Plastic bags, climate change, renewable energy,

Flow-Rider

Burner

Freediver

I can go full Karen
They just closed down a trail network in one of the commercial pine forests here the other day to commence a "premature harvest", probably to beat the new laws that inhibit them from doing it in the future.
Pine forests are planted for harvesting. You might get a few dicky locals that don't get it jump up and down to try save them but it's not going to happen. Thinnings harvests in immature pine is where your treated pine poles come from.
Nothing to do with beating laws.
 

Haakon

has an accommodating arse
They just closed down a trail network in one of the commercial pine forests here the other day to commence a "premature harvest", probably to beat the new laws that inhibit them from doing it in the future.
Commercial plantations dont count as land clearing in this context - theyre a seperate category and are essentially carbon neutral as they take up carbon as theyre replanted (and lock carbon up in the timber products). The issue here is where permanent forests are converted to non forest for farming etc.

I havent got into the details of the article, but i can say Australia's emissions accounting are subject to an annual international peer review through the UNFCCC and are not what id call dodgy.


 
Last edited:

Flow-Rider

Burner
Pine forests are planted for harvesting. You might get a few dicky locals that don't get it jump up and down to try save them but it's not going to happen. Thinnings harvests in immature pine is where your treated pine poles come from.
Nothing to do with beating laws.
Actually native timber, I thought it was the commercial pine plantation in the area but not so.

382661
 

Flow-Rider

Burner
Commercial plantations dont count as land clearing in this context - theyre a seperate category and are essentially carbon neutral as they take up carbon as theyre replanted (and lock carbon up in the timber products). The issue here is where permanent forests are converted to non forest for farming etc.

I havent got into the details of the article, but i can say Australia's emissions accounting are subject to an annual international peer review through the UNFCCC and are not what id call dodgy.


What happens to the timber after it gets used up, say it rots or gets burnt quicker than what it can grow in the same sized regeneration patch of forest? I say this because the last time I went away fishing the local tackle shop was selling large bags of offcuts of treated pine as fire wood, which you should never burn to start with? I always thought the bigger issues worldwide were the enormous deforestations, like in the Amazons.
 

Haakon

has an accommodating arse
What happens to the timber after it gets used up, say it rots or gets burnt quicker than what it can grow in the same sized regeneration patch of forest? I say this because the last time I went away fishing the local tackle shop was selling large bags of offcuts of treated pine as fire wood, which you should never burn to start with? I always thought the bigger issues worldwide were the enormous deforestations, like in the Amazons.
There are assumptions in the model for the life of "harvested wood products". It's locked up for a period of time and then assumed to re enter the atmosphere.

No something i know a massive amount about - you can read the Inventory report for Australia that I linked about where there will be some detailed descriptions of how its all done ;)

And yes, the big issues is where carbon has been locked up "forever" in native forests that are cleared and not replaced... The Amazon in particular is a massive cvusterfuck as the deforestation triggers ever more carbon releases as rotting biomatter in wetlands etc is released.
 

Squidfayce

Eats Squid
I am not a climate change denier. Been seeing various effects of it throughout my life time. Flood intensity, fire intensity, steady loss of glaciers on Mt. Kilimanjaro, bleaching of the barrier reef etc. Its plainly obvious there is global change afoot.

I came across a meme today that listed out all our failed cataclysmic climate predictions over the last 50 or so years. All alarmist. Went back and found quite a few stories on these claims and found many backed by science of the day. Some of them not so old either. Basically denier propaganda. I took it with a grain of salt, as these things deserve.

Then I had an interesting interaction with a mate today around the topic of climate change, and he was pretty devo about it all. Obviously lots in the media and socials at the moment given COP26 and the flow on stories/reporting.

He's pretty gloomy on this stuff. And I found I'm pretty un-phased and overly positive that at some point we will turn this around. These days I'm not shaken by the doom and gloom reporting, but still cognisant that extreme weather were seeing the world over is caused by us and is arguably more frequent.

One Major key differences between our situations are he's bringing a child in to this world in January and he has worries for the future of his kid. I'm not. No intention. Had the snip. No kids, zero interest. Wife is on the same page. While our reasons are purely selfish and not based on not adding to this world's catastrophe, it did get me thinking about why I'm not particularly phased about all of this these days.

I distinctly remember how concerned i felt in 2006 after seeing "an inconvenient truth". Coupled with it being one of the hottest summers on record for us when it released, back then it hit like a tonne of bricks. But as time has rolled by, many of the predictions that film made have failed to materialise. As have other various doom and gloom scenarios reported, docos made about etc.

