BS: Oz: Worst Polluter?

Subject: BS: Oz: Worst Polluter?
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Nov 07 - 07:06 PM

From Al Jazeera English News:

Australia 'world's worst polluter'                  

Coal-fired power stations are among the biggest contributors to global warming

Australia is the worst polluter in the world per capita, according to a new international study.

The Washington-based Centre for Global Development says Australian power plants produce 10 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person each year - five times as much as China and 20 times as much as India.
        
According to the report, Australia came seventh overall on a list of the top 50 countries by carbon dioxide-emitting power sectors, with 226 million tonnes.
        
But it came in ahead of many countries with larger populations and "on a per capita basis, Australians are some of the largest CO2 emitters in the world, producing more than 11 tonnes of power sector CO2 emissions per person per year", the report said.

The US, the world's largest overall CO2 emitter, emits nine tonnes per person each year, it said.

Global warming has become a key issue in Australia's upcoming election and Kevin Rudd, the opposition leader tipped to become the next prime minister, has promised to ratify the Kyoto treaty on climate change.

On Thursday, just hours after the report was published, Greenpeace protesters stormed a power plant north of Sydney and chained themselves to machinery to draw attention to the issue.

"We demonstrated what this country needs to do - close those coal-fired power stations and use cleaner energy," organiser Stephen Campbell, a protest organiser, said.

Fifteen protesters were arrested and charges of trespass and malicious damage were expected to be laid against them.

The power plant's operators said generating operations were not affected by the protest.

Subject: RE: BS: Oz: Worst Polluter?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 16 Nov 07 - 08:09 PM

The figures cited might be okay if emissions "by the power sector" are all that's considered; but a report a few months ago showed total per capita CO₂ emissions at 20 metric ton/person for the US average. The figures were from 2003, but I haven't seen much evidence of improvement.

The link I have for the article isn't working, but:

By The Associated Press

Here are the states ranked by carbon dioxide emissions per capita with No. 1 being the highest pollution per person. In parentheses are per-capita carbon dioxide emissions in metric tons. One metric ton is 2,204.6 pounds. The national average is 20 metric tons.

1. Wyoming (125)
2. North Dakota (80)
3. Alaska (69)
4. West Virginia (63)
5. Louisiana (40)
6. Indiana (38)
7. Montana (36)
8. Kentucky (35)
9. New Mexico (31)
10. Texas (30)
11. Alabama (30)
12. Oklahoma (29)
13. Kansas (29)
14. Iowa (27)
15. Utah (26)
16. Nebraska (25)
17. Missouri (24)
18. Ohio (23)
19. Arkansas (23)
20. Pennsylvania (22)
21. Mississippi (22)
22. Delaware (21)
23. Tennessee (21)
24. Minnesota (20)
25. Colorado (20)
26. Nevada (19)
27. Georgia (19)
28. Wisconsin (19)
29. South Carolina (19)
30. Michigan (18)
31. Illinois (18)
32. South Dakota (18)
33. Maine (18)
34. North Carolina (17)
35. Hawaii (17)
36. Virginia (17)
37. New Hampshire (16)
38. Arizona (16)
39. Florida (14)
40. New Jersey (14)
41. Maryland (14)
42. Massachusetts (14)
43. Washington (13)
44. Connecticut (12)
45. Oregon (11)
46. New York (11)
47. California (11)
48. Rhode Island (11)
49. Vermont (11)
50. Idaho (10)

Source: U.S. Department of Energy, 2003 figures.

It has to be noted that some of the states with the lowest ratings get most of their generated power from other states - some a long distance away. Dividing by the number of people receiving power, rather than just the number living nearby, would make the figures much more even - perhaps - - - - and perhaps not.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Oz: Worst Polluter?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Nov 07 - 08:24 PM

Nothing will change till we get rid of Little Fascist Johnny and his minions...

Subject: RE: BS: Oz: Worst Polluter?
From: Rowan
Date: 16 Nov 07 - 09:30 PM

And, while my house is ideally situated and has been built to capitalise on solar atttributes (the solar HWS is excellent) the local electricity distributor refuses to allow consumers to put excess power from photovoltaics back into the grid.

