Australia 'destroying life on Earth'

reply to post by cognoscente

---

Water vapor is, by far, the most important greenhouse gas.

Temperature rise lowers the solubility of free CO2 in seawater.

The NASA clown doesn't know what he is talking about. Maybe he is feeling the effects of spending too much time in a hard vacuum.

Think China, USA, Russia, India, Japan for emissions. Australia has about 5% of the emissions from the US.

LOL! I hear ya resistancia!
That's a bloody great idea.. and a superb example of Aussie innovation!
I guess we'll be seeing you on the "The New Inventors" on ABC sometime soon.
Don't forget to included a drip tray at the bottom to catch the fat. Perhaps we can use that to fuel our cars or something?

IRM

reply to post by pteridine

---

I see... so it's like this big chain reaction. Anthropogenic greenhouse gasses only hasten the warming, but ultimately cause even more CO2 to stay in the atmosphere because the ocean can't absorb it. Then that extra CO2 builds up and traps even more solar radiation. Cool.

[edit on 7-1-2009 by cognoscente]

Sounds like our Democratic American Christian “allies” are manufacturing a convenient excuse to implement there NWO Jew banking overlord agenda with there newly elected socialistic Muslim leader in our multicultural tolerant polluting country
I don’t know why they don’t just buy the place
They could make a deal with the Italian Mafia and have NSW for a bargain
Or nationalize rio-tinto and have all our resources
But aussies wont allow it!
Then again since the Victorian equal opportunity commission has just implemented “positive discrimination” against white males I have no hope of attaining public office unless I’m a duel citizen from a non English speaking background, because they have as much right as me to rule this country, as we’re all immigrants aye
this is BS! I’m moving to Tasmania to live in the forest… oh wait our out spoken environmental warrior politician Peter Garratt just sold them for pulp
I guess I’ll have to stand and fight for my nation.. but as guns and kevlar are illegal in this country it wouldn’t be much point
We need the UN! oh yeah the Democratic Christian NWO Jew banking overlord socialistic Muslim Americans run the UN… f#%k
Confused? Maybe I just have a sense of irony, gotta laugh mate, shrug it off, no worries… get me another beer luv.

The whole argument is moot - CO2 is at record modern levels, yet 'global warming' ended in 1998, solar system wide funnily enough.

We are now in a cooling phase which oddly enough coincides with the least sunspot activity ever recorded. So if anything we need *more* CO2! Go Austrailia!

Actually according this study Australia has lower CO2 emissions per capita than the US. en.wikipedia.org...
Regardless, I think we all need to do whatever we can to clean up our act and try to make it a cleaner world for all species living here....right after we attend that Aussie 'destroyers of the earth' beach bonfire.

reply to post by ilandrah

---

CO2 is just one greenhouse gas.

en.wikipedia.org...

This is the table you should be looking at. Australia's emissions are obviously disproportional to the needs of its population.

The fact that it's actually higher than the U.S. is just abhorred, especially since Australia has about one-tenth of the population.

[edit on 7-1-2009 by cognoscente]

Well if we kicked out all of the US bases, we would be cutting down on some of our power consumption!

It's a small start, but it would be so much of an improvement.

Australian Land Use Distribution:
adl.brs.gov.au...

American Land Use Distribution:
www.ers.usda.gov...

The above links to a document, which describes Australia and America's land use distribution. Australia's use of land for agricultural purposes, primarily grazing, takes up 60% of its land area. In the U.S., 40% of the country's total land area is relegated to agricultural purposes. The problem with this is Australia's exceedingly low-tech and inefficient agricultural industry. The average farm there adheres to the relatively same agricultural standards and practices they did a hundred years ago. It's so backward, if you ever get the chance to compare America's highly subsidized agriculture complexes with Australia's system first hand, you will truly be shocked. Now, the actual square area of U.S. agricultural land use is 3.5 million and Australia's is 0.5 million.

The U.S. contributes more emissions from agriculture in total (larger population, more land use) but contributes less per capita (efficiency). You can plainly see, just by casually examining this situation, that it should be politically much easier for the Australian government to make some kind of change. As a single organization, they are dealing with with less land and less people. Why haven't they done anything about it yet? Well, I don't even want to start with the inefficiency and divisiveness of the Australian Parliament... Otherwise, people in Australia just don't give a #; and that is totally evident in the posts made by fellow ATS members from Australia in this very thread, who are satirizing the entire issue by making beer jokes. While I find them funny, the environment doesn't.

