Tasmanian Times

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche


Sweltering summers – the face of things to come …

First published November 23

Bored of the tedious cool winters in Tasmania? Thinking about packing up and migrating north? Well beware! New climate predictions are claiming that cities like Melbourne and Sydney will soon be experiencing 50 degree Celsius temperatures, and that the scorching summers, which occurred in 2015, will just be average by 2025.


Studies are showing extreme temperatures in Australia will occur even if the world meets its ambitious Paris climate change targets to limit global warming below 2 degrees.

Scientists have warned that with a global rise of just two degrees it will result in Australian days getting 3.8 degrees hotter overall.

Australia has just recorded the hottest early spring on record since 1911.


A study led by Dr. Sophie Lewis at the Australian National University, explains that if average temperatures rise, the distribution of temperatures will shift to extremes. These changes are likely to see Australia smash summer heat records more frequently.

Dr Lewis claims that this rise in temperature will have devastating effects on our already endangered reef. Even with less variability than land, the oceans can expect significant temperature rise, which will trigger another mass bleaching, and could see the entire Great Barrier Reef suffer significantly in the very near future.

Global warming impacts are not exclusive to just the environment. Extreme heat has killed more people in Australia than all of the other natural disasters combined.


Of course climate change deniers will continue to claim temperature rises are just spikes in the oscillating weather patterns, but meteorological records show that the exponential global temperatures are at a rising rate never unprecedented in earth’s modern history. https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/why-people-ignore-science-behind-climate-crisis-and-what-you-can-do

Meanwhile in Tasmania things are heating up as we head into summer. Alarmingly after a very dry winter over the east coast, the soil dryness index there is at the levels normally seen at the end of summer, hence the early arrival of active bushfires.

Australians, like the rest of the world, will have to accept the climate change scenario that is unfolding now, but if humans want to avoid major catastrophe then critical action is required.

Given the current trend of ‘head in sand’ conservative politics in Australia, changes to the way we will address global warming seem decades away.

*Ted Mead is convinced that climate change is a reality, and that urgent action is required if we have any hope of preserving our wonderful and diverse environmental, and most life upon earth. Ted claims that stopping the present trend of rising global temperatures is only the first step, the second will be to find a way to sequester the over saturated atmosphere and oceans of its CO2.

ATA: Australia can be 100% renewable by 2030

ATA discussion paper: 100% Renewable grid by 2030

Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]


  1. Kim Peart

    November 29, 2017 at 4:57 pm

    Re: 70 … I see the shape of a global campaign where good people could take the lead on accessing energy.

    I explored this in my Vision Drum article (link in comment #54).

    What is the critical number of people that could cause change at that level?

    The answer is ten.

    Ten determined individuals working with a shared vision could inspire ten million keen people.

    That is our choice.

    I keep looking out and watching for one determined individual.

    Two could stand a better chance of finding another eight, and then all heel could break loose in a positive way.

    We have the technology now to reach out globally where ten million individuals can engage in a shared mission and achieve the impossible.

    The power of one is the most powerful force in the Universe.

    That is how the Universe began, as a singularity that stretched to infinity.

    When we understand how we are all connected in space-time we can know that we are not limited.

    Our only limits are the ones we allow.

    Our only cage is the one we sit in with tin mug to make noise on the bars, but the door is not locked.

    When we realise just how bizarre our Universe is, then we can know that anything is possible.

  2. Kim Peart

    November 29, 2017 at 4:42 pm

    Re: 69 … Agreed.

    The problem faced is that excess CO2 must be extracted from the air, or the present and currently increasing level, being added to with methane and water vapour, will carry the runaway greenhouse effect forward, along with our extinction.

    When I add the whole mess up and see the bottom line, I can see no alternative to rapid access of space based solar power, which would enable the launch of industry beyond Earth, where we can build a sunshade above the Earth.

    Fossil fuel propaganda will have the world believe that space is too hard, so they can sell geoengineering solutions at great expense and keep flogging fossil fuel.

    Space action can be entirely robotic, opening the way for people later.

    Space action will inspire action on Earth, globally, to deal with all terrestrial strife, such as making robots in space factories to clean up the oceans, from the micro-plastics up.

    That action is too expensive on Earth, but in the space economy, everything changes.

    Energy is the key, along with the will to act and imagine.

    A total focus on the Earth is only empowering the fossil fuel monopoly to kill the planet, and us.

  3. max

    November 29, 2017 at 2:01 pm

    # 68 Kim
    Campaigning for renewable energy has been going on since people became aware of the dangers of CO2 levels and we still have the adani coal mine going a head if they can get the money.
    As I said at 67, it is all about the money. As you say the key is energy and who has the key, the rich.

  4. Russell

    November 29, 2017 at 12:49 pm

    Re #68
    “The key is energy.”

    And that key is staring everyone in the face every single day of the year for billions of years into the future. The most biggest, most efficient and safest nuclear reactor ever known to humankind, the Sun.

  5. Kim Peart

    November 28, 2017 at 9:24 pm

    Re #67 … There is a way for ordinary people to work in a global campaign for survival and toward a safe Earth.

    The key is energy.

  6. max

    November 28, 2017 at 6:51 pm

    # 66 Kim
    The rich are possibly building survival domes under ground, ones that would last out a nuclear winter or even climate change. Why else would they continue down the path of armageddon. They must think that they can survive their own stupidity or they would be clamoring for the survival of earth. A life raft for survival would be cheap to build here on earth, they have already built a prototype for a trip to Mars.The meek shall inherit the earth BS, the rich will. Even the dumbest of dumb know that population is out of control, perhaps they are bringing down armageddon on the world so that they can be the survivors in a new world.

  7. Kim Peart

    November 28, 2017 at 8:53 am

    Re: 58 ~ I follow the science with great interest and like many others, have seen that the models used often fail to tell the whole truth, as the reality outpaces the science.

    Scientists are cautious people, and when politicians do not want to hear a bad story, scientists are unlikely to declare the worse case scenario.

    In this way, the science we hear about gets shaped by politics and politicians who hand out the funding.

    This is a huge problem, when we are lulled into a false sense of security.

    Now there are more voices declaring that there is no hope, based on science.

    Is that good enough.

    I suggest there is hope, but to understand that hope, we have to back-track to understand what is going on in the Universe.

    Expansion as a primary force of Nature, seen in the Big Bang and the expansion of space, as well as how life fills the Earth, fish populate the land, and diversity increases with life, and now with machine.

    This is an expansion of the possibilities.

    I suggest that we are on the cusp of the next expansion, which will be beyond Earth, but the process is at risk through delay, and our survival is at risk through this delay.

    So like fish eyeing the land, it is not a question of how we feel about the next environment, but what Nature wants next.

    I see the human tool-maker liberated from many levels of instinct so we can build the means for the expansion of life beyond Earth.

    Fossil fuel enabled this to happen, but as a transition energy, until we could access the power of the Sun in space and launch industry beyond Earth.

    I suggest Nature’s timetable would have had us undertaking serious space development by the 1980s.

    By getting greedy on fossil fuel, and burning too much of the juice of dead life for too long, we have endangered the Earth and ourselves.

    Then the Great Filter theory points out that the failure to act on what Nature wants is our death-trap.

    If we wish to survive on Earth, and save the Earth, then we have to accelerate serious space development.

    This will give us access to the power of the Sun in space to deal with all problems on Earth.

