Greenhouse/Climate Change and Australia
This page created 2003/02/22, modified 2009/09/30
If you find an error on any of these pages you will be doing me a favour
by pointing it out so that I can correct it.
My aim is that everything that is not plainly an opinion should be true.
Contact: email daveclarkecb@yahoo.com
See also Climate change in the international
context
"In Australia, we know that water for irrigation is limited, and we are
beginning to discuss how best to divide it up. Here's one way of doing it:
let those with the biggest pumps take as much as they want, never mind what
that leaves for others. Not fair? But then, why are we using exactly this
method of dividing up a scarce resource right now – not with water, but
with the atmosphere? Perhaps because we're not used to thinking of the
atmosphere as a scarce resource, we don't see how unfairly we are behaving."
Peter Singer writing in The Age, 3rd April 2008
Introduction
The USA and
Australia,
with a couple of small middle eastern oil states,
are the worst per-capita greenhouse polluters in the world.
Both the Howard and
Rudd governments have failed to treat the
problem with anything like the urgency it requires.
Closely associated with climate change is ocean warming and ocean
acidification.
For some years the bleaching of coral reefs has been
known to be caused by the former, more recently the latter has been
shown to be caused by the higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and to
pose a great risk to all sea-life that produces skeletons of
calcium carbonate.
In addition to the corals, many of the tiny animals that make up
plankton have calcium carbonate skeletons;
they provide one of the greatest food sources for all – or at least the
great majority of – cephalopods (squid and octopus), fish, dolphins
and whales.
This page is intended to provide some useful information on the
human induced greenhouse and its related effects,
but is not, by any means, a full explanation.
It provides evidence obtained from a number of sources, and links to
reputable organizations that can provide evidence.
For a discussion of what Australia and Australians could reasonably do
to reduce Australia's huge levels of greenhouse gas production see
What should be done?.
I speculate on why humanity is so slow to react to such a serious problem
in the Psychology of climate change, and
compare climate change to other disasters
on another page.
I suspect that future generations will condemn nations like Australia
and the USA because of our part in the greenhouse warming of the
world. In the 'big picture' present day Australia and the USA will be
thought much more
unethical than Nazi Germany was, and leaders like G.W. Bush and John Howard
will be condemned as being much more harmful to the world and the
people of the world than were Hitler and Stalin.
The sycophantic politicians who supported the Bush and
Howard governments will be equally condemned.
Before the 2007 Federal elections
the Australian Conservation Foundation released a scoreboard for all
political parties on their policies on climate
change, water, forests and sustainable cities.
The Coalition received 21 out of 100, Labor scored 49, the Democrats and
the Greens were above 90 and Family First received 31 out of 100.
(From the ABC)
|
Greenhouse warming has already caused bleaching of many coral reefs,
an increased rate of melting of the Greenland icecap, the thinning of the
arctic sea ice, the breakup of several Antarctic ice shelves,
and the retreat of many
mountain glaciers; it has been implicated in the long-term decline in
rainfall in the African Sahel, the Australian drought,
and the increased frequency of hurricanes.
If unchecked, man-made (anthropogenic) climate change will result in:
|
Energy price trends, from the World Coal Institute Net Site.
The fact that the price of coal is increasing demonstrates that
current efforts to reduce greenhouse gas production are half-hearted and
ineffectual.
|
|
|
It has been suggested (was it by Malcolm Turnbull?)
that the Great Barrier Reef is not threatened because
as the Pacific Ocean warms the reef will simply move gradually south into
cooler water. This will not happen because the seabed to the south of
the present reef is not shallow enough far enough from the coastline.
Some new reefs close to the coast might form, but the offshore water is
too deep for the necessary light to penetrate to the bottom for reef growth.
Also, coral reefs only grow in clean water; the water further south
probably contains more industrial pollution.
|
|
From http://www.uic.com.au/nip37.htm (Uranium Information Centre)
"In 2006 Australia's power stations produced 255 billion kilowatt hours
(TWh)
of electricity, 65% more than the 1990 level and growing at 3.3% pa.
[This was made up of] 243TWh public supply plus 12TWh for non-grid
autoproducers.
Of this gross amount, about 18TWh is used by the power stations themselves,
leaving 237TWh actually sent out (net production). Then about 17TWh is
lost or used in transmission and 9-10 more in energy sector consumption,
leaving 210TWh for final consumption (or 187TWh apart from aluminium
exports)."
|
|
- More frequent days of extreme fire danger in Australia
- to the point where the
authorities are considering new classifications of 'very extreme' and
'catastrophic' fire danger days;
ABC;
- An increase in the frequency of extreme weather events such as floods,
severe dust storms and hurricanes;
- Long-term rainfall decline in some areas, increase in others.
In many cases this will
cause the displacement of the residents of those areas;
- Habitat change; some areas will become unsuited for their fauna and
flora;
- Warming oceans causes bleaching of coral reefs. This will result in the
loss of reefs – Australia's Great Barrier Reef is in serious danger
(see note in box on right);
- Ocean acidification – due to higher levels of atmospheric carbon
dioxide – could make it
impossible for animals to build their calcium carbonate skeletons;
- The spread of some diseases into areas where they have not previously been
a problem;
- Extinction of many species;
- Destablisation of populations; Mick Keelty, head of the Australian
Federal Police, has said that this will be the greatest threat to
Australia's future security;
- Possible changing of some of the major oceanic currents (if the Gulf
Stream was to fail, as seems possible, much of northern Europe would become
uninhabitable);
- Possible run-away greenhouse due to such things as release of the methane
clathrate (hydrate) on the ocean floors and the methane currently locked up
in permafrost;
- Sea level rise – which will lead to flooding of some very
populous river
deltas (eg. Nile, Mekong, Ganges) with resultant displacement and probable
starvation of millions. Several low-lying Pacific island nations could
virtually disappear;
- The melting of mountain glaciers, particularly in the Himalayas, with the
consequent forming of high altitude lakes. The lakes are held back by
moraines which then become unstable and can burst causing catastrophic
flooding.
- Loss of productivity of farm land due to climate change.
Is the record drought in eastern Australia caused by climate change
(see map below)?
