Sorry Pratt
I did read the whole article but did not want to post all of it as it longer than the average attention span of most average Aussies. This whole discussion has taken place because you questioned the logic of a fire having more fuel to consume if the undergrowth is left to grow for two or more years. Which to anyone with a couple of connected brain cells knows is absolutely correct. The article also points out the sheer arrogance of "the Invaders" where not one indigenous person is on any advisory committee, much the same as Morrison who thought he could control this devastation via a telephone from a Hawaiian beach.
Basically the same logic as cutting CO2 emissions in Australia while continuing to sell huge amounts of coal to China. That really helps world climate change doesn't it.
[/quote]
I wonder Greta Loonberg has not gone to China to stage a massive protest?
This might put part of the issue in perspective and it may be a bit off topic related to the Bush Fires
So Australia sells coal to China.
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-c ... -emissions
Global Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Country Area..png
China's three main sources of coal import are from Australia, Indonesia and South Africa, accounting for about 85% of China's imports. Yes, Australia is one of the main three, but Indonesia sells almost the same amount of coal to China as does Australia. Other countries like Russia, Columbia, US and Canada, also see to them to make up the remaining 15%. China will do what it wants to do and can easily and readily source coal from Indonesia, South Africa and or Russia and not from Australia, if it chooses to at any time.
The point is, that the origin or source of coal imports. is of very little significance, when it comes to China and or Chines domestic policies. Then ask yourself why.
Guess what,on 1 April 2016, China confirmed they would sign the Paris Climate Agreement. Also guess what concessions Europe and Others gave to China (at that time) with regards to China's real commitment to reduce CO2 emissions.- What ever China asked for
just to get a signature
China is the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter and this is a fact. China accounts for approximately 29% of global GHG emissions (excluding LULUCF) and this is a fact.
As one article on Climate Change put it, “China’s actions both at home and abroad have an enormous impact on global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and that China’s 2030 Paris Agreement Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) is however rated “Highly Insufficient”. - That is a polite way of saying that China's real commitment to solving the issue is not worth a piece of Sh..t (Pooh)
Notwithstanding setting targets so far down the track in the future (like 2030) one that now one will even remember, China’s current domestic policies dictates otherwise. China has not in the past 3 years and is not currently reducing their CO2 emissions. Actually China is increasing them yearly and has done so since signing the so called Paris Accord/Agreement. Chinese increased its CO2 emissions in 2018 and also in the first half of 2019 (by about 4%), marking it their third consecutive year of growth of CO2 Emissions, after signing that Agreement in 2016. Yes I do see a real commitment from China to reduce??
Coal Powered Plants: Then to commit to their “Long Term Target for reduction of Emissions”, China embark on the construction of a number of new coal-fired power capacity in 2018 after lifting their on them. - I am not sure how many, but one Article in 2019, stated that China is has 121 gigawatts of coal plants under construction, which is more than is being built in the rest of the world combined. Also China's power industry calls for hundreds of new coal power plants by 2030. The largest power producers in China have asked the government to allow for the development of between 300 and 500 new coal power plants by 2030 - Thats a Lot??
Yes that shows a real long term commitment to the reduction of emission, doesn’t it?? and is completely inconsistent with the Paris Agreement. If you have every worked with the Chinese and or dealt with them, you will understand that what they say to yur face and what they actually intend to do are two different things.
To those who wish to throw rocks at Australia for selling coal to China, you need to wake up and address the real source of the issue (World CO2 Emissions) and that it isn't who sells the raw material. It is the Demand by those Countries who’s domestic policies dictate that they still need to buy it (in this particular case Coal) for the long term and who Counties that openly embark on building Coal and or Other Powered Plants that use copious amounts of fossil fuels. I didn't see the Paris Agreement banning the sale of Coal and or Oil (the product that actually generates the emissions) around the world.
What Australia does related to their total country CO2 Emissions and or their sale of Coal to China, pales into insignificance, of what China’s actually does.
pipoz4444
[/quote]
