Post by IBDaMann on Aug 2, 2020 21:12:06 GMT
The Citizen's Climate Lobby is a sham, at least the Australia chapter is. It is a rabid Marxist political action group recruiting people on the false premise that they are applying science solutions to solve environmental problems.
Key elements from their public website:
So they do broadcast their true nature ... to those who know how to interpret their use of language:
"Advocacy" = Activists who exist solely to pressure politicians ... and businesses and schools and really anyone else.
"Education Organisation" = Propaganda Factory
"Democracy" = Marxist
As you will see below, none of this is true. They are not somehow openminded and they are not open to information and they are not tolerant of any differing opinions, of any science or of any efforts that will help the environment. They exist to drive home their socialist political agenda for Australia.
The below correspondence details IBDaMann's interaction with representatives of the Citizen's Climate Lobby Australia (CCLA).
Radio silence from CCLA
Continued Radio silence from CCLA
The below correspondence details gfm7175's interaction with representatives of the Citizen's Climate Lobby Australia (CCLA).
Radio silence from CCLA
Continued Radio silence from CCLA
Key elements from their public website:
Citizens’ Climate Lobby Australia is a non-profit, non-partisan, grassroots advocacy and education organisation focused on accelerating solutions to climate change through democracy.
"Advocacy" = Activists who exist solely to pressure politicians ... and businesses and schools and really anyone else.
"Education Organisation" = Propaganda Factory
"Democracy" = Marxist
Our approach is thoughtful and thorough. We consult experts and utilise data. We are open to new information; in fact we solicit opposing opinions. We refine our solutions to make them better. We follow up when we are asked. We keep on.
The below correspondence details IBDaMann's interaction with representatives of the Citizen's Climate Lobby Australia (CCLA).
Sat, Jul 25 at 11:48 PM, IBDaMann wrote to: info@ccl.org.au
To whom it may concern at the Citizens' Climate Lobby Australia,
My colleagues and I were considering participating in your discussion to contribute what we can in the way of science because we are passionate about protecting the environment. Several of us had some concerns, though, and I was tasked with compiling those questions and forwarding them to you to be addressed.
1. We are physicists and economists and we understand why there is no such thing as Greenhouse Effect ... or Global Warming. Does this make us undesireable? We would be happy to present a brief 15-minute lecture on the physics in question so you can ensure your positions are based on sound science. We ask because what drew us to your organization was your policy, as stated on your website: "Our approach is thoughtful and thorough. We consult experts and utilise data. We are open to new information; in fact we solicit opposing opinions. We refine our solutions to make them better. We follow up when we are asked. We keep on."
2. Your website indicates that you are focused on a "Carbon Fee and Dividend policy." This is a bad idea. We would similarly be elated to present you an overview on the economics fundamentals that explain why this won't work, which actually involve physics fundamentals, believe it or not. This way you can ensure that your positions are based on sound economics as well.
3. Lastly, how can we help? If it's ideas you seek then we have various novel ideas for solving the world energy shortages by utilizing geologically renewable hydrocarbons. Not only are these cheap and plentiful but they produce plant food that makes the world GREEN. We have a lot of ideas and we are eager to participate.
Where do we begin?
To whom it may concern at the Citizens' Climate Lobby Australia,
My colleagues and I were considering participating in your discussion to contribute what we can in the way of science because we are passionate about protecting the environment. Several of us had some concerns, though, and I was tasked with compiling those questions and forwarding them to you to be addressed.
1. We are physicists and economists and we understand why there is no such thing as Greenhouse Effect ... or Global Warming. Does this make us undesireable? We would be happy to present a brief 15-minute lecture on the physics in question so you can ensure your positions are based on sound science. We ask because what drew us to your organization was your policy, as stated on your website: "Our approach is thoughtful and thorough. We consult experts and utilise data. We are open to new information; in fact we solicit opposing opinions. We refine our solutions to make them better. We follow up when we are asked. We keep on."
2. Your website indicates that you are focused on a "Carbon Fee and Dividend policy." This is a bad idea. We would similarly be elated to present you an overview on the economics fundamentals that explain why this won't work, which actually involve physics fundamentals, believe it or not. This way you can ensure that your positions are based on sound economics as well.
3. Lastly, how can we help? If it's ideas you seek then we have various novel ideas for solving the world energy shortages by utilizing geologically renewable hydrocarbons. Not only are these cheap and plentiful but they produce plant food that makes the world GREEN. We have a lot of ideas and we are eager to participate.
Where do we begin?
Mon, Jul 27 at 3:48 AM, Catharine <info@ccl.org.au> responded to IBDaMann, Cc'ed hunttomj@gmail.com
Thanks for your inquiry.
