- Australia has a new PM, or does it?
- Refugee crisis: are we better than that?
- The Disappearing Sea of Ice
- The horrible truth about fluoride, vaccines and GMO’s
- Abbott plays blame games to defy the democratic process
- Watch “Five More Stupid Things About Climate Change Denial” on YouTube
- Fuel in the skies: has sequestration finally found its market?
- Why temperatures never go up in straight lines
- Beautifully presented, yet tragic GIFs that show what’s happening to our oceans
- Welcome to the new (er) New Anthropocene
- Movie Wish List for #auspol – What they missed out on as children
- The voice of Australia
- Sunday Reads #8: All things climate, environmental and politics
- Government funded Chaplains in public schools: The public voice
- Does the government have a mandate on federal funding of Chaplains in public schools?
- Economic Wealth is Tied to Ecology
- Political comics
- The jobs of yesterday: Abbott’s roads rear-vision
- Sunday Reads #7: All things climate, environmental and politics
- Sunday Reads #6: All things climate, environmental and politics
Category Archives: Climate Science
I just came across an article stating that Audi have just done something pretty awesome.
Using water, renewable energy and atmospheric CO2, they have generated a synthetic diesel.
Read the article here.
Personally, I see it as a much bigger deal than simply a cleaner, more efficient fuel, which of course it is.
It’s actually sequestration. Moreover, it’s sequestration with potentially strong market influences. It’s also sequestration that brings a cyclic relationship to our carbon-based fuel.
Given strong global leadership on it, there is even a potential for us to modify the atmospheric CO2 concentrations to counter long term climate trends that could impact us negatively. Through controlling what we burn or store, we would be able to influence our climate for our benefit.
I recognise that I might be getting carried away with this news. However, depending on how this story unfolds, it could be a genuine game changer.
Firstly, I need to plug my survey again. I had a great response on Friday, but yesterday saw little movement. If the question and the answer matters to you, please try to get at least three friends or family members to spare 60 seconds to fill it in and a couple additional minutes to get three more to follow on.
Having worked as a retail “trainee” when I was 19-20 in what was clearly a way to get around minimum wage restrictions, I am concerned by this, but not surprised at the bi-partisan support, sadly.
Thinking for the 21st century!
Great to bookmark and refer to the future.
Expect this message to become a bigger issue over the coming decades.
Unfortunately, our leaders are not listening.
Sorry, second plug. This is my latest article on the Climate Spectator.
When the Gillard government introduced the carbon price, Abbott said people would pay thousands more a year in energy costs. He then said he would save people on average $550 a year in energy costs. Tasmanians’ are set to save $164 a year from the latest estimates.
For me, this is a clear indicator that reality is likely to be about 20% the estimate offered by our current PM.
And this is a genuine tragedy for the coal rich country down under, regardless what the short-term economics might say.
Today I stumbled upon The Future Economy Group. Very interesting stuff, especially the following infograph. The biggest problem as I see it from my experience is that those you need to convince (typically conservative politicians) think that token gestures are enough (I’m thinking Direct Action and the Green Army, for example).
Farmers are often conservative, but they know better than most that symbiosis means wealth. “You reap what you sow” isn’t just a dated cliché, it is the unbreakable mantra of our relationship with environments. It is only through investing in environments that we can continue to obtain profitable returns.
This isn’t “Tree hugging” nonsense, but good business strategy.
The following is the start of an article that Climate | Business Spectator published yesterday.
The weeks are few and far between when there isn’t news of job cuts, be it primarily manufacturing, services or research. A few hundred here, a couple thousand there, a revamp (with a subtle job loss undertone) for the rest.
And our brave Prime Minister stresses with his Canadian counterpart that job and economic growth are his primary focus. He wants to be the “Infrastructure PM” after all, and if we would all just chip in for his fuel tax, he would open the doors to a plethora of roles in road construction.
There is just one problem with this logic. Just because they’re fruit, it doesn’t mean an apple and an orange are the same. Just because he talks of jobs, it doesn’t mean an out-of-work postie, ex-Holden worker or researcher will be suitable fodder for his new roads projects.