New Leigh Creek line traffic?

 
  AN830 Locomotive Driver

Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Would be great but, sadly, how often have we seen projects of this nature come to nothing?
The logistics alone must be horrendous especially over a railway with no other traffic to contribute to track maintenance.

The railway is ARTC maintained and ARTC have published a price book for access.  That is all the operator would need to pay.
If you are referring to the Leigh Creek line, it is owned by Alinta and land owned by the Minister for Transport, not ARTC. Because it is a private line, it is also not covered by ESCOSA's third party Rail Access Regime.
simont141

The Leigh Creek Line will at some stage in the future will be handed back to the State Government, that is likely to occur in 2018 when the township of Leigh Creek is handed back to the State Government.

Sponsored advertisement

  Bogong Chief Commissioner

Location: Essendon Aerodrome circa 1980
^^^ I have to comment on your points Bogong.

Interesting that you are declaring (although I note the "apparently" qualifier), as I have heard, that Australia IS the biggest per capita producer of CO2. How does this stack up against the Wikipedia list quoted earlier? Is the Wikipedia article to be trusted? Are your sources also my sources about Australia's position? So who is providing the information of quality?  ...
3l diesel
No worries 3l. I happen to live in a pleasant and wealthy (except for me) suburb in the inner north of Melbourne which is very Green (note the capital 'G'), where people tend to have very firm views and will not tolerate those who question them.

Therefore I was just going along with the "received wisdom" in my part of the world by stating that Australia apparently has one of the highest per capita outputs of CO2. Even including the qualifier 'apparently', is a tiny act of rebellion on my part.

Wikipedia is notoriously unreliable, but so is the general chatter we hear from friends and even the media. These days many people have an "agenda" and those people will select the facts (or even make facts up) to suit the agenda they are pushing.

. . --oo0oo-- . .

But generally I reckon there is something in the CO2 emissions causing warming concept and while I suspect it's effects have been exaggerated by those pushing agendas, I still think we should reduce CO2 emissions a fair bit, but not to the extent of closing down most farms, mines and factories like the inner city trendies would like to do. I guess they don't know people who work in those fields, so they don't care about the dislocation that would occur in the country and less fashionable postcodes in the cities.
  SAR523 Assistant Commissioner

Location: Chicago, IL
Interesting that you are declaring (although I note the "apparently" qualifier), as I have heard, that Australia IS the biggest per capita producer of CO2. How does this stack up against the Wikipedia list quoted earlier? Is the Wikipedia article to be trusted? Are your sources also my sources about Australia's position? So who is providing the information of quality?

3l diesel

Clearly Australia is not the absolute largest per capita producer of CO2 as the link shows, but it's hardly in a position to be crowing about.

When the higher per-capita producers are places where essentially no-one lives (Falkland Islands & Netherland Antilles anyone?), some alarm bells should be going off as to the use of that list other than in absolutist terms.

I'm not reading much from Australia these days, but the claim that I'm familiar with is that of the top 20 CO2 producers  (e.g. those that you might actually care about from a global standpoint, which excludes basically everyone above Oz in the wiki list) Australia *is* the highest per capita (here's data from 2011, http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html#.V0pFBuTp-iI).  The conditional of 'of the top producers' might be betting dropped which is lazy but doesn't change the basic point.

I can't be bothered adding up the actual production of everyone above Australia on the linked wiki list, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's pretty insignificant.

Now the US isn't far behind Australia in that 2011 emissions data, but it accounts for some 16% of global economic output (which is pretty close to it's % of global emissions).  China's % of global GDP is actually a multiple of its % of global emissions (16% to 6-7%).   Australia on the other hand contributes about 1% to global GDP for it's 18% of global emissions which appears problematic, to say the least.  Again I didn't do the math, but eyeballing those two charts doesn't have anyone else even coming close by that ratio.

So while Australia isn't, literally, the leading CO2 producer per capita, I don't know why I'd bother quibbling over that compared the other metrics I've listed above.
  SAR523 Assistant Commissioner

Location: Chicago, IL


CO2 is a gas in high concentrations that is a problem, if it was emitted as just carbon there would be no issue and we could burn it again, ie coal. Thing there are other sources and the world was hotter 1000 years ago, the original inhabitants of Greenland lived on northern coast line, the vikings died out because of global cooling freezing their fields around 1500 AD, the mini cooling period of the early half of the 20th century had people living in fear of a ice age.
RTT_Rules

Hi RTT.  I'm not familiar with any data that shows that the *world* was hotter 1000 years ago.  I am familiar with the data from proxy records that it was probably warmer in parts of the world 1000 years ago (what is called the Medieval Warming Period, or MWP) but that global data (of about the same reliability) shows that the world was most probably a little cooler at the same time.  Similarly the data we have doesn't necessarily show a global cooling in the 'Little Ice Age' (which spans 1500), as we don't have good data to correlate this globally - a key one being that glacial advance at the time does not appear uniform which tends to indicate that it was a regional rather than global phenomenon.   This compares to today where glacial retreat is occurring in both hemispheres, which appears to differ from the normal historic cycle of counter advance and retreat between the two hemispheres previously.

Are we talking about the same thing?  The data for the MWP is after all, being from the 60s, not new and was discussed at length in the first IPCC meeting in 1990.  So given this, it doesn't appear to undermine or disprove the role of CO2 emissions in the AGW theory to a lot of people who have looked at it.
  Gayspie Assistant Commissioner

Location: Adelaide, SA
Hopefully a much-needed boost for jobs in SA.
greasyrhys
For once, a constructive post from Greasyrhys! Very Happy

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.