So you accept that fossil fuel emissions are the major contributor to the current warming trend, but think it laughable that reducing them will have an impact?
He is standing up for the battlers and disadvantaged who cannot afford the price increases of moving to renewable energy sources.
He doesnât believe action taken by Australia will change anything, other than disadvantage workers, so it is not worth it.
He is sceptical of climate change impacts based on some previous predictions that may not have have been realised.
And he dislikes you soy latte inner city greenie jerks.
All the above have been rebutted, ad nauseum, by numerous posters citing peer review studies and articles.
2 Likes
I am afraid that ammonia (NH3) is produced from natural gas (CH4). The missing carbon molecules are vented as carbon dioxideâŚso Iâm afraid this isnât an environmentally friendly solution.
1 Like
If everyone went for solar powered Air Con, we wouldnât have any power issues.
This is very cool, ⌠you donât have to pardon the pun.
It hasnât had an impact except to make power more expensive and unreliable.
More expensive and more unreliable ?
This question does not have anything to do with climate change which most agree has been influenced by burning of fossil fuels and the creation of more and more carbon dioxide.
The cost of power to the consumer has been driven over the past 20 years or so by the privatization of power generation and distribution and the need for a profit and return on investment to shareholders. It has little to do with the mode of production. It is also true that most of the coal powered generators are aging and need significant investment to renew or refurbish, and the capital cost is much more than wind or solar. EssTrip is correct is his sincere concern for power supply to be affordable to all, hence Federal Government could nationalise all power production and control prices, or offer better subsidy to all of us to create our own personal power solutions with solar and wind and battery backup.
If there was a real plan from all Governments then reliability of supply would not be an issue. And it should never be about politics, it should be driven by the need to protect our environment and the economic safety of all people.
2 Likes
Hang on, I just re read this are you saying there is no evidence that stopping coal fired power plants makes no difference to climate change?
When I post an article itâs more for the science that we donât hear about going on in the background. We hear the major players (coal, gas, nuclear, wind, hydro and solar) but sometimes the smaller stuff falls through the gap. The article itself says itâs a step.
Iâll follow up that one with this one too and creation NH3 is also being researched to happen carbon neutral.
If iâm sounding a bit preachy I apologise as thatâs not my intention.
Water and air are all you need to make ammoniaâone of worldâs most important chemicals
August 8, 2014 by Jake Jacobs, The Conversation
Water and air are all you need to make one of worldâs most important chemicals
Greener fertilisers are coming your way. Credit: James T M Towill, CC BY-SA
Researchers have developed a method to produce ammonia simply from air and water. Not only is it more energy efficient than the century-old Haber-Bosch process currently in use all over the world, but it is also greener.
Ammonia â made up of three parts hydrogen and one part nitrogen (or NH3) â has had a momentous impact on society.
Without the mass production of this chemical, it is estimated that as many as a third of us wonât be alive. This is because its main use is to make fertilisers, which have helped improve crop yields and sustain a large population.
Developed in 1909, the Haber-Bosch process â often cited as the most important invention of the 20th century â involves heating purified nitrogen and hydrogen gas at very high temperature and pressure in presence of an iron catalyst. The presence of the catalyst, which doesnât take part in the reaction but lowers the energy threshold of the reaction, is vital. Despite which, ammoniaâs production â about 140m tons in 2012 â consumes nearly 2% of the worldâs energy supply.
Apart from large energy requirements to achieve reaction conditions, the current production method is inefficient because it needs hydrogen gas, which is obtained by processing natural gas. The byproduct of the process is carbon dioxide. Stuart Licht and his colleagues at the George Washington University thought they could do better if they could find a way of using water instead of natural gas as a source of hydrogen.
Previous attempts at combining water (made up of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen) with air (which consists of 78% nitrogen) to form ammonia have been less successful. Lichtâs solution was to bubble wet air through a mixture of tiny particles of iron oxide and molten chemicals (made up of sodium and potassium hyroxide) that is zapped with electricity.
Any chemical reaction is basically the exchange of electrons between atoms. In this case, those electrons are necessary to tease out the hydrogen from water and then combine with nitrogen. âWhen electricity is applied, the iron oxide captures electrons to permit water and air to directly react to form ammonia,â Licht said.