I am going to forward to Tom who does a lot of media and event organising for CCL. Could you respond from CCL, Tom?
Thanks to you both, Catharine
Thanks for your inquiry.
I am going to forward to Tom who does a lot of media and event organising for CCL. Could you respond from CCL, Tom?
Thanks to you both, Catharine
Mon, Jul 27 at 10:14 AM IBDaMann responded to Catharine, Cc'ed hunttomj@gmail.com,info@ccl.org.au
Thank you, Catharine. We would like to use the Citizens' Climate Lobby Australia as the launching platform for our Green Australia Program (GAP) and more or less lead the way for the international community to follow. We realize that in today's political climate it is tempting to focus on "man's activities" but scientists know that the earth is the most powerful force we can leverage to make the world GREEN. The limitless power of geological activity can and should be tapped to provide global plant life a nutritionally enhanced/supplemented environment in which to thrive. Global plant life is the key to GREEN.
Thank you, Catharine. We would like to use the Citizens' Climate Lobby Australia as the launching platform for our Green Australia Program (GAP) and more or less lead the way for the international community to follow. We realize that in today's political climate it is tempting to focus on "man's activities" but scientists know that the earth is the most powerful force we can leverage to make the world GREEN. The limitless power of geological activity can and should be tapped to provide global plant life a nutritionally enhanced/supplemented environment in which to thrive. Global plant life is the key to GREEN.
Tue, Jul 28 at 8:45 AM, Tom Hunt & Howard Witt <hunttomj@gmail.com> responded to IBDaMann, Cc'ed Citizens' Climate Lobby Australia
Dear Isaac, we are pleased to hear from you in regard to the current climate crisis.
Please be assured this crisis is a great risk and challenge of our time. This is the reason we are here.
Regarding your Concerns
1) It is not helpful to categorise people as "desirable" or
"undesirable". The important issue is to correct misunderstandings.
The most prestigious scientific Academies, including the Royal Society
and the US National Academy of Sciences have prepared clear and concise
explanations of the relevant science.
May I recommend that you and your colleagues avail yourselves of the
information they provide. This would be a great place to start.
royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/
2) You are correct that we promote the "Carbon Fee and Dividend"
carbon pricing policy.
This 16 min Dan Miller TED presentation gives a great summary of how it
works and why it is important
3) You ask: "how can we help?" Yes, it is important that we all work together towards solutions. CCL volunteers encourage our fellow citizens to learn more about the causes and solutions to the climate crisis.
We do hope you find the time to review the references provided.
Regards, Tom Hunt & Howard Witt
Dear Isaac, we are pleased to hear from you in regard to the current climate crisis.
Please be assured this crisis is a great risk and challenge of our time. This is the reason we are here.
Regarding your Concerns
1) It is not helpful to categorise people as "desirable" or
"undesirable". The important issue is to correct misunderstandings.
The most prestigious scientific Academies, including the Royal Society
and the US National Academy of Sciences have prepared clear and concise
explanations of the relevant science.
May I recommend that you and your colleagues avail yourselves of the
information they provide. This would be a great place to start.
royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/
2) You are correct that we promote the "Carbon Fee and Dividend"
carbon pricing policy.
This 16 min Dan Miller TED presentation gives a great summary of how it
works and why it is important
3) You ask: "how can we help?" Yes, it is important that we all work together towards solutions. CCL volunteers encourage our fellow citizens to learn more about the causes and solutions to the climate crisis.
We do hope you find the time to review the references provided.
Regards, Tom Hunt & Howard Witt
Wed, Jul 29 at 12:55 AM, IBDaMann responded to Tom Hunt
and CC'ed Citizens' Climate Lobby Australia
Tom, my colleagues and I are eager to join you in making a GREEN Australia and a GREEN world. I think we're on the same page. The first misunderstanding I think we need to correct is the notion that the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences are somehow prestigious or that the political leanings of their leaders are somehow relevant. All that is relevant is science, not politics, and my colleagues and I have science in spades. I can assure you, we have tried to discuss physics with those institutions and they are scams. They hire political activists and call them scientists. This does not advance any scientific understanding. We would encourage you to organize a debate on strictly science with those organizations regarding Global Warming and they will refuse (with pathetically lame excuses) because it turns out that they have no science and are, in fact, thoroughly dishonest.
So I would like to reiterate our desire to explain to you why there is no Greenhouse Effect, focused solely on physics, so that your positions are based on solid science. Additionally, we would be happy to dispell any political misinformation disguised as science that you were handed from any organizations similar to the above. Also, we would like to explain how to tap the earth's natural geological processes to really make the earth GREEN.
