In 2022 UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said government spending to combat climate change is the right thing to do, from an environmental, moral and economic perspective. He is travelling to this year's COP28 having rowed back on many climate pledges, I wonder what he'll say this time.
The population explosion will need to be controlled as a matter of urgency. My young grandson learning about flooding has decided that you need to be able to swim to survive otherwise you will drown. Lol
It might be good, but it's not quite wow; if it works, if it's implemented and if Rio Tinto doesn't fuck up again, it'll save a lot of greenhouse gasses but even the seemingly huge figures they are talking about pale into insignificance compared to the size of the problem. The Elysis project is publishing figures suggesting they can save seven million metric tons (7,000,000t) per year, but the true scale of the problem is thirty eight billion metric tons (38,000,000,000). In other words, it solves 0.2% of the problem. I hope this technology works out, but we're going to need more and better.
The problem is you are never going to get the big "poluters" on board..... China, India and to a lesser extent the US.
The UK have dedicated to get to "net zero" by 2050 (or thereabouts) and to get the sale of diesel & petrol cars to zero by 2030. That is just not going to happen. The amount of charging points that will be needed so that ALL car drivers can economically/speedily charge their cars in 6 years time is just not viable.
I applaud all those trying to save the planet but when my juice carton has on it "check locally for recycling" then sadly not enough is being done by manufacturing Companies.
The problem is if the main polluters don't make significant changes then the effect of the changes by the minions has minimal effect.
Why don't the Just Sop Oil lot lobby those that can make a significant differences rather than (virtually pointless) protests that adversely affect people going about their every day business and in many cases cause more pollution. They could be so much more effective - makes you wonder how genuine they actually are as they seem to be counter-productive
Peaceful protest and political lobbying: two major causes of disappearance and early death in both China and India I'm not saying pressure shouldn't be brought on these worst offenders The western middle class climate enthusiasts are best advised to steer clear for all sorts of reasons They might piss off a few people from time to time and look bloody silly doing it but there really is no such thing as bad publicity They are keeping the issues live and on the front pages of the MSM Our elected representatives are desperately in thrall to the hydrocarbon industry and cheerfully gorging themselves on the Indian and Chinese big business gravy train We have to get our house in order and the enviro loonies are a necessary inconvenience Without them the corrupt ghouls of 'Fleet Street' and Westminster will happily let the climate emergency slip from public consciousness and with it the futures of your children and grandchildren.
Another positive story, but another that's not really that wow when you look at the figures. I think the linked article there gives a truer picture of the situation. I think that chart on there is quite telling. What this new plane looks to do is save 70% of the dark blue area from flights. Undoubtedly a positive step, but still putting a lot of carbon into the atmosphere.
Another positive story, but another that's not really that wow when you look at the figures. I think the linked article there gives a truer picture of the situation. I think that chart on there is quite telling. What this new plane looks to do is save 70% of the dark blue area from flights. Undoubtedly a positive step, but still putting a lot of carbon into the atmosphere.
It's all very well and "correct" quoting per km travelled.
But let's face it if you travel to Australia you are doing about the same distance in 24 hours that a typical person travels in a whole year.
It doesn't really matter how efficient your plane is - it's still a lot of CO2 compared to someone who has spent that day driving a few miles to Charlton in his car.
Every single initiative is a positive. Even turning off a light switch. Having said that we are as a world without doubt not doing enough. A scandal regarding COP 28 is that this years chair (UAE) is also a minister for oil revenues and has been using the gathering to meet with and conclude oil deals with various nations. We’re a fundamentally greedy and selfish species and I have no doubt what so ever that we are running head down into a disaster.
Love this video from Make My Money Matter feat. Olivia Coleman, raising awareness of the levels to which most pension funds, fund the fossil fuel industry (to the ignorance of most individuals)...
It might be good, but it's not quite wow; if it works, if it's implemented and if Rio Tinto doesn't fuck up again, it'll save a lot of greenhouse gasses but even the seemingly huge figures they are talking about pale into insignificance compared to the size of the problem. The Elysis project is publishing figures suggesting they can save seven million metric tons (7,000,000t) per year, but the true scale of the problem is thirty eight billion metric tons (38,000,000,000). In other words, it solves 0.2% of the problem. I hope this technology works out, but we're going to need more and better.
So every single small positive step is going to be put down as not enough? Can you see the problem with your approach?
I don't get this hype- you burn anything organic and it results in Co2. ?Greenwashing
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t?
Hydrogen as a fuel would burn to water- that is a wow. This bio-fuel case makes no sense to me please explain why its anything but propaganda
SAF is the holy grail for airlines - their future is in jeopardy without it. This is a very small first step of a massive journey. Greenwashing is when you use actions to hide your environmental impact. I’d suggest this is the exact opposite…
I don't get this hype- you burn anything organic and it results in Co2. ?Greenwashing
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t?