Getting rid of elected reactionary politicians is only the start; we then have to render ineffective the unelected ones.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Oz: Worst Polluter?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 16 Nov 07 - 09:58 PM

I wonder if the Aussie figures include the underground coal fire that's supposedly been burning for several thousand years. (?)

The electric utility whose application for permits for two new coal-fired generating plants in Kansas was recently rejected has been running ads - two full pages per day - in the local newsrags to try to sell the idea that "coal is clean."

They've claimed "we can clean the CO₂ emissions up with algae." The only problem is that their application mentioned no emissions reduction efforts, and the only "algae processing" project known is a pilot/test installation capable of handling the output from about three cigars and one propane lighter.

They've also claimed "One underground fire in China produces as much CO₂ as all of the automobiles in the United States," but an article in Smithsonian Magazine, which usually does pretty good verification, said about a year ago that all of the underground fires in China produce the equivalent of about ONE PERCENT of worldwide CO₂ emissions.

Elected officials here have promised to change the law to prohibit the Commissioner who rejected the license from ever doing anything again; but the good guy who said no is NOT AN ELECTED OFFICIAL - - - so they'll likely just appoint a replacement soon.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Oz: Worst Polluter?
From: Rowan
Date: 16 Nov 07 - 10:08 PM

John. your knowledge of the Hunter Valley is truly impressive.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: Oz: Worst Polluter?
From: Amos
Date: 17 Nov 07 - 12:20 PM

US power company linked to Bush is named in database as a top polluter
By Leonard Doyle in Washington
Published: 16 November 2007
An American power company with close financial links to President George Bush has been named as one of the world's top producers of global warming pollution.

The first-ever worldwide database of such pollution also reveals the rapid growth in global-warming emissions by power plants in China, South Africa and India. Power plants already produce 40 per cent of US greenhouse gas and 25 per cent of the world's.

But it is the enormous carbon footprint of Southern Company – among the largest financiers of Republican Party politicians – which has raised eyebrows. Southern's employees handed George Bush $217,047 to help him get elected twice, and they and the company have contributed an extraordinary $6.2m to Republican campaigns since 1990 according to the Centre for Responsive Politics.

A single Southern Company plant in Juliette, Georgia already emits more carbon dioxide annually that Brazil's entire power sector. The company is in the top two of America's dirtiest utility polluters and sixth worst in the world.

Apart from vague promises by the Democratic presidential hopefuls, there is no pressure on this or any other power company to clean up their act and cut back on CO2 emissions.

Politicians from both parties fear the influence of Southern, which spends huge sums both on lobbying and on political campaigns and is among the biggest power players in Washington. It has seen off numerous attempts to impose controls on the amounts of pollution it pumps out.

The link between massive cash contributions by America's power companies and political arm-twisting in Washington has rarely been put into such sharp relief. Environmentalists have long suspected that President Bush's dogged refusal to sign up to international agreements to control global warming was linked to campaign contributions.

Yesterday's report has finally identified the impact these power companies are having on global warming. Southern, which earned $14.4bn in revenues in 2006, is using its influence to block the introduction of wind, solar, biomass and other renewable energy sources on the grounds that it would eat into its profits.

Subject: RE: BS: Oz: Worst Polluter?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Nov 07 - 05:33 PM

It's the immigrants.

Subject: RE: BS: Oz: Worst Polluter?
From: GUEST,John Gray in Oz
Date: 17 Nov 07 - 07:42 PM

I don't disagree with the figures but the Greenpeace folk don't have alternatives that will generate "base load". ( I'm a GP supporter and my son is a radio operator on their ships )
Sifting through what the scientists tell us it would seem that nuclear power stations can generate base load, in lieu of coal fired, as a short term alternative until technology gives us a mix of wind, wave & solar that can generate the requirement.
Here in Oz we are up to our goolies in Uranium but some time ago, >40 years ago, we signed a non-proliferation agreement which means we can sell it, but not use it. Yeah - we're pretty smart blokes here in Oz.
We sell it to China, with their "promise" that its not used for weaponary. That releases some of their own uranium for sale to Pakistan.
So, if the shit really hits the fan there, and their nuclear weapons fall into the wrong hands, you can thank us good old boys here in Oz.
Don't bother sending cards. We know the good feelings you have towards us.