Regarding your promotion of romote the "Carbon Fee and Dividend"
carbon pricing policy and Dan Miller's 16-minute TED presentation "A simple and smart way to fix climate change | Dan Miller | TEDxOrangeCoast" ...
I hate to disappoint you but Dan Miller himself will tell you that he is not a scientist. We are scientists. Dan Miller can't be blamed for not fully understanding why he is egregiously mistaken. I would point out that if you base your positions on what Dan Miller has to say, your positions will be as egregiously wrong as he is.
Dan Miller cannot be blamed for citing Svante Arrhenius. Dan Miller was probably was never told that the reason there is no "Arrhenius Equation" is that all of Svante's work was erroneous, all of his conclusions were wrong and all of his models were subsequently discarded by science. There is no Greenhouse Effect formula in science because there is no Greenhouse Effect in science.
When he put up this image is when you should have stopped watching the video. This cannot happen; it's a violation of physics.
So we're here to help get the science right and to wade through the political misinformation you apparently are being handed. Once you get a clearer picture of the science, the sooner I'm sure that you will see geological processes as the best bet for a GREEN Australia and a GREEN planet.
We're on your side.
and CC'ed Citizens' Climate Lobby Australia
Tom, my colleagues and I are eager to join you in making a GREEN Australia and a GREEN world. I think we're on the same page. The first misunderstanding I think we need to correct is the notion that the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences are somehow prestigious or that the political leanings of their leaders are somehow relevant. All that is relevant is science, not politics, and my colleagues and I have science in spades. I can assure you, we have tried to discuss physics with those institutions and they are scams. They hire political activists and call them scientists. This does not advance any scientific understanding. We would encourage you to organize a debate on strictly science with those organizations regarding Global Warming and they will refuse (with pathetically lame excuses) because it turns out that they have no science and are, in fact, thoroughly dishonest.
So I would like to reiterate our desire to explain to you why there is no Greenhouse Effect, focused solely on physics, so that your positions are based on solid science. Additionally, we would be happy to dispell any political misinformation disguised as science that you were handed from any organizations similar to the above. Also, we would like to explain how to tap the earth's natural geological processes to really make the earth GREEN.
Regarding your promotion of romote the "Carbon Fee and Dividend"
carbon pricing policy and Dan Miller's 16-minute TED presentation "A simple and smart way to fix climate change | Dan Miller | TEDxOrangeCoast" ...
I hate to disappoint you but Dan Miller himself will tell you that he is not a scientist. We are scientists. Dan Miller can't be blamed for not fully understanding why he is egregiously mistaken. I would point out that if you base your positions on what Dan Miller has to say, your positions will be as egregiously wrong as he is.
Dan Miller cannot be blamed for citing Svante Arrhenius. Dan Miller was probably was never told that the reason there is no "Arrhenius Equation" is that all of Svante's work was erroneous, all of his conclusions were wrong and all of his models were subsequently discarded by science. There is no Greenhouse Effect formula in science because there is no Greenhouse Effect in science.
When he put up this image is when you should have stopped watching the video. This cannot happen; it's a violation of physics.
So we're here to help get the science right and to wade through the political misinformation you apparently are being handed. Once you get a clearer picture of the science, the sooner I'm sure that you will see geological processes as the best bet for a GREEN Australia and a GREEN planet.
We're on your side.
Wed, Jul 29 at 1:29 AM Tom Hunt <hunttomj@gmail.com> revealed CCLA's true colors to IBDaMann, CC'ed Citizens' Climate Lobby Australia
It seems we might have to agree to differ Isaac.
You see we believe what all of the reputable science organisations of the world are saying. We believe the IPCC reports which represents consensus from the best climate scientists from virtually every nation. We believe our CSIRO and our Bureau of Meterology.
I also believe my own eyes and physics training to see that the world is changing. One would have to be blind to not see the fossil fuel being added to our skys daily. Where does that petrol go that you pump into your car? Where does that 10,000,000,000 tonnes of coal that the world burns go every year go?
There will always be conspiracy stories of course and alternative views but we are staying with mainstream science, simple facts and practical experience. Yes there are mistruths in politics and business, but in simple science the facts are plain enough.
I wish you well in your alternative beliefs.
Cheers Tom Hunt
For our future
It seems we might have to agree to differ Isaac.
You see we believe what all of the reputable science organisations of the world are saying. We believe the IPCC reports which represents consensus from the best climate scientists from virtually every nation. We believe our CSIRO and our Bureau of Meterology.