    Only now can we see that Nature’s timing did not include room for delay.

    So we now have a rather stark choice.

    We can march into extinction to the beat of fossil fuel greed and green inaction on the needs of evolution.

    Or, we can get really serious really fast about the demands of survival, on Earth and in space.

    The future we are creating may see any survivors on Earth living as if they were in space, only without the liberty of the Solar System, like trapped animals.

    If we are trapped, I am hoping we have the sense to invest in the means to rebuild and access space later, or we may still not survive.

    No matter how bad the Earth gets, if we live, we can win back a safe Earth, using the power of the Sun.

    If we have managed to establish a sustainable robot base in space when all goes down, which would be accessed via remote control systems, we will have a foothold beyond Earth, which we will be able to use to save ourselves, and ultimately, be able to win back a safe Earth.

    We now face life or death decisions, personally, and as a species.

    Nature is also at risk, if our delay on space has launched a runaway greenhouse effect that will continue if we are gone.

    The science indicates that a runaway greenhouse effect will continue if we are gone.

    The science also explains how Nature dies in a nuclear winter, if our clinging to the Earth ends that badly.

    If we love life, we need to act on the raw needs of survival.

  8. Keith Antonysen

    November 28, 2017 at 8:03 am

    For the climate change skeptic, a summary of a mega Report on Climate which details understanding of climate as understood at present.
    If you are keen to frizzal and fry, a business as usual paradigm will help you; a 5C temperature increase over pre-Industrial times is forecast under such a circumstance.
    It would solve the over population problem … Earth would become uninhabitable.

    An article in the last day or so suggests that NSW is competing with Queensland mining for the greatest amount of coal, with the potential development of new mines and extending established mines

    The Guardian provides the summary, and also provides a hyperlink to the Report.


  9. Kim Peart

    November 27, 2017 at 10:03 pm

    Re: 63 … Having engaged in environmentalism in 1975, and then space settlement in 1976, I have been able to compare the two views over 4 decades.

    I find many people make statements on space without finding out how space development would actually work.

    I know it’s easier not to know, but ignorance does not reveal truth.

    We now face an Earth crisis that can destabilise nations and lead to conflict that slides into nuclear war.

    Understanding the potential of space development, I can see how we could have totally avoided the current Earth crisis if we had risen to the challenge of serious space development in the 1970s, the core of which would have been energy transition to the power of the Sun.

    Now the logic of a path that has failed to keep a safe Earth dictates a continue march into extinction.

    From the perspective of seeing how space works it comes across as really crazy thinking to focus so totally on the Earth, which will only serve to embolden the fossil fuel monopolies to start using geoengineering which will make the crisis worse.

    Sadly, the green agenda of focusing totally on the Earth has only served to empower the fossil fuel monopoly on energy.

    That is beginning to change, but too little too late, really.

    The key action to turning the tide on the Earth crisis is to extract excess carbon from the air, which can be done but it requires a heap of power.

    The only safe option for this power is the Sun, and the volume of power needed must be harvested in space where we will also need to invest in a sunshade to help cool the Earth.

    Serious space development can happen within a decade.

    Once established in space, growth is unlimited, giving us the option of dealing with all terrestrial strife, such as building machines to clean the oceans, from the micro-plastics up.

    Acting on the space option will inspire action on Earth to heal the planet.

    The inspirational power of space development is an untested force.

    The technology of space can be used to help human communities survive through global heating, or a nuclear winter.

    Whenever anyone argues against space I wonder if I am reading fossil fuel propaganda as they are exactly the arguments the fossil fuel monopolies have wanted the people of Earth to believe since the 1960s.

    Failed world views need to be severely scrutinised, and the green philosophy has totally failed to keep a safe Earth.


    The space option has never been tried.

    The space option could have been tried in the 1970s, but the fossil fuel monopolies successfully managed to divert the world into the Vietnam War, maintaining vast nuclear arsenals, burning fossil fuel like there was no tomorrow, and believing that space was too hard.

    The world has been fooled into catastrophe.

    The world needs to quit being fooled by fossil fuel propaganda.

  10. Tony Stone

    November 27, 2017 at 8:16 pm

    # Kim … if your main concern is our survival, there is only one place that can occur with present technologies, here on earth. Everything else is fanciful and your idea of human colonies in space is a good one but we have to have a future before we can even think of that, outside experimentation.

    Imagine living on a platform surrounded by a garden forest, with moving rivers and lakes whilst moving through the solar system and stopping off at different planets as you go, to establish colonies on those planets. Then all we have to do is connect dimensional doors to them all and bingo, we’ve made it. Cool idea, which I would support, but illogical under the present time frame and conditions we are faced with.

    We need to save the earth now, so that in 5-10 years it can still support human and other life. At the rate and direction we are going, we may not make 5 years.

    Hasn’t anyone heard of the law of cause and effect, the domino theory, the doubling effect attained by accumulating all the local and global enforced effects?

    We are at that time now, and soon we will see dramatic changes happening seasonally and then weekly until our weather becomes totally unpredictable and controlled by the accumulation of all the life destroying negatives we’ve created and continue to feed as fast as we can.

    Space can wait. It will be there when we humans are ready, and a peaceful caring life form.

  11. Kim Peart

    November 27, 2017 at 7:41 pm

    Re #57 … My main concern is our survival, and exactly what we must do to secure our survival whether on Earth or in space.

    I see that space development will help with our survival on Earth.

    Is that worth considering?

    People live and work in space now, on the International Space Station, and there are plenty of reports on how it all goes for them.

    How about those who go to Antarctica to live in a confined space all winter long?

    Not everyone would have to go into space, but if you read what I have written you will see that space offers ways to win back a safe Earth and even extend the life of the Earth for billions of years beyond the time when the planet would die as the Sun gets hotter.

    As with Antarctica and the International Space Station, there will be no shortage of adventurous people, smart and creative, willing to live, work and play in space.

    The pioneers will have the toughest time, but also the most exciting.

    As large orbital cities are built in space and larger habitats are built, space will be more like living on Earth, only with a view of the Earth and Moon, access to free-fall, and able to fly to the Moon for an art exhibition opening.

    There was once no life on land because all life was in the sea, then some fish found their land legs, and here we are.

    Space is like that, going from the thin atmosphere enveloping a tiny planet to gain the liberty of space and be able to return to Earth at any time.

    Space development was the way we would have kept a safe Earth because it involved energy transition from dead fossil juice to the power of the Sun in space.

    Space development is the only way that we can save the Earth.

    This should be of interest to everyone who loves the Earth.

    Why be stubborn unto death, when we can have life unto the stars?

    We live in space now, on a starship called Earth.

    By living in space, and preparing to do so, we will learn how to live in harmony with Nature on Earth.

    We need to understand and learn how to manage the life-support systems of starship Earth.

    The first task right now is to extract excess carbon from the air.

    The only way that can happen fast enough is by using the power of the Sun harvested in space.

    This will be the work of robots in space, directed by workers on Earth.

    It is the space adventure that will inspire action on Earth to save our beautiful endangered planet.

  12. Robert LePage

    November 27, 2017 at 5:32 pm

    It is amazing how little has been made of the SA energy revolution.

    The proposed new thermal solar power station, one which could be copied all over Australia, will supply the whole of the state with power. Yes, it will be base load power and once it is up and running it will have no polluting output, will cost hardly anything in the way of fuel, and will make SA independent of the “Australian energy market ” (a way to rip more profit from a sheep-like population) which together with wind power, will allow SA to thumb it’s nose at the Neolib energy stranglehold.

