Today we are going to discuss climate change:
Admin: The Prime Minister has joined the chat.
Nedwin05: Good morning
r1nce: Good morning Prime Minister.
docjen: hello PM Kevin from docjen
FearlessKat: Good morning all
ric.hayman: good morning ..
liquidIce: Good Morning
Merridear: What steps could the federal government take to enhance the capacity of small or regional communities to become independently sustainable? I ask this in the light of the fact that state regulations often prohibit, or severely curtail, community level initiatives that are perceived to be in direct competition to state run entities that run counter to climate change initiatives.
r1nce: I have a list of prepared statements that I would dearly love to discuss.
Merridear: Given that the Borough of Woking, and now London, have established very high emission reduction targets, will clearly meet these targets and are saving relatively large amounts of money in the process, what do you see are the primary impediments to Australian cities/regions adopting the same types of programs?
michaelcrowe23: Good Morning
Luke33: Good morning
fishace: Good Morning
Merridear: Good morning all.
AllanL: Hello all
readfearn: Good morning Prime Minister. How should Australia be divorcing itself from coal?... if, that is, you think we need a divorce.
FearlessKat: Good morning Prime Minister - thank you for inviting us to come and chat to you today about climate change
LawyersRus: Good morning
MattyC: Good orning
DavidT: Good morning
Prime Minister:Hi PM here lets get going with this Nearly a thousand people contributed ton the climate change
Nedwin05: Thanks for the opportunity PM
Nedwin05: I'm working n that too Merridear
superperson: There has been a small but never the less strong reponse to
Nedwin05: I think renewable energy provides a great opportunity for local regional economies to diversify their incomes, stop money leaking from their community not just reducing our overall carbon footprint.
ric.hayman: There was an interesting set of comments to the blog post - is there a particular direction you want this discussion to take, Kevin?
Luke33: Perhaps to start - What will the proposed ETS legislation under consideration this week deliver to the average Australian?
Patty: Good morning everyone
r1nce: There are obviously a few of us with prepared statements and I do not imagine that you will be able to answer them all. So I would like to post a few of mine and will be happy if they are at least considered either during or after this chat has finished.
Merridear: Good morning all
(920676): Good morning Prime Minister and fellow Australians
Nedwin05: What do you think PM? How can you help communities have more ownership over the energy they consume?
MattyC: Hi PM, thanks for the opportunity, I am curious about Steven Fieldings questions and why there has been no attempt at answering what seems to be very reasonable queries.
fishace: PM - it would interesting to know the main topics, are we talking solutions today?
Prime Minister:Hi Merridear.Re local communities and self sufficiency, the govt has put out tenders for a half billion dollar renewable energy set of projects. this has already gone through round one and still with more to go this covers the range of renewable energy options. KR
DavidT: And are we talking politics or science
fishace: If it's solutions - Geosequestration is suitable for short term storage, but this should be integrated within large scale biosequestration i.e. extracting the carbon to be processed into added value products. As an example, algae capture liquid and atmospheric carbon and convert carbohydrates to lipids using sunlight with the extracted raw oil being processed into biofuels. Microalgae are ten times more efficient in sequestering carbon than trees with 1 Tonne of biomass requiring 1.6 T CO2 and exhausting 1.2 T of O2 (source: U.S. National Energy Renewable Laboratory). Research is being undertaken to capture power station emissions with the rich algal biomass being a suitable feedstock for the biochar industry. Exxon Mobil, BP and Shell have announced large scale commercialisation projects to produce algae biofuels worldwide to offset peak oil decline. By the way anyone who had listened in their geology class will know that the origin of crude oil is highly pressured, cooked algae. There are countless by-products from al
AllanL: Why did your Govt not amended the Renewable Energy(Electricity ) Act 2000 targets last year? Companies seemed to be happy to invest in renewable production with a mandated target.
ric.hayman: My thought is that the argument over the science is a red herring - while the science is important, and should continue the search for better knowledge, the discussion should be about the benefits in a number of areas of our lives of a lower-emission way of life ...
michaelcrowe23: Prime Minister, can we please talk about concessions that have been given to the largest polluters in the latest ETS proposal, I am deeply concerned that this will send a very wrong message to the AUstralian public
r1nce: I was very pleased to see the symbolic ratification of the Kyoto protocol. I felt this was an unnecessary sign of solidarity with the US by the previous government. I am also pleased that no-one has yet enabled the various climate change deniers by trying to engage with them in honest debate, as no honest edbate can be had with those who do not intend to be honest. However, a few things that you and your government have already done on this issue have disappointed me. Changing the rebate on household solar installations was one.
FearlessKat: Personally, I think renewable energy is the answer and agree with Nedwin. Especially solar and wind power in our sunny nation. The State and Commonwealth Governments need to work together to encourage communities and business at a local level and to embrace and invest in solar to create self sustaining households.
r1nce: Renewable energy targets are too low and too unambitious. We should be aiming to have Australia as the leader of the industrialised world with relation to energy gained from renwable energy. We have plenty of access to almost uninterrupted solar energy as we have literally thousands of square kilometres of open space with which to place solar farms. We are developing our wind energy resources at a terrific rate, but why are we doing so little to support this fledgling industry?
r1nce: (And thus, the floodgates open.) In the position of parliament, can you not mandate that all new homes be fitted with a solar array and vertical axis wind turbine? Cutting down requested demand from the residential area alone would dramatically reduce our requirement for coal fired energy, and the implementation of these technologies in the home sector would send a strong message to those on the other side of the debate, would reduce electricity bills for those in the new homes, if not eradicate them completely, and would bolster the image of Australia as a nation intent on leading the charge in the 21st century against the problem of man-made climate change.
LawyersRus: Thanks for the opportunity PM. I agree with fishace, it would be great to know what 'agenda' you have for this discussion, what you hope to get out of it?
docjen: Yes I would like to know what it is we are talking about since I just had an education suggestion rejected for this chat and I thought the PM was all for education on climate change!
r1nce: Let's be realistic; 20% in 2020 is a good start, but really sell it, Prime Minister. Set targets for an increasing 10% of energy needs to come from renewable sources every ten years up to 80% by 2080. Be bold, sir. There is no need to exclude traditional energy providers, instead, empower them by offering performance bonuses if they exceed the target, but there must be a stick for that carrot, so there should be extreme penalties if they are seen to be dragging their feet or not meeting their targets within an expected timeframe.
Nedwin05: Hello?
FearlessKat: I agree r1nce, households should be rewarded for choosing solar. We are penalised for staying with carbon through cost of electricity rising!
fishace: Innovation is being stifled by ‘out of touch' ultra conservative academics and weighted to suit heavyweight corporates; we need to promote and support our talented inventors and entrepreneurs, many who operate outside formal academia and in the majority of cases fund their own research. We need ‘new blood' in R&D funding assessment committees and less red tape and time consuming paperwork that's incredibly difficult and off putting.
