Australia's Hottest Summer on Record...

[lizzie]

Wouldn't it be better to educate them in ways to guard against pregnancy as a first step?

That's a by-product.

Studies have shown that in poorer countries girls that are educated will have significantly fewer children, if any at all, due to them having options beyond "pleasing" a male and becoming a baby producing machine.

Similar to first world really ... those with the intelligence and ability are having fewer children ... so the answer is ... educate the girls

 

[kathryn d]

That's a by-product.

Studies have shown that in poorer countries girls that are educated will have significantly fewer children, if any at all, due to them having options beyond "pleasing" a male and becoming a baby producing machine.

Similar to first world really ... those with the intelligence and ability are having fewer children ... so the answer is ... educate the girls

I think women having fewer children in first world countries, is because they value possessions over children.

Personally, I'd rather keep a country with a huge population, poor.
Makes it safer for us.

 

[Aaron_C]

I think women having fewer children in first world countries, is because they value possessions over children.

Perhaps. But the outcome is sustainable.

 

[HiEquity]

Wow, this thread has really run away with itself hasn't it?

but it also comes out the back as manure, or turned into bones and flesh, then eaten by humans, and turned into more bones and flesh. The manure gets composted and get put onto organic farms as organic fertilizer which builds soil carbon levels on organic farms. Basically, I'm saying that a lot of the carbon that leaves my farm gets locked up in animals and humans and soil, so it doesn't return to the atmosphere.

HE, what can you see wrong here with my assumptions and figures?

I've suggested to numerous soil scientists and department of Ag people that our carbon doesn't all go back into the atmosphere however they all stare back blankly. Some have said it's impossible to work out, and so it won't be worked out.

Lots about agricultures carbon use cannot be worked out, so, as we know, thats the main reason it was left out of a carbon tax.

Hi TC

The science around agricultural emissions definitely isn't as clear cut as other industries so the measures and incentives get too complicated in general (particularly with livestock) but it is interesting that there is bipartisan support for the Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI).

Soil carbon is clearly important and the utilisation of no-till, preventing oxygenation of the soil and consequent degradation of organic matter has certainly been a huge improvement. The main issue is reliably measuring soil carbon and the administrative burden of checking and regulating what people say it is etc. Better just to leave it out but the CFI provides an incentive of sorts. And in any case, the greenhouse benefit of no-till is swamped by the productivity benefit as you clearly understand already. You can only use up the productivity benefit given to you by decaying organic matter for so long - until it's all gone in fact. Productive soils need organic matter.

For cropping though, emissions are completely dominated by nitrous oxide emissions from the breakdown of fertiliser. Nitrous oxide as a gas has 320 times the global warming potential (GWP) of carbon dioxide so there is a massive multiplier going on there which you could never overcome through exporting grain or anything else to do with carbon. Greenhouse emissions are about more than just "carbon" and in cropping it's the nitrogen cycle that creates the vast majority of the emissions - the carbon cycle is just the sideshow in terms of GWP.

And then the grain you export isn't fixed in people and animals anyway - it's consumed by them. Respiration is what gives us energy and we exhale carbon dioxide in that process - we get the carbon we need to do that from our food. It's all part of the carbon cycle - there is no fixing going on. Compare the amount of food a person / animal eats in its life and the amount of body left at the end - all that food breaks down eventually and typically in pretty short order and the carbon returns to the atmosphere, either quickly or slowly, through the lungs or decay of the body / manure.

You are completely correct that soil carbon is a perfectly valid issue and in an ideal world we would all be able to measure it accurately etc. But if you use fertiliser (and who doesn't anymore?) then any greenhouse benefits given by soil carbon are swamped by an order of magnitude (or more) by the nitrification / denitrification cycle through which fertiliser provides its benefits.

From a public policy perspective this isn't a huge problem though - farmers now generally understand the benefits of no-till and the productivity benefits of combining soil carbon with the right amount of fertiliser. There is no way we are going to stop using fertiliser anytime soon - that is one of those things which just doesn't have an alternative - soil carbon alone just doesn't cut it as you will know. So we just have to rely on the common sense of farmers to develop the right levels of soil carbon and fertiliser in their soils for their crops - very generally speaking they do this anyway through commercial imperatives so adding a carbon price effect doesn't really change anything. Although, with the CFI, there is bipartisan support for the idea that a few farmers could do with a bit more carbon in their soils and this provides them some extra encouragement along that line.

