Austrailian lawmakers argue global warming and sequestration
This story goes to show that the debate on global warming is still raging. Crucial to the debate in many people's minds is not whether the earth is warming, but whether or not man is causing it. That is the notion that four Australian governing party lawmakers are rejecting. Also up for debate is whether or not the lawmakers opinions are molded by the fact that Australia is the world's largest exporter of coal, and that the nation is rather dependent on coal as a natural resource. With the abundance of sunlight, wind and the possibility of tapping into the ocean's waves as potential power sources is not lost on all of Australia's inhabitants. The topic of climate change and coal power is expected to play a role in the upcoming elections.
Specifically, the lawmakers are against the idea of setting up "at least one" carbon sequestration systems at one of their coal-fired power plants. Not even just one? Sheesh.
[Source: Physorg]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
GregR 9:49AM (8/19/2007)
The Howard Government has made many questionable decisions over the years.
Talk about the emu head in the sand.
Reply
MikeB 10:55AM (8/19/2007)
Actually, the debate about man causing global warming is also over, at least in scientific circles. If you read the IPCC report, they summarize tons of evidence that shows exactly how man's industrial activity is *the* factor that is causing a balanced system to become unbalanced. All other possible causes are either ruled out or too small to make such a difference. They rank this conclusion with a 90-99% certainty level, which is amazingly high confidence for such a complex system.
Reply
rgseidl 10:59AM (8/19/2007)
"Not even one?" Of course not, it's called nipping the thing in the bud. Big coal is very powerful in Australia.
Wrt alternatives, Australia has vast tracts of empty desert starting as little as 30 miles from the coast. It could scrub the sulfur out of the flue gases of its coal-fired power stations and pipe the CO2 into racetrack ponds growing algae in salt water (much of Australia's ground water is saline). This would recycle the CO2 into biofuels that Australia could use locally and also very profitably export to other OECD nations.
Strictly speaking, this isn't sequestration but it would reduce demand for crude oil from Russia, the Persian Gulf, Venezuela etc. Displacing this supply would make the CO2 footprint of coal much more tenable.
Australia also has significant natural gas reserves off its sparsely populated north-west coast. Building a pipeline to Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney would be expensive; the alternative would be GTL or LNG plants that could serve customers anywhere in the world.
Reply
mike 11:59AM (8/19/2007)
This brings up the question: How we run our governments.
For the Short Term Benefit of Some, or the Long Term Benefit of All.
The problem being the SOME control all the MONEY.
Reply
mlhm5 4:13PM (8/19/2007)
There is no debate on global warming in the scientific literature where you would expect a debate if there was any question about global warming and the cause.
In fact the scientists of the world agree with 90% probability and have stated so in the 2007 IPCC statement.
There is however a debate among lay people who use the opinions of learned and serious people who have never published a paper in a peer reviewed journal refuting global warming or its cause.
Reply
bioburner 6:11PM (8/19/2007)
Vast desert lands 30 miles away from the coast. Sounds to me like Solar power is the best option not coal or coal with CO2 capture.
Reply
Nathan 12:46AM (8/20/2007)
The Australian government's official stance is that they are interested in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but as this report shows, those words are hollow at best. Nothing will change while the Liberal party remains in power, that much is clear.
Reply