I also believe my own eyes and physics training to see that the world is changing. One would have to be blind to not see the fossil fuel being added to our skys daily. Where does that petrol go that you pump into your car? Where does that 10,000,000,000 tonnes of coal that the world burns go every year go?
There will always be conspiracy stories of course and alternative views but we are staying with mainstream science, simple facts and practical experience. Yes there are mistruths in politics and business, but in simple science the facts are plain enough.
I wish you well in your alternative beliefs.
Cheers Tom Hunt
For our future
Sat, Aug 1 at 3:37 PM, IBDaMann responded to Tom Hunt, Cc'ed Citizens' Climate Lobby Australia
I'm sorry to hear that. We really thought you were serious about science but it would appear that our information was erroneous.
I'm sure you have heard of the "No True Scotsman Fallacy." It is dishonest to say that all of the reputable science organisations of the world are asserting egregrious violations of physics as settled science. You are dishonestly using the term "reputable science organisations" as a silly euphamism for "leftist political organisations."
Ask me how I know.
Actually, don't bother, I'll tell you. My colleagues and I are physicists. We do not have any political agenda other than to help others base their positions on solid science. You have made it clear that you have absolutely no interest in any science, but rather remain focused on violations of physics that support your political agenda. I would not have imagined this to be the case yet here we are.
We will cease and desist with any further offers to provide you with science support. We were genuinely trying to help you but clearly your organisation is a sham. You clearly are not pursuing any sort of viable solution to problems plaguing our environment.
I'll be sure to let everyone else know.
Very dissapointed, - IB
I'm sorry to hear that. We really thought you were serious about science but it would appear that our information was erroneous.
I'm sure you have heard of the "No True Scotsman Fallacy." It is dishonest to say that all of the reputable science organisations of the world are asserting egregrious violations of physics as settled science. You are dishonestly using the term "reputable science organisations" as a silly euphamism for "leftist political organisations."
Ask me how I know.
Actually, don't bother, I'll tell you. My colleagues and I are physicists. We do not have any political agenda other than to help others base their positions on solid science. You have made it clear that you have absolutely no interest in any science, but rather remain focused on violations of physics that support your political agenda. I would not have imagined this to be the case yet here we are.
We will cease and desist with any further offers to provide you with science support. We were genuinely trying to help you but clearly your organisation is a sham. You clearly are not pursuing any sort of viable solution to problems plaguing our environment.
I'll be sure to let everyone else know.
Very dissapointed, - IB
Sat, Aug 1 at 6:57 PM, Tom Hunt <hunttomj@gmail.com> responded to IBDaMann, Cc'ed Citizens' Climate Lobby Australia
Thanks Isaac,
I too have a degree in physics, but all I need is common sense to judge that climate change is real and very serious. Just knowing how much CO2 is now in the sky and sea, and the correlation between that and past climate change is enough. The fires last summer, two months of continuous smoke and dust filled sky, is just more evidence to anyone with open eyes.
We will continue to follow the science and try not to be further distracted by conspiracy theorists.
Cheers. Tom
Thanks Isaac,
I too have a degree in physics, but all I need is common sense to judge that climate change is real and very serious. Just knowing how much CO2 is now in the sky and sea, and the correlation between that and past climate change is enough. The fires last summer, two months of continuous smoke and dust filled sky, is just more evidence to anyone with open eyes.
We will continue to follow the science and try not to be further distracted by conspiracy theorists.
Cheers. Tom
Radio silence from CCLA
Sun, Aug 2 at 3:54 PM, IBDaMann responded to Tom Hunt
Tom, you aren't fooling me. You aren't fooling anyone. You have no physics background. Yes, you might have purchased a piece of paper from some institution that was strapped for cash but clearly you are scientifically illiterate. Science contains no hyped fear-mongering. Everything in science is unambiguously defined and you cannot define "Climate Change" in any unambiguous way that doesn't violate physics. Any actual physicist would know that there is no atmospheric composition component to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, i.e. for laymen like you, adding CO2 to the atmosphere cannot alter the earth's average temperature ... it's simply not possible.
If you had actually had any sort of chemistry you would know that CO2 is a heavier molecule than O2 or N2 and works its way downward towards the bottom of the atmosphere where it is eagerly consumed by plants. CO2 does not "accumulate" in our atmosphere. Any actual scientist can explain the carbon cycle to you.
Earth has had billions of years of forest fires and smoke and dust in the air. Billions of years. If you look outside you'll see the same bright blue skies that the ancient Sumerians enjoyed.
I know you are enjoying your sham. I just wanted you to be aware that you are the only one you are fooling.
