Chasing tails for co2 control : Melbourne Indymedia

While the subject is never very far away and the mainstream media carries at least two global warming stories a day. I woder if there is anyway we can make a difference.

Media reports often suggest current atmos. CO2 concentrations are anywhere between 380ppm and 430ppm.

Is there an accurate figure that can be trusted?

The idea that we can keep concentrations down to a safer level depends on where we are and what are the safer levels. Also we must realise that the situation iof climate change has accelerating well before we have even made any real effort to make any real changes.

Its easy to see the rapid effect of climat change just buy looking at the rainfall patterns over the last decade across Australia. The proof that rains have missed catchments and now fall either in the sea or along the coast lines is now beyond doubt.
However the pressing question is can we do anything about it by carbon trading or will the new schemes just create a new oppotunity based on trading tokenism?

The target safe level has also been reported as 450ppm and 550 ppm but there does not seem to be an agreed number so how will we know if mitigation is having any real effect?

Apparently co2 concentrations are rising by 2ppm a year. Although a sharp increase of 5ppm last year has alarmed some scientist who are now concerned that a positive feed back loop has occurred which means a doubling of pre industrial co2 may happen over the next decade.

With so much uncertainty how can we avert the worst when we don't even know the situation?.

There are several companies that offer to plant trees or invest in schemes that will limit co2 emissions from other sources, but I'm not sure the effort will help me become even close to carbon neutral.

The tree planting schemes are a bit of a worry. My car produces just over a tonne of CO2 a year, but I can’t expect that kind of growth from a sapling, so I must fund a tonne of saplings to be planted in a year to make the effort equal. After checking the offers made I find there is no program to achieve my I tonne a year target and no guarentees that my trees will absorb another toone in their second year of growth. My concerns are further increased when I realise how much land will be needed to absorb my contribution and then I find that the trees I might fund will become an asset for a future land owner who might just need the wood for fuel when its possible to make biodiesel from carbon credit trees.

I drive a car to work because the service station is on a major road miles from where I live and it is not on a bus route. I live in a modest home that uses gas for all its heating needs. I've changed my light bulbs, and I have turned down the thermostat but I still contribute nearly 4 tonnes of co2 every year.

I could get another job, but I’m not sure the change would have any positive effect on the situation. My employer would find someone else, which would secure exactly the same level of emissions that I currently maintain so there would be no changes made to overall co2 emissions. Even if I did quit my job, I’m not sure there is another job that can offer me an income which is not made entirely possible by fossil fuels in another way.

My problem is that my low wage does not allow me the surplus to afford solar panels and even if I could afford the expense as my entire wage comes from the profits earned by selling petrol I would be chasing my tail in any attempt to go carbon neutral.

In this year’s grand prix, I think it was Honda that arrived with a car fuelled by ethanol. I don’t know if it won but they said it was introduced to somehow raise the idea that the motor race was global warming aware. All this while the show transported cars around the world and equipment weighing several tonnes in a fleet of aircraft. All Frequently flying hundreds of people between countries to entertain audiences of millions.
Somehow the green message was lost in all the pollution.

I guess my problem is not just being Australian it’s a problem shared by all western populations, and now come to think of it even the people of Tuvalu can blame themselves for the global situation. There the government made a squillion by selling a domain name and out of the funds they built a road and bought a new diesel power station. All before loaning money to fishermen who raised their incomes and now the Island has thousands of rusting cars that still cause traffic jams on the strip of black bitumen
Australia is a nation that has announced its intention to become an energy player in the new century. A nation that will rely on exporting uranium, coal and gas so that our Asian trading partners can continue economic growth tied to increasing fossil fuel use.

By making uranium available actually encourages more fossil fuwels to be burnt as less will be needed for electricity generation so more can be used in other industries that need furnaces. I’m surprised the still say nuclear is carbon neutral, I guess it’s the same as saying biofuel is as well as long as you don’t mention the forests that are clear felled and the fossil fuels that are burnt to process the harvest. I guess it’s possible to say just about anything, but it doesn’t change a thing.

I wonder how our government will tie carbon trading with mined export sales or how they will make war carbon neutral. I would like to be less hypocritical but I’m not sure how anyone can be.

How can any one reinvest a surplus from a consumer economy that only benefits from a surplus because of fossil fuel burning? How can we reduce co2 emissions to a safe level without increasing the surplus by using more fossil fuel to increase production?

Surely if electricity prices go up, we will all have to work harder just to afford the carbon trade?

If that’s true then the nation will be chasing its tail to afford lower emissions from one industry but making the same amount from all others.

What do you think?