If youve made it this far, I must reiterate I believe in man made climate change. I think the data supports it and I trust in the scientific community that can reach a consensus on stuff globally.

Though the though occurred to me, after seeing the 50 years of failed predictions by scientists and other professionals in their field, has a lot of this despondency or general handwavy disinterest we see from leaders been rooted in the perception of these failed predictions over the lifetimes of our world's leaders?

If our scientific community is collectively certain about the science every time a claim is made, why are these predictions consistently failing? Are our scientists and various experts unnecessarily alarmist? Has historical alarmism hurt our trust in these future predictions? Is this the reason we don't move quickly? Will 2050 roll around and we'll have just adapted to the situation or will we start to see slow reversals of the damage done as we make inroads to renewables and various other efforts?

Thinking back to how i felt in 2006 and comparing to how i feel now, I certainly think the alarmism and failed predictions has shaped my feelings on the subject. Scotty's comments about reliance on future technologies (some of which simply don't exist yet, and we have no idea what they are or when they will exist) mirrors some of the underlying sentiment I hold over the whole scenario today. If as a 38 year old, I can have my thinking on this subject influenced like this over the period of 15, do we have any real hope that the next generations are going to have any different view or approach than the slow paced change we are promised today? I hear the kids screaming, the Grettas blah blah blahing etc. BUt if future predictions about what will happen at 2 degrees warming fail to materialise, are we just doomed to much of the same? I mean take a look at Dubai - It is possible to live in an inhospitable place comfortably (at a further cost to the environment), is that the more likely reality for our future?

My fingers are crossed for alien contact though so they can give us some of that sweet sweet technology that scotty is talking about.
 

Haakon

has an accommodating arse
The predictions have not failed, they have under sold the urgency if anything. The problem is that predictions and modelling are necessarily messy and people simply dont understand what theyre saying.

This then gets over simplified and misinterpreted (often deliberately) and then the spurious claims of the modelling not being right are made. Its bullshit and its dumb.

I've been involved professionally in climate change stuff for decades, and I can assure you despondency is a healthy and realistic approach. Its much much worse than you think, and it was all fucked and too late decades ago. Its just damage control now.

I skipped the kids thing for the same reason as you (although its more selfish to have them, not the other way around), and id be hesitant at best to lay that on a kid now.

We will not turn this around. It was too late for that a long time ago, its all a done deal.
 

Squidfayce

Eats Squid
there was a prediction specifically made in that film that the arctic would be Ice Free by 2013. Clearly that hasn't happened.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/

Maybe they meant Meth. I mean Ive not heard about strung out polar bears for at least 15 years...

You say you've worked in this space professionally, what's the future hold for us? Do i need to stock up on toilet paper?
 

Squidfayce

Eats Squid
I skipped the kids thing for the same reason as you (although its more selfish to have them, not the other way around), and id be hesitant at best to lay that on a kid now.
My reason was purely financial. As in i dont want to spend money raising another human. Wife and I discussed pros and cons, and legitimately the only pro we had on the list was "look after us when we're old". Given that was the only reason, we chose not to take that gamble.
 

Haakon

has an accommodating arse
there was a prediction specifically made in that film that the arctic would be Ice Free by 2013. Clearly that hasn't happened.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/

Maybe they meant Meth. I mean Ive not heard about strung out polar bears for at least 15 years...

You say you've worked in this space professionally, what's the future hold for us? Do i need to stock up on toilet paper?
You know that line in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy where the barman asks Ford if he should lie down or put a paper bag over his head? That.

 

Squidfayce

Eats Squid
You know that line in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy where the barman asks Ford if he should lie down or put a paper bag over his head? That.

there is no denial from me that arctic is melting and decreasing polar bear habitat. Im just questioning the value of making the prediction in 2006 that it will all be gone in 7 years. That prediction was updated several more times over the years and to date we still have ice.

The observation I'm making is whether very specific alarmist predictions that haven't come true (world famine by 1975, maldives under water by mid 2010's, no arctic ice by 2013 etc.) have harmed progress towards not being polluting dropkicks.

The language has now shifted to much longer timelines e.g. 2050 for managing global temp increases, maldives are now predicted to be underwater by 2100 (outside most current peoples lifespans). Its feels like the pendulum has swung and we've noted the language has hurt the cause. Or perhaps that's a reflection of what you say - it was fucked decades ago and now its just damage control. No point making predictions about underwater cities anymore.
 

Freediver

I can go full Karen
Commercial plantations dont count as land clearing in this context - theyre a seperate category and are essentially carbon neutral as they take up carbon as theyre replanted (and lock carbon up in the timber products). The issue here is where permanent forests are converted to non forest for farming etc.