Have a great day. - IB
Tom, you aren't fooling me. You aren't fooling anyone. You have no physics background. Yes, you might have purchased a piece of paper from some institution that was strapped for cash but clearly you are scientifically illiterate. Science contains no hyped fear-mongering. Everything in science is unambiguously defined and you cannot define "Climate Change" in any unambiguous way that doesn't violate physics. Any actual physicist would know that there is no atmospheric composition component to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, i.e. for laymen like you, adding CO2 to the atmosphere cannot alter the earth's average temperature ... it's simply not possible.
If you had actually had any sort of chemistry you would know that CO2 is a heavier molecule than O2 or N2 and works its way downward towards the bottom of the atmosphere where it is eagerly consumed by plants. CO2 does not "accumulate" in our atmosphere. Any actual scientist can explain the carbon cycle to you.
Earth has had billions of years of forest fires and smoke and dust in the air. Billions of years. If you look outside you'll see the same bright blue skies that the ancient Sumerians enjoyed.
I know you are enjoying your sham. I just wanted you to be aware that you are the only one you are fooling.
Have a great day. - IB
The below correspondence details gfm7175's interaction with representatives of the Citizen's Climate Lobby Australia (CCLA).
Wednesday, August 5, 2020 10:43 PM, gfm7175 wrote to info@ccl.org.au
Subject: Climate Crisis
To whomever this may concern at the CCLA:
I am looking to make a significant difference in this world and to do my part in solving the current climate crisis. Would you have any suggestions/recommendations as to how I could financially support this fight against climate change?
Thanks, - gfm7175
Subject: Climate Crisis
To whomever this may concern at the CCLA:
I am looking to make a significant difference in this world and to do my part in solving the current climate crisis. Would you have any suggestions/recommendations as to how I could financially support this fight against climate change?
Thanks, - gfm7175
Wednesday, August 5, 2020, 6:35 PM Joyce Erceg <joyce.erceg@gmail.com> responded to gfm7175
Thank you for your email.
The climate crisis is one we all can be involved in, and it is wonderful to hear that you would like to help.
Citizens’ Climate Lobby advocates for a carbon price, which is the best way to reduce emissions. We need help to get the message out there that this is the single most effective way to unlock investment in the low carbon economy.
At the moment, we are in the process of releasing three significant campaigns, and it would be very helpful to have some financial help to do that. If you would like to talk about this further, I’m available later today, around lunch time, AEST. If that works let me know, and I’ll send my phone number.
Meanwhile our donations page is here.
Thank you very much for your interest.
Regards,
Joyce
Thank you for your email.
The climate crisis is one we all can be involved in, and it is wonderful to hear that you would like to help.
Citizens’ Climate Lobby advocates for a carbon price, which is the best way to reduce emissions. We need help to get the message out there that this is the single most effective way to unlock investment in the low carbon economy.
At the moment, we are in the process of releasing three significant campaigns, and it would be very helpful to have some financial help to do that. If you would like to talk about this further, I’m available later today, around lunch time, AEST. If that works let me know, and I’ll send my phone number.
Meanwhile our donations page is here.
Thank you very much for your interest.
Regards,
Joyce
Thursday, August 6, 2020 at 10:11 AM gfm7175 replied to Joyce Erceg, Cc'ed Howard Witt; Catharine Clements
Subject: Re: Climate Crisis
Hi Joyce:
I appreciate your quick response; thank you.
I will mull over the carbon price idea, but I have to admit that adding new taxes isn't exactly what I had in mind... I am admittedly more interested in providing funding for discovering better ways to reduce pollution by improving our current systems to make them more climate friendly. Would you have any suggestions/ideas about how we could accomplish this?
Thanks again for your time and input, - gfm7175
Subject: Re: Climate Crisis
Hi Joyce:
I appreciate your quick response; thank you.
I will mull over the carbon price idea, but I have to admit that adding new taxes isn't exactly what I had in mind... I am admittedly more interested in providing funding for discovering better ways to reduce pollution by improving our current systems to make them more climate friendly. Would you have any suggestions/ideas about how we could accomplish this?
Thanks again for your time and input, - gfm7175
Thursday, August 6, 2020 at 12:10 AM Joyce Erceg <joyce.erceg@gmail.com> wrote to gfm7175
No it can seem counter intuitive, I know. 😊
If a company wants to discharge chemicals or effluent in to a river, it must pay to do that, either by treating the waste or paying a fine. At present, carbon emitters can do that (but into the atmosphere) for free, and we the general public pay the costs incurred, through health costs, living through extreme weather events, paying for adaptation efforts etc.