 

[HiEquity]

By the way, the confusion is very understandable. When measuring nitrous oxide emissions, most reports will use the term "CO2 equivalent" or "CO2e", which would seem to indicate it's about carbon when it's not. It's just about bringing the GWP effect of the nitrogen cycle back to base units of CO2e so it can be compared with everything else - just like how methane emissions are brought back to CO2e as well. You can read about GWP here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming_potential

(which actually states now that I check that the GWP of NO2 is 298 over 100 years rather than 320 - I don't know why I had 320 in my head)

 

[BayView]

Personally, I'd rather keep a country with a huge population, poor.
Makes it safer for us.

LOL! Spoken like a true rightie capitalist. Love it.

 

[Crabnet]

Interesting article about some Western Australian wheatbelt farmers, one with that niggling thought, "the idea the climate may have been disrupted"

Quote:
"IN the past month five West Australian wheatgrowers and their families have abandoned their farms in despair, throwing the banks the keys to their vast cropping properties east of Perth and large debts as they walk out the gate.

Hundreds of other grain farms are for sale in a crescent stretching from Morawa, 350km northeast of Perth, east towards Merredin and Southern Cross, and south to Bruce Rock, Kulin, Corrigan, Narembeen, Lake Grace and Hyden. And those who believe the region remains viable for agriculture are constantly looking for ways to farm smarter with less rain."

 

[BayView]

Interesting article about some Western Australian wheatbelt farmers, one with that niggling thought, "the idea the climate may have been disrupted"

Quote:
"IN the past month five West Australian wheatgrowers and their families have abandoned their farms in despair, throwing the banks the keys to their vast cropping properties east of Perth and large debts as they walk out the gate.

Hundreds of other grain farms are for sale in a crescent stretching from Morawa, 350km northeast of Perth, east towards Merredin and Southern Cross, and south to Bruce Rock, Kulin, Corrigan, Narembeen, Lake Grace and Hyden. And those who believe the region remains viable for agriculture are constantly looking for ways to farm smarter with less rain."

The problem I have with this is that it has been said that the world has the same amount of water since the dawn of the planet. It's just a matter of distribution to different areas.

Therefore, there isn't less rain - it's just not falling in that area right now. It may not fall there for another 20 years as well. Who knows. TC has already shown us the rainfall graphs - there is no trend; no pattern.

Commonly known as a draught - something this Country is historic for. It is perhaps the driest continent on earth, apparently.

 

[The Fence]

My Sister & partner have a farm in that wheat belt and I really dont know how they ever made a living on just 9 inches of rain per year.

if it didnt fall just at the right time then that year would be a write off.
Often it just didnt fall. The whole area is dotted with salt lakes and believe me, summer temps out there are 40+ virtually every day during summer, every summer. It's the edge of the desert and they are trying to dryland farm it.

Too marginal. No wonder people leave it.

No new news there.

Sis has since left the farm to neighbour to lease and are living the dream on the coast.

 

[VYBerlinaV8]

Well they're not "forced" in the sense of having a gun put to their head, but it's a bit difficult to play outside when you live in a suburb that doesn't have footpaths (which is becoming increasingly common), when their friends live a few kms drive away from them and/or when they live in a boring, isolated suburb with no amenities that doesn't really provide enticement for them to actually go outside. Why would you go outside when there's nothing and no one outside?

Let's not forget that kids generally don't think of these things independently but rather model the behaviour of their parents, who probably think the same thing.

C'mon cimbom, there's heaps for kids to do. Especially where you live. Kids sit in front of the telly because they are lazy, a habit they have learned from their parents. They don't need to be enticed outside, they need to be freed up a bit is all.

There is heaps to do outside, and almost always local kids to play with. They may not go to your school, but so what?

 

[VYBerlinaV8]

The fixation with carbon exists because it's an easy headline, and gives simple minds something to dwell on.

There are a range of gases that are more harmful. Water vapour is one of them. It accounts for the largest part of the greenhouse effect!

 

[Fifth]

Aussie kids today are going to live a shorter life than their parents for the first time in history because they live in poor quality neighbourhoods with no amenities, forcing them to sit in front of the TV or computer all day, making themselves fat and sick.

Whilst there is undoubtedly a problem with youth health/obesity, I think it's absurd to say that children are getting fat and sick because they live in rubbish outer neighbourhoods with nothing to do.