MattyC: Agreed. If this discussion is to be relevant then I think there needs to be some direction.
Prime Minister:Now to Luke 33. The CPRS leg in parlt this week is about three things. Giving effect to our national commitments.Giving business certainty now for the future re the rules And for households certainty also for assistance measures for the impact on the cost of energy. kr
Nedwin05: Regional economies suffer because they leak money. One of the biggest leaks is when they send the money they earn out of the community in the form of energy payments to centralised corporations who own retail power businesses. Renewable energy can plug this leak if local communities can own it and retail it back to themselves. Here in WA, only the Synergy monopoly can retail the energy a community produces. Can you believe it? A community that owns its own power plant would have to sell it wholesale to Synergy and then buy it back again at retail prices before it could use it! That's just crazy.
DavidT: Why are renewables all so expensive and installation takes so many years to amortize. Also thay are not reliable and we still depend on generated power
ric.hayman: PM - it seems most of the opposition, and often proponents of climate change mitigation, seem to concentrate on the COSTS of action .. there will be economic benefits from reducing our carbon emissions, should they not be given more airtime?
Luke33: What would you say to the average Australian when they ask how "climate per dollar" they will receive from implementation of the ETS I see two problems - (1) we're only 1.6% of world emissions (2) how do you convince voters to opt for austerity?
Prime Minister:r1nce talks aboutthe united states. The big thing about the change in the US administration is that they are now at the table. At the G8 in Italy recently Pres Obama was active in finding ways through. Not just blocking.KR
pilot2012: I think the Big question is how quickly, can you get the ball rolling, if you pass the Climate Change Bill on Thursday.
readfearn: Why do people talk about climate change in cost terms? If dirty energy costs more, then people will use less of it, which is surely what we want.
MattyC: Hi PM, all of this discussion is useful and relevant only if we accept that CO2 emmissions are in fact the cause of the warming that has been seen. In my opinion this has yet to be established fully, hense my comment about Steven Fieldings questions - one that seems to be ignored
Nedwin05: Targets can be reached if we make it easier for ordinary people to drive it. THe way the energy markets are set up the pwer is all in the hands of the corporate utilities.
AllanL: Don't forget the future increase of consumption of electricity as the economy transitions to electric transport from liquid fuel transport
ric.hayman: DavidT - economies of scale - the early adopters face a higher price until higher volumes allow price reductions ... this is where subudies of some description are useful
liquidIce: Per Capita Green House Gass Emissions The atmosphere is a limited global resource that no one person, nation or organisation can claim ownership of. It is a global commons. With this being the case the ethical response is that everyone has the same right to a clean atmosphere and the responsibility to maintain it for the common good. With a limited global resource everyone has the ethical duty not to take more than their fair share. Australia Ranked 5th globally in 2000 & 2005 Australia Year 2000 25.6 tons per person World Average Year 2000 5.6tons per person Australia 4.57 Times world average What are you going to do Mr Prime Minister to ensure that Australia corrects it's behaviour and acts within it's ethical rights and responsibilities?
DavidT: and what if CO2 keeps rising anyway
fishace: NEDWIN05 - I am a Principal Environmental Engineer with many years of international experience and currently ‘tree-changing' from a comfortable city lifestyle, to the goal of self-sufficiency in a remote location - “to practice what I preach”. We are currently renovating and reusing materials on our old farmhouse in Darke Peak, SA and illustrating to others how to live a more sustainable lifestyle, with the intention of building a completely self sustainable home in this district. Our goal is zero emissions, promoting regionalism and producing biofuels locally in rural and remote service towns. Reducing carbon transport costs, lowering land owner footprints and recycling household energy and nutrients into an integrated ecologically engineered micro-nutrient system recovery system.
r1nce: FearlessKat, the new system actually rewards energy retailers more than the household at this stage. When they buy the "solar credits" those credits got towards THEIR renewable energy production results. Big energy is being rewarded while clean energy take-up growth is being slowed.
michaelcrowe23: It is great to see the USA change their attitude and join the discussion, do you feel Australia is letting a great opportunity to take international leadership fall by the wayside due to our currently poor reduction target (5%)?
Prime Minister:Re MattyC and his point. I would like to hear everyones ideas on what we can now do practically on the energy efficiency front. lets see the ideas roll please. KR
Nedwin05: DavidT. There are people I know who have developed renewable technology they will release as 'open source'. This should make it more affordable.
readfearn: PM - when Copenhagen comes around in December, what will you be doing to make sure Australia is part of a global solution to a global problem?
MattyC: That is not my point! My point is there are some reasonable quesitons that were put to the govt on the causes and they have not been addressed
Prime Minister: While we are waiting on the energy efficience question, a few people have asked about the cost of action. we asked the Treasury about a;
Nedwin05: Energy efficiency comes from having stronger localised economies PM. OUr neo-liberal approach is wasteful.
liquidIce: Energy efficiency
r1nce: Let's be practical then. Legislate that all federal buildings be run entirely on renewable energy, either via solar arrays on the buildings themselves, or by vertical axis wind turbines on/near those same buildings. Let's change the landscape so that whenever you see a massive array, you KNOW that it's a federal building.
Nedwin05: So, what I mean is, reduce the amount of food transported into a community...grow it locally again. Thats one example.
fishace: We're in a SA rural community trying to source funding to commercialise microalgae biosequestration (algae to biofuels) & struggle to access the funds.
DavidT: True Ric, but solar power has been around for decades. Why no price reduction?
liquidIce: The current historical approach has been demand side, but the real benefits will come from controlling the supply side.
Luke33: Personally I feel pessimistic that Australian society will accept any major reductions in standards of living. So will the ALP overcome it's aversion to nuclear energy. Especially new technology modern reactors. Why is nuclear off the national debating list?
Patty: energy efficiency: advocate public transport
Prime Minister:we asked treasury about all that. Treasury say that countries that defer action will face costs long run that are around fifteen per cent higher.
readfearn: MattyC - they weren't reasonable questions. They were questions sponsored by the fossil-fuel industry - a point which seems lost on most people.
LawyersRus: I think the first step is public education. Most people don't know how CPRS works.
DavidT: Roll them on Nedwin. I've made enquiries for my business and in one instance it would take 23 years to amortize
FearlessKat: Communities, including houses should have solar panels on their rooves. Embed it in the building code. Support through funding. Allow houses to put energy back into the grid and reward them. Same with business.
fishace: Nedwin05 - that's exactly right, decentralisation of services
michaelcrowe23: Reiterating earlier points, bring back the solar power incentives, people will take more responsibility if using their own, locally produced resources
ric.hayman: DavidT - not enough adoption (prob because of high price :) ) - it's the production volume (or tech breakthrough) that will drop prices, not the length of time we've known about it (unfortunately)
MattyC: Good question Luke33 why no nuclear - seems like an ideological stand point more than anything else
Prime Minister: Re Nedwin 05. please elaborate re localised economies.
readfearn: OK - all agreed that inaction is going to cost us. So what is THE ACTION then. Energy efficiency will give us gains, but nothing like the gains we'd get with a rapid shift away from fossil fuels. Are we doing enough on this though?
liquidIce: Legislate minimum specifications on all appliances Legislate a minimum energy star rating of all new products to enter the market Publish a road map for the next 10 years that raises the minimum requirement year on year
Prime Minister: reliquidlce>
AllanL: During senate committe hearing aspokesperson for the Renewable Industry was asked by a senator what would be the best thing that the Fed'Govt could do. Response was to build a high capcity transmission line to the Cameron's Crn area between NSW, SA, Qld.
r1nce: I feel your pain PM, you can't press [enter] without the comment being submitted. Try using notepad, then paste it into this box. To continue, if all federal buildings (with perhaps the exception of defence) were running solely on renewables, this would send a massive statement to the publis, the corporate interests in the energy lobby, and the world in what Australia intends to do on climate change. We nee do to empower the populace to see that going green is cheaper now and in the long run by use of subsidies and rebates. Subsidise a community's solar array and they can use the savings on energy to help pay for the cost of installation. Give rebates for those interested in using electric cars to reduce their carbon footprint and get off the teat of oil companies. Subsidise development in those same electric vehicles.
DavidT: Solar panels in China are relatively cheap compared with Oz.
Nedwin05: Here's a story to illustrate my point about wasteful neo-classical economic approach to the way we use energy...Grow Capsicums in Carnarvon, 1000km from perth, ship them to a large supermarket warehouse in perth and then ship them back to carnarvon to be sold in that supermarket chain's outlet there.
Merridear: I absolutely agree with Nedwin. The BOrough of Woking and now London are demonstrating that local communities can be very self contained and decrease need for decentralised energy systems.
fishace: Geosequestration is suitable for short term storage, but this should be integrated within large scale biosequestration i.e. extracting the carbon to be processed into added value products.
MattyC: What is not reasonable about Feilding's questions, I ride a bike to work and they seemed very straightforward and sensible. Anyone who wants to ask something that doesn't "Toe the line" ends up being labelled and that is unhealthy in a democracy
readfearn: We've got the most important meeting - arguable in modern history - and we're still talking about costs, dollars, lightbulbs and stand-by power. PM - what's Australia's role going to be at Copenhagen? part of the problem or part of the solution?
Nedwin05: DavidT if communities were able to retail, wholesale and claim energy credits then renewables become profitable much quicker. Ou market and regulations don't allow for it. PM That's something that really must change.
LawyersRus: And, as I said on the blog, I think you need to sell it to the 'younger' generations, because they have a mentality of 'what's in it for me?' (I can say that because I am one).
Prime Minister: re liqidlce. surely we have to tackle both the supply and the demand side. The conventional wisdom seems to be that if we get serious about energy efficiency measures across the board, we can cut ghgs by up to 30 pr cent. then there are the critical supply side measures. and giving a carbon price through the cprs is critical to both.
ric.hayman: DavidT - it's a problem, and one that will only be solved by more rapid adoption ... someone earlier had an idea about Govt buildings being solar-powered - an increase in usage will open up more opportunities for cost reduction and improvement in the tech involved
liquidIce: Nuclear power is irrelevant as it takes too long to get approval and build a single reactor, yet alone the number that will be needed. Add to that the problems with controlling proliferation of dangerous materials, storing waste and cleaning up the radioactive mess that is left behind when decommissioning a reactor.
superperson: Will you consult Indigenous Elders regarding land management of Australia?
r1nce: I like the cut of your jib there, liquidIce. We should be setting targets for the manufacturers. A consumer isn't completely responsible for the product they use. Without a viable product on the market, what option do they have? Recently, an electric vehicle start-up in Melbourne was basically forced offshore after no funding and/or interest from the state and federal governments.
Luke33: If we're serious about greenhouse miles - why don't we see much greater increase in teleconferencing in Australian business and government.
ric.hayman: Nedwin05 - that sounds like a model worth pursuing ...
michaelcrowe23: These are great points but the fact is that turning Australian households into 100% clean energy users will only drop our national emissions by 20%, the biggest moves must come from industry, IE. lower our dependence on coal
Nedwin05: PM. If communities produced more of what they needed locally instead of shipping it in then they would be much more energy efficient. They could make a business out of running their own power stations that the community purchased its own energy from. They would reduce the transport costs by growing food locally, they would have more local manufacturing etc. Its a simple concept taking off around the world and it makes small business stronger.
readfearn: I'm in danger of sounding like a broken record here (remember them?) but without a strong global deal at Copenhagen, much of this debate will seem a little pointless down the track. I'd love to know - PM - what Australia's ambitions will be.
ric.hayman: readfern - good question. WHile we need a practical discussion, I think showing leadership at Copenhagen will be (at this stge) as important as any of the proactical steps being discussed here
Prime Minister: On the building code that fearlessCAT raises, the National Strategy on Energy Efficience agreed with the states will see us mandation six star rations for homes and commercial buildings through the code. Also with thr states increasing standards for appliances.
R1nce: We can't possibly use nuclear as an energy source as we have a major water shortage problem in Australia. Why use the millions of litres of water on cooling uranium rods when we could use it to flush the river system? Nuclear is a massive red-herring that gets way too much airtime.
Merridear: Regulations, especially at state level, are hampering or prohibiting local community self sufficiiencies. What can we do to encourage states to change their attitiudes to protecting their financial interests over greater sustainability issues.
liquidIce: A lot has been done world wide by Energy Utilities to influence demand side, but, the have not seen much results in the last 20 years. In a free society if energy inefficient options are given to customers inevitably some customers are going to choose them. The way to get around this is to legislate minimum efficiency standards across the board. Don't give the customer the possibility of a bad choice.
readfearn: michaelcrowe23 - absolutely on the money.
MattyC: Is anybody here concerned that we have the basics wrong in the whole debate? in which case this is all just noise - at a huge cost in real dollars for everyone.
AllanL: My business buy's 30k kWh of electricity a year yet I still don't know if I can claim the CO2 sequestration that occurs on the 42 hectares of land I live on. I would seqester a lot more CO2 that I emit. Do I get credits for that or not.