Research carried out by the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO indicate that
the
Walker circulation
(an important wind system in the South Pacific)
has been effected by climate change in such a way as to make drought in
Australia much more likely.
| Rainfall trends in Australia
|
|---|
|
Australian rainfall trends –
Bureau of Meteorology
The areas coloured in browns are where the rainfall has decreased in the
last 36 years, the areas in greens have had increases in rainfall.
This image is compressed for faster loading
|
|
Annual rainfalls at Clare, Mid-north South Australia
An example of an area with a steeply declining rainfall in the more
recent years
|
(This page uses several technical units.
Energy units, definitions and conversions
are available on an additional page.)
|
|
|
Climate change is the greatest danger and challenge facing mankind today.
But dangers and challenges bring opportunities, great dangers and challenges
bring great opportunities.
If we get it wrong we will have committed the greatest crime ever
imposed by one generation on those to come; Humanity will cause the
greatest destruction, indeed extinction, ever brought about by one species
on thousands of others.
If the people of the world can successfully limit their greenhouse
gas production rates to a sustainable level it will be humanity's
greatest ever achievement.
Those few world leaders who stand in the way of cutting back greenhouse
gas production are the greatest ever villains: their crime far greater
than Hitler's Holocaust and Stalin's purges.
Those who lead the world in combating climate change should be counted among
the world's greatest heroes.
|
|
The short answer is yes, 100%.
A Study
by Dr Naomi Oreskes, University of California, San Diego, published
in the peer reviewed
magazine, Science, December 3, 2004 Vol. 306, Issue 5702,1686 described
a random sample of nearly 10% of articles on global warming published in
peer reviewed journals in the previous 10 years.
Of the 928 articles sampled, and analysed whether agreeing or disagreeing
with the prevailing consensus view of anthropogenic global warming, none
disagreed with this consensus.
Another study of the newspaper stories in the New York Times, Washington
Post, LA Times and the Wall Street Journal, published in the previous 14
years, sampled about 18% of articles (636 articles) and applied the same
question of agreeing or disagreeing and came up with 53% in doubt or
disagreeing with this scientific consensus view.
I would like to thank Dr Colin Endean for the above information.
Obviously the scientists in those specialties where they would be well
placed to know about climate change are in no doubt.
The fact that the popular
media are suggesting that there is a lot of doubt on the matter explains
much of the confusion in the general public.
Respectable popular science journals, such as Scientific American and
New Scientist, are not in any doubt that climate change is happening and is
largely caused by human activity.
One must be cautious about quotes from 'scientists' about any subject
outside of his or her field.
A scientist, like any other person, often has little expertise outside of
his own specialty.
|
|
Bias?
Geologists are often closely connected with the mining industry which,
being very greenhouse intesive, has
strong economic motives in playing down the reality of anthropogenic
climate change.
A well known geologist-climate-change-skeptic, Ian Plimer, is Professor
of Mining Geology at Adelaide University.
It is human nature for people to sympathise with their associates; a
professor of mining geology will associate with miners.
It should also be remembered how people running the tobacco industry
managed to ignore the facts about the health problems associated with
their product.
|
|
For example, a geologist, while perhaps being well placed to know about
climates millions of years ago, is not at all likely to know a lot about
the complex factors that effect today's climate, or the likely climate in
the next century.
In fact, a geologist, unless he has specialised in the paleoclimate field,
might know little about climates even in the distant past.
I pick on geologists because they seem, more than most other scientists,
to be skeptical about the causes of recent climate change.
It is quite true that there have been huge changes in climate in the
very distant past; one need only think of the ice ages, and there have
also been very warm periods.
However, what the geologist-skeptics seem to neglect is that any of
these changes, especially
those that came on suddenly – and a change that happened over a century or
two is a very sudden change in geological time – were disastrous to many
species.
Geologists are trained to look at things in the very long term.
It is true that the biosphere will adjust to climate change.
In several million years things will have settled down again and a visitor
to the earth would not easily see that anthropogenic climate change ever
happened; although, if he studied the genetic diversity of the species
present he might come to the conclusion that some great disaster happened
in the geologically recent past.
|
The Howard Government's justification for not acting to reduce Australia's
very high greenhouse gas production levels has always been based on
economic arguments (and on
jobs).
What do the economists say?
The following is a quote from the Australia Institute's media release
downloadable with the document:
"Seventy five professors of economics today called on the Federal Government
to stop undermining international efforts to tackle climate change and to
ratify the Kyoto Protocol without delay.
The 75 professors are among 271 Australian university economists who have
signed a statement drawing attention to the economic damage to Australia of
failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
The full statement can be downloaded from The Australia Institutes
downloads.
It seems that the economists realise the damage that will be done by
greenhouse far outweighs any damage to the economy caused by addressing
the problem.
I wonder if Howard's real reason for doing nothing is simple pig-headedness;
he has always been against it and he's not about to change his mind – to
change his mind would be to admit he was wrong, and he never admits he was
wrong on anything.
|
A quote from the Minister for Environment and Heritage,
Senator Ian Campbell (speaking about climate change, 2005/07/26):
"It is an incredibly important issue and there are incredibly strong reasons
for taking comprehensive, effective global action to reduce carbon and other
greenhouse gas emissions."
In spite of occasional creditable statements such as this coming from both
major parties in Australian politics we are seeing very little action.
One argument for doing very little that pops up periodically is the
'Australia can't make any difference one'.
It goes something like this:
"Australia only produces about 1.5% of the world's greenhouse gasses.
If we were to cut our emissions to nothing tomorrow it would make very little
difference to the world.
Therefore we would be foolish to risk crippling our economy by taking strong
action."
The fallacy in this argument can best be demonstrated by taking it even
further.
"South Australia produces well under one percent of the world's greenhouse
gasses; South Australians can't be any part of the problem!"
and further:
"The people in my home town of Crystal Brook produce a tiny proportion of
the world's greenhouse gasses, plainly we don't need to bother reducing our
production."
and further:
"I produce maybe only a billionth of the world's greenhouse gasses, there's
no point in me changing my ways."
Australia is a part of the world; we must do our bit.
On a per-capita basis Australians are responsible about five times as much
greenhouse gasses as the average world citizen.
We have a larger moral responsibility to reduce our emissions than most
other nations and most other people.
The Howard and Rudd Governments pretend that they are behaving responsibly
in regard to greenhouse.
To know that this is false you need only consider the following facts:
- All fossil
fuel fired power stations in Australia have what amounts to an unlimited
license to dump their waste carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. What other
industry in the early twenty-first century has unlimited license to dump
waste anywhere?