Hydrogen as a fuel would burn to water- that is a wow. This bio-fuel case makes no sense to me please explain why its anything but propaganda
SAF is the holy grail for airlines - their future is in jeopardy without it. This is a very small first step of a massive journey. Greenwashing is when you use actions to hide your environmental impact. I’d suggest this is the exact opposite…
Burning organic matter releases CO2, but it is CO2 captured very recently, sometimes a few months previously, like when you burn cuttings from your garden annually.
This is the advantage of biofuels: they have the potential to be net zero because next year's CO2 is being captured this year.
When fossil fuels are burnt, like in the pistons of your car or the flame of your gas boiler, the CO2 released was captured several million years ago, so it is a net addition of CO2 to the atmosphere, at least at the scale of millions of years.
It might be good, but it's not quite wow; if it works, if it's implemented and if Rio Tinto doesn't fuck up again, it'll save a lot of greenhouse gasses but even the seemingly huge figures they are talking about pale into insignificance compared to the size of the problem. The Elysis project is publishing figures suggesting they can save seven million metric tons (7,000,000t) per year, but the true scale of the problem is thirty eight billion metric tons (38,000,000,000). In other words, it solves 0.2% of the problem. I hope this technology works out, but we're going to need more and better.
Underwhelming to some, the new smelting process is expected to achieve;
The elimination of 6.5 million metric tons of annual greenhouse gas emissions in Canada alone, if fully implemented at existing aluminium smelters in that country.
That’s an amount equal to taking nearly 1.8 million light-duty vehicles off the road.
Sorry, I put you off posting it, it's a genuinely wow story. The others aren't, in my opinion, but if they work out they will be steps in the right direction.
Another positive story, but another that's not really that wow when you look at the figures. I think the linked article there gives a truer picture of the situation. I think that chart on there is quite telling. What this new plane looks to do is save 70% of the dark blue area from flights. Undoubtedly a positive step, but still putting a lot of carbon into the atmosphere.
Would be good to have an electric car on their for comparison. Domestic rail seems pretty high.
I don't get this hype- you burn anything organic and it results in Co2. ?Greenwashing
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t?
Hydrogen as a fuel would burn to water- that is a wow. This bio-fuel case makes no sense to me please explain why its anything but propaganda
SAF is the holy grail for airlines - their future is in jeopardy without it. This is a very small first step of a massive journey. Greenwashing is when you use actions to hide your environmental impact. I’d suggest this is the exact opposite…
Burning organic matter releases CO2, but it is CO2 captured very recently, sometimes a few months previously, like when you burn cuttings from your garden annually.
This is the advantage of biofuels: they have the potential to be net zero because next year's CO2 is being captured this year.
When fossil fuels are burnt, like in the pistons of your car or the flame of your gas boiler, the CO2 released was captured several million years ago, so it is a net addition of CO2 to the atmosphere, at least at the scale of millions of years.
1. one molecule of Co2 is the same as any other recent or not- you cannot dispute this.
2.Timescale for any significant use of biofuels is too long. Large areas of the world will have turned to dessert by the time it arrives-decades in the future. Unfortunately we have an immediate problem.
3.This is a re play of tobacco companies tactic's- obfuscation, delay, playing on the general publics desire to just carry on doing what we want (myself included) , not wanting to change in the face of over whelming evidence. The oil companies have done the same already if you remember the `Oil crisis" of the 70's (which I can,) electric car research started but after a few years was bought out by other interested parties ( Oil/Car firms) AND SHUT DOWN. This will have the same fate. Sorry but this is the pattern, naturally when you recognise this it makes you cynical of big companies/countries and their influence. But its served as a great propaganda success as you have been persuaded, and others less interested will also be taken in.
Another positive story, but another that's not really that wow when you look at the figures. I think the linked article there gives a truer picture of the situation. I think that chart on there is quite telling. What this new plane looks to do is save 70% of the dark blue area from flights. Undoubtedly a positive step, but still putting a lot of carbon into the atmosphere.
Would be good to have an electric car on their for comparison. Domestic rail seems pretty high.
As does bus. Wonder why so much higher than coach - presumably shorter distances/fewer passengers.
I don't get this hype- you burn anything organic and it results in Co2. ?Greenwashing
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t?
Hydrogen as a fuel would burn to water- that is a wow. This bio-fuel case makes no sense to me please explain why its anything but propaganda
SAF is the holy grail for airlines - their future is in jeopardy without it. This is a very small first step of a massive journey. Greenwashing is when you use actions to hide your environmental impact. I’d suggest this is the exact opposite…
Burning organic matter releases CO2, but it is CO2 captured very recently, sometimes a few months previously, like when you burn cuttings from your garden annually.