Nedwin05: Plugging these economic leaks in local economies alone would save the government hundreds of millions in propping up some of these local economies when the commodity they rely on for income drops in price or when climate change reduces their incomes. What's the point in giving communities hand-outs if the money leaks straight out of the local economy again?
r1nce: And why, sir, are the renewable energy targets being linked to the ETS? Surely the two can be independent of each other.
fishace: Working from home reduces any 'office' resource consumption and our focus on the youth is a strong suggestion as they are the ones most impacted by long term climate issues.
Nedwin05: I agree Merridear.
DavidT: Unfortunately the states won't get out of the way
ric.hayman: readfern - I don't think unilateral action by Australia is wasted, but agree that the rest of the world needs to be there as well. Copenhagen is important perhaps more symbolically, but important nonetheless. Kevin R has an opportunity on demonstrate OUR leadership on this issue ...
Patty: I'm having technical trouble here, but is there anything the fed govt does to jolt the states into building more public transport?
Nedwin05: michaelcrowe...the answer lies in more localised economies. Centralisation only works with cheap fossil fuel energy.
readfearn: liquidIce - but with leaner energy from the start, the need for mass regulation on energy efficiency drops down the priority list.
LiquidIce: Eminent climate researchers such as James Hansen of NASA and Hans Joachim Schellnhuber of the Potsdam Institute suggest that greenhouse gas levels in the range 280-325ppm CO2 are likely to be consistent with a safe climate, the achievement of which would require zero or near-zero anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and the sequestration of a significant amount of existing atmospheric carbon.
How do we get to the 'safe zone'?
Luke33: PM - it's heartening to see so many people here willing to put up new solutions and new futures. However I think sceptics have made big inroads into insecurity in the last year. Building on the current statis in global temperatures and other factors. I reckon 50% of Australians aren't convinced. Why doesn't the government more formally deal with scepticism. A Dept of Climate Change "sceptics unit" . That's real scepticism - not faux sceptics and purely political activists? Recent media shows sceptic questions are not well answered. Personally you should let CSIRO and BoM take the gloves off.
Prime Minister:readfern asks about Copenhagen. Sill waiting for more thoughts on efficency. This will hopfully come to a head beforehand at the Pittsburgh G20 summit next month and the UN Special Session. We will be active behind the scenes at both trying to get a consensus. Penny Wong is also working the phones. It will be tough though.
michaelcrowe23: Prime Minister, is Australia going to be a leader on the world stage and push higher reduction targets or is your target of 5% going to be the sort of example Australia will portray to the conference? the Australian public will support a government that is strong and progressive on the world stage.
ric.hayman: Nedwin05 local co-generation also reduces the need for increased infrastructure to carry power
readfearn: MattyC - after spending several years reading the science, the short answer. No.
r1nce: MattyC, I'd pay a 20% GST if it meant that all federal buildings and vehicles were run on renewables. If every cent of the additional 10% went to the implementation of huge solar and wind farms that generated free electricity for the electorate, I'd pay it and not blink an eye.
AllanL: Greatest efficencies would arise from decentralisation.
Merridear: At Serpentine Jarrahdale Shire they have a vision for being a food bowl, reducung food miles and self sufficiency for energy needs, total water recycling, but they are hampered by state regulation particularly with regard to water re-use and energy production.
Ric.hayman: MattyC which basics? While the science is not as conclusive as some would like, and I think the argument over who or what might be causing any climate change is a waste of time, the benefits of reducing carbon emissions are manifold, and not all related to climate
readfearn: PM - you sound as though you are setting us up for failure. let's have a bit of positivity. :)
Fishace: Third world countries look to large scale pond culture of algal biomass, (also a health food), as a cheap source of protein and Omega3. Bioenergy Australia are championing the ‘algae to biofuels’ sector.
Nedwin05: Yes Patty, public transport...we may not like it but are we allowed to mention peak oil here. It does have relevance for the climate change discussion.
DavidT: Maybe other countries don't see the problem in the same light as Oz does because they don't see a problem. Perhaps they are too busy looking after their own citizens.
pilot2012: Why has the Government stopped promoting LPG usage, in motor vehicles, that has a 10th the emissions of other fossil fuels, I would have thought this would be a big plus in the CO2 trading scheme.
Bayrunner: "Prime Minister, climate sceptics (and the indifferent) dominate opinion polls both here and abroad. Obviously the message is not getting through.
It is pointless trying to convince Australians that global warming is man made while the contrary science is so strong, the environmental movement so loud and the media so biased.
I have long maintained we should not rely exclusively on the recommendations of the IPCC. It is a political body and does no science of its own.
I believe the responsible course of action is to establish a royal commission into the science of climate change. Emphasis should be placed on scientific method and real world observations.
Unproven mathematical models (and opinions based on them) should relegated to the ranks of hypotheses (guesses) where they rightly belong.
Of course this would be a forum for expert scientists to have it out. Lobbyists should be excluded and, to limit ideological bias, evidence should be given under oath.
This issue is far too important to be rushed but,"
LawyersRus: I agree with Patty. The public transport system is terrible, unreliable and expensive (in Adelaide anyway). Why would people give up their cars for that?
AllanL: New towns built to latest standards, less travel time to work,cogeneration possibilites
DavidT: I think the science still has to be sorted out
Nedwin05: Exactly ric. The engineers for network operators I have talked to in my business have told me they want to move away from centralisation but the neo-classical approach from above doesn't allow them to.
readfearn: We need some BIG clear messages from a leader with a chance to be a hero for the planet - to go down in history. How's that grab you PM?????
MattyC: Luke33 is correct there is not much public debate and the avoidance of sensible questions just erodes public confidence. R1nce - would you still pay that if it made no difference?
Prime Minister: ric.hayman talks about the ec benefits of renewables. Spot on. Climate Institute report says that 26000 jobs can be created from projects planned or underway following the intro of the renewable energy target regime. This excludes those created by the energy efficient homes package noe underway as part of the economic stimulus package.
r1nce: Given we've only got 5 minutes left of the allocated time, I want to thank you again, Prime Minster, for the effort of holding on of these chats. I kif now it will be some time before I get the opportunity to directly engage with you again. I would like to think that any of the points raised that are not directly answered will be followed up either by email, or by another blog post that explicitly goes in to detail and responds to those raised points.
michaelcrowe23: In terms of energy efficiency, we can continue the solar energy rebate, continue to subsidise household insulation, invest in making cars and trucks more efficient from manufacture. In short incentivise peoples' move to make their households efficient.
fishace: Is there a possibility of furthering these discussions as low carbon solutions and local economies are the key.