- Many, many things in Australia are taxed,
coal is not; coal is the
Australian government's sacred cow.
- The Australian Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (20% by 2020)
has been set at the minimum level that will cover targets previously
set by the Australian state governments, it is proposed that it build up
slowly until 2016, with most of the growth after that (after the
current – Rudd – government's period of office).
- The Australian government has far more money invested in the fossil
fuel industries than in the renewable fuel industries.
While President G.W. Bush has been
known to deny that climate change is happening,
Australian governments talk big but do very little.
Tristan Edis, Business Council for Sustainable Energy said in 2007 that
"Our electricity greenhouse emissions in Australia have grown 50 per cent
since 1990 and ABARE forecasts that they'll grow by another 50 per cent by
2030. So we've got to go beyond what we're doing right now."
I have listed a number of the actions that the Australian government
could take to reduce Australia's greenhouse impact on
What should be done?.
|
|
Northern hemisphere temperatures – credit: Aust. Bureau of
Meteorology
This image is compressed for faster loading |
Reconstruction of northern hemisphere temperatures over the past 1000 years
based on instrumental and proxy data records.
The steep rise in temperatures starting in the early twentieth century is
obvious.
|
|
Australian mean annual temperature anomaly – credit:
Aust. Bureau of
Meteorology, 2008
|
The graph on the right shows the change in average annual temperatures
from 1910 to about 2007.
For each year it shows how the average temperature for that year compares
to the average temperature for the base period, 1961-1990.
Years below that average are represented by blue bars going downward and years
above average temperture are represented by red bars going upward.
The length of the bars show how far the temperature of that year deviated
from the average.
|
|
| |
The blue diamonds are long-term average temperatures for Clare.
Pink squares are average temperatures measured in particular months.
Note that, in most cases, the temperatures measured in recent months have
been higher than those for average months (pink plots are above blue plots)
– evidence that the climate is warming in the Clare Valley.
For the whole of this period temperatures were 0.79° warmer than
the long-term average.
These data are from Bureau of Meteorology records available on the Net.
| |
I live in the Clare Valley of 'Mid-North' South Australia.
Temperatures at Clare, like most other parts of Australia, have increased
in recent years.
The graph at right shows
long-term average monthly temperatures and the average temperatures of
recent months.
The important point in this context is that most of the recent
months were warmer than average months.
Higher temperatures cause greater need of water by native vegitation;
however, we are not getting any more rain; in fact recent years have
generally been drier than average.
Early 2008 was particularly dry and in March 2008 there was a heat wave
of such length that it went well beyond the previous record.
This placed the native trees in the Clare Valley under such stress that
by May thousands of them were dead.
Many years ago a conservation park was established at Spring Gully near
Clare to protect a pocket of red stringybark
(Eucalyptus macrorhyncha) trees that had, thousands of
years ago, become separated from the remainder of the species.
These have proven particularly vulnerable to the drought and heat;
in May 2008 it appears that many of these trees have died.
It is more a guess than an estimate, but it seems to me that
a third to a half of the stringybarks in the Clare Valley are dead.
|
|
|
| |
Note the decline in rainfall in recent years
|
|
The graph at the right is made up of Bureau of Meteorology data taken from
Clare Post office (1863 to 1994) and Clare High School (from 1995 onward).
The average annual rainfall from 1863 to 1990 was 632mm, from 1991 to
2008 it was 557mm, 75mm lower.
In the period from 1994 to 2008 the average was 525mm, 107mm lower than
the 1863 to 1990 average.
The curved line was calculated as a line of best fit to the data.
The steepness and persistence of the decline in rainfalls since about 1970
seems to be unprecedented in the data.
Plainly the declining rainfalls, combined with higher temperatures,
will stress perennial plants.
Worryingly, the decline in rainfall seems to be becoming steeper, there
is no reason to think that the bottom has been reached.
See also Climate Change hits the Clare Valley.
|
Red stringybark (Eucalyptus macrorhyncha) trees, Spring Gully
Conservation Park, South Australia.
All in this photo are dead or nearly dead.
The photo was taken on 11th May, 2008; |
Are temperatures related to greenhouse gasses?
The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)
of Australia has interesting data on this point.
This graph shows that, over the past 400 000 years, atmospheric
carbon-dioxide levels have been very closely linked to temperatures.
Are our activities significant?
Is our civilization really having any significant impact on
atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels?
This CSIRO graph shows that CO2
levels have increased steeply since
the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) Technical Paper IV, 2007, on climate change and water
stated that:
"The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and
CH4 in 2005 exceed by far the natural range over the last
650 000 years.
Global increases in CO2 concentrations are due primarily
to fossil fuel use, with land-use change providing
another significant but smaller contribution. It is very likely
that the observed increase in CH4 concentration is predominantly
due to agriculture and fossil fuel use."
The IPCC report can be downloaded can be downloaded
here.
To claim that the atmospheric changes are coincidental is to hide one's head
in the sand.
The importance of electricity consumption
A study called 'A Clean Energy Future for Australia' for the Clean
Energy Futures Group wrote the following:
"In 2001 energy which users obtained by direct combustion of fuels
and collection of
solar heat provided 69% of the energy supplied to users (including
use in the production
and processing of fuels other than electricity), but accounted for
only 31% of greenhouse
gas emissions from stationary energy. Electricity generation
accounted for the other 69% of emissions."
Put simply and excluding transport,
while less than one third of Australia's energy comes
from electricity, more than two thirds of Australia's greenhouse
gasses are produced by our electricity generators. So if Australia
is to reduce its greenhouse gas production rate, the electricity
generation industry is a good place to start.
This study can be downloaded (in pdf format) from
the Net. You could try the
Australian Wind Energy Association's site for a link
to a download.
Comments on some objections
A few people (fewer and fewer each year) still believe that the man-made
greenhouse effect is imaginary. This section lists several of the
objections that have come my way, and answers them.
| Question/objection
| Answer
|
| Temperature records are not sufficiently accurate
and/or not sufficiently long for us to be
sure that temperatures have really risen.
| Not only are there records of directly measured temperatures,
but past ocean temperatures can be inferred by measuring oxygen
isotope ratios in oceanic fossils of known ages.
Encyclopedia Britannica...