This is the advantage of biofuels: they have the potential to be net zero because next year's CO2 is being captured this year.
When fossil fuels are burnt, like in the pistons of your car or the flame of your gas boiler, the CO2 released was captured several million years ago, so it is a net addition of CO2 to the atmosphere, at least at the scale of millions of years.
1. one molecule of Co2 is the same as any other recent or not- you cannot dispute this.
2.Timescale for any significant use of biofuels is too long. Large areas of the world will have turned to dessert by the time it arrives-decades in the future. Unfortunately we have an immediate problem.
3.This is a re play of tobacco companies tactic's- obfuscation, delay, playing on the general publics desire to just carry on doing what we want (myself included) , not wanting to change in the face of over whelming evidence. The oil companies have done the same already if you remember the `Oil crisis" of the 70's (which I can,) electric car research started but after a few years was bought out by other interested parties ( Oil/Car firms) AND SHUT DOWN. This will have the same fate. Sorry but this is the pattern, naturally when you recognise this it makes you cynical of big companies/countries and their influence. But its served as a great propaganda success as you have been persuaded, and others less interested will also be taken in.
I agree with your sentiment and with your first point but...
Very, very roughly speaking there are 3 scenarios:
1. The CO2 molecule is deep underground (as oil, gas or coal), it is extracted and released to the atmosphere through burning (e.g. engines, boiler). This is net CO2 positive i.e. it adds CO2 to the atmosphere.
2. The CO2 molecule is in the atmosphere, it's captured by a plant e.g. sugar cane, and the following year it is converted to alcohol and burnt as biofuel, thus releasing the CO2 back to the atmosphere. This is net zero, i.e. from one year to the next there's no increase in CO2.
3. The CO2 molecule is extracted from the air or captured as it is produced, and then stored e.g. underground or converted into something that won't release it back. This is net CO2 negative because the CO2 doesn't go back.
I think 3 would be a good solution if it wasn't so energy intensive and if it was easy to store CO2 permanently.
1 must be stopped.
That leaves 2 including other net zero (-ish) energy sources like solar, wind, nuclear, geothermic and tidal.
Hydrogen is good for energy storage but you need lots of either electricity or natural gas to produce it in large quantities.
This has been mentioned before, but far too rarely and simply no emphasis on the key problem. Travelling to work, leaving lights on, opening new oil fields are all tinkering.
In my lifetime the world's population has estimated to have grown four fold, from little more than 2.5bn to the current 8bn.
This is very obviously the biggest problem facing the world and yet it will never be addressed.
We have far too many religious extremists pushing to increase their influence by increasing their numbers.
We have criminals running poor countries, and fleecing the poor and weak.
There are rich protectionist trading blocks designed to prevent poor countries becoming competitive.
There are huge global companies who make money by ensuring the world's poor remain a cheap source of labour.
The world's poor are then forced to have lots of kids in an attempt to keep them during times of sickness and old age.
Is it any wonder that migration is becoming such an issue now?
Don't believe me? Check out the population figures and forecasts.
All this hot air (pun intended) about oil and still no real attempts to address the issue. There is no effort to address over population, so we're all up Shit Creek I'm afraid.
I completely agree with the above (and I'm not focusing on developing countries populations, developed nations too as we pollute more), there are far too many people on this Earth with the way we treat it.
The problem is that human society is basically the biggest pyramid scheme in history. Exponential growth in humans is the only way to pay for those who joined the scheme before you...
Fixing that is nigh on impossible until provisions for old age shift from the state to the individual/companies, which is also nigh on impossible.
This has been mentioned before, but far too rarely and simply no emphasis on the key problem. Travelling to work, leaving lights on, opening new oil fields are all tinkering.
In my lifetime the world's population has estimated to have grown four fold, from little more than 2.5bn to the current 8bn.
This is very obviously the biggest problem facing the world and yet it will never be addressed.
We have far too many religious extremists pushing to increase their influence by increasing their numbers.
We have criminals running poor countries, and fleecing the poor and weak.
There are rich protectionist trading blocks designed to prevent poor countries becoming competitive.
There are huge global companies who make money by ensuring the world's poor remain a cheap source of labour.
The world's poor are then forced to have lots of kids in an attempt to keep them in sickness and old age.
Is it any wonder that migration is becoming such an issue now?
Don't believe me? Check out the population figures and forecasts.
All this hot air (pun intended) about oil and still no real attempts to address the issue. There is no effort to address over population, so we're all up Shit Creek I'm afraid.
And the more people there are, the greater the demand for energy, which has to be generated from somewhere, if not from renewables then from a finite sources that will deplete and eventually run out.