Nedwin05: I've experienced the same Merridear. Same state.
ric.hayman: Luke33 - agree. PM, Australia is NOT convinced about climate change, and it is a topic on which it is easy to scare people (republic model, anyone?) - we need to move the argument away from scientific disagreements and proofs (because science will never be definitive) and towards the benefits (inc those not directly related to climate) of a lower-carbon lifestyle
Nedwin05: PM. Could you imagine how many jobs would be produced in struggling local economies if we decentralised?
ric.hayman: PM - YES! that's the sort of numbers that will ease people's concerns ...
superperson: Re efficiency; localised knowledge both Indigenous and non-Indigenous. Localised action community groups engaging young people, schools etc. Incentives beyond loan schemes for sustainable living; growing produce etc such as GST cuts or 'in kind' trading. Consultation with Indigenous groups about housing that WORKS so that resources are not continually wasted, including money.
Prime Minister: By the way,point taken re govt buildings. Let me come back on all that in a later online once we have our package done. w
michaelcrowe23: David T, would you not agree that regardless of the science (which is currently very strong) any move to protect and ensure the security of our natural resources for future generations to be an inherently positive move?
readfearn: DavidT. Sorted out? You can't "sort out" science - you get to a point where the risk of inaction outweighs the risk of action. We were there 20 years ago.
r1nce: (I also love the idea of an education campaign to raise awareness of those pushing the "climate change is a myth" agenda. I'm sure that people were made aware that the majority of those institutes raising counter arguments to climate change were funded by oil companies, they'd change their tune.)
Bayrunner: Previous post continues: This issue is far too important to be rushed but, thankfully, we have plenty of time.
Over the past ten years CO2 levels have continued to rise while global temperatures were at first steady then fell sharply. The Barrier Reef is in great shape, arctic ice cover is back to long term averages and polar bear numbers have increased fivefold since global climate scares became fashionable.
Incidentally, how many years of cooling must we endure before the loudest amongst us admit the earth not warming?
Science is not a popularity contest. Scientific consensus is a nonsense. In science it only takes one person to be right to smash a consensus, especially one deeply rooted in ideology. (Just ask Charles Darwin!)
Concerns about the climate consensus and the ETS are aired by a raft of people far more qualified and capable than I at quadrant.com.au/blogs/doomed planet.
Prime Minister, climate science needs to be cleaned up and a royal commission initiated by you would be an excellent start.
liquidIce: If you want to achieve consensus at Copenhagen then you need to have a strong morally and ethically defensible argument about how to constructively go forward.
Any action without getting the US, China, India, Brazil, Russia and the European Union on board will be of little value. The problem is that each of these have different demands and vested interests.
One way forward is to work on Per Capita emissions targets. If everyone on the planet is given the same per capita quota, then it is dividing the global common resource that is our climate equally and ethically defensibly. This is likely to get the developing nations on side, while the developed countries have the most potential to reduce their emissions due to their greater ability to finance and co-ordinate their efforts.
Nedwin05: So not only would we save on fuel (peak oil + climate change) but we would employ more locals again. perhaps the elderly (aged 67+) could become the food growers of their community increasing their status in the community once again.
LawyersRus: Further on public transport: One thing that could be done is to increase the public car parking facilities on train routes. A huge problem is where to securely park your car (if you don't live walking distance from the station).
AllanL: World demand for electricty will be going through the roof with pop growth. CO 2 levels will still be rising for some time to come
MattyC: Well said r1nce - look forward to some follow up following the conclusion of todays chat. Thanks for the opportunity PM.
Nedwin05: PM. I think one reason why Obama has captured the worlds attention is he does what readfearn mentioned.
superperson: Responsibility for management of resources increased to the local community; allowing people to manage and develop their own micro economies from self sufficiency
readfearn: As an exercise in open and accessible leadership, I'm all in favour of this sort of thing. Thanks PM for the opportunity. Good luck in Copenhagen... don't stuff it up.
Prime Minister: By the way, becasue I am chatting myself and my typing skills are a toal embarassment to my kids, lets extend this session another twenty minutes. OK?
MattyC: Most people that have questions do not in fact say "Climate Change is a myth" but in fact agree warming has occured. The question is what is driving it.
Merridear: PM There is a need for funding program for regional areas to develop policy frameworks for coliamate change that address the impacts on biodiversity and emergancy management particualrly fire and flood.
Nedwin05: sounds good!
ric.hayman: PM - good idea ...
r1nce: well said ric.hayman. As DavidT kindly demonstrates, people will never think that the science is final. We need to change the focus to "what's the realistic benefit of changing to renewables" over "why change anything, we can't hear you, lalalala".
DavidT: If this group of 20 has so many different views then how many views must there be in the general community. There is still a lot of education to do.
DavidT: Fine by me PM
MattyC: And if what is driving it is not in fact man made CO2 then we are barking up the wrong tree. A lot of the more recent research now calls into question that basic tennant
Nedwin05: Yes MC23. The economic argument for business as usual falls over when you take into account scenarios like peak oil, chinese and indian demand for energy resources etc.
DavidT: MC23 - why is there still scientific debate
ric.hayman: readfern - good point. We can't expect certainty from the science, but if we reduce our carbon emission and find out later that that it wasn't casuing climate change, I don't think it will have done us any harm ... the reverse isn't true
liquidIce: The greenhouse gas emissions in Australia from 2008 to 2012 was projected to be at 109% of the level in 1990, including the effects of land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF). The figure is slightly above the Kyoto Protocol limitation of 108%. In 2007, the UNFCCC reported that the greenhouse gas emissions in Australia in 2004 were at 125.6% of the level in 1990, without the LULUCF correction. Under the Kyoto Protocol If the enforcement branch determines that a country is not in compliance with its emissions limitation, then that country is required to make up the difference plus an additional 30%. In addition, that country will be suspended from making transfers under an emissions trading program How are you going to ensure Australia is not penalised?
DavidT: Science can be sorted out to get consensus. Look how long it took Gallileo
Prime Minister: michaelcrowe23 asks about our targets. Please have a look at www.climatechange.gov.au re our three sets of targets : five,fiteen and twety five with the latter two conditional on the nature of the Copenhagen outcome.
AllanL: Your right MattyC
fishace: Locally produced biofuels and LPG would drastically reduce the carbon footprint whilst generating local jobs.
Nedwin05: I think there is much recognition for stronger localised economies here PM. I'm suprised. Its good!
ric.hayman: MattyC - I think the blame game is a red herring - it matter less what causes it than it matters about taking some action to mitigate it
DavidT: Good on you Matty
michaelcrowe23: THanks PM, and will you be pushing our 25% target (too low according to Garnaut)
readfearn: All typos forgiven. I know people like to say that what Australia does won't matter on a world scale. But what would the impact be if the globe saw one of the world's biggest exporters of coal turn its back on what we all know is a poisoned pill on the planet? Now there's a story.
fishace: The climate change argument isn't whether or not it's cyclic but rather how much impact we as humans have on speeding the process up.
