Really? You Mean CO2 Reduction Has Costs?

New today from the new Australian government, who to date have placed themselves solidly in the catastrophic camp:

PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd last night did an about-face on deep cuts to
greenhouse gas emissions, days after Australia's delegation backed the
plan at the climate talks in Bali.

A government representative at the talks this week said Australia backed a 25-40 per cent cut on 1990 emission levels by 2020.

But after warnings it would lead to huge rises in electricity prices, Mr Rudd said the Government would not support the target.

The
repudiation of the delegate's position represents the first stumble by
the new Government's in its approach to climate change.

  • Emil

    "25-40 per cent cut on 1990 emission levels by 2020" are possible with a few nuclear power plants 🙂 ... at least for Australia, I guess.

  • will

    The people proposing the caps are usually, the rich, the powerful or the fanatical. The rich does not care, they will continue to travel around in their private jets and cars and pay 'carbon credits' and not feel the effect except for a few dollars from their already overstuffed pockets. The powerful (government leaders) will do the same and say they are doing it for the people and then use the people money to pay 'carbon credit'. The fanatical has another agenda, the earth mother is more important than human mothers.

    The rich and powerful make no sacrifice, if they wanted to reduce their carbon footprint, they could have used sailboats to make the trip but that would have cost them something personal, like time and effort. But they make their agreement, feel they did their good deed for the day, save humanity, feel good about themselves and then put the burden on the people. It's not about solving problems or making sure the problem exists but about feeling important and good about themselves.

    If the US congress wanted to cut CO2 emission then they should start in Washington DC. Convert all their limos and government cars to H2, fuel cells and/or HICE (Hydrogen Internal Combustion Engine) and build H2 fueling stations in the DC area to fuel the cars. Build satellite offices in the out laying town, change to a 4X10 work week and stagger the days Monday through Saturday, let government workers who can telecommute. This would be leading by example not edict and would be out of character for our government.

    Then to offset the increase in electric use due to electrolysis of water to produce H2 they could commission a Nuclear Plant or two using the power of congress to expedite the building process, commission some geothermal plants for the east coast.

    BTW Living in Ohio I thinker a warmer climate would be better.

  • Jim Collins

    Isn't water vapor considered a "greenhouse gas"? What is the ratio of water vapor to CO2 in the atmosphere? All of these so called "green" methods of generating power reduce the amount of CO2 but increase the amount of water vapor being released into the atmosphere.