Economists have looked at this problem and say that an effective climate policy has a carbon price at its core. Our current systems reward fossil fuel use through subsidies and financial incentives, where climate friendly initiatives struggle to attract support. A carbon price is paid by the polluter, (not by us) so encourages them to be less carbon intensive, by doing things such as diversifying their portfolio. They see the benefits in becoming more carbon neutral. A carbon price actually triggers moves towards 21st century industries.
Another point we like to make is that we advocate for a carbon fee and dividend system which is not a tax, because it is not kept by government to be used in consolidated revenue. It is collected and redistributed to every householder, as a way of cushioning them against the rising cost of carbon intensive products. This has been shown to cause behavioural change whereby people start to choose a lower carbon lifestyle. So this particular system is a win-win. It reduces emissions and keeps money circulating through the economy. Real world examples are out there, one being British Columbia, which has had a carbon price since 2008 and has been able to maintain a healthy economy. It has been so successful that Canada adopted it nationwide, just last year. And this is an economy which is similar to Australia’s.
I hope that pricing carbon seems a little less crazy now. Let me know what you think.
Have you seen the website called 2040? It’s Aussie and very hopeful, and showcases many inspiring ideas that you might like to get us moving towards a low carbon economy. I love it, for its “can do” attitude. You can see it here.
Regards, Joyce
No it can seem counter intuitive, I know. 😊
If a company wants to discharge chemicals or effluent in to a river, it must pay to do that, either by treating the waste or paying a fine. At present, carbon emitters can do that (but into the atmosphere) for free, and we the general public pay the costs incurred, through health costs, living through extreme weather events, paying for adaptation efforts etc.
Economists have looked at this problem and say that an effective climate policy has a carbon price at its core. Our current systems reward fossil fuel use through subsidies and financial incentives, where climate friendly initiatives struggle to attract support. A carbon price is paid by the polluter, (not by us) so encourages them to be less carbon intensive, by doing things such as diversifying their portfolio. They see the benefits in becoming more carbon neutral. A carbon price actually triggers moves towards 21st century industries.
Another point we like to make is that we advocate for a carbon fee and dividend system which is not a tax, because it is not kept by government to be used in consolidated revenue. It is collected and redistributed to every householder, as a way of cushioning them against the rising cost of carbon intensive products. This has been shown to cause behavioural change whereby people start to choose a lower carbon lifestyle. So this particular system is a win-win. It reduces emissions and keeps money circulating through the economy. Real world examples are out there, one being British Columbia, which has had a carbon price since 2008 and has been able to maintain a healthy economy. It has been so successful that Canada adopted it nationwide, just last year. And this is an economy which is similar to Australia’s.
I hope that pricing carbon seems a little less crazy now. Let me know what you think.
Have you seen the website called 2040? It’s Aussie and very hopeful, and showcases many inspiring ideas that you might like to get us moving towards a low carbon economy. I love it, for its “can do” attitude. You can see it here.
Regards, Joyce
Friday, August 7, 2020 at 10:21 AM gfm7175 emailed Joyce Erceg, Cc'ed Howard Witt; Catharine Clements
Re: Climate Crisis
Hi Joyce,
Thank you for providing me with the additional information/references. Regarding the first bit of your email (about the general public paying the costs incurred and paying for adaptation efforts and etc.), I have in fact been told that very same thing by all of the economic advisors who I have been speaking to... that externalities definitely need to be considered. I also share your concern about carbon emitters, and one thing that I think we should really make more climate friendly is passenger aircraft.
I've done some research on aircraft and it sounds like it has already come a long way since the WWII days, becoming larger, quieter, and more efficient than ever before. In fact, I've recently come across some information stating that development and application of the most recent technology into passenger aircraft could provide a significant benefit to our global climate. By reducing the coefficient of drag, and by reducing the temperature of the air by at least 30 degrees Kelvin, the use of fuel per mile could be reduced to 1/100th of previous flight conditions. This research is coming from France and is currently being investigated by companies in the United States, and it sounds as if fuel efficiency of that caliber would be a huge boon to our climate by significantly reducing global CO2 levels along with other greenhouse gas emissions.
What are your thoughts on the development and implementation of such technology for passenger aircraft?
Thanks for your time, -gfm7175
Re: Climate Crisis
Hi Joyce,
Thank you for providing me with the additional information/references. Regarding the first bit of your email (about the general public paying the costs incurred and paying for adaptation efforts and etc.), I have in fact been told that very same thing by all of the economic advisors who I have been speaking to... that externalities definitely need to be considered. I also share your concern about carbon emitters, and one thing that I think we should really make more climate friendly is passenger aircraft.