R1nce: davidt; do yourself a favour and check sourcewatch.org the next time you see someone talking about the science not being in. You'll find that their money generally comes from big oil, big pharma, big tobacco and others.
Nedwin05: Sorry Matty C. The even if co2 wasn't the problem we still need to change away from fossil fuels. the science is an academic argument as far as I'm concerned.
Prime Minister: Back on energy efficiency, ideas re working from home and less business and govt commuting. One of the reasons we are laying out a nationa high speed braodband network is to make all that more possible. and with the states, we have agreed a Telepresence system which means we can stay in our capitals and meet via videolink. One small step for mankind etc....
ric.hayman: DavidT, MC23 - I thnk the scientific debate is worthwhile - it always helps to get a better understanding of what's going on around us. I just think that the scientific debate has given us enough idea to take some action, and waiting for scientific certainty now costs more than taking action on an educated guess :)
AllanL: I would love to see our transport sector go to electricity just to have energy indepedence from oil.How much of the $172m of the green car initiative will go to produce a local electric car?
r1nce: totally and unreservedly agre, readfearn.
MattyC: Despite what many are lead to believe the concensus is not there. There are in fact many discenting voices and there is a shift in the science recently that supports some of the discenting voices from what has been painted as a consensus.
Nedwin05: The broadband network will really help local economies PM
Merridear: PM Is it possible that in the near future that their will be further funding for local/regional governments to progress innovative and significant climate change initiatives.
liquidIce: PM, why haven't you incorporated the recommendations from the IPCC, CSIRO and our leading experts from Australian universities directly into your targets and policies?
readfearn: So imagine if we stepped away from the world's inevitable plan to trade on carbon. We'd be left out in the cold of one of the biggest economic drivers there is. That would be a serious "ball drop" - science or otherwise.
fishace: “Biofuel production using algae can be concentrated in terms of land use. It's essential requirement is energy from sunshine. Algae can absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and thrive on concentrations of the gas from combustion wastes. They do particularly well in saline environments, which are abundant in Australia and have no alternative commercial uses." Garnaut - Chapter 22 p.552
r1nce: While we're on it, and just briefly, how about expanding the national rail network to remove more trucks from interstate highways? Some of our rail lines don't even accommodate two trains passing each other without having to use a siding. Placing the burden of interstate transport on the rail network instead of the road network would reduce emissions just on fuel alone.
readfearn: PM - I'm in agreement that getting the workforce (and my boss) used to the idea that we don't really need to travel on dirty fuel all the time would prepare us well for a time when oil isn't the cheap liquid fuel it is now.
Nedwin05: I don't think the government needs to do much else for local economies in terms of infrastructure PM. its more about regulatory changes to the electricity market, giving communities more say in what they do locally in terms of food, energy, water, waste etc.
Prime Minister: Again on energy efficiency, you may not be aware of nour national green car plan which isbuilt on a 1.3 billion dollar green car innovati0on fund. One of the aims is to produce an Australian made hybrid.Much more to do.
LawyersRus: I agree with Nedwin05 - science aside, we'll run out of fossil fuels! Then what?
MattyC: Maybe so Nedwin05 but surely to change our entire economy around should not be based on "so we might be wrong, but it will be good anyway" - i dont accept that at all. There are many enviornmental issues that are worthy of funding - the whole world has been consumed and hijacked by a single issue.
liquidIce: PM, and what about the switches, routers, fibre optics etc that all need to be powered. Are you going to ensure that they are the most energy efficient in the world and that they are all powered by renewable (zero emissions) energy?
readfearn: PM - yes, much more to do. I found it difficult to see the building of a four-cyclinder petrol engine as "green".
DavidT: AllanL - Melbourne trams & trains have been electric for yonks.
ric.hayman: I don't think we can shy away from the potential for a painful economic transition from a carbon-high to carbon-neutral or -low lifestyle - but delaying action will only increase the pain, and there is sufficient economic upside to counter it (and perhaps government assistance will be required too - but that's not new, nor would it be any more than required if we persist with eg fossil fuels for much longer)
LawyersRus: Broadband and green cars are great; a better public transport infrastructure would also go a long way.
Nedwin05: Keys to energy efficiency lies in the structure of our economy PM. So far the economy has been allowed to build 'efficiency' for big business profits.
Luke33: There's quiet some complexity in the science. Natural effects like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation can stall global temperature growth for a decade or longer. Communicating the science complexities is difficult to those wanting instant answers. But is a question of risk management. Ongoing drought conditions along the Murray an example of possibilities. PM we need a quality climate science documentary series. Complexity and uncertainty is what sceptics exploit. Anything to stall action is their tactic.
readfearn: MattyC - that should be "paid dissenting voices".
michaelcrowe23: PM, this will only be of use if we are all using green energy to power those vehicles as you are no doubt aware, however this process is extremely time consuming and time in this instance is not on our side. We need to stop tearing coal out of the ground, regardless of how strong certain lobbies are
r1nce: PM, please don't bother with a hybrid. Or if you do, make sure that there is a 100% electric vehicle also on offer. 90% of people would have their everyday transport needs be served by an all electric vehicle, why not develop the Beetle of the 21st century? (Minus all the nationalistic socialism that accompanied that particular innovation.)
Patty: green cars still rely on electricity. What are the intiatives to encourage people to use transport efficiently?
Nedwin05: Big business profits based on cheap fossil fuel energy.
fishace: PM - your recent success for getting money to local people via local councils should be repeated for local climate change programs.
liquidIce: PM, a true "Green Car" does not have the reduced emissions of a hybrid, but zero emissions.
AllanL: I am a refugee from Sydney already. I live on a bush block and run a manufacuring business on the block. Internet is great but still does not move physical product from A to B
readfearn: PM - will the emissions trading legislation go through? can't you just muscle 'em?
r1nce: LawyersRus is right. Improved public infrastructure in all cities and towns would even further reduce the need for a personal vehicle as the only viable transport option.
fishace: Has anyone undertaken local v's city carbon transport modelling?
Nedwin05: I agree ric. But I'm not sure it will be that painful. I think we have been exaggerating that 'pain'.
Luke33: liquidice - why not power them with new generation nuclear? If you balance nuclear risk vs climate risk??
Prime Minister: Re readfearn on climate change leadership. One of the reasons we made climate change the absolute focus of the Pacific Islands Forum last week was to send a "Call to Action" to the rest of the world from those most vulnerable now. They asked me to take theri message to Pittsburgh and beyond for an ambitious Copenhagen outcome. And we must give it all we have got. Which is also why we cannot just be words. We also have to pass the carbon pollution reduction scheme here on ordher to give our commitments domestic effect.
superperson: Can I please ask, how will the water supply in Alic Springs be protected against contamination with proposed plans for uranium dump sites?
