# Forum More Stuff Debate & Technical Discussion  Global Economy and ETS BS

## Fantapantz

If the politicians in our country can not agree, how can it be expected that all of the countries on the Earth will be able to agree? Australia will be dragged along with the USA, China and India. Thats where most carbon emission is/forecast to be from. 
Where does this carbon come from? Well its not being created. Its being dug up and exposed to the atmosphere again. Again I say because thats where it came from originally. The plants sucked it up, lay in the ground as oil/coal and reduced atmospheric levels. All humans have done is expose that carbon again. It is cyclic, and our humanity and its vices is forcing the cycle.  
The question is. Do we want to prevent that cycle? If we do than ETS is not the way to do it. Trading carbon use with poor/third world countries is only going to slow the problem not fix it. In the big scheme, it makes no difference. 20 years or 100 years the outcome is the same for humanity in the long run.  
What is needed is a true and substantial economic will of all countries to develop an ulterior source of energy. Nuclear is a great alternative until we have developed the technology for something different. Those in denial say what about Chernobyl. To those I say go have a look at the statistics for lives lost due to coal mining compared to uranium, you lose.  
To those that dont want a nuclear plant in their back yard, I agree I dont either, but Id complain more if a coal fired plant was in my backyard.  
But what about terrorism and nuclear plants? Well..Lets leave the people from those nations with oil alone, and not interfere with their politics and they will no longer be terrorists. They can keep their oil because we will not need it. The terrorism only developed because oil greedy western nations tried/try to control nations with oil. Let them fight their inter-tribal political games instead of uniting towards one common enemy (the west).  
We all know that carbon trading is only going to slow the problem not fix it. So why not have a fundamental effort towards research and development of other fuel sources?  The answer is simple..Those in power have financial alliances/interests elsewhere. Would a petroleum company support a development that it has no financial stake in? Of course not. The hold off on finding an answer is going to take as long as it takes for those persons with influence to move their financial stakes into an area that encompases our environment. That financial shift relies on technology that can not be guaranteed, hence its a poor investment (at present). The viscous cycle is due to <1% of persons in countries like the USA controlling world development for their own financial interest.

----------


## Smurf

In principle I can follow your argument, but using more nuclear power (or wind, hydro, solar etc) is not going to make a lot of difference to oil consumption. 
Most oil is used for transport, petrochemicals, back-up power, plastics and so on. Most electricity (globally) is generated from, in order, coal, nuclear, hydro and gas with others (oil, wind, geothermal, solar etc) being only minor sources of grid electricity. 
That's really the big problem we have. We can get to renewable / nuclear electricity but we're basically stuck with liquid fuels for transport. And for non-CO2 issues, liquid fuels are by far the biggest problem (nobody's likely to start a war over coal, for example, as there's plenty of it).

----------


## Fantapantz

Here lays the problem. There are possibilites such as hydrogen for transport (forget about batteries). But its too expensive and bulky. You would need bigger cars to store it and it is inefficient per kilowatt compared to oil.  
Price is the ambiguity. Where does the expense come from? The resource costs nothing. Cost is basically based on the amount of manhours needed to produce it. Whether that be to dig it up, convert it, or make tools and machines to convert it etc. Cost is purely based on manhours.  
This world of ours has plenty of people sitting around doing nothing productive.  
The entire problem is really based on a global ineffectual use of the labour market. Taxing and trading isnt going to make a difference. Using those taxes to make the $/kWhr price for non-carbon based fuels comparable to carbon based fuels is. Trading carbon is a total falsity. Energy usage is going to increase no matter what. Where we get the energy from is the issue. But thats too hard a nut to crack for politicians.

----------


## woodbe

> Here lays the problem. There are possibilites such as hydrogen for transport (forget about batteries). But its too expensive and bulky. You would need bigger cars to store it and it is inefficient per kilowatt compared to oil.

  Here's the thing. Within the next couple of years there will be at least 3 major motor manufacturers offering all-electric vehicles in Australia: Mitsubishi, Nissan, GM. Toyota and Honda and a brace of other manufacturers are preparing to also enter the market. Demand for electric cars will begin to change the scene at least for domestic transport. 100-150km daily round trips are well within the capability of these vehicles now - that covers most users on the road. 
Of course, burning coal to fuel these vehicles is a complete waste of time. It just swaps one fossil fuel for another.  
It would be smart for a electric vehicle manufacturer to put up a car and solar power package so an owner can have a car and run it off grid. 
woodbe.

----------


## Fantapantz

ANd there's the inefficient use of human labour.  
Why can't we produce cheap solar cells? Why can't we divert resources (tax breaks) into creating industries within this country that manufacture solar cells? Are we so wrapped up in a global economy that we fail to see the potential within our own country?  
Australia is one of the only countries that doesn't need resources from anyone else. What have we done about it? Nothing (or very little).  
How about creating industry in high unemployment areas like Nimbin and making the surfy hippy types be productive.Im sure those that are highly qualified would love to live an an area like that (there needed for the intellectual jobs), the menial labour can be done via work for the doll.

----------


## woodbe

Well, we have had lots of chances, but our governments both past and present have collectively blown it. We have a reputation of not being supportive of alternative energy, so our technology langushes in a lab here until someone (usually the person who invented it) gets an offer overseas. 
The first Solar billionaire was educated in Australia, but he made his money in China. Ausra (solar thermal company) is a US company but the founder was based in Australia until he realised he was going to go exactly nowhere if he stayed. (we now import this tech) As far as cheap panels are concerned, Origin are still fumbling around with slice technology with no expected date to market while Nanosolar in the US have created, perfected and put into production their printable solar technology which uses high speed printing presses with a plant in the US and another in Germany. There are many other examples. 
So basically we will import any alternative energy tech we need, including wind, tide, solar and nuclear even though we have abundant raw materials on hand. 
It's not because of Labor, and it's not because of Liberal. It's because of fossil fuel blinkers. Whilst the attitude is softening its probably too little, too late. 
woodbe.

----------