I've done some research on aircraft and it sounds like it has already come a long way since the WWII days, becoming larger, quieter, and more efficient than ever before. In fact, I've recently come across some information stating that development and application of the most recent technology into passenger aircraft could provide a significant benefit to our global climate. By reducing the coefficient of drag, and by reducing the temperature of the air by at least 30 degrees Kelvin, the use of fuel per mile could be reduced to 1/100th of previous flight conditions. This research is coming from France and is currently being investigated by companies in the United States, and it sounds as if fuel efficiency of that caliber would be a huge boon to our climate by significantly reducing global CO2 levels along with other greenhouse gas emissions.
What are your thoughts on the development and implementation of such technology for passenger aircraft?
Thanks for your time, -gfm7175
Friday, August 7, 2020 at 4:21 PM Joyce Erceg <joyce.erceg@gmail.com> responded to gfm7175
Hi again,
This sounds amazing, as aviation is a major problem as far as emissions are concerned.
These types of ideas are the very things which would get support if a price on carbon was introduced. It just tips the scales a little in favour of pursuing initiatives such as this. Macron has announced 15 billion euros to help combat the climate crisis – maybe this idea will be a beneficiary of that. Who knows?
If you would like to connect with others in your electorate to go and talk to your MP about reducing emissions, let me know which electorate you’re in, and we can get things happening. 😊
Regards, Joyce
Hi again,
This sounds amazing, as aviation is a major problem as far as emissions are concerned.
These types of ideas are the very things which would get support if a price on carbon was introduced. It just tips the scales a little in favour of pursuing initiatives such as this. Macron has announced 15 billion euros to help combat the climate crisis – maybe this idea will be a beneficiary of that. Who knows?
If you would like to connect with others in your electorate to go and talk to your MP about reducing emissions, let me know which electorate you’re in, and we can get things happening. 😊
Regards, Joyce
Friday, August 7, 2020 11:45 PM gfm7175 emailed Joyce Erceg and Cc'ed Howard Witt; Catharine Clements
Re: Climate Crisis
Thanks Joyce!
Another technology option for aircraft that I have looked into is modifying jet engines to burn biofuels instead of kerosene. Here is a link that speaks more about it: www.iea.org/commentaries/are-aviation-biofuels-ready-for-take-off I'm thinking that a switch to biofuels would also be a huge boon for the climate, substantially reducing CO2 emissions.
But expanding upon the topic of travel, I'd like to discuss another major problem regarding emissions, which is personal automobiles. Did you know that there are over a BILLION automobiles on the road today?! Many of them are powered solely by fossil fuels, although some of them are hybrids, which is a little bit better, but still not good enough. One of my investment managers showed me some interesting information about solar powered vehicles and presented this technology as a potential investment opportunity:
interestingengineering.com/7-companies-that-are-leading-the-way-for-solar-powered-cars
If we could get this solar technology for vehicles developed and implemented over the next 20 years (hopefully sooner), then we would get MUCH closer to completely doing away with fossil fuels and reaching the "Net Zero 2050" emissions goal that I am sure you are well aware of: europeanclimate.org/net-zero-2050/
Is the CCLA currently supporting this solar technology initiative? If so, how could I be of assistance? If not, would the CCLA like to get started down that road, and what would the CCLA need in order to get started?
Thanks again for your time, - gfm7175
Re: Climate Crisis
Thanks Joyce!
Another technology option for aircraft that I have looked into is modifying jet engines to burn biofuels instead of kerosene. Here is a link that speaks more about it: www.iea.org/commentaries/are-aviation-biofuels-ready-for-take-off I'm thinking that a switch to biofuels would also be a huge boon for the climate, substantially reducing CO2 emissions.
But expanding upon the topic of travel, I'd like to discuss another major problem regarding emissions, which is personal automobiles. Did you know that there are over a BILLION automobiles on the road today?! Many of them are powered solely by fossil fuels, although some of them are hybrids, which is a little bit better, but still not good enough. One of my investment managers showed me some interesting information about solar powered vehicles and presented this technology as a potential investment opportunity:
interestingengineering.com/7-companies-that-are-leading-the-way-for-solar-powered-cars
If we could get this solar technology for vehicles developed and implemented over the next 20 years (hopefully sooner), then we would get MUCH closer to completely doing away with fossil fuels and reaching the "Net Zero 2050" emissions goal that I am sure you are well aware of: europeanclimate.org/net-zero-2050/
Is the CCLA currently supporting this solar technology initiative? If so, how could I be of assistance? If not, would the CCLA like to get started down that road, and what would the CCLA need in order to get started?
