.png)
The self-proclaimed climate change sceptics (a.k.a. contrarians, non-greenhouse theorists, etc.) are, in the greater scheme of things, really nothing more than a silly diversion. Spending too much time on them only results in a bruised head from excessive banging against recycled walls. But as I’ve pointed out in a few recent posts, it is my […]
Filed under: Clim Ch Q&A, Sceptics | 8 Comments »
Here’s some figures to make you queasy after all that rich Christmas dinner. As was reported recently, Australia’s bold new short-term greenhouse gas reduction target is to reduce carbon emissions by 4% on year 1990 levels by 2020. What does that mean in real terms? Well, according to the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory, our total […]
Filed under: Emissions | 19 Comments »
Well, if you’ve been reading the BraveNewClimate blog regularly, then I’m sure you’ve certainly heard quite enough of my opinions on climate science and its policy implications this year! My thanks to all regular and occasional BNC readers for taking an interest in staying up-to-date with the latest issues on global warming — and perhaps […]
Filed under: Clim Ch Q&A, Sceptics | 10 Comments »
At least that is the argument put forward by Dr Ted Trainer from the University of New South Wales. To quote: It is commonly assumed that greenhouse gas and energy problems can be solved by switching from fossil fuel sources of energy to renewables. However little attention has been given to exploring the limits to […]
Filed under: Renewables | 36 Comments »
I had meant today to post on probable limits to large-scale renewable energy, but that write-up needs a bit more time. So in the meantime, the following piece is timely — because it highlights some of the exciting prospects in the ‘green’ liquid fuels arena; provided that we can get our act together and should […]
Filed under: Emissions, Future, Renewables | 18 Comments »
So the final model of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme — Australia cap-and-trade system — has been released. It’s byline is ‘Australia’s ever-so-slightly-maybe Lower Pollution Future‘. Sorry, now I’m just being cynical. There’s been plenty written about it over the subsequent 24 hours, including some comments from me here, here, here and here. I also […]
Filed under: Emissions | 51 Comments »
It seems like something that only a crazed conspiracy theorist would come up with. A source of carbon-free energy that holds the potential to provide base load power for the planet for thousands of years hence, and which could be built along the existing transmission grid and even be housed within retrofitted coal-fired power stations. […]
Filed under: Clim Ch Q&A, Emissions, Nuclear | 117 Comments »
I haven’t talked a lot about marine impacts of climate change on this website — mostly because it is quite thoroughly covered by Prof Ove Hoegh-Guldberg in his Climate Shifts blog and Dr Simon Donner on Maribo. But in short, the marine environment is under severe stress from chronic human impacts (over-fishing, dredging, pollution [e.g., […]
Filed under: Impacts | 31 Comments »
Guest Post by Ian T. Dunlop. Ian was formerly a senior oil, gas and coal industry executive. He chaired the Australian Coal Association in 1987-88, chaired the AGO Experts Group on Emissions Trading in 1999-2000 and was CEO of the Australian Institute of Company Directors from 1997-2001. He is a CPD fellow and is currently […]
Filed under: Clim Ch Q&A, Emissions, Future, Renewables | 11 Comments »
In a week where the Poznan climate conference barely registers in the international media, two new reports on the climate crisis have been released in the UK. George Monbiot reviews them both, here and here for the Guardian. Talk about chalk and cheese. One of the reports, developed by the Public Interest Research Centre, evaluates […]
Filed under: Emissions | 14 Comments »
So what are the priorities for Obama, and indeed, for world governments, as they gather to discuss the next international treaty at Poznan this month? Can something meaningful be hammered out in Copenhagen in a years time? What are the implications of us collectively making a choice to do nothing, or at least very little? […]
Filed under: Clim Ch Q&A, Emissions, Future, Nuclear, Renewables | 23 Comments »
 | Brian H on How realistic is The Economist… |
| Brian H on How realistic is The Economist… |
 | Cyril R. on How realistic is The Economist… |
 | David B. Benson on How realistic is The Economist… |
 | Ms.Perps on Environmentalism in the mud: r… |
 | Tom Blees on How realistic is The Economist… |
 | Marion Brook on Environmentalism in the mud: r… |
 | John Newlands on Open Thread 21 |
 | grlcowan on Open Thread 21 |
 | harrywr2 on The Fukushima Question: How cl… |
| John Newlands on Open Thread 21 |
 | Eclipse Now on Open Thread 21 |
| Cyril R on IFR FaD 10 – metal fuel and… |
| Cyril R on Environmentalism in the mud: r… |
 | Roger Clifton on IFR FaD 10 – metal fuel and… |
