Signaling the global implications of last week's historic Dutch court ruling—the first in the world to use human rights as a legal basis to protect citizens against greenhouse gas emissions and global warming—environmentalists in Australia are reportedly preparing to launch a similar legal challenge against Prime Minister Tony Abbott's government for its notorious inaction on climate change.
Ralph, you're on.
Apparently, no "lentil-eating, sandal-wearing idealist liberals" exist among the Dutch citizenry, to hear Howard tell it.
And I'm sure the actions of many of them to place their bodies on the line in defense of this rock is of little consequence to her.
Needless to say, she'd never deign to do so her own self.
That would be horribly PC, wouldn't it just?
That will be a true disaster for Australia, if and when, any Government signs up to that treaty without the approval of the people through a referendum. As for climate change - that is a different issue. Can anyone honestly say that Australia's insignificant amount of atmospheric pollution can have any effect on the world's climate, compared to the pollution created in the Northern Hemisphere. It's fine to get on the bandwagon, and maybe even make a fortune out of it, like Al Gore, but all one has to do is to look at the sky, and if you believe we puny humans in Australia have any effect on the weather up there, you got to be on a massive ego trip.
go ahead, make my day .... and try to make yourself feel better ... by defending what Australia is doing/not doing...
Good god mate, I haven't got hours to waste in listing what the Government is doing or not doing - as for Australia - this colony /Dominion of Britain doesn't do a thing - it doesn't care what happens - it's been sitting here for thousands of years and just take what comes its way.
If you are talking about the people of Australia, then you might have to be a little bit more specific. Some of then are getting all hot under the collar about - first "global warming" - and when that didn't work out so well, they switched to "climate change". I doubt there is a single person on this planet that doesn't believe the climate changes from day to day, and from year to year, even from century to century. However, I'm yet to see any proven proof that Australia has any effect on the enormity of the world's weather patterns.
If you care to actually study a fraction of the reports floating around the internet, you will find that the effect of the Sun hardly gets a mention. There is far too much money to be made out of blaming mankind for "climate change" than to waste time on the one single most important factor relating to the World's weather.
Guggzie. Sooner or later you will have to pull your head out of the sand & face reality. Good luck.
Some people just prefer to imagine that all of the trillions of tons of CO2 waste wafted into the air
have an inconsequential effect on the atmosphere . It's actually rather hard to grasp this mindset.
That's an interesting comment "hipo", if I may call you that. Seeing you are apparently well versed on the subject of CO2 emissions, could you tell me something that I have never been able to find out from anyone? Exactly what volume of CO2 gas in required to make it weigh a ton? You do realise that an English or US ton is heavier than the metric tonne, which it the normal standard used. I'd also be interested in the research that confirms some "trillions" of tons of CO2 are being pumped into the atmosphere. I have never come across any research that quotes that sort of figure.
Pleas don't get me wrong - I am not denying for a minute that humans are polluting the atmosphere - they certainly are, as is amply proven by the smog in so many cities around the world. Humans are also polluting the soil and the world's water, as well as the sea, and I firmly believe we do need to do a lot to remedy that. All that type of pollution can be fixed if the will is there and the several billions of dollars made available. Setting up Carbon trading schemes simply becomes another form of gambling and will do absolutely nothing towards solving the CO2 pollution problem. If anyone were truly serious about reducing fuel use, there are, and have been available for several years, fully tested and proven steam engines that can be fitted in ordinary everyday cars and trucks. Why hasn't this option been taken up by any Government? what do you think would happen to CO2 emissions if all cars and trucks were to convert to steam?
Thank you for that very "constructive" comment Ron. That's not quite the way I usually carry on a logical discussion, but then, if you aren't really interested in facts and figures, I guess it will have to do in your case.
...oh, I have read plenty of studies.... and the fact that the greenhouse effect was understood before 1900....says alot.... it's not some new fangled theory that has just been concocted recently, to "make money".... the money soakers are the fossil fuels companies ... who are too stupid and greedy to stop spewing co2 into the atmosphere ..... and killing us all off.... AND as far as the "climate always changing".... gee, I think climate scientist know this ... THE POINT... about that... is # 1.... the climate we are going to be getting, isn't one that is conducive to humans to thrive in... and # 2 ... .when you know you are doing something to cause your own demise... you either stop doing it... or you admit that you have a death wish....
so, why don't you go study greenhouse effect some more... what ever effect the sun may have... from what I have read.. .the sun currently is at a low in it's heating effects....
Guggzie. You have it backwards lad! A metric ton, called a tonne is 2200 pounds! I too am curious about how they determine tons of CO 2. As well, Cap & Trade is nothing more than a ponzi scheme dream't up the WALL STREET BOYS. It should be cap & reduce!!
What energy produces the steam in the engines you mention??
The whole issue will probably be resolved - by mother nature- in the next few years. Until then, greed is king!!
Depends on temperature and pressure. At room temp and normal pressure that would be about 500,000 liters, give or take.
Thanks for that Lamonte7, but since when has gas been measured in litres. Gasses are measured in cubic meters - only liquids are measured in litres or gallons. If anyone is genuinely interested in a few facts about Australia's position in terms of the world's climate, which is what the original article was mainly focused on. There is an excellent pps available which i can send to anyone interested, as this site won't let me attach it.
How anyone can justify the enormous cost to Australia in relation to the insignificant impact it would have, just doesn't seem logical. Let's be honest, Europe and the US don't give a shit what Australia does in terms of setting any example, and that sort of example would only be done by sacrificing Australia's future welfare. I've always been told to run for your life when you hear anyone preaching sacrifice because; it's your sacrifice they're talking about, not theirs.
Australia's contribution in reducing our CO2 emissions by 5% have been calculated to cost every Australian taxpayer $91,000 over the next 5 years. What sort of example dose that provide?
To have a look at the steam engine Ron, which was installed in a conventional Ford Falcon and driven thousands of miles, just google Pritchard Steam , or Pritchard Steam engines. There is a wealth of information about this proven invention on the internet.