I havent got into the details of the article, but i can say Australia's emissions accounting are subject to an annual international peer review through the UNFCCC and are not what id call dodgy.


 

Flow-Rider

Burner
I am not a climate change denier. Been seeing various effects of it throughout my life time. Flood intensity, fire intensity, steady loss of glaciers on Mt. Kilimanjaro, bleaching of the barrier reef etc. Its plainly obvious there is global change afoot.

I came across a meme today that listed out all our failed cataclysmic climate predictions over the last 50 or so years. All alarmist. Went back and found quite a few stories on these claims and found many backed by science of the day. Some of them not so old either. Basically denier propaganda. I took it with a grain of salt, as these things deserve.

Then I had an interesting interaction with a mate today around the topic of climate change, and he was pretty devo about it all. Obviously lots in the media and socials at the moment given COP26 and the flow on stories/reporting.

He's pretty gloomy on this stuff. And I found I'm pretty un-phased and overly positive that at some point we will turn this around. These days I'm not shaken by the doom and gloom reporting, but still cognisant that extreme weather were seeing the world over is caused by us and is arguably more frequent.

One Major key differences between our situations are he's bringing a child in to this world in January and he has worries for the future of his kid. I'm not. No intention. Had the snip. No kids, zero interest. Wife is on the same page. While our reasons are purely selfish and not based on not adding to this world's catastrophe, it did get me thinking about why I'm not particularly phased about all of this these days.

I distinctly remember how concerned i felt in 2006 after seeing "an inconvenient truth". Coupled with it being one of the hottest summers on record for us when it released, back then it hit like a tonne of bricks. But as time has rolled by, many of the predictions that film made have failed to materialise. As have other various doom and gloom scenarios reported, docos made about etc.

If youve made it this far, I must reiterate I believe in man made climate change. I think the data supports it and I trust in the scientific community that can reach a consensus on stuff globally.

Though the though occurred to me, after seeing the 50 years of failed predictions by scientists and other professionals in their field, has a lot of this despondency or general handwavy disinterest we see from leaders been rooted in the perception of these failed predictions over the lifetimes of our world's leaders?

If our scientific community is collectively certain about the science every time a claim is made, why are these predictions consistently failing? Are our scientists and various experts unnecessarily alarmist? Has historical alarmism hurt our trust in these future predictions? Is this the reason we don't move quickly? Will 2050 roll around and we'll have just adapted to the situation or will we start to see slow reversals of the damage done as we make inroads to renewables and various other efforts?

Thinking back to how i felt in 2006 and comparing to how i feel now, I certainly think the alarmism and failed predictions has shaped my feelings on the subject. Scotty's comments about reliance on future technologies (some of which simply don't exist yet, and we have no idea what they are or when they will exist) mirrors some of the underlying sentiment I hold over the whole scenario today. If as a 38 year old, I can have my thinking on this subject influenced like this over the period of 15, do we have any real hope that the next generations are going to have any different view or approach than the slow paced change we are promised today? I hear the kids screaming, the Grettas blah blah blahing etc. BUt if future predictions about what will happen at 2 degrees warming fail to materialise, are we just doomed to much of the same? I mean take a look at Dubai - It is possible to live in an inhospitable place comfortably (at a further cost to the environment), is that the more likely reality for our future?

My fingers are crossed for alien contact though so they can give us some of that sweet sweet technology that scotty is talking about.
Australia is a fairly lucky place to live because it's a relatively new nation with a very small population, if you want to see proof of what uncontrolled pollution looks like over many years, just look at places like China, they even need to outsource their drinking water because everything is so polluted over there. Proof is all there in front of us, look harder, and you'll see it. To reverse pollution, it will take 1000's of years if they were to stop at this very point.


382663
 

Haakon

has an accommodating arse
there is no denial from me that arctic is melting and decreasing polar bear habitat. Im just questioning the value of making the prediction in 2006 that it will all be gone in 7 years. That prediction was updated several more times over the years and to date we still have ice.

The observation I'm making is whether very specific alarmist predictions that haven't come true (world famine by 1975, maldives under water by mid 2010's, no arctic ice by 2013 etc.) have harmed progress towards not being polluting dropkicks.

The language has now shifted to much longer timelines e.g. 2050 for managing global temp increases, maldives are now predicted to be underwater by 2100 (outside most current peoples lifespans). Its feels like the pendulum has swung and we've noted the language has hurt the cause. Or perhaps that's a reflection of what you say - it was fucked decades ago and now its just damage control. No point making predictions about underwater cities anymore.
See previous point about discussion and presentation of such predictions not including the uncertainties and caveats attached to any model…
 
Top