Climate Change blather = what a pile of unthinking kleptocratic crap. It's global mania.
Wayyyy back in 1984 I said to my boss Nelson Cull [in BP Oil New Zealand] having considered the matter that if CO2 turned out to be a problem, then the answer was simple = start slashing taxes on computers and things that do not cause CO2 emissions and start taxing carbon used as fuel at slightly less amount than the tax cuts, thereby also cutting taxes overall for improved economic activity and lifestyles - taxes were already absurdly high with waste galore by government kleptocrats. But it's way worse now, with CO2 emissions wayyyyyy up despite decades of kleptocratic blather.and vastly more efficient cars, aircraft, more insulation and all sorts of efficiency improvements.
Instead, the kleptocrats started the absurd Emissions Trading Scheme which continues to now. But is useless. And expensive.
Meanwhile, 38 years later, CO2 still doesn't seem to be a problem. In fact it's a good thing because plants grow so much better with much less water needed. The absurd claims about sea level rise were proven completely wrong. The 4 kilometres of sea water have not warmed. Air temperature has warmed only 1 degree C [if we believe the climatology crowd] and that heating is doubtfully due to the extra CO2 as the air was already warming due to the end of the latest little ice age.
Australia doesn't need to worry about CO2 emissions. But taxing carbon for fuel instead of taxing computers, food and crops would be popular. Oz tried a carbon tax but the greedy and stupid kleptocrats just whacked on yet another tax grab, which was of course very unpopular. They didn't cut taxes on crops and computers by twice the amount. So people reasonably rebelled against the thieving carbon tax.
Australia is well placed to do a carbon tax because they have vast acreage of zero value land which could have photovoltaics, the car fleet could go electric with 7 SSSSs, export their coal and fuels to other countries who can't put photovoltaics all over the place and who need the energy - Hong Kong for example, Japan. Oz has bauxite so they could export their electricity from photovoltaics as aluminium.
The problem with photovoltaics at present is that it's intermittent. When the sun comes out, the electricity has to have somewhere to go. If there were vast recharging battery stacks, it could all be absorbed instantly. The current dopey idea of having batteries to absorb the photovoltaic supply is hopeless because that's all the batteries are for = uneconomic. If those batteries were used in cars in 7SSSS mode, cars could be small and light, instantly recharged [7 second pit stop], with cheap electricity.
Maybe nuclear reactors will be cheaper than photovoltaics. Maybe not. Depends on where.
It looks as though CO2 is good, not bad, at any level we're going to get to for decades. Technology and demographics will supersede CO2 long before hydrocarbons, tars, and coal run out. Sheik Yamani and I were right = the stone age didn't end for lack of stones and the oil age won't end because oil runs out.
Mqurice |