Do we have any population growth deniers/ sceptics on here I wonder? 🤔
Comments
Carbon free Aluminium smelting
https://www.riotinto.com/en/news/stories/aluminium-emissions-free
First large passenger plane to cross Atlantic on green fuel.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67548961
I'm not saying pressure shouldn't be brought on these worst offenders
The western middle class climate enthusiasts are best advised to steer clear for all sorts of reasons
They might piss off a few people from time to time and look bloody silly doing it but there really is no such thing as bad publicity
They are keeping the issues live and on the front pages of the MSM
Our elected representatives are desperately in thrall to the hydrocarbon industry and cheerfully gorging themselves on the Indian and Chinese big business gravy train
We have to get our house in order and the enviro loonies are a necessary inconvenience
Without them the corrupt ghouls of 'Fleet Street' and Westminster will happily let the climate emergency slip from public consciousness and with it the futures of your children and grandchildren.
But let's face it if you travel to Australia you are doing about the same distance in 24 hours that a typical person travels in a whole year.
It doesn't really matter how efficient your plane is - it's still a lot of CO2 compared to someone who has spent that day driving a few miles to Charlton in his car.
?Greenwashing
https://makemymoneymatter.co.uk/
Can you see the problem with your approach?
PS, it’s wow to me thank you.
This is the advantage of biofuels: they have the potential to be net zero because next year's CO2 is being captured this year.
When fossil fuels are burnt, like in the pistons of your car or the flame of your gas boiler, the CO2 released was captured several million years ago, so it is a net addition of CO2 to the atmosphere, at least at the scale of millions of years.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67496717.amp
You have successfully realised this.
Is your post trying to make a point, or do you accept it is an amazing step in the right direction?
2.Timescale for any significant use of biofuels is too long. Large areas of the world will have turned to dessert by the time it arrives-decades in the future. Unfortunately we have an immediate problem.
3.This is a re play of tobacco companies tactic's- obfuscation, delay, playing on the general publics desire to just carry on doing what we want (myself included) , not wanting to change in the face of over whelming evidence. The oil companies have done the same already if you remember the `Oil crisis" of the 70's (which I can,) electric car research started but after a few years was bought out by other interested parties ( Oil/Car firms) AND SHUT DOWN.
This will have the same fate. Sorry but this is the pattern, naturally when you recognise this it makes you cynical of big companies/countries and their influence. But its served as a great propaganda success as you have been persuaded, and others less interested will also be taken in.
Very, very roughly speaking there are 3 scenarios:
1. The CO2 molecule is deep underground (as oil, gas or coal), it is extracted and released to the atmosphere through burning (e.g. engines, boiler).
This is net CO2 positive i.e. it adds CO2 to the atmosphere.
2. The CO2 molecule is in the atmosphere, it's captured by a plant e.g. sugar cane, and the following year it is converted to alcohol and burnt as biofuel, thus releasing the CO2 back to the atmosphere.
This is net zero, i.e. from one year to the next there's no increase in CO2.
3. The CO2 molecule is extracted from the air or captured as it is produced, and then stored e.g. underground or converted into something that won't release it back.
This is net CO2 negative because the CO2 doesn't go back.
I think 3 would be a good solution if it wasn't so energy intensive and if it was easy to store CO2 permanently.
1 must be stopped.
That leaves 2 including other net zero (-ish) energy sources like solar, wind, nuclear, geothermic and tidal.
Hydrogen is good for energy storage but you need lots of either electricity or natural gas to produce it in large quantities.
Travelling to work, leaving lights on, opening new oil fields are all tinkering.
In my lifetime the world's population has estimated to have grown four fold, from little more than 2.5bn to the current 8bn.
This is very obviously the biggest problem facing the world and yet it will never be addressed.
We have far too many religious extremists pushing to increase their influence by increasing their numbers.
We have criminals running poor countries, and fleecing the poor and weak.
There are rich protectionist trading blocks designed to prevent poor countries becoming competitive.
There are huge global companies who make money by ensuring the world's poor remain a cheap source of labour.
The world's poor are then forced to have lots of kids in an attempt to keep them during times of sickness and old age.
Is it any wonder that migration is becoming such an issue now?
Don't believe me? Check out the population figures and forecasts.
All this hot air (pun intended) about oil and still no real attempts to address the issue. There is no effort to address over population, so we're all up Shit Creek I'm afraid.
The problem is that human society is basically the biggest pyramid scheme in history. Exponential growth in humans is the only way to pay for those who joined the scheme before you...
Fixing that is nigh on impossible until provisions for old age shift from the state to the individual/companies, which is also nigh on impossible.
Do we have any population growth deniers/ sceptics on here I wonder? 🤔