MattyC: Sorry I don't buy that readfearn - a cheap shot but it still doesnt answer the qeustions
AllanL: DavidT I beleive Melbourne still has cars.Transport was 14% of CO2 emissions 2006 in Australia
Patty: DavidT I agree. I'd like to see more focus on reducing reliance on single-car transport. Sorry if I'm sounding like a broken record, but it's easy to do (and I'm having loads of trouble with this site)
Nedwin05: back on to efficieny. A community of 1200 people that grows none of its own food imports about $1.4million worth every year. That saving could go some large way to putting solar panels n every home in that community over a few short years.
readfern: PM - with clear strong words like that, you're on a winner. But after the words will come the actions. But granted - it starts with ambition. Just ask JFK... well you can't... but you get my drift.
Merridear: I think there is plenty of evidence form cities that have already become totally self sufficient in energy production that this does not have to be a painful economic experience but rather a community re-awakening around local economies.
liquidIce: Electric powered vehicles should become the main part of the fleet, running on ultra capacitors, batteries or fuel cells. Open national standards should enable a nation wide "swap n go" system for car batteries and hydrogen storage. Bio Fuel powered cars, tractors and equipment in agricultural areas and niche markets do not impact food security or prices. The CSIRO research into next generation bio-fuels should be aggressively commercialised.
Prime Minister:r1nce has raised transport. We are starting to invest in urban rail for the first time in the history of the Commonwealth Govt. Long way to go. But also part of the solution.
ric.hayman: PM I think any scheme which prices carbon emission more equitably compared to "greener" alternatives is necessary to shift investment away from say, fossil fuels to solar. With the existing price advantage for eg coal, there is no incentive to invest in other technologies, and the relative price to the consumer inhibits adoption.
DavidT: If the general population wanted more public transport surely there would be more usage of what is already there.
Nedwin05: Not something for the fed gov maybe PM but the design of our cities doen't make public transport easy.
Luke33: Only the government can bring about the major transformations in energy use required. I think we need to seriously think big if we are going to make nay difference at all and bring most of the Australian population with us. I doubt people will vote for austerity.
liquidIce: Stop handing out concessions to major polluters, this does not solve the problem, nor does it motivate them or others to change. Instead invest in the solutions that will help us meet or do better than our targets.
AllanL: If everything is so urgent, split the bill, ammend the RET 200 Act
michaelcrowe23: Well said r1nce, There are many ways we can increase our efficiency in terms of transport, every foot on public transport or a pushbike is one less on the accelerator
Nedwin05: My food example is about this: energy efficiency isn't just about better light globes.
Readfern: You say cheap. I say reality.
ric.hayman: Also agree with several others here who suggest that public transport needs to be improved - more and cheaper. Patty - as much as I would like to see it, car pooling hasn't been a success here ... telecommuting may have a better chance (bring on the NBN!)
Patty: PM - urban rail? More details? Interesting
AllanL: and you have 50% of what you want this week
DavidT: Melb has cars because public transport is so unreliable
Nedwin05: Its about the structure and motives of our current economy.
ric.hayman: DavidT - not enough of it (here in Adelaide) and more expensive than parking your car in the city ... the profit motive where it is in private hands also militates against its use
readfearn: Nedwin05 - You are right. We've got to transition to a point where - when the energy crunches are coming two-by-two - we're the ones who have communities which can handle it.
Nedwin05: DavidT, its about how we have allowed are cities to be designed.
r1nce: This is also affecting our water supply. We have a serious problem in this country regarding our water needs. Put simply, we are consuming more than we are harvesting. Our rivers are dying, yet we continue to allow the use of open channel irrigation. We also continue to subsidise the farming of water intensive crops like cotton and rice. A move in textiles towards hemp (not for smoking) would see a decrease in operating costs for textile farmers by having less need for water, being naturally pest-resistant, and producing a better quality product. Using a desalination plant to flush the Murray-Darling system would be more productive than pumping it to the major cities. Legislating that all new homes have a water tank fitted, even just for flsuhing the toilets, would drmatically reduce household water consumption. Coupled with a retro-fitting program for older homes, having people have their own water source would reduce the strain on our dams.
LawyersRus: I don't agree DavidT - I would use the public transport in Adelaide if it was reliable.
Luke33: I see Land & Water Australia has a report out on a methanol economy based on biofuel production from wood distillation based on massive revegetation of cleared semi-arid inland areas - a win-win one might think for biodiversity, salinity mitigation, regional economies and renewable liquid transport fuel. But only government could catalyse this sort of initiative.
michaelcrowe23: Thankyou PM for this great opportunity, we ask that you stand up and lead Australia to an agreement that ensures the ability of future generations to the same freedom and lifestyle that Australians have for decades enjoyed.
readfearn: liquidIce - the "swap n go" idea is already being developed. Search for BetterPlace on Google - or Gavoz if you want your search to be offset!
liquidIce: IMHO solar panels are not the best way to go. They require expensive fabrication plants, decay in efficiency over time and can not be repaired. A better way to go could be Concentrated Solar Power focused on a Stirling Engine. Performance does not degrade over time. Stirling Engines can be manufactured in a High School metal work shop. Commercial SE manufacturing can utilise many of the same processes etc as the auto industry. A SE can be repaired and maintained with minimal training and tools.
DavidT: Production of bio-fuels raise the price of agricultural inputs enormously and thereby add to the cost of food to consumers
Nedwin05: I understand the politics behind keeping the coal industry happy but in the meantime, demonstrable examples of how we could be living in the future could be set up in regional communities. Examples of success will show everyone that a low carbon economy isn't so scary.
readfearn: PM - new research just hitting the news wires from Oxford Economics says damage to the Great Barrier Reef will cost $37 billion over the next century.
Nedwin05: What did Bill Clinton say? "Its the economy...stupid". I think we should be thinking the same when it comes to solutions for climate change. Its the way we think about it. Its our whole economic rationale.
liquidIce: On the agricultural front the science is compelling and the solutions are relatively simple, but may not be popular.
LawyersRus: Not only reliable, but affordable. There also needs to be more regular/direct services. It takes too long most of the time (even if the bus is on time) because the bus route goes via everywhere to get from A to B.
AllanL: If public transport was so good there would be more of it.Face it people like the ability to "go" when they want to. No standing around for a bus train or tram. So individual transport is what you have to deal with.
