Just Grounds Community

For Like minded people who like to see-

Business Efficiency Bill

Senator,
While I think we would all applaud the sentiments behind the Private Members Bill you put up today, which I only heard about in the ABC News, I have to ask a fundamental question and/or make a comment on it. The bill I refer to is the bill for more efficient buildings.

We all want our buildings to be clean and green, for a variety of reasons. Lower running costs come from more efficient buildings, better health for people working in them and much more.

However, and please feel free to correct me if I am mistaken here - a news bulletin does not give exhaustive details - the thrust of your bill is aiming at reducing the Carbon Emissions of the building as a measure of the efficiency of the building.

Whilst the Greens Party may not generally accept that CO2 is not a pollutant, EVERY eminent scientist I have spoken to or researched, and there are plenty available for viewing on my website, every one has said that CO2 is not the pollutant and is not a "greenhouse gas". The insist that Carbon Dioxide is a vital part of the atmosphere we breathe and the planet will not survive without this tiny component (around 0.004% I believe) of our atmosphere.

There are other polluting gases (and compounds in states other than gaseous), highly toxic gases emitted from buildings, power generation, vehicle exhausts and more, but we rarely, if ever, hear of the work being done to reduce them. We know Carbon MONoxide is deadly and is a favourite of people wishing to suicide peacefully. We know that the various sulphur compounds and derivitates in emissions are deadly, but if you asked 1000 people, unless you polled outside a science facility, it's a safe bet that hardly a person would know ONE of them. But they will all have heard about this "dangerous gas CO2" that the Greens persist in vilifying, and using as the lead in to the radical ETS model they propose, and climate change (as we know global warming has ceased and now the real threat is global cooling towards a new Ice Age).

Senator, can you explain, in simple terms, why CO2 is still the lead villain in your bill as I understand it, and why the real issues, as identified by the genuine scientists, are not the focus of something as important as the bill you proposed?
Ray Jamieson

Tags: CO2, Private Members Bill, greenhouse

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Stephen Madden on September 17, 2009 at 3:15pm

Ray,

While I wholeheartedly agree with your questions to the Senator, I must offer the correction that, to the best of my knowledge, CO2 IS a greenhouse gas, however it has very little measurable effect once it gets past about 100ppmv, as its effects on the greenhouse effect decreases logarithmically.

It is however, not a pollutant, by any stretch of the imagination; that fact, as you say, is undisputed by every official body.

To the topic at hand. I agree with any government push for a more efficient lifestyle, as efficiency and sustainability promotes operational expenditure reductions, health improvements, and a reduction in the use of consumables.

This efficiency, in my opinion, is measured by how much we can reduce current usage of electricity, consumables, maintenance allocation, water usage, etc, when compared to the current standard. This pursuit is admirable, however one bound by the CO2 emissions of a particular building, etc I find ridiculous, especially when reducing CO2 emissions may have zero effect on the aforementioned factors, let alone the fact that there is no conclusive proof that CO2 is doing anything to the climate.

If the government were truly committed to helping the environment, and not chasing the baseless whims of the Gore/Hansen club, they would be focussing on rewarding companies that show reductions in electricity/water/resource usage, and reductions in emissions of actual pollutants. This is what I would envisage a party really devoted to the environment to focus on, in metropolitan areas anyway.

SM

Permalink Reply by Ray Jamieson on September 17, 2009 at 4:16pm

Thank you Stephen,
I LOVE IT when someone picks me up on a point!
1...Reminds me I'm not God - but then that wasn't an issue, but importantly
2 SOMEONE IS READING ME and noting these points and keeping me in check! I WANT to be corrected. In fact, I'd love it if the good Senator would reply and tell me I was totally wrong and that it was totally different to what I wrote, and that the Greens have now dropped CO2 as an issue and were addressing the impending little ice age as a powerful threat and something to be dealt with. Now THAT is a correction I bet we all wished I could get!
Seriously, thank you, now let's keep the pressure up on the Senator and get the discussion rolling!
Ray Jamieson

Permalink Reply by Allan Maurice Taylor on September 17, 2009 at 5:39pm

And Ray, while the good Green Senator is answering your excellent question she could explain why the Green Party is against the nuclear power industry, whereas logically they should be all for it since electricity is produced without CO2 emissions.
Allano

Permalink Reply by Stephen Madden on September 17, 2009 at 10:38pm

Yep, the difference between an open minded person and a fundamentalist. The ability to accept (or even listen to) criticism and learn from it. Too many fundamentalists haha.

I've been working my way through your blog too. Really good read so far, surprised I hadn't stumbled upon it previously.

Keep up the good work!

SM

RSS

Welcome to
Just Grounds Community

Sign Up
or Sign In

Honest Government, Fair Rights to property and compensation, Australia and our people strong and proud, reinstatement of values and respect