Who's keen on green?

[Patfig]

20 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

Very true I would recommend anyone who is concerned about the environment to consider donating to the world land trust - they have a big match now.

Save species and reduce global warming

https://www.worldlandtrust.org/

Or the tree sisters  https://www.treesisters.org

 

 

[spacepidgeon]

If you blindly believe what you see on the tellybox without questioning, then you may well be anxious about  global warming / climate change / climate emergency.

Why do they keep changing the name -because it's another (obvious) BIG LIE - and if we are actually entering a period of low sun activity as many have predicted they need to keep up the show. If they wanted real action they'd stop corporations cutting down forests that absorb the 'gas of life' CO2 - but of course there's no money in that for them.

They know its better to pass blame onto the 99% and force us through psychological manipulation to not only believe the planet is at risk but that we must all pay and pay and pay... for what?

Lets all take responsibility to collectively destroy our economy - while virtue signalling how great we are - oh but its to reduce that nasty CO2, you mean the one that only makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere, and despite being heavier than air, magically forms an invisible dome that only lets light through in one direction. That sounds like a conspiracy of atoms theory doesnt it?

Think about that and you'll realise how ******ing ridiculous it is - now find anyone in politics or academia who can try to explain it with a straight face.

Yes we do need to cut pollution but that means heavy metals in the air and plastic in the seas, not to mention all the shit theyre spraying over us every day. Challenge 2 - go out first thing aon a sunny morning and look at the criss-cross sky and remember if you 'd ever seen that in the last century? Oh wait a minute when did they invent the jet engine again?

The evidence is everywhere....its time to discard your beliefs/programming and start from scratch just using your brain (and heart)... WTFU before its too late!

[Kosmin]

9 minutes ago, spacepidgeon said:

Yes we do need to cut pollution but that means heavy metals in the air and plastic in the seas, not to mention all the shit theyre spraying over us every day.

Why? What will happen if pollution continues or gets worse?

There are bad-case scenarios of temperature increases (millions displaced from densely populated coastal areas, millions displaced as the hottest places become too hot). What are the bad-case scenarios about pollution and why do you consider them more believable?

[spacepidgeon]

Whether or not you believe in certain metals or plastics somehow poisoning the air and then us through our water supply, it is something we all live with - some people are more exposed to toxins than others (e.g. in cities) and this is generally reflected in life expectency. If a city is poisoned then people die, and if world poison levels go up on average then we all lose out. 

The same goes for temperature, as in some places are hotter than others, but in this case we all still thrive. Theres no evidence higher temperatures mean shorter lives, and its absurd to worry about even a few degrees of increase even if you live in thailand and are facing a future like india. Plus its actually not happening so why worry. Its another highly-politicised subject where 'trusting the experts' is a cover for implementing tyrranical policies while passing the responsibility to paid-for academics and NWOs.

As I said they are now resorting to mass spraying of the sky - they seem determined to get this ******ing climate to change as at the natural rate of change it hasnt made much difference to us, and theyve been predicting disaster for the past 50 years.

 

 

[Debt Slaves]

6 hours ago, Kosmin said:

Has the world ever followed us on climate change? I thought bodies like the IPCC weren't dominated by any country (it would be a bit cheeky to call it intergovernmental if that were the case). Did most countries sign the Kyoto Protocol because we said we would? They didn't even do anything when Trump removed America.

The USA is investing a lot in developing new technologies and the Green New Deal is at least supported by a significant chunk of the Democratic Party. China is already the leading producer of renewable energy. So perhaps the USA and China.

Well I would hope the USA and China would be leading the way, they are after all, two of the biggest contributors of global carbon emissions.  Our 1.1% contribution doesn't seem to warrant the punitive measures that are being proposed here in the UK, whilst other more polluting countries aren't doing the same.  

The chart below shows the largest emitting countries in 2018. Taken together, these five countries accounted for 58% of global emissions. The UK ranked 17^th with 1.1% of global emissions. China produced 28% and was responsible for almost two-thirds of the growth in emissions since 2000.

The chart also looks at the sector of emissions. Electricity plants were the largest source with 27%, followed by transport with 25%. Here the residential sector only includes emissions from fuels burned in homes and not electricity use.

[kzb]

7 hours ago, Kosmin said:

Has the world ever followed us on climate change? I thought bodies like the IPCC weren't dominated by any country (it would be a bit cheeky to call it intergovernmental if that were the case). Did most countries sign the Kyoto Protocol because we said we would? They didn't even do anything when Trump removed America.