"The record is relatively consistent from one core
sample to the next and can be correlated throughout the oceans."
Also see
BOM temperature graph.
|
| Thickness of some polar ice sheets is increasing; does this
make sense if the world is becoming warmer?
| Temperature is not the only variable involved (and in any case
while average global temperatures are rising, not all local
temperatures are necessarily doing the same).
A quote from the USA EPA
"Precipitation has increased by about 1 percent over the world's
continents in the last century. High latitude areas are tending to
see more significant increases in rainfall, while precipitation has
actually declined in many tropical areas."
An increase in winter snowfall would cause thickening of some ice sheets.
Also, it should be noted that the Greenland ice sheet is melting at
record rates and the Arctic Ocean ice cover is thinning.
|
| The amount of greenhouse gasses produced from natural
processes is
much greater than is being produced by Man, so doesn't than mean that
our effect is negligible?
| The short answer is no. A quote from World Book Encyclopedia on CD ROM,
2000.
"Without the natural greenhouse effect, the average temperature of the
earth's surface would be about 33oC cooler than it
is now."
We need this much greenhouse warming, but significantly more could be
disastrous.
Note that if we add only 10% to the natural effect, that's another 3
degrees C.
|
|
Isn't the warming of the past century just a natural rebound from the
little ice age?
|
The little ice age was mainly confined to Europe (it peaked from
1650-1750), and any rebound from
that would have been largely completed by the 20th century. Indeed,
the natural long-term climate trend today would be toward a cooler
climate were it not for human activities. (Thanks, in part, to
Scientific American)
|
|
The surface warming that is claimed to be evidence of global warming
is mainly urban 'heat island' effects near weather stations.
|
Not so. As predicted, the greatest warming is found in remote regions
such as central Asia, the Antarctic Peninsula and Alaska.
The largest areas of surface warming
are over the ocean, far from urban locations. (Thanks, in part, to
Scientific American)
Also see Goddard Institute for Space Studies,
Surface temperature analysis.
|
Quotes from authoritative sources
Encyclopedia Britannica (1999 CD ROM)
"Should present trends in the emission of greenhouse gases,
particularly of CO2,
continue beyond another 100 years, climatic
changes larger than any ever experienced during recent geologic
periods can be expected. This could substantially alter natural and
agricultural ecosystems, human and animal health, and the
distribution of climatic resources."
United States Environmental Protection Agency Website
"Rising global temperatures are expected to raise sea level, and change
precipitation and other local climate conditions. Changing regional climate
could alter forests, crop yields, and water supplies. It could also affect
human health, animals, and many types of ecosystems. Deserts may expand
into existing rangelands, and features of some of our National Parks may
be permanently altered."
New Scientist Journal Website
"Burning fossil fuels and using the atmosphere as an open sewer has turned out
to be a recipe for disaster. The Earth is warming and the pace is
quickening."
A table on the rates of carbon emissions of major nations is given
at
World Carbon Emissions from Fossil Fuels.
|
|
I wonder about the psychology of climate change denial.
Unconvinced
There are, no doubt, a number of people who are unconvinced.
Considering what is printed in the popular
press this is understandable if not
excusable.
One need only glance occasionally at the scientific press, such journals as
the Scientific American or the New Scientist to see that the experts are
convinced.
But it seems there will always be a lot of ignorance in this world.
Too horrible
Is there a group who find the predictions of climatologists, demographers
and others who are warning about the probable effects of climate change
too horrible to accept?
Is it like a suppressed memory of childhood abuse that is locked away
because facing it is too painful?
Sticking to their guns
Then there is the group who has been saying for years that climate change
is not happening, or that it is nothing to do with Man's activities.
If you have been insisting on something for years it is very difficult to
accept that you were wrong and change your stance.
The evidence piles up bit by bit, but these people find reasons why
they shouldn't believe it, bit by bit; they go on and on this way even
after the evidence has gone well past the point of convincing any with
an open mind.
This is where prominent climate change denier Ian Plimer finds himself;
with many others.
Apathetic
How many just don't care?
Or do they think the problem is too big for them to do anything about?
Or do they feel that climate change is going to happen some time in the
distant future and they will worry about it when it happens?
(There is, of course, ample evidence that it is already having some
pretty terrible effects.)
I read recently that people tend to deal with small problems that affect
a few people, they are less likely to try to take on a larger problem
that affects more people; the biggest problems that affect a great many
people are the least likely to be tackled.
Convinced, but do nothing anyway
Australian governments, local, state and federal, all know that climate
change is happening and most would be aware that humanity is the cause.
Yet they choose to do very little or nothing because lobbyists of the
finacially powerful mining and fossil fuel industries don't want anything
done.
Our governments are playing with band-aids while what is needed is
major surgery; they are fiddling while Rome burns.
|
|
Peter D. Ward wrote an article in the Scientific American of October 2006
describing a theory that several major extinctions in the geological
past have been caused by the oceans becoming anoxic (without oxygen)
with consequent proliferation of hydrogen sulphide (H2S) producing
bacteria.
H2S is itself toxic, but even worse for life on Earth, it can
destroy the ozone layer.
Ward's theory, supported by convincing evidence, was that the combination
of the H2S itself and the ultra-violet radiation due to the
loss of the ozone layer killed most life on Earth.
Ward continued to propose that a similar disaster could be caused by the
current rise in atmospheric CO2.
As CO2 increases the oceans warm and as they warm oxygen becomes
less soluble in them; that is they move toward anoxia.
If they become sufficiently anoxic the H2S producing bacteria
could establish and trigger another global extinction.
Ward suggests that the geological data indicates that this could happen
at an atmospheric CO2 level of around 900 parts per million.
This is a very short interpretation of Ward's article.
I suggest that readers consult the original in Scientific American.
|
In the geological record there is an enormous amount of evidence that
the Earth's climate has changed markedly many times in the past.
I don't intend to attempt
to list anywhere near all of that here.
|
|
This road has been cut through fossil sand dunes that have not
been active in the recent past. However, farmers must take care to not
allow them to become bare of vegetation.
|
However, this Internet site has been written in the Mid North of South
Australia, and there is abundant evidence to be seen in this area for a
much drier period in the not too distant past: only a matter of several
thousand
years. Fossil sand dunes are to be seen, not only in the Mid North, but
on Eyre and Yorke Peninsulas, and the far north of the state.
