1. I refuse to believe that trees planted will not soak up carbon dioxide as they grow. I thought the issue was that in 50 years they will burn down, releasing some of that carbon, so trees are more of a short-term solution.
2. Obviously, renewable energy is carbon positive, although some will be used in construction. Of course they are in remote areas but hey, the nearest power station to here is Snowy Mountain Hydro at Jindabyne, about 200 km away. Most of the electricity comes from the coal stations in the Hunter Valley, about 400 km away. When I lived in Melbourne, 85% of the electricity came from the Latrobe Valley, about 120 km away, where there was a mine with over 4,000 years' supply of brown coal. There are indeed transmission costs but they are easily offset by the benefits of location.
FWIW, at one point I was studying a proposed project at Ford for building ZEVs in Australia. There was fear that they would just move the pollution to the Latrobe Vally but it turned out that the amount of carbon (and indeed pollutants) was much less due to the efficiency of the single, humungous plant, even though it was burning brown coal, about the dirtiest fuel there is. (The project did not go through. Had been carbon trading, it might well have.)
3. A number of guys at work have looked at replacing their hot water heating with solar but the economics are that it pays for itself in 30 years. A carbon-trading scheme is required to make it worthwhile. I thank the ACT government for the free light bulbs, btw. The ethic here was always to turn off lights to save electricity, even at the cost of bulbs, so I doubt if anyone is changing their habits, since switching no longer costs bulbs.
no subject
2. Obviously, renewable energy is carbon positive, although some will be used in construction. Of course they are in remote areas but hey, the nearest power station to here is Snowy Mountain Hydro at Jindabyne, about 200 km away. Most of the electricity comes from the coal stations in the Hunter Valley, about 400 km away. When I lived in Melbourne, 85% of the electricity came from the Latrobe Valley, about 120 km away, where there was a mine with over 4,000 years' supply of brown coal. There are indeed transmission costs but they are easily offset by the benefits of location.
FWIW, at one point I was studying a proposed project at Ford for building ZEVs in Australia. There was fear that they would just move the pollution to the Latrobe Vally but it turned out that the amount of carbon (and indeed pollutants) was much less due to the efficiency of the single, humungous plant, even though it was burning brown coal, about the dirtiest fuel there is. (The project did not go through. Had been carbon trading, it might well have.)
3. A number of guys at work have looked at replacing their hot water heating with solar but the economics are that it pays for itself in 30 years. A carbon-trading scheme is required to make it worthwhile. I thank the ACT government for the free light bulbs, btw. The ethic here was always to turn off lights to save electricity, even at the cost of bulbs, so I doubt if anyone is changing their habits, since switching no longer costs bulbs.