The USA is investing a lot in developing new technologies and the Green New Deal is at least supported by a significant chunk of the Democratic Party. China is already the leading producer of renewable energy. So perhaps the USA and China.

Arguably the USA.  It has reduced its emissions a lot, but from an already high base.  China has no intention of seriously reducing emissions on its own soil.

[kzb]

7 hours ago, Kosmin said:

I don't particularly worry about water either, but I'm not an environmentalist. I've seen documentaries and environmental activists and scientists mentioning it is very soon going to be a major issue. 

What's so special about NW compared to the rest of England?

Do I really have to explain that one......

[Ignorantbliss]

Quote

Plentiful gas supplies could have been secured at a reasonable price if the Government had proceeded to exploit the massive reserves of shale gas on which Britain sits. But two years ago, after almost a decade of failure and running scared of powerful environmental lobbies, it turned its back on 'fracking', a process of getting gas out of the ground which had ended America's dependence on Middle East fossil fuels and turned it into a net exporter of energy.

Really wish commentators would make the effort to get to understand more the fracking experience in the USA before spouting out about how easy it would be to replicate here.
What commentators always forget to mention is that fracked wells are not like "traditional" oil and gas wells.
Traditional wells take many years to become uneconomic to produce from (decades in fact for a lot of them in the North Sea).  
Fracked wells in complete contrast have extremely high production rates (which look great in PR graphs) - but that only applies for the first few months.
Thereafter the production rates decline extremely rapidly, making wells uneconomic to produce from within just a few years.
So the cost of gas production from fracked wells is a lot more than "traditional" gas wells producing from natural reservoirs as the fixed costs of drilling/producing the well have to be recovered over a much shorter period of time (i.e. cost of drilling the well, the cost of decommissioning the well etc).  
The really big issue though is that fracking for gas is utterly dependent on people being willing to tolerate the almost continuous drilling of multiple wells in close proximity to each other - directional drilling from a single drilling pad as Cuadrilla has been doing only helps a bit in mitigating the number of drilling locations needed.
Now, are local communities here going to put up with that?
They can get away with it in the USA for one simple reason - very low population densities in the drilled areas, where the other associated issues (pollution, seismicity) are of limited concern as there are few people affected by it.
The geology here in the UK also doesn't help - the basins being drilled in the US are more homogeneous with less tectonic fracturing.
Fracked gas is a valuable resource, but the economics behind it are dubious unless hydrocarbon prices are very high. 
The amount of debt racked up by the fracking companies in the US ($300bn+) is eye-watering and I do wonder if it's another potential black swan event as interest rate increases will absolutely kill the industry unless its supported by high oil/gas prices.
It's a classic example of how quantative easing over the past decade+ has had interesting consequences - https://www.oilystuffblog.com/single-post/2017/10/30/us-oil-floated-on-cheap-money

Quote

In a normal world, some of the oil producers who signed long-term drilling contracts in the good years would have gone bankrupt from 2011 on, but they kept getting refinanced. As Tom Ward, a longtime exploration and production person from Oklahoma City, says: “Quantitative easing really was driving the whole energy market after 2008. The producers had three- to five-year contracts for rigs left from 2014 and before, and they had to pay whether they drilled or not.” So they continued to drill until this past year.  

This blog site is really interesting if you want to get a old-book oilman's view of the industry these days - https://www.oilystuffblog.com/

Not that the debt issue has not been unreported over there, some recent articles... - https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/shales-bust-shows-basis-of-boom-debt-debt-and-debt/2020/07/22/0e6ed98c-cc41-11ea-99b0-8426e26d203b_story.html

https://www.ran.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/RAN_OCI_Fracking_Fiasco.pdf

Also note that fracking in the US is mainly for oil, not gas (this is commonly burnt off as a byproduct as it cannot be brought to the market economically).

[Kosmin]

7 hours ago, kzb said:

Do I really have to explain that one......

Yes. Just to re-iterate my ignorance. I don't know why NW England is different to the rest of England with regard to water. Please enlighten me.

But I don't think water is particularly different compared to any other problem. When other countries lack water supply they will either die, or there will be mass migrations, or there will be conflicts to secure water supplies. So we would be faced with a decision of allowing mass migrations or fighting. Either way, it seems just having sufficient water supply doesn't necessarily mean things will work out OK.