This method claims to use only two-thirds of the energy of the Haber-Bosch process. Along with the elimination of the need to produce hydrogen from natural gas, the overall emissions are reduced quite significantly. The whole process also takes place at milder conditions, not requiring 450°C and 200 times atmospheric pressure as the Haber-Bosch process does.
These are not all that make Lichtâs method attractive. Some of the energy is sourced through another technology Licht has developed called solar thermal electrochemical production, or STEP. It is considered to be one of the most efficient solar cells currently in use. STEP when applied to making ammonia leads to production of hydrogen as a byproduct.
This byproduct would be suitable for hydrogen fuel cells, another popular avenue for clean-energy enthusiasts, according to David Fermin, professor of electrochemistry at the University of Bristol. âHydrogen generated in this manner is significantly cleaner,â he said.
However, it is one thing to show off the success of chemical production in labs and quite another to replicate it on an industrial scale. Licht admits that there is room for improvement but he is confident that it could work. Fermin has a caveat to add, âBefore going for full scale up, a better understanding of the mechanism in this complex multi-electron transfer reaction will be required.â
But even with Lichtâs method, Fermin points out that we are far away from being able to replicate natureâs efficiency at converting nitrogen from the air to useful chemicals, which is done by nitrogen-fixing bacteria. âWhat is truly remarkable is that nature does it incredibly efficiently at low-temperature,â Fermin added.
And yet, if something more efficient can replace the Haber-Bosch process, it would lower the energy input of the production of one of the worlds most important chemicals and lead to a notable reduction in global CO2 emissions.
Explore further: Scientists discover channel used by catalyst to produce ammonia, vital for food and fuel crops
More information: âAmmonia synthesis by N2 and steam electrolysis in molten hydroxide suspensions of nanoscale Fe2O3,â by S. Licht et al. Science, www.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1254234
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2014-08-air-ammoniaone-world-important-chemicals.html#jCp
Correct.
Makes little to no difference at all.
Sorry, let me correct that. It makes people feel like they are making a difference.
Can you supply me with evidence that supports that?
You are continuing to keep your head in the sand to suggest that ârenewablesâ have not had a significant impact on both the reliability and cost of power. No disputing that privatisation has increased it as well though.
Guess what. Adding a âsubsidyâ (otherwise known as a tax or âpriceâ if your name is your friend Julia) increases costs either with power or wherever else it is hidden.
Economic safety? I get that you believe that we are causing the temperature fluctuations that have otherwise been happening for millions of years. However to suggest that itâs creating economic safety is ludicrous. Itâs doing the opposite by increasing costs when compared to other countries not hijacked by warmists.
It is totally illogical to accept the scientific evidence that fossil fuel emissions are the major cause of CC, but reject that reducing emissions will have a beneficial effect.
You canât have it both ways - either you accept the causal evidence & the benefit of reducing emissions, or you reject it.
So if you believe emission reductions are unnecessary, provide your evidence that FF emissions are not the major cause of the warming trend.
The mandatory renewable energy target was introduced by the clearly Communist double act of John Howard and Peter Costello all the way back in 2001.
Iâve posted below John Howardâs speech on climate change and energy policy from 20 years ago, itâs pretty illuminating how the discussion has changed since then. Also pretty clear to me that one side has completely abandoned the sensible centre on the issue. Some good bits highlighted.
20 November 1997
Since its election the Government has addressed the critical issue of global warming in a way that effectively promotes Australiaâs national interests.
Those interests lie both in protecting Australian jobs and Australian industry whilst ensuring that Australia plays her part in the world wide effort needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
From the start, we have made it plain that Australia would not accept an unfair share of the burden. We have rejected and will continue to reject mandatory uniform targets which advantage many developed countries to the distinct disadvantage of countries such as Australia.
We have also made it plain that we are not prepared to see Australian jobs sacrificed and efficient Australian industries, particularly in the resources sector, robbed of their hard-earned, competitive advantage.
Moreover, we have persistently stressed the need to involve developing countries as their participation is crucial to any lasting solution to the global warming problem.
These principles have guided our approach.
There is now clear evidence that Australiaâs campaign for equity and realism has won wider support and so, far from our country being isolated on the issue, there is growing international support for the view that the approach of, say, the European Union is both unfair and unachievable.