Perhaps those who are neither farmers nor geologists
would not necessarily recognize them. They are
typically low rounded hills, well covered with grass, shrubs, or trees;
quite probably they
are in agricultural land and may have crops growing on them. They are
most often to be seen on otherwise flat land. In a past, drier period,
these little hills were moving sand dunes such as can be seen in many of the
world's deserts.
What happened in the past may well happen again, especially if we mess
with the climate.
AMP, in its 'Working towards a sustainable future' newsletter,
printed the following:
|
The fossil-fuel industry may be potentially liable for the impacts
of global warming.
The question here is – when will the link between greenhouse gases
and climate change become a 'scientific certainty', so that down
the track companies cannot dispute it?
Most scientists would argue that such evidence exists today.
So where does this leave companies which are fundamentally
involved in fossil fuels?
At a strategic level, it may require them to rethink their business,
as shown by BP's move to 'Beyond Petroleum' – renewing their
commitment to the environment and solar power.
However, such a strategic change takes time. In the meantime,
companies can balance the potential liability of their fossil-fuel
products, e.g. coal or gas, with climate change initiatives in other
parts of their business which produce 'carbon credits'.
Climate change product liability may affect related industries
sooner rather than later, as shown by the recent case of a number
of US States taking power generation companies to court over
climate change.
|
So, will companies, and perhaps governments, involved in polluting
the earth's atmosphere with greenhouse gasses, be forced to mend
their ways if they want a future for themselves? Will Australia,
and Australians, have to financially compensate other nations for
the damage that our present government's short-sighted policies
are causing?
Rising ocean temperatures are causing the bleaching of coral reefs. Reef
building corals are a symbiotic union of a coral organism and an algae.
When water temperatures rise beyond around 30 degrees Celsius the algae is
expelled,
causing the coral to loose its colour. The remaining coral organism cannot,
and does not, long survive without the algae.
Australia's Great Barrier Reef and reefs on the Western coast have both
suffered from temporary bleaching events,
significant part of some other reefs have been permanently killed.
Reef bleaching is expected to worsen as global warming progresses.
|
An Australian could be excused for thinking that the greenhouse situation
is without hope. Our federal government refuses to take the greenhouse
problem seriously, climate change predictions are dire, the USA continues
to take far more than it's share of the world's resources.
|
|
One of the turbines of the Canunda wind farm, Millicent
|
But there are signs of hope...
Here in South Australia there is existing, or under construction, 730MW
of wind farm generation capacity (as of July 2007).
A number of companies are exploring for hot rocks to use for the
generation of geothermal energy, which will help replace coal fired
power station electricity.
The state government has set a target of 15% renewably generated electricity
within ten years and 20% of the public transport busses are to be converted to
biodiesel (pers. com. Patric Conlon, Minister for Transport, Infrastructure
and Energy, 2005/11/15). This is in a state
where much of the electricity has been generated for many years by
burning a brown coal of very poor quality, where the minimum
electrical demand overnight is only 1000MW, and in a country where
the federal government feels that a% sustainable electricity is
sufficient!
Solar thermal power is showing signs of approaching viability as a large
scale contributor to the power grid.
Technology is in the pilot stage that will allow solar power stations to
go on producing power for many hours after the sun has stopped shining.
Extraction of petroleum has peaked, or is about to peak. There
are predictions that the price of liquid fuels will rise steeply in
the next few years. This will make big heavy gas-guzzling cars
unviable. People will be forced to buy small, fuel efficient cars.
Those who buy new gas-guzzlers will probably find that they can only
afford to run them for a very few years.
In spite of the lack of leadership from national government, industry, and
to some extent state government, is
planning for a future in which it realises that greenhouse gasses
must be minimised. They are switching to cogeneration and to
looking seriously at alternatives to fossil fuels.
There is some reason to hope for a more rational future.
Relevant offsite links
More information on some links
- AEPCA
- The Australasian Energy Performance Contracting Association.
Its members are formed from energy service companies, state government
departments and private companies interested in the performance contracting
process. Energy performance contracting is a smart, affordable and increasingly
common way to make building improvements that save energy and money. Its
mission is to act as the Peak Body to support the commercial growth of
members and their market through education, industry promotion, self-regulation
and industry standards.
- Climate Science Watch
- A nonprofit public interest education and advocacy
project dedicated to holding public officials accountable for the integrity
and effectiveness with which they use climate science and related research
in government policymaking, toward the goal of enabling society to respond
effectively to the challenges posed by global warming and climate change.
- The Australian Business Council for Sustainable Energy (BCSE)
- Represents
the interests of the broader sustainable energy industry including, renewables
energy, cogeneration, gas-fired generation, waste-to-energy and energy
efficiency industry. It has more than 250 organisations as members. It formed
in September 2002 through the merger of the Australian EcoGeneration
Association and the Sustainable Energy Industry Association.
- Bioenergy Australia
- Established in 1997 as a government-industry forum to foster and
facilitate the development of biomass for energy, liquid fuels, and
other value added bio-based products. Bioenergy Australia is concerned with
all aspects of biomass and bioenergy, from production through to utilisation,
and its work embraces technical, commercial, economic, societal,
environmental, policy and market issues. This report does not necessarily
reflect the views of all individual Bioenergy Australia members.
- The Renewable Energy Generators of Australia (REGA)
- Formed in
1999 as an industry association with a common purpose of supporting the
development of generation of electricity from truly renewable resources. REGA
represents all sectors of the renewable energy industry; members represent 95%
of the existing renewable energy generation capacity, and include equipment
suppliers, developers and industry specialists.
|
Fossil fuelled power stations dump their toxic waste (and there can be no
doubt that carbon dioxide is poisoning the atmosphere) directly into
the atmosphere. Most nations have long banned similar polluting
activities from other industries.
Some similarly polluting activities for comparison...
- Carbon dioxide from fossil fuelled power stations
- In Australia and the USA, dumped directly into the atmosphere
with no penalty on the polluter in spite of the strong evidence
of man-induced climate change
- Sewage
- In the past sewage has been dumped directly into rivers or the
sea. Most people in the twenty-first century would consider this
to be a very crude practice
- Hard rubbish
- Once just dumped in heaps; most nations now try to recycle
as much as possible, burry the remainder, and rehabilitate the
land surface
- Petrochemical waste
- Most nations would not even consider dumping this directly
into the environment
- Paper pulping waste
- Dumping into the environment would not now be tolerated
- Nuclear waste
- Disposal of radioactive waste has to be done very carefully
in most nations
I could go on.
