recent studies have shown that electric vehicles have more quality issues than gas-powered ones and are not better for the environment.
…
Batteries Create Pollution
NBER’s study doesn’t cover all the reasons that EVs are worse for the environment than gas-powered cars. For instance, most of today’s EVs are powered by lithium-ion batteries. Due to heavy government subsidies, China dominates the global production of lithium-ion batteries and their precursor materials, especially graphite. China’s graphite production has notoriously contributed to significant pollution in the country.

Pollution can come “from graphite dust in the air, which is damaging whether inhaled or brought down to the earth in the rain,” a Bloomberg report found. More pollution results from the hydrochloric acid used to process mined graphite into a usable form. Hydrochloric acid is highly corrosive and can cause great environmental damage if leaked into groundwater or streams. China’s Shandong province, which is responsible for 10 percent of global graphite supply, had to suspend some of its production capacity due to environmental damages. But the growing demand in the west for EVs means such suspensions will only be temporary.

A typical electric car needs 110 pounds of graphite, and a hybrid vehicle needs around 22 pounds. Ironically, the U.S. government’s EV subsidies end up subsidizing China’s highly polluted production. So if you think you are doing your part of saving the planet by driving an EV, think twice. We also know from past experiences that pollution in China ends up harming the rest of the world.

Compelling Americans to switch from gas-powered cars and trucks to electric ones has been crucial to President Joe Biden’s plan to fight climate change. He signed an executive order last year to have electric vehicles make up half of new cars and trucks sold in the U.S. by 2030. These recent studies show that Biden’s plan will result in Americans spending more money on vehicles of inferior quality while having little effect on climate change. More importantly, his plan will enrich the Chinese Community Party at the expense of the environment and U.S. taxpayers.