We have an obligation to defend and protect Australian interests, Australian jobs and Australian industry. We also owe it to future generations of Australians to play an effective role in the global reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
The Governmentâs approach to development and the environment has been balanced and far sighted.
That approach is reflected in the $1.25 billion Natural Heritage Trust. The Trust promotes practical ways to rejuvenate the land, rivers and oceans and is the most profound commitment of any government to the environment.
The same balanced approach is behind our Regional Forests Agreements where the practical commitment to equally boost jobs and protect forests has resulted in 409,000 hectares of additional reserves through the two agreements signed so far.
That balance is also reflected in the protection and management of our seas and oceans through the development of a national oceans policy. This will build on the $106 million already provided through the Natural Heritage Trust for restoring the ocean environment.
This same consistent balanced and far-sighted approach has been applied to the greenhouse gas challenge.
Today I announce the largest and most far-reaching package of measures to address climate change ever undertaken by any government in Australia.
The package carefully preserves a unique environment and lifestyle for our childrenâs sake, defends wealth creating efficient industries and promotes lasting employment into the future. It provides a durable framework to promote Australiaâs national interest towards the year 2010 and beyond.
In a comprehensive manner, it replaces and far exceeds the random, disjointed projects of the previous government.
The worldâs climate scientists have provided us with a clear message - that the balance of evidence suggests humans are having a discernible influence on global climate.
What is required is sober, sensible but forward-looking action to reduce greenhouse gases and this is the approach my Government will adopt.
Although Australia contributes only 1.4 per cent of the worldâs greenhouse gas emissions we want to play our part in meeting this challenge. But pulling our weight doesnât mean carrying more than our share of the burden. Only with all countries working together, carrying equitable burdens, can we achieve an effective global outcome.
This will require creativity, persistence and in some instances, sacrifices - but the benefits of preserving our environment and quality of life for the sake of our children are too important to forgo.
PLAYING OUR PART - NEW DOMESTIC GREENHOUSE MEASURES
For various reasons Australia is unique.
Our economy has evolved on the basis of our abundant supply of natural resources and efficient production and processing of fossil fuels and mineral resources. Fossil fuels currently provide 94 per cent of our energy needs - far more than other OECD countries.
Our population is expected to grow by 30 per cent from 1990 to 2020 compared to less than three per cent in Europe.
We will continue to experience stronger economic and employment growth than most OECD countries.
Our cities are decentralised and widely separated, resulting in high transport use per capita compared to the smaller, closely populated European Union countries.
Our trade profile means that about 20 per cent of our greenhouse gas emissions are embodied in our exports (notably aluminium and agricultural products) - double the OECD average and the highest in the industrialised word.
Our emissions profile is also unique amongst developed countries where the energy sector accounts for about half of our emissions, compared with an average of 80 per cent for OECD countries; and where land use and forestry account for around 20 per cent of Australiaâs emissions. This reflects the significance of agriculture to our economy.
In addition, Australia has a responsibility to export the resources necessary to fuel the growth of her regional partners and to provide the food required for their people.
For all of these reasons our emissions are projected to grow faster than other countries. Uniform target proposals that do not take these circumstances into account will place an unfair penalty on Australia.
Reducing emissions growth is therefore particularly challenging and is more costly for us than for most other industrial countries. But we are still committed to playing our part in cutting emissions.
Without further action, Australiaâs emissions are expected to grow by around 28 per cent from 1990 to 2010. This is based on a comprehensive approach excluding land use change. Emissions from the energy sector alone are expected to grow by around 40 per cent.
The package I announce today will achieve a dramatic reduction of a third in our expected net emissions growth from 1990 to 2010.
These measures will reduce our net emissions growth from 28 to 18 per cent in that period, or some 39 million tonnes of emissions. This is comparable to the emissions from all the electricity used by households right across Australia.
This is a realistic, even conservative, calculation of the emission benefits. The benefits from plantations and land use changes, for example, could well be greater than we have estimated. With the most effective implementation of the package, the full support of industry and the community, and the best contribution of the States and Territories we may well achieve even greater reductions.
Taken with greenhouse measures Australia already has in place the package will mean Australiaâs effort broadly compares on the same basis to what the United States and the European Union are proposing. Moreover, we are not waiting for others to act.