14 hours ago, Patfig said:

I live in a very wet part of the UK , ironically with the highest water charges.

But presumably you drink wine imported from other countries.

[Patfig]

9 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

Yes. Just to re-iterate my ignorance. I don't know why NW England is different to the rest of England with regard to water. Please enlighten me.

But I don't think water is particularly different compared to any other problem. When other countries lack water supply they will either die, or there will be mass migrations, or there will be conflicts to secure water supplies. So we would be faced with a decision of allowing mass migrations or fighting. Either way, it seems just having sufficient water supply doesn't necessarily mean things will work out OK.

But presumably you drink wine imported from other countries.

Yes of course French mainly

[Kosmin]

9 hours ago, Debt Slaves said:

Well I would hope the USA and China would be leading the way, they are after all, two of the biggest contributors of global carbon emissions.  Our 1.1% contribution doesn't seem to warrant the punitive measures that are being proposed here in the UK, whilst other more polluting countries aren't doing the same.  

The chart below shows the largest emitting countries in 2018. Taken together, these five countries accounted for 58% of global emissions. The UK ranked 17^th with 1.1% of global emissions. China produced 28% and was responsible for almost two-thirds of the growth in emissions since 2000.

Isn't it the case that Britain imports a lot and China exports a lot? What would our emissions be if we included goods produced abroad for British consumers? What would China's emissions be if they included only emissions used for domestic consumption?

There's some data here

Mapped: The world’s largest CO2 importers and exporters - Carbon Brief

It seems they'd only be about 30% higher, but other sources seem to indicate they'd be double (perhaps I misunderstood).

 

Of course, a country the size of Britain can't reduce global emissions significantly if no other country makes reductions. But this is why countries are trying to make agreements on international action. 

If we won't do anything until bigger countries make big reductions, mightn't there be a temptation for us not to make reductions even then, as we are so insignificant in global terms? If there are going to be any agreements, they are likely to have be on per capita emissions. 

[kzb]

2 hours ago, Kosmin said:

Yes. Just to re-iterate my ignorance. I don't know why NW England is different to the rest of England with regard to water. Please enlighten me.

There is about a metre of rain per year on each square metre.  1 million cubic metres on a sq km.  On the mountainous areas it way exceeds even this.  Really we ought to be selling water to the SE and other countries and have free water for ourselves.

 

 

 

[kzb]

13 hours ago, spacepidgeon said:

Lets all take responsibility to collectively destroy our economy - while virtue signalling how great we are - oh but its to reduce that nasty CO2, you mean the one that only makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere, and despite being heavier than air, magically forms an invisible dome that only lets light through in one direction. That sounds like a conspiracy of atoms theory doesnt it?

Think about that and you'll realise how ******ing ridiculous it is - now find anyone in politics or academia who can try to explain it with a straight face.

I think you need to do more research.

Point #1, atmospheric permanent gases always remain well mixed.  Otherwise we would have a layer of xenon near the ground.  There do not even need to be any air currents for this to be mostly true.  The high molecular speeds of gas molecules is enough to ensure this even with no air movements.

Point #2 there is no reason why a gas at trace concentrations cannot have a large relative effect.  The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is already enough to make the atmosphere opaque in the CO2 IR absorption bands.  The mean range of an IR photon is about 300 metres at sea level I think.

 

[kzb]

2 hours ago, Kosmin said:

If we won't do anything until bigger countries make big reductions, mightn't there be a temptation for us not to make reductions even then, as we are so insignificant in global terms? I

No we make binding promises at the international level just like everyone else.  We say we will track the average reductions per capita of other countries.  Forget about being a world leader, Britain is an inconsequential, wet little island somewhere off the coast of Europe.

[Kosmin]

22 minutes ago, kzb said:

No we make binding promises at the international level just like everyone else.  We say we will track the average reductions per capita of other countries.  Forget about being a world leader, Britain is an inconsequential, wet little island somewhere off the coast of Europe.

Why should we track reductions per capita rather than per capita amounts?

 

[kzb]

1 hour ago, Kosmin said:

Why should we track reductions per capita rather than per capita amounts?

 

The details of the kzb climate action plan are still to be absolutely finalised.  This is a broad brush plan currently.

[henry the king]

Unilaterally destroying your economy to go green is like unilaterally getting rid of nukes.

You just lose power and influence doing it and it achieves nothing anyway.

All our climate policies should be based on international agreements and we should not go faster than is agreed to be fair internationally. 