So why do the Australian and US governments think that dumping
carbon dioxide directly into the atmosphere is acceptable?
There are two reasons:
- While pollution of land, a river or a coast affects mainly the nation
that owns that land, river or coast, the atmosphere is shared by the
whole earth, and the pollution is spread over the whole earth.
A nation with a government that is short-sighted can make all other
nations share its pollution; especially when that nation is the most
militaristic on the planet (or a puppet of such a nation).
- The Australian and US governments are largely run by big business
rather than being true democracies.
The fossil fuel industries do not want anything done to reduce their
profitability.
|
Sequestration
|
Also see Geosequestration
Sequestration, as applied to the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide
(CO2), is the
storage of carbon dioxide, or the carbon content of the carbon
dioxide, in a sink. The sink may be one or more of several alternatives
including: an underground aquifer, an exhausted oil field, a deep ocean
trench, and trees.
The flaw in the sequestration concept is in the question of how long does
it last? Carbon sequestrated in trees may be back in the atmosphere
20 years later if the trees are converted to wood pulp, the pulp into
paper, and the paper burned or allowed to rot.
Sequestration of carbon dioxide in a geological formation is experimental,
in theory it seems like it should work, but what if the CO2 doesn't stay
where it is put?
Sequestration takes carbon that has been locked away from the atmosphere
safely for hundreds of millions of years and places it where we hope it
will not get back into the atmosphere for decades or longer.
It seems pretty plain that it would be better to leave the carbon in
the rocks in the first place.
|
|
Carbon is one the main constituents of vegetation; live wood is about a
quarter carbon, very dry wood is more nearly half carbon.
Vegetation absorbs
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as it grows. Trees are among the largest
and longest lived forms of vegetation, so they are important in either
removing or keeping carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
What seems to often be neglected by the proponents of growing trees (or bush
or forest) as a way of counteracting the build-up of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere is that trees do not live forever. When a tree dies it typically
rots and the carbon in it is returned to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.
Of course this may be delayed if the timber in the tree is used for on or
another construction purpose.
In some situations, generally in wetter situations than are at all common in
Australia, dead trees do not return all of their carbon to the atmosphere.
It can
be held in the soil beneath the forest as peat. This is, of course, the
beginning of the natural process that finishes in the formation of coal.
But usually, when the trees in an Australian plantation reach maturity,
that plantation no longer removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Referring to mallee trees planted in Western Australia, a 276kb pdf
document by Professor Syd Shea, University of Notre Dame, Aust. estimates
the cost of carbon sequestration in mallees at significantly below US$15/tonne.
Compare this with the estimated
cost of geosequestration of carbon dioxide from coal fired power stations
of around US$50/tonne. The Australian Government under John Howard is
giving the Australian coal industry big money to research the latter!
These mallee trees would have other potential values:
- Combating rising saline groundwater;
- Producing eucalyptus oil, which has a number of uses;
- Producing activated carbon;
- An energy source via biomass combustion;
- A fuel source via fermentation to ethanol;
For more information visit the
Oil Mallee Information Website.
|
|
If natural carbonaceous materials are buried in damp soil,
and oxygen is present,
micro-organisms will slowly convert the materials to carbon dioxide, water,
and plant nutrients such as phosphate and nitrate.
In saturated soil where oxygen is absent, other micro-organisms
will slowly remove the hydrogen, as methane,
and increase the proportion of carbon
in the remaining material.
(Ironically, methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than is carbon
dioxide, but it eventually oxidises to carbon dioxide and water and does
not remain in the environment anywhere near so long as CO2.)
This has happened to wood, leaves, moss, etc. for
millions of years. This process leads first to the development of peat;
if the material is later buried by being covered with sediments, carbonisation
can continue to produce lignite and eventually black coal.
This natural process could be put to use to slowly reduce the amount of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere. Trees could be grown, then cut and buried in
wet soil. The methane could be collected and used as an energy source.
Apart from the slowness of this reversal of the man-made greenhouse effect,
one other problem would be that plant nutrients would also be lost to the
biosphere with the carbonaceous material. They might be recoverable by
pumping leachates from the peat.
|
|
The pressure and temperature at the bottom of the oceans is such that carbon
dioxide will be in a liquid state. Therefore it is possible to dump it in
places such as deep ocean trenches. However, the question of its
solubility in sea water must be considered. And heat, such as in a volcanic
eruption, would return the carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
|
Geosequestration
|
Also see sequestration and
cost of geosequestration.
Geosequestration is the deep underground storage of carbon dioxide
as an alternative to allowing it to enter the atmosphere and increase
the greenhouse effect. Similar to disposal of rubbish by land-fill,
it is not a sustainable technology, but it is a way of temporarily reducing
the harmful side effects of burning fossil fuels. Sooner or later the
carbon dioxide will again enter the atmosphere, however if the
particular form of geosequestration works correctly, most of the CO2 will
be isolated from the atmosphere for thousands of years.
In Australia carbon dioxide could theoretically be sequestered in depleted oil
or gas fields (not expected to be sufficiently depleted until 2030), deep
underground unminable coal seams, or deep saline aquifers.
See the
Clean Energy Future Report by the Clean Energy Future Group
for more information.
There are risks in geosequestration
associated with the high vapour pressure of CO2 at the
temperatures found in geological formations and with the high solubility of
CO2 in groundwater.
Is geosequestration economically
feasible?
Is geosequestration desirable?
How does geosequestration compare with other greenhouse abatement
methods?
While these questions have certainly not been answered in favour
of geosequestration, already the Australian Government is spending
hundreds of millions of dollars on
geosequestration research, while providing very little money for
renewable energy research. One can only suppose that they are
doing so because they have a commitment to support the fossil
fuel industry. See
Corporate political donations.
An informative discussion on geosequestration was aired on the ABC
Catalyst
program of 2004/09/09.
|
The material in this box was drawn from the ABC Radio National's
Earthbeat program of 15/02/2003.
Experts on renewable energy dream of the research budgets that
geosequestration now commands. Their eyes boggle when they think
what renewable energy could do with a budget that size. In fact,
the research funds invested by government into geosequestration
during the last year alone are about as much as the entire
renewable energy industry has received in the last decade.