None of us should underestimate the commitment required to achieve these outcomes. They will require hard work from all of us. The package gives the lie to those who make exaggerated but ultimately empty claims that fine sounding targets can easily be achieved.
The measures have been developed against the background of our national circumstances and our national interest. They also have been developed against achievements by Australia to date such as reform of our electricity and gas markets, halving the amount of waste going into landfill by the year 2000 compared to 1990 levels and the efforts of particular industries such as the aluminium industry which will reduce emissions by more than 20 per cent over the same period.
The Government is seeking realistic, cost effective reductions in key sectors where emissions are high or growing strongly while also fairly spreading the burden of action across our economy.
The package will allow us to improve the performance of our highly competitive energy dependent sectors while also stimulating new sectors such as renewable energy. It will demonstrate we can improve the environment whilst generating new jobs and exports. Far from risking 90,000 potential jobs, as would be the case if we accepted some proposals, the measures I announce have the potential to create wealth and jobs.
They address emissions across many sectors - residential, industry, transport, energy, agriculture, forestry and government operations - in an integrated, effective, and above all, fair way.
We are prepared to ask industry to do more than they may otherwise be prepared to do, that is, to go beyond a âno regretsâ, minimal cost approach where this is sensible in order to achieve effective and meaningful outcomes.
The Government is providing $180 million over five years for these measures. This is a significant sum by any standards and a substantial increase in funding. This package far exceeds the efforts by previous governments on addressing the greenhouse problem.
Most of this expenditure will be spent on completely new measures, while some existing programs will be substantially expanded.
Importantly, the level of Commonwealth expenditure does not represent the whole story. These initiatives will stimulate additional actions and investment by the States and Territories, industry, and in some cases, consumers.
Our measures build on those in the draft National Greenhouse Strategy. State and Territory leaders have indicated their support for our greenhouse response and have agreed to work with us co-operatively in implementing it and in considering further action of their own.
Let me outline the specific measures.
Renewable Energy
Renewable forms of energy currently contribute about six per cent to Australiaâs total energy needs, an amount comparable to the OECD average of 6.4 per cent. The Government will be committing $65 million to ensure this level is increased.
By contributing $21 million, we will create a specialist renewable energy innovation investment fund to provide government and private sector venture capital for companies with high growth potential.
So that we can capitalise on our skills we will provide a $30 million loans and grants programme for the development and commercialisation of the renewable energy industry. This will directly support the creation of new businesses, jobs and exports. This funding represents a huge increase on the $4.8 million over four years spent by the previous government on the Renewable Energy Industry Programme.
And we will also provide $10 million for some leading edge renewable energy âshowcaseâ projects in areas such as tidal power solar thermal power and photovoltaic technologies.
The Government will work with the States and Territories to set a mandatory target for electricity retailers to source an additional two per cent of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2010. This will accelerate the uptake of renewable energy in grid-based electricity and provide a larger base for the development of commercially competitive renewable energy.
This enormous boost to renewable energy development is a huge improvement on programmes such as the Energy Research and Development Corporation which had been overtaken by changes in the energy sector.
Our new programmes will stimulate innovative technologies and wealth-creating businesses and energy suppliers who provide power to communities, employ Australians and export to the world. It is an action-oriented approach.
Energy Market Reform
The possibilities for fuel substitution and innovation will be enhanced as we continue and accelerate the process of energy market reform.
We will work with the States and industry to develop and implement by the year 2000, efficiency standards for fossil fuel electricity generation, including for brown and black coal and gas fired plants.
This will ensure the adoption of best practice new technology in each fossil fuel class. Standards will also be phased in to encourage emissions reductions in existing plants. The standards will apply to new electricity generation projects and existing generation.
These initiatives mean that Australian energy suppliers will be able to stand tall when it comes to being clean, green and cost competitive.
Automotive Industry
In 1995, ten per cent of Australiaâs net emissions were generated by cars, four wheel drives and light commercial vehicles.
We will implement an Automotive Industry Environmental Strategy, in consultation with the automotive and oil industries and other stakeholders, to enhance the industryâs environmental performance.
This strategy will involve several elements including:
mandatory, model specific, fuel efficiency labelling;
harmonised noxious emissions standards with international standards by 2006;
a 15 per cent fuel efficiency improvement target by 2010 over business as usual through negotiation with automotive companies; and
bringing forward the phase-out of leaded petrol, taking equity considerations into account.