Kids, if the desire is there, can make fun out of anything. There have always been outer suburbs and there have always been areas with few amenities and kids made the most out of what they had. An open area to throw a ball, a dirt track to ride a bike (if one had a bike), some junk to make a cubby with... It didn't require much. When I was a kid (way back in the 80s), I'd make friends with the neighbouring children, whether or not they went to my school, and we'd come home covered in dirt and with scraped knees.

The problem is, most of the above is now considered bad parenting. Letting a child play unsupervised is a big no no in itself. Due to a combination of paedophile hysteria and general safety concerns, it's rather uncommon to see children playing in public unsupervised and this is especially true in the very nice inner to middle ring suburbs with all of those much sought after amenities you speak of. Helicopter parenting is especially rife in the nicer suburbs. Luckily, these coddled little angels will still get their exercise, but it will be in the form of 'classes' and 'extra-curriculum activities' rather than through play and imagination.

In the outer suburbs, I actually see more children playing outside unsupervised. Generally, though, obesity levels are higher in these suburbs. This is because they are low socioeconomic areas. All throughout the English-speaking world, low socioeconomic areas are plumper than other areas. This has nothing to do with inner verses outer or urban verses suburban and everything to do with socioeconomics. It just so happens that in Australia our poorer suburbs are almost always outer suburbs.

Anyway, helicopter parenting aside, the desire of kids to play outside just isn't as strong any more. They'll happily stay inside with their various screens and consoles. It's absurd to blame 'lack of amenities'. If a kid wants to play outside and is allowed to play outside, they'll find something to do. They always have.

 

[lizzie]

Kids, if the desire is there, can make fun out of anything.

Yep - new subdivision going in a few km's from us ... huge dirt pile from road construction - covered in kids every weekend with their bikes (or on foot) having a ball.

Sadly I expect it to be fenced off which will ruin everything - kids love to muck around in muck rather than dictated play (ie, play equipment at the park) - give them a pile of sand/dirt any day

 

[VYBerlinaV8]

Yep - new subdivision going in a few km's from us ... huge dirt pile from road construction - covered in kids every weekend with their bikes (or on foot) having a ball.

Sadly I expect it to be fenced off which will ruin everything - kids love to muck around in muck rather than dictated play (ie, play equipment at the park) - give them a pile of sand/dirt any day

Heaven forbid they get a bit dirty, or skin their knees falling off a BMX!

 

[kathryn d]

LOL! Spoken like a true rightie capitalist. Love it.

Well...I could lie and try to be PC.
I'm only saying what a lot of people won't

 

[sanj]

Countries that are poor and overpopulated need to reduce their numbers. Plain and simple.
Feeding them might seem like the humane thing to do, but all it does is add more misery.Maybe allowing nature to take its course, is the best way.

Personally, I'd rather keep a country with a huge population, poor.
Makes it safer for us.

Wow.


Just wow.

 

[kathryn d]

Wow.


Just wow.

Yes sanj...wow...just wow
I'm surprsied that's all you have to say ...

 

[wategos]

The fixation with carbon exists because it's an easy headline, and gives simple minds something to dwell on.

No.. the fixation is because that is the gas man has the biggest effect on.

There are a range of gases that are more harmful. Water vapour is one of them. It accounts for the largest part of the greenhouse effect!

None of these gases are "harmful", they are natural and needed as is the greenhouse effect. Excess CO2, known to have been caused by man, has upset the balance and caused global temps to rise, despite the scientifically challenged evidence of some of the posters on here of what happened in their back yard last summer or what they read on some global warming conspiracy blog.

 

[Aaron_C]

Excess CO2, known to have been caused by man, has upset the balance and caused global temps to rise.

so....why is there no warming for the past 16 years despite even more CO2 in the atmosphere?

 

[HiEquity]

so....why is there no warming for the past 16 years despite even more CO2 in the atmosphere?

Yes, the Earth’s climate system is warming. Global average air and ocean temperatures are rising, there is widespread melting of snow and ice, and sea levels are rising around the globe. The average air temperature at the Earth’s surface has continued to rise at a rapid rate. The decade 2002–11 was the world’s warmest on record, warmer than the 1990s which in turn was warmer than the 1980s (World Meteorological Organisation). In Australia, 2001–10 was also the warmest decade on record, and each decade since the 1940s has been warmer than the preceding decade.

From the link I posted before...