But even that level of support is not being maintained.
Mark Horstman, Earthbeat reporter
|
Keith Tarlo is a senior researcher with the Institute for Sustainable
Futures at the University of Technology in Sydney. He's investigated
a proposal to use geosequestration with brown coal in the La Trobe
valley, and believes that the technology is risky.
You can only use geological sequestration in two places: one is at an
oil and gas platform, and the second is a brand new coal-fired power
station that uses a new, but really untested technology. Every other
place you can't use it so existing power stations, your cars and trucks,
and homes, offices and factories, you can't use it. So for the majority
of the economy, geosequestration is not a solution and you have to turn
to efficient use of clean, renewable sources of energy.
Secondly, it's an expensive way to deal with the problem. The current
estimates are that it's twice as expensive as other ways of dealing
with the carbon dioxide pollution problem.
Thirdly, there's some unmeasured risks really associated with the
technology which other energy technologies simply don't have. These
are risks of leakage out from underground, possible risks from seismic
activity or earthquakes from pumping all this stuff under high
pressure deep underground.
And last but not least is the technology you have to use for power
stations to make geosequestration work, is a fancily titled coal-
burning technology called Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle.
The reason you have to use that, is you have to capture the
carbon dioxide before you burn it. If you wait until after you've
burnt it, it's very difficult for a whole host of reasons to capture
the carbon dioxide. There have been trial plants running now for
about a decade and none of them have achieved high levels of
reliability or availability. And this has been going on in the US,
not in some sort of Third World country.
Keith Tarlo
|
Professor Andrew Blakers is Director of the Centre for
Sustainable Energy Systems at the Australian National
University. He is discussing research and development into
clean energy.
It's a remarkable circumstance that for the first time
in 30 years there is no strategic
[renewable energy] R&D fund. There have
been a number of long-term trends that have been against
the R&D industry in Australia, the vacation of the field
by CSIRO about 10 or 15 years ago was unfortunate, the
exhaustion of the Australian Greenhouse Office funds,
the privatisation and corporatisation of electricity
companies has eliminated R&D from that sector, the
Electricity Supply Association of Australia used to
have an R&D fund, that's gone. The State R&D funds
have almost all gone, and the Federal R&D funds have
all gone. This has led to a situation where doors are
closing one by one and no doors are opening. For a
number of not conspiracy, but cock-up reasons really,
it's reached the point where there's only 2 renewable
energy R&D groups left in the whole country in all of
renewables that have critical mass, say more than 5 or
so staff members. Failure to move quickly will mean
that the remaining energy R&D groups will collapse and
this is simply not sufficient to support a vibrant viable
industry in Australia.
[Renewable energy technologies] are characterised by quite
astonishing growth rates over quite astonishingly long
periods of time. The photovoltaic industry has had
continuously positive growth for the last 30 years,
the wind energy industry is currently growing at 30%
per year for the last decade, the PV industry has been
growing at 30% to 40% over the last five years, the
solar water heater industry is growing at 30% a year
in Australia. These are astounding growth rates, and
if they're maintained for long periods they're going to
lead to very large industries, within the next 10 or 15
years.
Andrew Blakers
|
|
|
The
Clean Energy Future Report by the Clean Energy Future Group
quotes figures from the International Energy Agency (Davidson, Freund & Smith
2001; Freund & Davison 2002) of between US$45 (Aust$68) and US$55
(Aust$83) for every tonne of carbon dioxide
geosequested.
The lower figure was for coal with integrated gasification combined cycle
(IGCC) and natural gas combined cycle, while the higher figure was for
conventional pulverised coal power stations.
News
In about January 2008 President George W. Bush cancelled a proposed
fully geosequestrating coal fired power station in the USA.
He decided that, as planning proceeded, the costs of building and running
the station were looking like they would be prohibitively high.
|
For brown coal about 0.8MWh of electricity is produced
per tonne of CO2, while for black coal the corresponding
figure is 1.2MWh/tonne CO2.
It can then be calculated that the additional cost of gas-fired and
coal-fired electricity
due to geosequestration is likely to be from US$36/MWh to US$66/MWh depending
on the type of coal and the type of power station.
Also see my page on
heating efficiencies etc.
The wholesale cost of generating electricity in a coal fired power
station (without responsible disposal of CO2) is typically
around US$20/MWh. The wholesale cost of coal-fired power with
geosequestration can therefore be expected to be (if and when
geosequestration is successfully developed) US$49 ($36 * 0.8 + $20)
to US$99 ($66 * 1.2 + $20) per MWh.
This is more than the cost
of electricity generated by several sustainable methods; for example,
wind generated electricity is currently around US$50/MWh.
In July 2005 US$49 is about Aust$64 and US$99 is about Aust$128.
|
|
In Australia industry is allowed to dump waste carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere, adding to the enhanced greenhouse effect and climate change.
Very few countries allow their industries to dump wastes into
rivers or lakes or onto the land, why should dumping waste into the
atmosphere be any more acceptable?
The Howard Australian government has refused to place a tax on carbon
because it says that to do so would damage Australia's economy.
It could equally well be argued – truly – that taxing
anything damages
Australia's economy; but taxes have to be raised to run public services
and build state infrastructure.
Taxes are unavoidable and greenhouse gas production has to be reduced.
Combining the two is logical.
If a tax was to be placed on all carbon in fuels, either mined or
imported, then an equal amount of tax could be taken off in other areas
to make the exercise tax-neutral.
Another page covers this topic in greater
depth.
Also see
Fossil fuel electricity in perspective and
No level playing field.
|
|
People, and in particular businesses, buy 'carbon offsets' in an effort to
somehow excuse them from responsibility for releasing carbon dioxide into
the atmosphere. How valid are carbon offsets?
The most common offset is tree planting. It is true that as a tree (or any
other plant) grows it takes carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. But what
happens when the tree stops growing, or when it is cut down?
Eventually, and in many cases 'eventually' will be in less than a century,
the wood, leaves and twigs of the tree will be either burnt or rot, and
the carbon contained in them will go back into the atmosphere.
The only fully effective way of 'offsetting' the fossil fuel
carbon that you release
into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide is to bury an equal amount of carbon
that would otherwise have been burned
(with the resulting carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere).
Plainly, this would be pointless.
