The Mad Mad Maths of Emissions Targets

Letters to the Editor

12th May 2019

quill pen

Most politicians live in a green fantasy-land where facts and numbers don’t count. They dream up fanciful figures for proposed cuts to industrial and agricultural emissions without any understanding of the remorseless growth of population.

The Australian government has set a target to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by 27% from 2005 levels by 2030, just 11 years away. The ALP opposition plans to cut emissions by a staggering 45% by 2030.

Australia’s population is growing at 1.7% per year (higher than most other developed countries). At this growth rate, population will increase by about 50% from 2005 levels by 2030.

If we did NOTHING about cutting emissions, and the economy stood still, the continuing rise in population would ensure that emissions (and economic activity) per head of population would fall by 30% from 2005 levels by 2030.

Who among us is volunteering to use 30% less food, petrol, gas and electricity than we used in 2005 solely because of population growth? Who is promising to abolish the baby bonus and cut our intake of migrants, refugees, tourists and foreign students by 30%?

And of those prepared to make these sacrifices, who is volunteering to meet even the modest government cuts proposed for 2030 which will require us to use 50% less food, petrol, gas and electricity per capita than we used in 2005? The Green and ALP cuts would take us back to the Middle Ages.

We have just three choices: reduce population growth, abolish emissions targets or welcome creeping poverty.

There is a fourth choice: eject all climate fools from the political stables in Canberra.

Their proposed emissions targets will harm the natural environment by splattering the land with subsidised wind and solar monstrosities. They will also divert land from producing food to producing ethanol fuel for cars and force poor people into poverty with soaring electricity prices.

But they will have no measurable effect on climate.

Viv Forbes
Washpool Qld 4306 Australia

Phone 0409 2777 94

forbes@saltbushclub.com

Further Reading

Green energy policies freeze out the poor:

http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=58533

 

Viv Forbes is not a member of any political party, and has no vested interests in mining, energy or bio-fuels. He and his wife breed meat sheep, drive a diesel car, ride petrol quad bikes, have roof-top solar panels and a diesel generator in the shed.

 

Some emissions maths:

Year Population Emissions Target Index Index Emissions per capita
Index at 1.7% py
2005 100.00 100.0 1.00
2006 101.70
2007 103.43
2008 105.19
2009 106.98
2010 108.79
2011 110.64
2012 112.52
2013 114.44
2014 116.38
2015 118.36
2016 120.37
2017 122.42
2018 124.50
2019 126.62
2020 128.77
2021 130.96
2022 133.19
2023 135.45
2024 137.75
2025 140.09
2026 142.48
2027 144.90
2028 147.36
2029 149.87
2030 152.41 73.0 0.48

 

6
Leave a Reply

avatar
6 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
Alexander KBrett KeaneAndyRichard TreadgoldMike Jowsey Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Gwan
Guest
Gwan

Our foolish government here in New Zealand is also tearing down the same road to economic suicide . Any economic activity that is not producing goods or services is a drag on every person in the country . The worst error that the government has made in New Zealand is to include livestock Methane emissions in their plan to reduce so called green house gasses. Methane from livestock is not a problem as the cattle and sheep consume forage that has absorbed CO2 to grow and a small amount of methane is belched as the animals digest their forage . The methane is broken down over 8 to 12 years in the troposphere into CO2 and water vapour and the cycle continues . The amount of methane in the atmosphere is a minuscule 1.9 parts per million and it is slowly increasing. The government has not thought this out and the greens are pushing this stupidity . The increase in methane in the atmosphere must be coming from coal mining ,remember Pike River , and natural gas escaping from pipelines and other facilities as well as a fair amount from transport emissions .… Read more »

Mike Jowsey
Guest
Mike Jowsey

Greens are not interested in science. They probably hate most science. Yet they have slowly but surely been sucked into the Al-Gore-ism vortex of just enough science to be dangerous. And here we are with said greens in charge. I cannot hope for a ray of reason with this mindset. Their end justifies their means. And if they bring down civilisation in the process, at least their short-lived babies will be carbon free. Flower power.

Richard Treadgold
Admin

At least your despair wears a brief grin. Nice.

Andy
Guest
Andy

According to this paper by NIWA, NZ is a net carbon sink
https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/17/47/2017/acp-17-47-2017.pdf

We’d better start chopping down trees and burning lots of coal if we are going to be “carbon neutral” by 2050

Brett Keane
Guest
Brett Keane

As known by us deplorables who actually do the sweating and the Science too. Hope plenty will submit and speak in Parlt soon. Will do my best…. Brett

Alexander K
Guest
Alexander K

A cousin I have not seen for years recently tracked me down to the new home that my wife and I have built. I found her to be shrill, nosy and exactly the kind of relative who makes one glad that one can choose one’s friends.
After an hour of irrelevant chat about various things, she suddenley informed my wife and I that she and her (silent) husband were ‘very keen Greens’. After another hour of rising irritation as she expounded her views on various ‘absolutely lovely’ Green Party politicians, she announced that they would leave. In the only tranport, a large deisel-powered motor home.
I managed to unclench my bottom jaw later in the evening.
A;exnder K

Post Navigation