Thanks again for your time, - gfm7175
Saturday, August 8, 2020 at 5:22 PM Joyce Erceg <joyce.erceg@gmail.com> wrote to gfm7175
Hi,
To my knowledge, CCL hasn’t looked at this. Below is our Laser talk on Electric Vehicles. As both EVs and solar powered vehicles would reduce emissions, we would support them in theory. To add this to our list of Asks to politicians, we would need to take the idea to our Strategy and/or Management meetings. I’ll look into that and get back to you. 😊
Electric Vehicles - Laser talk
Widespread uptake of electric vehicles would significantly reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution and dependence on imported fuels.
The CSIRO estimates passenger electric vehicles will be cost-competitive with internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles some time between 2025 and 2035. Taking fuel and maintenance into account, lifetime costs could already be lower than for equivalent ICE vehicles even at current prices.
Though Australian EV sales currently are small relative to other countries, they are projected to rise steeply.
The transition to EVs can be accelerated by fuel efficiency and vehicle emission standards, charging infrastructure and a broader carbon pricing mechanism, preferably a Carbon Fee and Dividend
The Australian Government has committed to delivering an electric vehicle strategy by 2020.
Our Asks
That the Government’s electric vehicle strategy be released for discussion as soon as possible
Other opportunities for governments to promote an economically-responsible transition to EV include:
· a plan for upgrading charging infrastructure to support EV demand
· targets for uptake of EV in government car fleets
· subsidies for EVs made in Australia
· remove the Luxury tax from EVs
· promotion and support for local manufacturing
Here is a link to a short video on our website. If you would like to volunteer with us, let me know which State you are in, and I can put you in touch with the relevant State Coordinator.
Regards, Joyce
Hi,
To my knowledge, CCL hasn’t looked at this. Below is our Laser talk on Electric Vehicles. As both EVs and solar powered vehicles would reduce emissions, we would support them in theory. To add this to our list of Asks to politicians, we would need to take the idea to our Strategy and/or Management meetings. I’ll look into that and get back to you. 😊
Electric Vehicles - Laser talk
Widespread uptake of electric vehicles would significantly reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution and dependence on imported fuels.
The CSIRO estimates passenger electric vehicles will be cost-competitive with internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles some time between 2025 and 2035. Taking fuel and maintenance into account, lifetime costs could already be lower than for equivalent ICE vehicles even at current prices.
Though Australian EV sales currently are small relative to other countries, they are projected to rise steeply.
The transition to EVs can be accelerated by fuel efficiency and vehicle emission standards, charging infrastructure and a broader carbon pricing mechanism, preferably a Carbon Fee and Dividend
The Australian Government has committed to delivering an electric vehicle strategy by 2020.
Our Asks
That the Government’s electric vehicle strategy be released for discussion as soon as possible
Other opportunities for governments to promote an economically-responsible transition to EV include:
· a plan for upgrading charging infrastructure to support EV demand
· targets for uptake of EV in government car fleets
· subsidies for EVs made in Australia
· remove the Luxury tax from EVs
· promotion and support for local manufacturing
Here is a link to a short video on our website. If you would like to volunteer with us, let me know which State you are in, and I can put you in touch with the relevant State Coordinator.
Regards, Joyce
Thursday, August 13, 2020, 12:13 gfm7175 wrote to Joyce Erceg <joyce.erceg@gmail.com>
Hi Joyce,
Just following up with you on your prior email about the strategy/management meetings regarding the below-mentioned solar technology initiative.
Thanks, - gfm7175
Hi Joyce,
Just following up with you on your prior email about the strategy/management meetings regarding the below-mentioned solar technology initiative.
Thanks, - gfm7175
Wednesday, August 19, 2020 at 8:24 AM gfm7175 wrote to Joyce Erceg <joyce.erceg@gmail.com>, Cc'ed Howard Witt <howardw@bigpond.net.au>, Catharine Clements <catharine.clements@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Climate Crisis
Hi Joyce,
I presume that CCLA isn't overly thrilled with my attempts to reduce CO2. Could you point me in the direction of someone who might be more interested? I have until the end of September to commit funding for tax purposes, so I'm eager to team up with anyone who you think might be receptive.
Thanks, - gfm7175
Subject: Re: Climate Crisis
Hi Joyce,
I presume that CCLA isn't overly thrilled with my attempts to reduce CO2. Could you point me in the direction of someone who might be more interested? I have until the end of September to commit funding for tax purposes, so I'm eager to team up with anyone who you think might be receptive.
Thanks, - gfm7175