Nedwin05: This needs to change of course. PM, you lambasted neo-liberalism. Are you open to new ways of thinking?
ric.hayman: Wow - has everybody just accelerated because we're short of time? Finding it hard to keep up here :)
DavidT: LawyerRus - I used to ride a bike when I worked in Melb CBD.
fishace: The production of algal biofuels has NO effect on agricultural input rather increases output using unproductive land.
liquidIce: Australia should not have any water intensive crops, the Govt should enact a strategy to migrate all existing farmers from water intensive crops to more sustainable crops. This should happen within the next 10 years.
ric.hayman: liquidIce - good point re solar panels, but given the amount of sunshine we get, solar power should be a monty here, so the more incentive there is to explore alternatives to panels the better
readfearn: On that economic rationale - seeing as the environment IS the economy, I'd say you're on the button. But shiny plastic and supermarket aisles guard us from the scars those products leave on our world.
DavidT: Public transport in Paris and Hong Kong & elsewhere is fantastic, but the roads are still clogged
r1nce: AllanL; that's the problem. Public transport isn't good enough to allow people the flexibility to do what they want. So they use private transport. The solution is to improve public transport to a point where it is reliable, flexible and affordable for everyone. Decrying it as "not useful" isn't a solution.
LawyersRus: I don't agree Nedwin05 - yes, I like to 'go' when I want to. However, I have lived in cities in the USA where you can 'go' when you want to, and people use the public transport all of the time. In DC you can park your car at a safe car park and jump on a train into the city, then you can get the metro anywhere, with basically no delay. No one even looks at timetables!
readfearn: PM - what have you thought of the chat?
DavidT: LiquidIce - where would you get your milk from?
Nedwin05: Paris and HK were designed before the car.
ric.hayman: LawyersRus - there's a HUGE discussion to have about city design and infrastructure, "local" employment and initiatives (which reduce the need for travel), telecommuting ... all of which impact on our use of fuel, climate change and economic and ecological viability
LawyersRus: Sorry, not Nedwin05 - AllanL.
AllanL: Electricty is the best energy source for transport.You can generate it in the "best" and most economical manner. Just think how many electric motors are around you at this moment. And all it takes to transport an electron is a wire.
michaelcrowe23: PM, are you still with us?
liquidIce: PM an emissions trading scheme seems like a bit of a neo-liberal concept. How are you going to keep speculators and profiteers out of the system. Instead of profits going to the people reducing their footprint they go to the middle man. Further more, what is going to be done when trading goes global to prevent the equivalent of the "creative economics" that caused the Global Financial Crisis from happening in the global carbon market?
LawyersRus: David T- that may be true about clogged cities, however the population in those places in massive compared to any Australian cities.
MattyC: There are some good ideas here: More public transport, more energy efficient things (good for all sorts of reasons). But am I the only person here who is questioning the one thing that underpins the entire ETS. It is this: what if manmade CO2 is not causing the warming. I think it is telling that nobody wants to answer this question
readfearn: PM - you're typing so fast in the picture that I can't see your fingers moving.
Nedwin05: the solution to Public transport use is the design of our cities.
DavidT: So was Sydney
Patty: DavidT compare the per capita % travelled on public transport, and by private car for those cities and Aus, and you'll see the difference
fishace: Making the panels in Australia is important to our vast 'Sunshine' resource. The idea is to use our natural resources, not create further issues adding further carbon impacts.
PMConnect-Admin: Hi all. Thankyou to everyone for participating today. We are just awaiting the PM's final comments before we wrap up.
Nedwin05: As mentioned before. part of the government's big problem is how to sell the idea of a low carbon economy to the voters. The only solution to that is by havng demonstrable examples. Create highly efficient local economies in the regions and people will see how everything, food, power, transport etc can work without high co2 output.
ric.hayman: I think this has been a great idea, which would be made even better if we see some wide publication of this discussion (eg - can I link to the transcript from my blog, please? Will it be at here?) AND some action from PM based on this input.
Nedwin05: liquidice. the ETS was designed by a neo-classical economist so you're spot on.
Merridear: Given that we know how to build really sustainable houses how can the federal government influence building codes to eliminate heat absorbing infrastructures such as black roads, black roofs and lack space for shade trees.
r1nce: Well, so much for the final 5 minutes. Another thank you to the prime Minister for sharing his time with us all. I would still very much to have responses for the majority of these posts written in to a blog entry, or email responses.
readfearn: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If you put more of it up there, it stands to reason that you create an underlying warming trend.
DavidT: as I said earlier Matty, I totally agree
Nedwin05: But he does make an argument for decentralisation of the grid. I only believe we need to give the ownership back to local people...via co-ops, small floats etc.
LawyersRus: MattyC: I don't think it matters if man made Co2 isn't the cause of warming. All of these things will create a society that is ultimately a better, healthier place to live.
Ric.hayman: MattyC who cares what causes it? If we can formulate a "man-made solution" it doesn't matter what's to blame for where we are - what is important is where we go from here
fishace: Good luck PM and thankyou for this opportunity, we are avidly watching all of your initiatives and schemes and look forward to seeing the outcomes.
liquidIce: I suggest a shake up of the auto industry and the current paradigm of owning a vehicle.
At the moment, there is no incentive to upgrade the current vehicle fleet with more energy efficient engines etc.
If cars were provided as a network service similar to mobile phones:
- Service stations are the equivalent of mobile towers
- KMs driven are the equivalent of air time minutes (refueling is included in this)
- If a car is a leased service then the service provider has an incentive to upgrade your car to ensure it is more efficient because it will improve their profit margin as it would require less maintenance and less fuel or equivalent energy source.
readfearn: Make it a good one Kevin. No pressure.
ric.hayman: thanks to all for the discussion ... will have to go back and read it all now :)
Prime Minister:Thanks folks we have now had an hour online. Sorry i type like an extra in Thunderbirds. I will record my thoughts on your posts this afternoon and put'em on my website. Lets do this again soon. KR
Nedwin05: thanks for the opportunity. A great initiative.
LawyersRus: Thanks PM!
ric.hayman: Admin - can we found out the URL of the transcript so that we can reference it later?
Nedwin05: A shame we can't connect in person. I loved some of the thinking here and would like a chance to catch up...oh well!
DavidT: Thanks for the opportunity
MattyC: Thanks all, a bit fractured but well worth while
LawyersRus: Thanks all, have a great day.
LiquidIce: Thank you for this opportunity it has been a pleasure :)
MattyC: Not necessarily the case readfern and if you have been reading the science as much as you claim you would understand this. There has been periods in ice age where the co2 is much higher
R1nce: Thank you everybody, At least I know that I'm not alone in some of the things I'm thinking. Take it easy.
MattyC: Anyway - you all have a great day. See you all again one day - maybe?
Merridear: Thanks for the opportunity. This has been fun and encouraging to hear kindred spirits with some REAL ideas for sustainability and future growth of local economies. Let's stay in touch via the PM's website.