 

[spacedin]

On 09/10/2021 at 15:26, Roman Roady said:

But as stated in the article, we can’t do it alone.  We are a small portion of world emissions and we import the carbon emissions of others. If the rest of the world doesn’t follow our example we will destroy our economy for nothing.

We shouldn't be so reliant on other countries like France and Norway, only 40% of gas supplies are domestic for example and we import electricity from France.

If we want to build domestic generation quickly, the first thing we should do is build more wind farms. We should also build a few nuclear power plants but they're very expensive and take a long time to build. 

We should also insulate homes much more efficiently (we're one of the worst countries in Europe for this) and put lots of solar panels on buildings to provide electricity and heat water. 

In this way we could almost be self sufficient within a few decades, particularly because we have massive uptapped wind energy capacity. Not to mention tidal power. We could even build some geothermal power plants too.

Plus maybe some more hydro power plants to manage high demand.

Oh and I forgot to mention that given we have so much wind capacity, we can use it to create hydrogen fuel to power cars but saying that we should be discouraging car use in cities anyway if we're serious about tackling climate change and pollution.

Edited October 10, 2021 by spacedin

[A.steve]

21 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

A lot of insect species in Britain that are endangered live on grasslands - planting trees could be a bad idea.

I like trees, I don't like insects.  I don't see what the problem could be. 🙂

[A.steve]

9 minutes ago, spacedin said:

... if we're serious about tackling climate change and pollution.

I object when these two disparate goals are lumped together.  Many of the things accurately described as "pollution" represent a considerable threat to human health.   Carbon dioxide is definitely not one of these pollutants.

[spacedin]

3 minutes ago, A.steve said:

I object when these two disparate goals are lumped together.  Many of the things accurately described as "pollution" represent a considerable threat to human health.   Carbon dioxide is definitely not one of these pollutants.

Steve go back and re-read what I just said. I was talking about pollution in cities.

[Kosmin]

23 minutes ago, henry the king said:

Unilaterally destroying your economy to go green is like unilaterally getting rid of nukes.

You just lose power and influence doing it and it achieves nothing anyway.

All our climate policies should be based on international agreements and we should not go faster than is agreed to be fair internationally. 

Unilateral nuclear disarmament by the UK* would save a lot of money and it would reduce the risk of accidents.  So that is completely different to the cost of going green.

* The calculation would be different for some countries, which perceive themselves to be under threat and need it as a deterrent. For example, it would be bad for Pakistan or India to disarm if the other didn't as well. North Korea and Israel probably want to keep weapons, though North Korea might be able to rely on China to protect them and Israel could definitely rely on the USA. I don't see why the UK and France have nuclear weapons, or why South Africa had them.

[A.steve]

27 minutes ago, spacedin said:

Steve go back and re-read what I just said. I was talking about pollution in cities.

I've re-read.  I still object when these two disparate goals are lumped together - whether it is 'in cities' or 'outside cities'.  I am not concerned about carbon dioxide anywhere.  I am concerned by other pollutants anywhere they may be... When I say 'other pollutants' - I'm thinking about things like this.  I find it disingenuous to express concern so loosely that one might be seen as suggesting that carbon dioxide emission (a natural consequence of carbon based life) is, in any sense, comparable.

[EDIT:  P.S. Did anyone else interpret the subject of this thread as asking which contributors to HPC smoke dope?]

Edited October 10, 2021 by A.steve

[spacedin]

 

Quote

 we should be discouraging car use in cities anyway if we're serious about tackling climate change and pollution.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying the above. Do you really need me to spell it out to you? If we are 'serious about tackling climate change and pollution'.... We tackle both... How hard is this to understand?

Besides, co2 is a pollutant. 
 

Edited October 10, 2021 by spacedin

[spacedin]

39 minutes ago, A.steve said:

I've re-read.  I still object when these two disparate goals are lumped together - whether it is 'in cities' or 'outside cities'.  I am not concerned about carbon dioxide anywhere.  I am concerned by other pollutants anywhere they may be... When I say 'other pollutants' - I'm thinking about things like this.  I find it disingenuous to express concern so loosely that one might be seen as suggesting that carbon dioxide emission (a natural consequence of carbon based life) is, in any sense, comparable.

[EDIT:  P.S. Did anyone else interpret the subject of this thread as asking which contributors to HPC smoke dope?]

Steve you may be surprised but they actually teach the carbon cycle at GCSE.

Edited October 10, 2021 by spacedin