Main points: Agricultural inefficiency, political divisiveness, lack of public concern... contributes to disproportionately high greenhouse gas emissions per capita in Australia. Anthropogenic greenhouse gasses include not only Carbon dioxide, but Nitrous oxide, methane and CFCs.

Review of Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gasses:
en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 7-1-2009 by cognoscente]

reply to post by cognoscente

---

Did your agriculture figures also consider the amount of water available?

I do agree with one point about Aussie farming... we should not be using cows and sheep for meat. Aussies should be eating the national emblem. Kangaroos can run around in plague proportions in some areas. They should be farmed for meat, as well as emus.

Farming native animals would help reduce the burden on the environment.

reply to post by tezzajw

---

I should have included that. However, I was entirely uncertain as to the economic and life quality disparity produced between both countries as a result of irrigational inefficiency. If the same quality of life can't be achieved in Australia as it is in America with the same amount of energy, well then Australia I guess has a right to pursue such living conditions, even if that means increased energy use. Then again, a part of human adaptation is actually bothering to look for solutions to these problems. Modern energy generation practices, I think, has placed a moral hazard on Australians in that they don't even need to bother looking for new solutions at sustainability, since burning coal, etc. will produce the same result (a high standard of living) with minimal creativity. However, I'm really not qualified to accurately measure such discrepancies with the data I have available to me.

While it's apparent Australia has issues with irrigation, I'm not certain in any respect as to the specific amount of energy required to alleviate any discrepancies between US and Australian agricultural industries in terms of maintaining economic viability. So my conclusion will be purely conjecture but one can assume that to produce an additional 1.3 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per person over America would require a lot more energy than that which is being used to supplant the agricultural industry alone. I have a feeling all that partying you guys do has a say in it. Maybe we should take a look at urban electricity use and green house gas emissions to see what else is happening here.

www.environment.gov.au...

Here are a few facts I found interesting.

[edit on 7-1-2009 by cognoscente]

reply to post by Kryties

---

And I want to assure you that Americans don't give a hoot about what a NASA scientist thinks about you either.
This is just more Al Gore political posturing, and most Americans are sick of it. As an American, I am embarrassed that this NASA clown said such a thing. Consider the source, another politically connected hack. NASA is the agency that supposedly got men to the moon in 6 years, but says it will take 20 years to get back to the moon. Does that make any more sense than his idiotic statement about Australian.
Cheers. Not all Americans are as dumb as he is.

I actually think that every country on this planet is to blame. Australia does NOT have a monopoly on destroying the earth. Have a good long look a all the other crap going on as we speak.

All just as uncaring and greedy as the next. All living for today and not thinking about the future. All buck passing.


take care all
res

edit for spelling

[edit on 7-1-2009 by resistancia]

in all honesty NASA should worry about whats going on in there own country before casting dispersions on us......

Once they divulge whats really going on in space and on Mars then i'll take the time to listen to what NASA has to say ........

My apologies if some people thought I was inferring that all American's are as stupid as this advocate of Never A Straight Answer. This was not my intention

Having said that, I'll be off now to turn on all my lights, bash open the piping on a few old fridges and burn a large pile of plastic

This is just the opinion of one jackass from NASA. He does not represent or speak for all Americans. I personally think he is full of crap. So don't bash America just because of what this guy says. We love the aussies. Both countries have issues to deal with and we are allies and should not be pointing fingers at each other. Peace.

reply to post by Kryties

---

No apologies necessary. I didn't take offense, and I understood your intent.
As another poster said, most Americans love Australians, and their way of life. Unfortunately, many people that don't frequent sites like ATS only get their news and information from the MSM, and that is pure propoganda. Personally, I can't stand the MSM and their lies.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus

---

Are we talking about appeasing your comfort here or are we talking about reality?

reply to post by cognoscente

---

I haven't a clue as to what you mean by that. Furthermore, my post was a response to someone else, not you.