The Government will also develop a basic network of compressed natural gas refuelling stations in selected metropolitan areas to encourage light commercial vehicles to switch to this more environmentally friendly fuel.
These measures will reduce air pollution and improve the health of our cities as well as reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Codes and Standards
The Government will also work with the States, Territories and industry to develop energy efficiency codes and standards for housing and commercial buildings, appliances and equipment.
For industrial and commercial appliances and equipment we will implement an improved labelling programme and minimum energy performance standards.
We will expand the Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme by including a minimum energy performance requirement for new houses and major extensions and we will work with the States, Territories and industry to develop voluntary minimum energy performance standards for new and substantially refurbished commercial buildings.
These initiatives will take us to best practice standards in these important areas. If this voluntary approach does not achieve acceptable progress within 12 months, we will work to implement mandatory standards.
Tree Planting and Revegetation
Plantations and revegetation are important means of soaking up greenhouse emissions - known as greenhouse sinks.
The Government will work to remove impediments to the development of commercial plantations to achieve the Plantations 2020 vision of trebling the plantation estate by 2020. We will establish a Bush for Greenhouse Programme to encourage corporate funding of revegetation projects to act as sinks.
This will build on the $22 million for farm forestry and the massive $328 million revegetation programme being undertaken under the Bushcare Initiative of the Natural Heritage Trust, which represents the largest revegetation effort ever undertaken with almost a tenfold increase on the funding of revegetation programmes of the previous Government.
Greenhouse Challenge programme
The Greenhouse Challenge programme is central to the partnership between government and industry to reduce emissions.
This programme currently has 100 signed agreements with businesses from a wide range of sectors.
In total, companies that have signed agreements account for over 45 per cent of Australiaâs industrial emissions.
Participants have committed themselves to reduce their forecast growth in emissions by about 22 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by the year 2000.
The announcement today provides extra funding of $27 million to extend the programme to smaller companies and to increase the number of large and medium company participants to 500 by the year 2000 and to more than 1000 companies by 2005.
Commonwealth Greenhouse Office
In order to ensure this package of measures is delivered a Commonwealth Greenhouse Office will be established within the Department of the Environment. This Office will have responsibility for the coordination of domestic climate change policy.
The Office will be the lead Commonwealth agency on greenhouse matters. It will provide a mechanism to ensure domestic greenhouse matters receive the priority the issue deserves and the Government intends.
Other Measures
Further measures as part of this statement include action to reduce emissions in urban areas, initiatives to work toward best energy practice in targeted industries, funding towards a ethanol pilot plant, the development of a national carbon accounting system, funding to support various National Greenhouse Strategy related measures, and additional funding to ensure commercial joint implementation projects in developing countries.
We are also committed to reducing emissions from the Commonwealth Governmentâs own operations, including purchases of more energy efficient equipment and appliances. We will be setting fuel consumption targets for the Commonwealth vehicle fleet.
AUSTRALIAâS APPROACH: FORWARD LOOKING AND GLOBAL
The Government believes that like our national effort, the international response to climate change must be effective in terms of meeting the environmental challenge, equitable in terms of the costs to be borne by individual countries and least damaging as possible to the living standards and employment prospects of our people.
For these reasons Australia has proposed that individual targets for industrialised countries be differentiated according to national circumstances.
Uniform target proposals based on a 1990 base year would impose a disproportionate burden on Australia. The cost to our economy of meeting a uniform target of the order proposed by the European Union would impose a cost on all Australians that other countries would not accept.
Some industries fundamental to the health of our economy would be hardest hit. The non-ferrous metals, iron and steel and coal industries would be seriously affected, and future investment and employment growth would be jeopardised.
Even stabilising our emissions at 1990 levels would put at risk $68 billion of energy intensive projects and the tens of thousands of potential jobs that go with them.
Significant regional dislocation would result in places like the Illawarra and Hunter Valley in New South Wales, the Bowen Basin and Gladstone in Queensland, Geelong and the La Trobe Valley in Victoria, Port Pirie in South Australia and the Kwinana region of Western Australia.