JG/FME

Subject: RE: BS: Oz: Worst Polluter?
From: Rapparee
Date: 17 Nov 07 - 07:45 PM

Fission as a short-term alternative (where necessary!) seems reasonable to me. Use what's available: wind, tide, geothermal (little to none in use here, on the edge of the Yellowstone Caldera!), nuclear.

Of course, we DO have to get over the NIMBY syndrome first.

Subject: RE: BS: Oz: Worst Polluter?
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 18 Nov 07 - 01:04 AM

the newly green-tinged Federal Government's recent commitment to nuclear power (it's clean!) led to a great cartoon.

Picture a protest march led by the Prime Miniscule & his closest associates arms linked, where protestors are holding up Lib (name of their party) banners.

Prime Miniscule (aka Little Fascist Johnny) -"Waddawewant?!!"
"NUCLEAR POWER" loudly from all throats

second frame
same speaker "Wennawewantit?!!"
lots of little conversation balloons
"A little further down the track" "ooo in due course" "Um"   "At the end of the day" "In the fullness of time" " And not too close to my place" "Nor the beach house"

Subject: RE: BS: Oz: Worst Polluter?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 18 Nov 07 - 01:35 AM

Another thread here gives a set of links to the IPPC Fourth Assessment Reports published thus far.

The "interesting" one, is the "Committee IV" report that ties all the other ones together and outlines what can be done. Thus far, the only thing "out" from Committee IV is a draft "Summary for Policy Makers" although the final SPM should be available soon. The "Tech Section" from Committee IV has not appeared.

These reports are massive¹, and "it ain't easy" getting through them; but the Part IV SPM (draft) does make some pretty optimistic projections about what might be done, if the politicians could all get together:

From draft SPM Table SPM.2
Australia and New Zealand
• By 2020, significant loss of biodiversity is projected to occur in some ecologically rich sites including the Great Barrier Reef and Queensland Wet Tropics;
• By 2030, water security problems are projected to intensify in southern and eastern Australia and, in New Zealand, in Northland and some eastern regions;
• By 2030, production from agriculture and forestry is projected to decline over much of southern and eastern Australia, and over parts of eastern New Zealand, due to increased drought and fire. However, in New Zealand, initial benefits are projected in some other regions.;
• By 2050, ongoing coastal development and population growth in some areas of Australia and New Zealand are projected to exacerbate risks from sea level rise and increases in the severity and frequency of storms and coastal flooding.

Hey folks - it looks like they get of pretty easy compared to a few places. No reason to panic.

¹ While I do have a really slow connection, it took me most of three days to download the reports available thus far (about 362 MB so far). No individual "chapters" exceed about 20MB, and most are quite a bit smaller. Pick and choose what might be of interest, and only download the whole thing if you think this might be a problem next week - or later.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Oz: Worst Polluter?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Nov 07 - 03:04 AM

Little Fascist Johnny has been tring desperately to promote the meme "Solar power cannot produce base load power!", which of course, to the genuinely educated, only proves that the man is an ignorant dickhead!

The Spanish have a SOLAR power station that produces so much solar generated heat during the day, that some heat is stored to produce 24/7 base load electric power...

Subject: RE: BS: Oz: Worst Polluter?
From: Rowan
Date: 18 Nov 07 - 04:52 PM

In fact insolation in Oz is so high, (and 'continuous' in parts with an annual rainfall of less than 10") and extensive, the mainland could produce enough in excess of the baseload to export it across the Bass Strait link to power Tasmania sufficiently to restore Lake Pedder.

Cheers, Rowan