Also, burying something like wood in an attempt to lock its carbon away
from the atmosphere would not be a good idea because it would ferment and
release methane into the atmosphere. Methane is an even more
greenhouse-intensive gas than carbon dioxide.
It seems to me that carbon offsets, at least in the form of tree planting,
are of questionable validity and are effective only in the short term.
'Offsetting' the carbon that you burn by conserving fossil fuel energy in
some other area would, I think, have more validity; but the only real
answer to greenhouse/climate change is to greatly reduce the amount of
fossil fuels that we burn.
Also see
carbon offsets in
Wikipedia.
|
The European Union has an 'In town without my car' day during which
the people
try to leave their cars at home at least on that day every year.
In 2003 there were 1031 participating cities.
Australia would do well to join in this.
A quote from that site:
In Town Without My Car "is centred on three types of measures,
designed to:
- encourage the use of alternative forms of transport and travel
other than private cars,
- raise awareness and inform city-dwellers of what is at stake so
far as concerns long-term mobility in towns and the risks connected
with pollution,
- show the town in another light thanks in particular to reduced
motorised traffic within restricted areas."
The graph at right is from Aust. Bureau of Statistics
and shows how many Australian use various modes of transport.
You can calculate how much difference would be made to your share of carbon
dioxide emissions by changing your mode of transport at
'Calculate your personal
Greenhouse impact'.
If you must use a car, use a small one
The option of not having a car is not realistic for many people, especially
Australians and in the USA. However, instead of having a car that is
large enough to take everything you might need to carry, you could
consider a small car with the occasional use of a trailer.
The Mazda 121 in the photo has only a 1300ml engine, at the time the
photo was taken it had done 140 000km and was still going strong.
Most modern cars, including this one, have plenty of power for towing a
trailer including a load of up to 500kg.
By driving a car that is no bigger than you need you save a heap of
greenhouse emission.
You could also consider buying a highly efficient hybrid car. Both
Toyota and Honda have one on the Australian market.
A team from The University of South Australia have shown that a practical
electric car is possible.
So far as I know, in the past electric cars have had very short ranges.
Peter Pudney and his teem have developed
Trev, a
light-weight ultra-compact car with a range of 150km.
Also see my page on a
Post Fossil Fuel Transport System.
|
|
| |
Six big and heavy 4-wheel-drives and one small fuel-efficient car in the
Flinders Ranges of South Australia.
The gas-guzzlers are not needed, our little car (the Jazz on the left) weighs
about half as much and handles the dirt roads with ease.
It is also capable of towing up to one tonne; plenty for many camper
trailers.
| |
It is easy to blame our leaders (especially if we are Australian or
USians) for their inaction on reducing greenhouse gas production; and
they are very much at fault, they should be doing much more.
Corporations are at fault. The fossil fuel industries, oil, gas, and
especially the dirtiest fuel of all, coal, lobby governments very successfully
for laws and regulations that favour their growth. But then the directors of
these companies are (at least in Australia) bound by law to place the
welfare of their shareholders before all other considerations.
So we come back to the law and the law is made by governments.
Any farmer who clears scrub or forest is responsible for climate change.
Any landowner who allows his land to be clear-felled is responsible.
Irresponsible Chinese, Malaysian, and Japanese companies that log in Third
World rainforests are responsible for climate change as well as the more
direct and local damage due to deforestation.
However, most people in the First World are also responsible. Anyone who
drives a fossil-fuelled car (and almost all of them are fossil-fuelled)
must accept a share of the blame.
Anyone who uses electricity, if that electricity is produced by burning
fossil fuels, is responsible for climate change.
Democratically elected governments do what the voters demand of them.
The Australian government has rightly decided that Australians place a higher
priority on a few more dollars in their pockets than on tackling the
greenhouse problem.
It would be fair to say that most people in the Third World would consume
more if they had the money to do so. Consumption and greenhouse gas
production are closely linked.
So the great majority of us are either responsible for climate change, or
would be if we could afford to be. How bad will climate change have to get
before we place it at the top of our list of problems that must be addressed?
And will it be too late by then?
|
|
What would we think of a person who went to a birthday party with five other
people and ate half the birthday cake?
This is what the USA and Australia are doing in regard to greenhouse gasses.
Our two nations are placing far more than our share of strain on the
atmosphere for their own short-term selfish interests.
The Australian government has tried to excuse Australia's very high
production of greenhouse gasses on a number of occasions by
saying that the total greenhouse gas produced by Australia is a very
small percentage of the world's total. Australia produces about 1.5% of
the world's total annual greenhouse gasses, but Australia has only about
0.3% of the world's population.
It follows that the average Australian citizen is responsible for five times
as much greenhouse gasses as is the average global citizen.
Considering that humanity's current rate of greenhouse gas production is
about three times what the planet's systems are capable of safely handling
this means that the average Australian is producing something like fifteen
times as much greenhouse gas as is conscionable.
A good read on this subject is "How Ethical is Australia" by Peter Singer.
|
|
|
How world greenhouse gas production might change under Contraction and
Convergence – from an article in
New Scientist.
(If the
USA
is to control its emissions before much of the rest of the world
a huge shift in the ethical standards of its government will be needed.)
|
The fairest and most ethical way of treating the greenhouse problem would be
to calculate how much carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions per year can be sustainably
handled by the atmosphere and then calculating a quota for every person on
the planet.
Those who were responsible for producing more CO2 than their share
would have to buy quotas from those who produced less.
It would be necessary to somehow include in the calculations, not only
personal greenhouse production, but also personal shares of national
greenhouse production.
It would be a seller's market; there would be many more buyers than sellers
because the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere must be greatly
reduced.
Those who were unable to buy quotas would have to reduce their energy
consumption or have to pay to have their CO2
sequested.
The atmosphere is not just the property of the First World. All life on the
planet has a right to use the atmosphere and all people should have an equal
right to it. At present the US produces 25 times the CO2 produced by India on
a per-capita basis. What could be fairer than changing the
rules to give every person an equal quota?
Adoption of Contraction and Convergence (C&C)
would result in a relatively hard time for the wealthy of the world for
a time, but ultimately it would bring a much more equitable sharing
of responsibility and wealth. Of course it would be far from a simple matter,
but then we are talking about averting a huge global
disaster.
See
Wikipedia for more information.
John Broad
explains the concept well on Third World Network.