Moreover, the European Community is not asking its own members to reach a uniform target. Portugal for example, would be permitted to increase its emissions by almost 40 per cent.
We reject this approach of punishing Australian industries to carry a burden that other countries are not prepared to accept. It is far more sensible and responsible to improve the performance of existing industries and build new green industries to provide for both jobs and the environment.
We believe the way forward is for all countries to play a fair part, with flexibility in the methods used to reach the targets.
We strongly support a comprehensive approach to setting targets which covers all greenhouse gases, emission sources, sinks and sectors. The wider the coverage the greater the flexibility to maximise environmental benefit and minimise economic cost.
Australia also believes that an international emissions trading regime would help minimise costs of reducing emissions. We would support emissions trading on the basis of a satisfactory initial allocation of emission entitlements and a practical resolution of the administrative difficulties involved.
Joint implementation measures whereby developed countries can work with developing countries on emission reduction projects can achieve worthwhile outcomes. Australia is looking to Kyoto to support joint implementation as a means of engaging developing countries in the global effort.
All along we have argued that climate change is a global problem and all countries should contribute to the solution. Action by developed countries alone will be ineffective. Over time, developing countries must become involved - as by early next century they will account for over 50 per cent of global emissions.
The Kyoto outcome should provide for procedures and timeframes for negotiating targets by major developing country emitters.
Australiaâs proposal for negotiated, differentiated targets is the best basis for a fair outcome which has a prospect of actually being put into practice and improving the worldâs environment. It is also the best basis for encouraging developing countries to take on commitments to reduce emissions.
The Government has said it would not agree to legally binding targets until their nature and content and implications for Australia are clear. We will not agree to any targets that impose substantial costs on Australia that are not faced by other OECD countries.
CONCLUSION
With the package of measures I have announced today, the Government is not posturing for negotiating purposes with theoretical targets but is already taking practical steps to reduce Australiaâs greenhouse gas emissions.
It is a package that goes well beyond what any previous government has sought to do. It is a package that puts Australia at the forefront of international action. And it is a package that Australia will implement even if the international community fails to reach agreement at Kyoto.
As I have demonstrated to date, my Government will continue to stand up for our national interest, jobs and economy in the international negotiations.
We will not agree to an outcome that burdens us in an unfair manner.
My Government has had some success in our efforts to argue the case that an effective result at Kyoto will require an equitable approach. We have managed to shift the international debate. As a result of our efforts, there is greater recognition of the need to take into account individual national circumstances if there is to be a successful outcome - as the British Prime Minister, Mr Blair, acknowledged in our recent discussions.
There is also greater recognition of the need for flexibility to ensure countries can make a contribution to the global effort - as President Clinton acknowledged in my meeting with him in June.
At the South Pacific Forum and most recently at CHOGM we were successful in gaining acceptance of the need for global engagement by both developed and developing countries.
Nevertheless, let there be no doubt the Kyoto negotiations will be difficult.
Australiaâs Environment Minister, Senator Robert Hill, who will be leading our delegation at Kyoto, will be doing his utmost to secure an agreement that will both be fair to Australia and be effective in reducing global emissions.
Ultimately, the success of our domestic measures depends upon the goodwill, commitment and action by ordinary Australians, consumers, families, firms and industry groups, as well as Governments Federal, State, and local. The greenhouse challenge is theirs and quality of life of our children depends upon their strength of purpose.
3 Likes
Ultimately, the success of our domestic measures depends upon the goodwill, commitment and action by ordinary Australians, consumers, families, firms and industry groups, as well as Governments Federal, State, and local. The greenhouse challenge is theirs and quality of life of our children depends upon their strength of purpose.
Some of us have trying to tell you, that the challenge of climate change is not about Left vs Right politics. John Howardâs own words from 1997 tell it just how it is.
We have gone backwards since then and all of us need to lift our game.
3 Likes
Which, conveniently, all adds up to do doing precisely nothing about it.
Itâs cool because dinosaurs and ancient plants would have loved it!
1 Like
Cool.
So if I hang on long enough Iâll get that pet brontosaurus?
1 Like
Gee whiz - sounds scary.
Its now at a whopping 0.041%
Given we are not all falling over dying, can one of these geniuses tell us what level the carbon dioxide levels ought to be and why?
All that any many other Flintsones themed things.
1 Like