PREDICTIONS for the planet are dire indeed, if we do not drastically cut our carbon dioxide emissions in the very near future.
In Australia, we will lose the Barrier Reef and the Kakadu wetlands, the Murray River will dry up completely and snow vanish from our Alpine regions. Sea level could rise precipitously as the great ice sheets of Greenland and the Antarctic melt.
On the economic front, things have actually gone from bad to worse. The sub-prime crisis has morphed into fears of a global recession, perhaps even a depression. Bastions of United States capitalism such as General Motors now teeter on the brink of bankruptcy. Here in Australia, companies that run child-care centres and shopping malls are collapsing. Even our iron ore shipments are now being cancelled by China. The world price of oil has plummeted 60 percent in just a few months – the reason is an anticipated reduction in global demand.
So, why isn’t all the bad economic news openly embraced as positive news by those that advocate we urgently cut carbon dioxide emissions. Surely, if solutions to global warming are so pressing, the best thing that could possibly happen is a recession if not a depression?
It is very confusing to me that the Federal government is so determined to maintain domestic growth above 2 percent, on the one hand, while at the same time telling us we are ruining the planet with our emissions. The reality is that you cannot have it both ways. Economic activity and emissions are related.
John Abbot lives in Noosa, Australia.
[Photograph taken at dusk on November 1, 2008, by Jennifer Marohasy from the Mantra Hotel, Southbank, Melbourne, Australia. ]
At present it would be fair to say that 'Economic activity and emissions are related' due to the lack in development of alternates, but surely there are greener options... in fact investing in the greener options in a time of economic uncertainty such as now would not only take steps towards creating jobs and employment but also healing some of the planet we and our ancestors have abused. Jamie M.A
well done! Thx!
In a previous post, there was mentioned that the percentage of Germany's electricity production from the wind is "under the radar".
Well, not so in my country - Czech Republic. The problem is following: Germans produce most of their windmill energy in the North. In addition, there's a law, that in case the wind blows, the energy MUST be immediately channeled to the network and the other "non-renewable" sources shut down, if the need arises. But there's a big BUT: Germany has more industry and energy consumption in the center and in the south, whereas windmills are rotating at the north.
So what to do? Germany has very weak network, so they channel all that volts from North to South through the Czech network, which is (fortunately) a bit overdone, thanks to the Communist times. Of course, this sudden surge threatens Czech network stability with blackouts, not to mention the fact, that in order to pass through the German "green" wind energy we have to disconect and temporarily shut down (and later restart) our own coal plants...