    A large portion of the population has already voted with it’s money and installed rooftop solar giving it independence from the coal barons (eat your heart out, Gina) and more will follow.

    The big pollie parties are owned by big coal and gas now, and they do not like the flanking by alternative energy power. My heart bleeds for them.

    Trumbles “plan” if you could call it that, of the pie in the sky scheme in the Snowies and the Tasmanian battery for the mainland is a “please keep me in the PMs’ job”.

  13. Robert LePage

    November 27, 2017 at 4:50 pm

    # 39 … “Meanwhile in the short term get ready for hordes of climate refugees from the big island trying to escape the heat.”

    The buggers are already here in droves. Cygnet is full of ex-Sydneysiders building like mad and pushing up house prices.

    As one of them said recently on a TV program “Change is coming – get used to it”.

    Please leave us in our rut and go away.

  14. Kim Peart

    November 27, 2017 at 1:07 pm

    Re: 55 ~ “they won’t recover until the majority is dead” is an assumption that the minority will have the wits to survive, when the majority didn’t.

    There is no water shortage on Earth, anywhere.

    We can use solar power to desalinate ocean water, and use solar power to pump ocean water to any location, where recycling should be the norm as well.

    There are certainly a number of crisis that can overwhelm us quickly, like a collapse in seafood supply.

    I am amazed that I have been beating the drum on the need to invest in survival since 1993, but have seen passing interest, and then disinterest, set in repeatedly.

    So I wonder, exactly what message will rally the hearts and minds of good people to the needs of survival?

    Time falls, second by second like a row of dominos, and there are only so many dominos that can fall.

    Maybe its the Christian mental trap of waiting for Goddo, like a cargo cult, passing the buck of survival along to some other.

    When will folk awaken to the detail, that the survival buck stops, and begins, where they are standing.

  15. Keith Antonysen

    November 27, 2017 at 1:02 pm

    Tony #55

    It is not only countries in the Northern Hemisphere that have water problems, countries relying on water from glaciers in the Andes also are in the gun.
    Not long ago there was an article about how more water is being taken from aquifers than is being taken in.

    Kim #54

    Climate science is not a political philosophy, conservative politicians and denier groups have tried to make it so. Though there are politicians of all ideologies who believe climate change is happening. It is Physics and Chemistry, observation, and data that underpin climate science.

    You appear to have a fixation about man moving into space, it will not happen for 7+ billion people.
    We are creating an inhospitable environment on Earth, you want us to venture into an even more inhospitable environment in space.

  16. Ted Mead

    November 27, 2017 at 12:45 pm

    #45 – Kim – I appreciate your concerns about human/planet survival, but really you need to give up on this living beyond Earth stuff before it does your own head in!

    I love my lifestyle living on a planet immersed in nature. If I had to move to a somewhat utopian space station beyond our atmosphere I would lose the will to live fairly promptly I suspect.

    Our best hope is to save what we have here and now, although that is looking glimmer and less obtainable as years pass by.

    By all means organize a life pod somewhere out there in space as you wish, but I won’t be interested in a meaningless existence within a highly artificial world out in the cosmic wilderness.

    And by then Tas Times would have well gone under.

  17. Robin Charles Halton

    November 27, 2017 at 12:23 pm

    I dont know what the whingers are carrying on about!
    I am continuing to enjoy the extended summer weather that is currently occuring along with the 25-30mm of rain over the past day or two.

    Its like an extended holiday after returning from WA two weeks ago, plenty of out of door activities to get fitter and healthier, I love it.
    Hope to back in the water during this week at Sandy Bay.

  18. Tony Stone

    November 27, 2017 at 11:43 am

    There are many hidden happenings which are true indications of what we face, yet they are being ignored. One of the worst calamities ahead is not being recognised or even taken into account, and that’s the availability of water for world cities. The majority of Nth hemisphere cities and countries derive their water from glaciers and snow fields.

    But these are melting and collapsing around the world, so within a few short years places like Europe and Asia will have extreme water problems – and they are already feeling the effects in many places.

    Then we have the inevitable collapse of the seafood industry which could be less than 2 years away. When that comes the mental effects upon populations will send them all mad and we will have rioting in the streets and food wars.

    There are at least 6 more slumbering catastrophes no one is talking about which will hit world societies so hard in the next couple of years that they won’t recover until the majority is dead.

  19. Kim Peart

    November 27, 2017 at 9:33 am

    Re: #53 and anyone interested … I appreciate the link to Ian Baxter’s article where he writes “it’s too late and we’re f***ed” and “It will be little consolation, but at least I will be able to say I tried.”

    Ian is not on a path that offers hope or inspires action.

    Fossil fuel workers fight like hell to fuel us all with fossil fuel.

    Green workers talk like walking zombis and offer no hope.

    Both ways are leading us into extinction on a dead Earth.

    Both ways share a total focus on the belly of the Earth.

    In the minds of fossil fuel moguls, green adherants are well and truly under control down the bottom of the garden, and present no threat to carbon profits.

    The space option however, is an entirely different matter as serious space development offers a solution to every problem on Earth, as well as energy transition at an industrial level in space.

    The space option could have happened in the 1970s, but key political voices had been removed and the fossil fuel monopoly managed to dominate the politics.

    If the green movement had woken up to the space option in the 1970s and joined forces with the space settlement movement, we could have acted politically to keep a safe Earth.

    I was steeped in environmentalism in the 1970s and also signed up with the space settlement movement, but it wasn’t until 2006 that I managed to figure out a unified message that connected Earth and space with my document, Creating a Solar Civilization.

    My recent TT article, Vision Drum, is my latest attempt to beat the drum of what can be done ~ http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/article/vision-drum/

    I suggest that if green thinking can get serious about exactly what we must do to survive, as I did, it will also figure out that evolution requires expansion which should have happened in the 1970s and which needs to happen now.

    The needs of Nature and the driving forces of evolution do not go away.

    The key cosmic survival question is: how swiftly and for the least cost, can we secure a sustainable industrial presence beyond Earth?

    Today, this will be robotic, and they will be mini robots.

    Once a sustainable industrial presence is established in space, with direct access to the power of the Sun, any work can be done and any dream created, because mini robots can build larger machines which can build human scale space habitats.

    And there is no shortage of resources beyond Earth.

    The resource in short supply is the imagination on Earth to survive.

    We can do all this from Earth using remote control systems and VR headsets, like the Oculus Rift, seeing through the camera eyes of the robot and using their mechanical arms.

    Anything is possible if we have a will to act with a determination to survive.

    The mini robot approach in space can also be applied on Earth for local survival, through a heat pulse, or nuclear madness, until we can return to space.

    So when poor old Ian Baxter declares woe is me, “it’s too late and we’re f***ed”, he is admitting his green philosophy is totally bankrupt, offers no solutions, and speaks of no hope.

    The seeds of that bankruptcy were there in the 1970s because green philosophy did not bother to understand evolution, or wonder about what Nature wants.

    The philosophical suicidal green position, that would rather die than consider the demands of evolution and Mother Nature for survival, is part of the problem that is killing this Earth.

    Anyone is welcome to meet me in Ross and hammer this out ~ kimpeart@iinet.net.au ~ if survival counts for them.

    We can figure out exactly what needs to happen to deliver a survival presence in space, and sell it globally.

    We can figure out exactly what we need for an emergency survival position on Earth from which we can rebuild.

    It would be wise to have a thousand survival bases around the Earth from where we can rebuild, and regain space.

    That level of survival movement may save our hides, and we may secure survival in space now.

    If we survive, we can win back a safe Earth, and keep life going on this planet for billions of years.

    Without survival, what is left?

    Moral bankruptcy?

  20. Keith Antonysen

    November 27, 2017 at 12:43 am

    Kim …

    Many politicians do not believe climate change is happening, or do not believe that the impact warrants any major attention. On that basis not enough has been done in relation to mitigation and adaptation, so while moving into space might be an aspiration, it won’t happen on a large scale. There has been talk of a one way trip to Mars for a few, though it is planned as a one way trip, I understand.

    Where we do agree is that climate change is already having a strong impact, and the future is looking grim. Since 6 June ’17 there have been 51 Youtube films made in relation to extreme events.

    Latest film:


    Before COP23 science was suggesting that major efforts need to be taken to ward off worse catastrophic climate change events, examples being the letter signed by 15,000 scientists, commentary from IMF, Climate Science Special Report, and commentary from UN. Since COP23 Eric Haulthaus has written about the breakdown of glaciers and ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica as well explained in short film previously referenced (No 30).

    Ian Baxter takes the view that things are dire, but we need to keep pushing for a huge reduction in greenhouse gases.


  21. Kim Peart

    November 26, 2017 at 8:51 pm

    Re: 50 ~ The focus on “space colonization” is interesting, when the comment related to energy transition. ~ Comes across as carbon energy propaganda ringing its spin, diverting attention.

  22. Russell

    November 26, 2017 at 8:06 pm

    Re #26
    I’ve probably seen and lived in more of Australia than you could ever dream of.

    Tasmania is the social and economic backwater it is purely as a result of decades of extremely poor governance.

  23. Stu

    November 26, 2017 at 7:53 pm

    Doc, I think even the crazy american conspiracy theorists would have a giggle at Kim’s latest 😂

  24. Kim Peart

    November 26, 2017 at 7:42 pm

    Re: 48 ~ In 1962 JFK said, “We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.”

    If JFK had served two terms as president, what would the on-going momentum for space development have been?

    In 1968 Dr Peter Glaser proposed building Solar Power Stations in space, and was awarded the patent in 1973.

    If Bobby Kennedy had lived, been elected and served two terms, what would the momentum of space development have been?

    Would the transition to space-based solar power have happened?

    Would we have left one hell of a heap of fossil fuels in the belly of the Earth?

    When Professor Gerard K. O’Neill’s peer-reviewed study on space settlement appeared in New Physics in September 1974, would the political support have been there to act on the high frontier?

    Considering the Sun in space is a virtually infinite energy well, is where the energy comes from a matter of concern to vested interests in fossil fuels?

    Now we face the consequence of using too much fossil fuel for too long.

    Now Guy McPherson #1 is telling us that we face collective assassination through using fossil fuels.

    If we had made energy transition from fossil fuels to the power of the Sun harvested in space under the Kennedys, would that have been good?

  25. Dr Peter Lozo (Adelaide)

    November 26, 2017 at 2:20 pm

    … hot from the Twitter ..

    “Tasmanian election candidate (for the Space Party) thinks JFK and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated to stop humans colonising space.”



  26. Kim Peart

    November 26, 2017 at 12:07 pm

    Re #44 … As an environmental design student from the 1970s, I was pestered by the problem of how we could have a healthy environment on Earth, have the human population living in harmony with Nature, and also assure improved survival options.

    I could not work that trilogy out on Earth alone.

    Only when I started wondering what Nature wants, and what is the driving force and direction in evolution, did I start to see sense.

    Looked at in terms of evolution, the human tool-making stage is a stepping stone for Nature to the next phase in evolution.

    By simple projection, it was obvious that next evolutionary phase was in space, as there were tight limits on Earth for an industrial civilization.

    I saw that the moment for expansion into space arrived in the 1960s, and could have been in full swing in the 1980s.

    The problem is, our species was freed of many aspects of instinct, so we could use the resources of our planet to go to the next phase of evolution in space.

    In this mentally freed state, there is a fight between small-minded greed and creative adventure.

    The greed system wants to maintain control.

    The creative potential wants to expand.

    By allowing greed to dominate, we have allowed the Earth to be harmed and our survival to be at risk.

    As I point out with the Great Filter theory, this may be a disturbingly repeat event in our Universe, echoed upon us by the silence of the stars.

    When I explored this matter in 2006, I came to see that in space, everything changes, due to the requirements of survival in the space environment.

    Greed does not work in space.

    Peace is essential for survival in space.

    Creativity replaces war in space.

    By rising to the challenge of space, we begin to find those different ways while on Earth.

    The world was sucked in by greed, and that is now putting our survival at risk, as well as killing Mother Nature.

    If we have a chance to survive, we must focus on the creative process, and expand to the peace of space.

    This process of work needs humility, strength, and a will to be happy.

    This alternative way forward is personal for each individual.

    Greed works by a mob running mad and not caring about the consequences on the Earth or other people.

    Creativity, driven by compassion, will seek ways with space and peace where all people can be happy.

    There have been hints of this alternative approach through human history.

    To survive now, and save the Earth, the creatives must rise and seek peace in space, so there may be peace on a healthy Earth.

    We must decide that we, personally, are “worth saving”.

    To achieve this, we must separate ourselves from the corruption of greed.

    When we can see how we, personally, are “worth saving”, then we will see how others can be creative and “worth saving”.

    This is the only way we will send poverty into history, extend kindness to all animals, and build a stellar society that lives in harmony with Nature.

    The silence from the stars tells us that we may be the first planet civilization to achieve this evolutionary transition, if we can get our heads out of the greed trap, and get creative.

  27. Kim Peart

    November 26, 2017 at 11:20 am

    Re #43 … No acid required. ~ Simply observe Nature, from the beginning of time, through the evolution of life, to the play of around 400 billion by 2 trillion stars in our universe. ~ Then reflect on the eleven dimensions now described in cosmology. ~ And then there is the multiverse beyond time and space. ~ No acid needed. ~ Just a willingness to see, wonder, imagine and observe. ~ My child never died. ~ How much more might I see with acid: or would I see less? ~ Meditation practice also helps to focus the mind to imagine and see.

  28. Tony Stone

    November 26, 2017 at 10:14 am

    #40 … Don’t hold your breath waiting for a global effort to climate climate change and global warming because the track record is abysmal.

    The only chance we have is to take action ourselves and hope others may wake up and follow, then the world will have something to follow and get on board once a proper example is provided.

    The same with Tas borders, we may have to close them if we want to survive. Or is the aim to save everyone, or all go down with the ship together? If so, sorry not a masochist or defeatist, we either look after ourselves or no one will.

    As it is the rest of the world and in particular Australia practically ignores us, unless they want something we have, like our hydro energy.

    Your space dreams are as fanciful, it would take many decades to get anything organised in space and we have yet to understand or know how to shield ourselves from the massive radiation in space.

    Then we need air, water, the capacity to grow foods and many other things worked out before we can move anyone to space. By the time all this gets done there will be no habitable place on earth.

    As it is, we have little chance of doing anything because the incumbents will get elected and nothing will change. You only have to read the Comments to see no one is interested unless someone else does it for them and it doesn’t effect their life style in any way.

    This is a prime example of how ideologically programmed the human race is and how far from reality we all live.

    We’ve had at least 50 years of warnings about global warming, yet only a very minuscule minority have taken notice, or have made some effort to take responsibility for their footprint on earth. The rest just go on dong nothing but contribute further to the problem.

    No ideas, no plans, just denunciation of anything brought forward that doesn’t fit with the current approach. So what hope is there, when everyone is determined to cling to current approaches and do nothing?

    The next 5 years will be a very interesting and trying experience for us all and there is only one outcome ahead, unstoppable climate disaster.

    We have our final chance to make an effort and to least improve our lives to the point of having a chance of surviving the change.

    But nothing will change, we will get an election outcome like the one in Queensland, the status quo will prevail and fantasy has once again won over reality and rational logic.

  29. Nicholas Gilbert

    November 26, 2017 at 9:39 am

    Kim, you are obviously convinced and passionate about space being mankind’s only salvation – which is all very well but to convince many people including myself you would have to answer the basic philosophical question: IS MANKIND WITH ALL ITS HUBRIS, GREED AND STUPIDITY WORTH SAVING? From an ecological viewpoint the answer is NO

  30. Stu

    November 26, 2017 at 9:10 am

    I’m thinking Kim is on a everlasting acid trip.

  31. Kim Peart

    November 26, 2017 at 12:05 am

    Re #41 ~ No. ~ Completely the opposite.

    In space there has to be recycling, from the atom up, because space has to be kept clean to be safe for human habitation.

    At present we mess the Earthly nest because we refused to fly when we could, duped into numb compliance by fossil fuel propaganda.

    The penny is beginning to drop that we have been duped into extinction, so the fossil fuel monopoly could extend their reign on profits.

    If we wake up and act on space as citizens, and succeed, we will gain direct access to the power of the Sun in space, with which we will be able to deal with all problems on Earth.

    When people know we are acting on space, and will deal with all terrestrial strife, there will be hope and determination on Earth to clean up the nest we have messed through getting fat and lazy on the sap of dead life.

    For instance, with factories in space we will be able to manufacture robots to clean up the oceans, from the micro plastics up.

    That will not happen on Earth, because of the cost.

    This is possible with space, because we will have the energy and raw materials to do any work, without cost to Earth.

    Be careful the words used are not repeating fossil fuel propaganda that would keep us hooked on the sap of death for our every dream.

  32. Wining Pom

    November 25, 2017 at 9:21 pm

    Kim, that’s a bit like saying our house is too messy to live in, let’s move to another. We should clean it up. But then, I know we won’t.

  33. Kim Peart

    November 25, 2017 at 7:53 pm

    Re: 38 ~ The future we work with in Tasmania needs to be global, because as #39 points out, we can expect an invasion of mainlanders that may triple Tassie’s population, and we won’t be able to say no.

    As the tropics get hotter, where will the many millions in Indonesia go seeking cool air, water and food? ~ They can hardly go north.

    I see a long-term working solution to all strife on Earth, by investing in serious space development. ~ We can mobilise in Tasmania to take full advantage of what must be a space revolution, if we are going to survive.

    As a nation we have left our run very late, but we are still able to swiftly lift our game as a serious space contender. ~ The environmental changes will happen quite rapidly, which is why we will need to move more rapidly in our response.

    There is no safe future in Tasmania. ~ Our only option is action as a nation that inspires a global push for space, which is what should have been happening in the 1970s.

    Why was the champion of a space future, John F. Kennedy, assassinated in 1963?

    Why was his brother, Bobby, who may have been a space champion through the 1970s, assassinated in 1968?

    I wonder if the prospect of the fossil fuel industry dibbing out to free energy from the Sun, harvested in space, had any role to play?

    It was as if the West nose-dived into fear, when it comes to space, after those two assassinations.

    We must find our nerve for space again, and rediscover our will to survive.

  34. Nicholas Gilbert

    November 25, 2017 at 6:30 pm

    Restricting immigration certainly assists with climate change because bringing people in from countries with low per caput emissions into Aust. with the highest global per capita emissions is sure going to add to net emissions. Besides ,this poor tired despoiled old continent really cannot support anymore additional humans.

    As to the sanctity of human life I agree with Tony we are deluded when this attitude threatens all planetary life. Imagine the dilemma of choosing between the last remaining population of highland gorilla or humanity. I would choose the former.

    Overpopulation has caused the massive disruption to the carbon cycle but other than some arbitrary depopulation which is impractical we are left with the only other alternative which is rapid decarbonisation of economies.This is not happening either so really we are cactus.

    Meanwhile in the short term get ready for hordes of climate refugees from the big island trying to escape the heat.

  35. Tony Stone

    November 25, 2017 at 4:36 pm

    Thought my post would get this sort of reaction, hoped it would’ve brought some positive viewpoints, rather than total dismissal. Which is an excellent indication of the state of human psychology.

    Not one thought so far, that there may be some truth in what I posted, just denial and attacks at anything outside the illusionary concepts of life, held by the vast majority of humans.

    We import all our transport, marine and air fuels, which is the most important fuel there is. We export almost all our gas and pay more for our own gas, than those overseas buying it retail. In just a few short years we will have exhausted the gas supply, then what do we do, no oil, no gas, no Australian defence or industry.

    However the majority couldn’t care less, all they think about is themselves, today and being politically correct as it is the craze of the bureaucratic clones and political brainless. So they stick with what they see as the sociological strength, when it is where the weakest point of society sits.

    Food, we export large amounts of food grains, but import most of our processed, packaged foods and seafoods. So we are exposed to fuel shortages, food shortages and energy shortages. Our governments have been complicit in bringing us to this point, yet we have the vast majority, supporting the status quo and denouncing anything different.

    As for border protection, we have the safest borders on the planet. If we stopped immigration, there would be no need to have huge numbers protecting our borders, just state of the art detection and rejection systems. Legal points of entry would have to be bolstered, but an increase in visa requirements to come here and technology to keep track of visitors so they don’t over stay would keep us safe and still allow for good tourism.

    Of course other countries would have problems as they have now, they have land borders and opened their borders to be invaded, pretty insane really. But when dealing with ideological political systems, insanity is the most prevalent mindset involved,

    Who cares what the rest of the planet does when they are all hell bent on destroying the future? I care about Tas first and Aus second.

    There is not one political party, potential, or actual politician who has put forward anything to address the looming problems we face now, not in 50 years. Every one of them have the same mantra, more of the same and nothing else.

    It’s more of the same that has brought us to this point, where our climate has passed the tipping point and it’s all down hill rapidly now. Where we are at now, was where the science predicted wouldn’t occur until after 2050 and probably not until after this century. We are less than 1/5 into this century and are beyond the climate change points expected 50, to 100 years ahead.

    Increasingly confused weather patterns and cycles, already. Yet not one thing has been done round the planet, other than increase destruction and emissions.

    What sort of logic do people live with, when these facts are so obvious and yet they still deny the reality. To make it even more bizarre, they denounce anyone who comes up with logical sane and workable solutions for Tas and Aus.

    #36 states, “I would prefer a more humane approach.”

    What’s the more humane approach, open borders, more misfits into the country, to fracture our society, diminish our meager resources and water supplies. More useless aid, which only increases the profit margins of certain multinational companies and does nothing for those effected by religious and ideological suppressive insanities.

    Yep, lets be humane and wipe everything out. It’s humans who are destroying the planet and all life, no other animal is involved.

    Yet everyone demands humane and humanitarian approaches to the future. Just doesn’t make any sense or logic at all, but I’m sure some will come up with much better ideas to stop the rot and turn things around.

    Why not call on the wonderful loving god behind all those in power, to come and save us all. Even that hilarious insanity is ample proof of how mentally deranged, deluded and psychologically sick the modern ideological human really is.

  36. Kim Peart

    November 25, 2017 at 2:45 pm

    Re: 30 & anyone interested … David Wallace-Wells found the climate scientists wondering about the Great Filter theory, and wrote about this in his article ~ The Uninhabitable Earth ~

    The Great Filter theory presents an explanation in Fermi’s Paradox as to why there is no sight or sound of an alien civilization, considering the 13.8 billion year age of our Universe, the up to 400 billion stars in the Milky Way, and the up to 2 trillion galaxies in the cosmos.

    If life is as common in the Universe as it is on Earth, then where is ET in such a very vast pallette of possibilities?

    The Great Filter theory suggests that there is an event in the history of a planet civilization that prevents them expanding into space.

    The only event that appears to fit the bill, is burning fossil fuel too much and too long, bringing on planet heating and dangerous levels of climate change that filters a planet civilization out of contention for a stellar presence.

    Examine our history on Earth, and it can be seen that we reached the ability to expand beyond Earth in the 1960s, and could have been developing a survival presence beyond Earth in the 1980s.

    All the plans had been worked out in the 1970s.

    By not acting on survival level action in space back then, we could now be a prime candidate to be Filterered out.

    If this can be viewed as a natural and evolutionary process, then we gained access to fossil fuel as a transition energy.

    To assure our survival and expansion among the stars, we needed to access the power of the Sun in space, where any work could be done and any dream created.

    In this simple way we could have kept a safe Earth, and sent poverty into history.

    Everything would change in space, with a whole new form of economy.

    I suspect the fossil fuel industries figured all this our in the 1960s, and set about convincing the world not to look at space.

    They were probably prepared to support space, if they could control the wealth.

    The time of corporate control of space wealth is now approaching, but the delay may mean that we will now contribute to the silence of the stars, by our own extinction.

    We may have two choices, if we wish to survive.

    We can wait to see if the corporations succeed and control the wealth of space for their profit, maintain the greed economy which requires poverty.

    Or, the citizens of this planet can awaken to the call of Nature and rise to the challenge of the stars, and work rapidly to secure our cosmic survival.

    If Earth is declared a crime scene for the killing of Mother Nature, the guilt may fall on those who blocked energy transition, those who should have known better, but fell for the carbon energy propaganda of a total focus on the Earth, and every citizen on Earth who failed to investigate what happens if we take the slow road on space to the beat of corporate greed.

    If current warnings are realised, there may be none to put the police ribbons around crime scene Earth.

    We can wait for the corporations to save us, but they may simply seek to save themselves, or will we wake up and act on space as a global citizen’s-driven campaign.

    Our survival as a species may now depend on what we decide to do next.

    We can begin by acknowledging our collective guilt in the killing of Mother Nature.

  37. Tim Thorne

    November 25, 2017 at 12:12 pm

    #32: For every country to stop migration would require transferring millions of people from useful productive employment into working as border guards. I guess this would hasten your “natural cull.”. I would prefer a more humane approach. And anyway it’s not going to happen in the real world.

    The best way to counter global population increase is to further education, especially of women.

  38. MjF

    November 25, 2017 at 11:59 am

    We import all our fuel ……

    Never heard of LNG exports from WA/NT/Qld or domestic gas production in NT/Qld/NSW/Vic/SA ?

    No, I guess not. It’s only a multi billion $ industry.

  39. Wining Pom

    November 25, 2017 at 12:51 am

    ‘Most of the PC mob are over educated women who make a point of claiming the men of this country are untrustworthy abusive animals.’

    Well, according to this rant, they could be right.

    And um, we export more food than we import.

  40. Stu

    November 24, 2017 at 8:57 pm

    Re #32 … Wow, can’t wait to see the response to that !

  41. Tony Stone

    November 24, 2017 at 5:22 pm

    #28 … “Restricting immigration does nothing to affect over-population.”

    Yes it does, if every country stopped immigration those countries with growing populations would be naturally culled. As it is they can’t support their populations, so the insane economic elites see bringing more people to Aus as the best way to grow their profit margins and bank balances.

    Religious ideologues see it as a way to spread their insane beliefs and encourage people, by force, to move to other countries, so their insanity can dominate over a period of time.

    (Comment challenged and deleted)

    Yet these treasonous fools encourage the importation of primitive ideologically cloned men to come here. Yet none of them has anything worthwhile to contribute other than insanity.

    The results are for all to see. Dramatically increasing crime, home invasions and gang assaults. Huge amounts of our money being given to these morons who end up never working, just destroying out culture and future.

    The worst destroyer of the future are the PC do gooders who encourage and demand we support those incapable of supporting themselves and too ignorant and ideologically enslaved to restrict their populations to what their country can provide. Our country can’t support any more than 10 million as it is, and we already import most of our food and all our fuel, and give everything we have away for peanuts.

    The two most evil words on the planet which are behind all the problems are humanitarianism and god. Together and separately they have contributed to the destruction of all other life, and to climate change and never-ending war and suppression.

    Until those to words become irrelevant things will only get worse and worse. We have a political system that not only encourages population growth, but rewards it, while the reality is we need the opposite – about 95% less humans for the planet to survive and rejuvenate to an evolving planet rather than now, a dying planet overrun by evil parasites, way past their evolutionary use-by date.

    Like lots of others, I didn’t work my arse off for decades so ideological scum can benefit. I worked for my family, society and country, not crazed god nutters and their deranged PC supporters.

  42. Keith Antonysen

    November 24, 2017 at 5:03 pm

    #26, Robin …

    Everybody is aware that there have been changes in climate over various epochs caused through volcanic action, shifts in Earths axis, and being hit by an asteroid. Those events have had an impact on greenhouse gas levels in the past. Paleoclimatologists have knowledge about levels of greenhouse gases in past epochs through researching, ice cores, pollen, coral etc.

    There have been a couple of fairly recent studies of the Barnes Ice Cap on Baffin Island which diverge away from denier opinion.

    But people, when they go through day to day living, create little CO2 in comparison to when fossil fuels are used. It is the wealthiest proportion of the population who create the most greenhouse gases.

    An interesting discussion at Bonn COP23 between Kevin Anderson and Hugh Hunt in relation to CO2 created by individuals began at about 11.30. Impoverished people who make up most of the world’s population do not create much CO2 compared to the wealthy.


  43. Keith Antonysen

    November 24, 2017 at 4:24 pm

    #27, Kim …

    Bill McKibbon from 350.org. has stated in relation to evidence firmly showing that fossil fuel companies have known for decades about the damage their products can create, have committed the crime of the epoch. It is the fossil fuel companies and the denier groups they fund that have committed such crimes. Politicians get pulled in through political donations and heavy lobbying; particularly the Republicans in the US. Some media outlets have also been spawning nonsense for decades.

    So Kim, I do believe that crimes have been committed; but it is unlikely that perpetrators will be imprisoned.

    A few years ago Eric Rignot and his team researched the breakdown of glaciers in Antarctica. At the time it was felt that it would take centuries for there to be huge levels of sea rise to occur, but that is now an optimistic proposition.

    Above was a mention of Eric Haulthaus, a 11.4 minute film explains what is happening to ice sheets and glaciers in Antarctica and Greenland through water undermining grounding lines. Scientists are now stating that glacial breakdown will happen far quicker than stated in the last IPCC Report.


    It gets back to an earlier quote:

    ”Elected officials may be busy arguing about whether global warming is real. But most scientists are having other arguments entirely – about whether danger is imminent or a few decades off; about whether our prospects are dire or merely grim.”

  44. max

    November 24, 2017 at 3:07 pm

    Global warming, climate change, call it what you like, it is here and it is not going to go away.

    How dumb are our politicians and others that they can not grasp the simple fact that renewables are the future, and any problems can be solved, and there are no alternatives.

    The sooner we bite the bullet the sooner we have a chance of any future.

  45. Tim Thorne

    November 24, 2017 at 2:59 pm

    #26 … Restricting immigration does nothing to affect over-population.

  46. Kim Peart

    November 24, 2017 at 2:35 pm

    Re: 23 & 25 ~ Should the Earth be declared a crime zone?

  47. Robin Charles Halton

    November 24, 2017 at 2:23 pm

    #13 Russell, are you not being a spoil sport!

    Cocooning oneself from the great Australian outdoors is both one of the challenges and pleasures of travel within the nation.

    WA certainly knows how to showcase its natural wonders and make them available for reasonable public access for responsible recreational activities and enjoyment.

    There is reasonable rules of flexibility of movement of vehicles, parking with good round about roads and for foot traffic, board walks and numerous recent developments for short stay camping areas.

    Great pity Tasmania has neither the enthusiastic initiatives nor political by taking into account its less than dependable weather which can affecting the quality of the experience for locals and tourists.

    #22,Keith recorded climate shifts have occured through the centuries throughout the globe, the current circumstances are more likely due to over population issues along with excessive lifestyles.

    Australia would be far better to restrict immigration especially for those swarming to the big cities and taper its population back altogether.

    I’m sure within a dry continent such as Australia with 24.75 Million people is as much as we can possibly sustain!

    Freeloading has to stop now.

  48. Simon Warriner

    November 24, 2017 at 1:59 pm

    re 17, Predicaments are interesting things. Damned if you do, and damned if you don’t.

    Coming at your question from another angle, Stu, what happens when we burn all the coal and the temperatures go up so far the resulting rains overwhelm the pumps that keep the open cast mine pits workable? What keeps the aircon units working then? And who would you say was responsible for the premature deaths of the elderly then?

    Either way, I suspect with the quality of leadership currently on offer we will be finding out soon enough.

  49. Kim Peart

    November 24, 2017 at 1:48 pm

    Re: 19 ~ I explored the prospect of terra-forming Venus in my TT article ~ Second Earth ~

    That article was in part written to demonstrate that, no matter how bad the situation gets on Earth, if we have the imagination and will to act, we can restore the health of the home planet, and allow evolution to resume the work of creating a new wave of diversity.

    The first step will be to secure a sustainable industrial presence in space.

    At present our survival is at total risk, because we are clinging to a planet nest, and messing it badly, as we get fat of the juice of dead life with our collective addiction to fossil fuel.

    I look at history and I see a propaganda campaign, like the tobacco moguls, selling a focus on the belly of the Earth for all dreams.

    I see that propganda campaign as so effective, that environmentalists are fooled into thinking they can save the Earth on Earth alone.

    The darker side of that unblinking focus, is a refusal to look at any alternative.

    The Earth should be declared a crime scene, for our crime of killing the Earth.

    We should judge and sentence ourselves, to heal the Earth: but first we must be able to survive.

    On Earth alone we are a doomed species.

    To survive we must invest in a sustainable industrial presence beyond Earth.

    That will get us direct access to the virtually unlimited power of the Sun, with which we can extract excess carbon from the air.

    That will enable us to build a sunshade in space, to cool the Earth as carbon is extracted.

    Going there will inspire the hope to act on Earth.

    Going there will generate the level of wealth with which we can send poverty into history.

    If we want to survive, if we want to save the Earth, we have to get serious about a future in space.

  50. Keith Antonysen

    November 24, 2017 at 12:11 pm

    #17, Stu …

    Emissions from coal kill and increases mosquito borne illnesses; apart from, increasing temperature.

    Storms that can be expected under usual circumstances are made stronger through climate change through oceans and atmosphere being warmer. More water vapour is carried in the atmosphere creating rain bombs.

    It is estimated that $330 billion in damages has occurred in the US in a comparatively short period through storms and wildfires in 2017. Since June 2017 till now, U tube has provided 40+ films about catastrophic events that have occurred around Earth showing drought, fire storms, hurricane/typhoon damage, and flooding. As with the media generally there is no follow up on the plight people are left in after catastrophic events.

    Fossil fuels have a great bearing on changing the atmosphere and warming oceans. Rather than tackle the symptoms of climate change the cause needs to be dealt with.

    A review on a new book states:

    ” Elected officials may be busy arguing about whether global warming is real. But most scientists are having other arguments entirely – about whether danger is imminent or a few decades off; about whether our prospects are dire or merely grim.”

    Miami already experiences regular flooding when there are king tides and no precipitation has occurred.

    On climate change believe politicians at your own peril.


    Eric Haulthaus has just written about ice being lost from Pine Island Bay through the breakdown of glaciers. Also, much concern has been expressed in relation to the rapidity of melting of ice of Greenland.

    Clive Hamilton stated he went to a Conference at Oxford in 2009 The Conference was about the possibility of reaching 4C above pre-INDUSTRIAL temperature. Hamilton stated that when asked, 70 to 80% of the scientists in attendance believed that 4C would happen.

    Already in 1992 at COP 17 Rio de Janeiro, we were warned about needing to act in relation to climate change. The costs of damage accrued, and costs of adapting and mitigating have increased by huge amounts.

    A recent report shows how Australia is at the tail end of efforts to constructively create policies to act against climate change. Countries generally are not doing enough and a ‘business as usual’ paradigm is still operating which equals death to numerous people.

  51. Tim Thorne

    November 24, 2017 at 10:36 am

    Answer to #17’s question: those who refuse to do anything to stop global climate disruption, including those who promote the mining and burning of coal.

  52. Gordon Bradbury

    November 24, 2017 at 10:35 am

    A Dead Planet is the face of things to come. The planet Venus will soon start to look like a viable option for the human race.

  53. Russell

    November 24, 2017 at 9:48 am

    Re #15
    The WA sun has cooked … your brain.

    Hazelwood, Liddell etc have or are being closed by their owners because they are antiquated inefficient and uneconomic dinosaurs.

    They haven’t been replaced for the same economic reasons.

    Renewables are base load, you’re just not … to accept change or do something about it.

    Talk to someone with solar panels on their roof about their energy bill.

    Ever heard of Thorium reactors?


  54. Wining Pom

    November 24, 2017 at 1:59 am

    ‘Sorry mate but without coal we are in trouble’

    Couldn’t agree with you more. Because when all the coal is burnt, we’ll be gone.

  55. Stu

    November 23, 2017 at 10:59 pm

    If there’s a significant heat wave in SE Aust during summer, power doesn’t meet demand and wide scale blackouts occur, who is to blame if there is a significant spike in the number of heat related deaths amongst the elderly?

  56. Tim Thorne

    November 23, 2017 at 10:28 pm

    #15 … with coal we are in worse trouble.

  57. Robin Charles Halton

    November 23, 2017 at 7:35 pm

    #24 Wining Pom, “state of the art coal fired power stations”, in preference to diesel generators and 1 hour battery packs as SA and Vic have planned to support their failing electricity systems.

    The nation is losing out on reliability each time a coal fired power station is shut down as there are not sufficient effective base load units coming on stream to replace the older coal fired stations.

    The nation is caught out by the poor politics of selling our electricity producing generators to private enterprise.

    The nation is in trouble over electricity generation capacity and methods, there is no question about that.

    In fact Renewables should be treated for supplementary supply when reliable base load generation is what the nation requires.

    Sorry mate but without coal we are in trouble as no one is interested ” so far” to bring on nuclear power as a cleaner alternative!

  58. Wining Pom

    November 23, 2017 at 5:00 pm

    ‘state of the art coal fired power station.’

    Trouble is, a state of the art coal fired power station will still wreck human life.

    How about a ‘state of the art Maccas’?

    State of the art cigarettes.

    State of the art sugar.

    Coal is in that category.

  59. Russell

    November 23, 2017 at 10:14 am

    Re #10
    You’re not. …

    Re #11
    Skin cancer melanomas are not good for your health. Ignorance is bliss.

    I doubt you would survive WA’s constant heatwaves.

    WA (via Bunnings) also stripped its forests bare years ago, maybe that’s the attraction to you?

    If you like it so much, move there.


  60. Robin Charles Halton

    November 23, 2017 at 9:45 am

    Premiers of SA and Vic have the answers to projected summer power spikes!

    Hundreds of millions of taxpayer funded monies have been invested by importing diesel generators for producing dirty energy.

    The fools in SA have allowed the ruination of their energy sector by depending on wind power the lesson is now a hard and expensive road ahead as 40% Renewables with loss of two coal fires power stations is an ongoing disaster.

    The closure of Hazlewood in Vic is a life blow with up to 25% of its electricity now having to be replaced by dirty diesal generation.

    The Liberals and One Nation in Qld are going to the polls this weekend by offering the initiative to construct a badly needed state of the art coal fired power station.
    I hope that they can win and share government on the basis they are prepared to combat the nations looming enery crisis!

  61. Robin Charles Halton

    November 23, 2017 at 12:24 am

    The wife and I bought the hot weather back with us from a recent month’s trip round SW WA.
    The highlight was the lifestyle around the greater Geographe Bay Region from Cape Naturaliste, Meelup, Dunsborough, Busselton to Mandurah in particular!

    Virtually every day at the beach for a dip of a life time, excellent facilities for the public provided by local councils and Parks WA for the public, free from crocs and the crippling high RH%’s, crocs and stingers.

    We got a tan without sunburn now we are enjoying a daily swim at Sandy Bay, the water temp is a bit cooler than WA but it is most enjoyable to be out of doors as our holiday continues back at home.

    Warm weather is good for your health, manage it and enjoy it while its lasts, Knowing tassie it probably wont!

    Mate, if Tas had WA’s weather it would be paradise 24/7/365.

    Best mainland trip during our life time so far, Waggers do it better in many ways than Tassie they offer better freedoms of access to wonderful natural places.

    Having extended reliable warmer weather is the added bonus for getting around, something that Tassie lacks.

  62. TGC

    November 22, 2017 at 11:00 pm

    Fortunately #7 … Tasmanians are doing their bit (lot) to counteract global warming – aren’t we?

  63. Philip Lowe

    November 22, 2017 at 10:13 pm

    And on a note of optimism, are we assuming that Nutgrove Beach will still be there in 2050?

  64. Philip Lowe

    November 22, 2017 at 9:10 pm

    It is linked to overpopulation.I have just watched an early morning shower of sleet and hail.Enjoy your heat wave.

  65. Russell

    November 22, 2017 at 7:01 pm

    So much for (eventually maybe) ‘doing something by 2050’ targets.

    The planet burns while the world’s gutless wonders like Turnbull fiddle.

  66. Tony Stone

    November 22, 2017 at 5:16 pm

    Global warming will only be stopped when more than 90% of the human population is removed, otherwise the only outcome will be the complete death of most of the life on this planet.

    This will all come about before 2031 and the culling will really start by 2020. Let’s hope it is a natural disaster, otherwise it will be a nuclear one and that would mean, virtually no one will survive a nuclear war for very long afterwards.

  67. Wining Pom

    November 22, 2017 at 4:39 pm

    Tim Flannery has said that it should be treated as a war, total concentration on defeating it. He’s hopeful that a decade could fix it.

    I don’t see any leaders around the world willing to chip into that. They’re too concentrated on voters who react to the latest puppet show which they are adept at presenting.

  68. Brenda Rosser

    November 22, 2017 at 4:24 pm

    Ted Mead is presenting an optimistic assessment of our current trajectory. However no one knows exactly what we can do about this problem until we do it.

  69. TGC

    November 22, 2017 at 1:26 pm

    It is highly unlikely much will be done to reverse-even halt- these temperature increases- allowing they may be ‘fact’- and those doing least are generally those most alarmed by the prospects.
    Must be about time to assemble another international conference on the subject

  70. john hayward

    November 22, 2017 at 12:22 pm

    Face it, Ted. Avarice fuelled self delusion will allow us to sail over the sixth extinction. Take it from Tassie’s incomparable forest scientists.

    John Hayward

  71. Kim Peart

    November 22, 2017 at 10:05 am

    “changes to the way we will address global warming” begin with each individual citizen, understanding the problem, getting an understanding of a working solution, and demanding action.

    I am disappointed to see that this article is offering no solutions to the problem of our age, and the apocalypse we are lumbering onto future generations.

    An article on a problem without a solution is at risk of trumpeting hot air.

    Problem denial is not the problem, because the problem of global heating will demand attention all by itself.

    Solution denial is the brick wall we face.

    Guy McPherson, emeritus professor of natural resources and the environment at the University of Arizona, has examined the peer-reviewed facts and concluded that we are doomed to extinction by around 2030. ~

    See the carbon section in my recent TT article, Vision Drum, for a simple maths evaluation of the carbon problem, and wonder if McPherson is right.

    Then there is the Great Filter theory included in David Wallace-Wells article, An Uninhabitable Earth, which seeks to explain Fermi’s Paradox, as to why we have not seen or heard any alien civilization in a 13.8 billion year old universe with up to 2 trillion galaxies and as many as 4 billion stars in the Milky Way.

    I look at that, and see that an extinction event would need to be in our very near future, before we are able to secure a sustainable presence beyond Earth.

    If that Great Filter event is the result of burning tool much fossil fuel for too long, I see an event that was totally avoidable, if we had started serious space development in the 1970s, built solar power stations in space, and orbital habitats for life.

    It was possible, it was expensive, but now we risk losing the lot in a nasty heat death, which may be rounded off with nuclear madness.

    The medicine we avoided in the 1970s, is the medicine we need to take now.

    Follow the trail of the medicine, and there is a way to heal our own stupidity, fix our solution denial, and win back a safe Earth.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top