Energy-without-carbon.org's co-author, the late John Davis, would have wanted us to spread the message of this film.
Climate Champion Award & Film Screening 'Coal - is it worth it?'
When: 5 April at 18:00–21:00
Where: The Theatrette, Parliament of NSW, 6 Macquarie Street, Sydney, Australia 2000
Tickets: $40 use the facebook link below.
This website is for the logical.
The science is settled: man-made CO2 is warming the planet.
Logical conclusion? We should prevent this.
If you can't face this, you may prefer to go to another website.
On this website we are collecting technology to fix the problem.
The problem with our climate
If the CO2 level reaches 450 ppm we have two serious problems:
Many climate scientists say we should go back to 350 ppm. (350.org)
The CO2 in 2014 is 400 ppm. If we continue at the present rate, allowing for half to be taken up by oceans and forests, we have 30 years! The fossil fuel industries have more money and louder voices than those who are logical, so are winning the hearts and minds. We are witnessing self destructive madness. All we can do is protest and be ready with solutions to the problems.
A clean energy future is possible
The fossil fuel industry is waging a strong denial campaign that is very successful.
If a government owns the coal industry then the problem is worsened. Subsidies could be removed and simple regulations could make huge changes for little cost. A price on carbon, a 20c/kWh feed in tariff for rooftop solar, and a time of day charging system would be a very effective start, and would cost very little.
International Energy Agency IEA view
“When will governments wake up to the dangers of complacency and adopt the bold policies that radically transform our energy system?” IEA executive director Maria van der Hoeven said. “Let me be straight. Our ongoing failure to realise the full potential of clean energy technology is alarming.”
The IEA says the transformation of the energy grid to meet the “2°C scenarios” which could give the world the best chance of avoiding dangerous climate change would be costly.
But by 2025, the investment would have paid itself back, and by 2050 would have delivered three times the extra investment required in savings.
If you would like to become involved in researching or writing etc on this website, please contact David at:
Temperature readings from NASA