CSIRO scientist: zero emissions ain't enough

A synthetic tree...

Yet more climate nonsense to spoil my day. It won’t be sufficient to halt dangerous climate change “merely” to reduce CO2 emissions to zero, according to a report on ABC’s AM programme this morning. We need to go further (beyond zero, if you will excuse the pun), and start sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere (no, really):

MIKE RAUPACH: There is very little wiggle room left, perhaps none at this stage and the issue of course is that a large fraction of the CO2 that goes into the atmosphere stays there for a very long time and that means that what we do now has a long-term future shadow. 

SIMON LAUDER: Dr Raupach is part of an international team which used mathematical models to see what will happen to the climate in the long term under various scenarios. He says if emissions aren’t rapidly reduced to zero, future efforts will have to go further and remove CO2 from the atmosphere to prevent warming of more than two degrees. 

MIKE RAUPACH: If we do reduce emissions rapidly then zero emissions will do but even a small leakage in the long term like over a hundred years from now, of about 10 per cent of current emissions, is enough to keep temperatures slowly rising. (source)

“Zero emissions will do”!! Phew, that’s OK then. For as we all know, reducing emissions to zero is the easy bit. You only have to look at global energy consumption to see that we’re really, really close to a fully renewable energy budget (the renewables component of the chart is that wafer thin segment on the right, just in case you can’t quite see it):

Only 90-odd percent to go…

So once we’ve done that, and we’re all living in the cold and the dark, with no cars, buses, planes and electricity, we can then use whatever energy is left over (which won’t be much) to power synthetic trees (like those pictured above) to remove the CO2 out of the atmosphere. It will be an environmentalist’s dream – a landscape littered with useless windmills and fake trees, with no humanity and no prosperity. Just what Bob Brown wants for Australia. And the climate will continue to do exactly what the hell it wants, because that’s what the climate does.

And Lauder gets full marks for conducting, to the letter, the standard ABC interview of a climate alarmist, where the alarmist is allowed to talk as much nonsense as he/she likes completely unchallenged, and without having to account for any of the ridiculous assertions he/she makes. At no point does Lauder challenge the scientific basis of the UN’s 2 degree target, or the reliability of the “mathematical models” of which he is obviously so in awe, or whether adaptation strategies might provide better value for money than mitigation, or whether the release of this story is simply clever timing a few days before yet another pointless climate gab-fest in Durban.

But that would be asking too much of the “groupthink-infested” ABC, wouldn’t it?

Categories: Climate

Tags: , ,

19 replies

  1. Time to defund CSIRO and boot ‘em all into the ocean.

  2. Theres another side to this comment that “zero isnt enough” – it opens the door for population control and eugenics and energy rartioning and brutal control measures imposed on the population.

    Just wait – this is just the mask being let slip a bit.

    Whats behind it is the same mindset of the infamous 10:10 eco wet dream snuff movie.

    I also find it interesting the movies “In Time” has the story line where everyone is executed by DNA manipulation when they reach the age of 25. This is just “Logans Run” rehashed, but the theme of population culling is still there. This is just the elite conditioning people of what the future may hold. Hopefuly I’m wrong

    As thet hysteria cranks up, dont be surprised is a war is waged to cull people too – thats been done before.

    Dont say you werent told.

  3. When bargaining, it doesn’t hurt to a make cheeky low suggestion to make the seller eventually compromise that little bit lower.

  4. More hysterical nonsense. No doubt the mechanism of zero emissions (zero!) wasn’t even discussed. I think the green party has got far too much power for the percentage of votes it has gained and it’s depressing to see the CSIRO allowing information out of the organization that clearly hasn’t been peer reviewed, which just add to the greens hysteria.

  5. Why cant we just plant trees,
    1. Its renewable
    2. It loves CO2
    3. They cool the air.
    4. They also produce OXYGEN.
    5. They look good
    6. Self sufficient
    7. And they are free.
    Darn I knew there was a catch, theyre Free.

    • To plant trees, needs water. Needs ”senator Brown’s Water Embargo on Australia” to be abolished first. Australia can have as many trees as Brazil (beautiful red soil inland). Unfortunately, Brown & Flannery need Australian storm-water into the sea; because Pacific doesn’t have enough water… They will save it into the sea, for the next generation! Clouds avoid Australia, because clouds avoid dry heat, introduce extra moisture – clouds will more often go in = every tree produces thousands of seeds every year. More water storages, more topsoil moisture and H2O in the air = navigating the climate towards Brazil’s climate. Prepossessing farmer’s water to drain into the estuary = less moisture inland = less rain-clouds will go in = more desalinated and sewage filtered water – blame the CO2.

  6. I would say be careful what you wish for Mike because if we learn how to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere we will be able to burn all the goddam fossil fuel we like.

  7. Part of the problem is that they are already defunded heavily. If most if not of all the research funding comes from the government, and the government only funds AGW climate change research, then the people who stay are those that believe. The environment in which they now work promotes activists rather than proper scientific research.

  8. More Climate Bollocks, oh sorry more Tax the arse of everyone and everything

  9. Besides the fact that hydro is just as renewable as wind and solar – only more reliable… Perhaps that’s why hydro is not considered a renewable, it’s too reliable. Anyway, I have come to the conclusion that anything that comes out of a government funded institute concerning “climate change”, is bogus on its face – usually measured by the standard of common sense.

    • more dams for hydro electricity would have improved the climate. Dams are as shock absorbers; prevent extreme heat during the day / prevent extreme coldness at night = doctor’s order for lots of healthy trees. Trees don’t like extreme between day and night. Dams attract extra and more often clouds from the sea = better climate… that would be a disaster for the Warmist… we don’t want that…?! Merry Christmas

  10. We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. ——- Aesop

    Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases:
    If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. ———Ronald Reagan

  11. If we could cut CO2 in half…plants would stop growing….earth is closer to a CO2 famine than an over abundance.

  12. Pyeatte, hydro. Isn’t classified as renewable because the dams built to work it downs bob browns trees, just ask him, remember old bobby crying because of the hydro dam they wanted to build in Tassie years ago? Lololol


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,573 other followers

%d bloggers like this: