Climate Change
Hutchy by any chance do you have a link to the Bank of America report referenced in the zero hedge article?, I can't find it anywhere on the BofA site
Agree, the costs of change are huge
Let’s not even talk about the tax breaks given to the likes of Chevron based on their promises of Carbon Capture. No money, no carbon capture. Maybe Indo and Hutchy have some sort of Michael Macormick(?), former leader of the Nationals, Sydney Airport land purchase economic rationalisation for that one too. Hmmm.
Oh yeah and this technology that has never consistently worked is the LNP’s great hope, not the stuff we know that works, “Stupid Windmills”. But something that’s cost taxpayers billions that doesn’t work.
C’mon Hutchy & Indo explain that one
BB - you are so predictable . I said I don't believe carbon capture and storage won't work . I am glad to hear you don't think so to .
Must admit I am surprised .
That's one possible solution off the list .
I ask you for ONE suggestion on how it is possible to get to net zero . You can't so you suggest I read the IPCC report . Which version ?
If you can , just give me the name of one technology that you think can achieve your goal . How hard can that be ? I will be able to respond very quickly .
I bet you don't and this will be another example for all SN viewers to see how ignorant YOU are .
You said it your self mate and the technology is as old as time it self. Trees.
We had a policy under Julia Gillard that would given Australian farmers an additional green revenue stream through offsets. Who knows what the down street benefits would have been. Scuppered by your hero Tones.
Good job.
soggydog - I am all for growing more trees .
Is there enough room on planet earth to grow the number of trees to enable us to get to net zero in 2050 ?
Is there enough time for them to grow big enough .
If the answer is yes I am all for spending the $US 150 trillion on doing this .
If the answer is no I am still happy for spending the 150 on this as I believe it won't be wasted .
We keep cutting them down, so I’d say there is plenty of room for re forestation.
What really grinds my gears on this stuff is we know that inland rainfall is heavily reliant on healthy forests/ scrubland. There are concerns about ongoing droughts and water shortages. We still have land clearing, We pay drought relief.
Great summary of the history of the negotiations, the players and what is at stake in Glasgow.
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/a-matter-of-survival-w...
"If the answer is yes I am all for spending the $US 150 trillion on doing this ."
Hutchy I've tried to find the Bank of America report this figure came from. Is there a link you know of where I can read it?
In combination with reduced emissions and the phase out of fossil fuels. Pretty simple.
Vested interests are what complicates it.
Planting trees is great for many reasons but it is not the solution to climate change. The link estimates 1000 trees per person to compensate for emissions. It is US data but our emissions are comparable. In Australa that would be 25 billion trees. It's not happening!
https://savingnature.com/offset-your-carbon-footprint-carbon-calculator/
I don't think it is freely available Fliplid . I got the summary I posted from Zerohedge which I posted the same day . The article on Zero will be still there , you just scroll back in time .
Zerohedge said the whole report was only available to their premium subscribers .
BB- So we have carbon capture and storage off the list and planting trees ( thanks for showing my doubts were correct ) . Must be not too many other options on how we get to net zero in 2050 .
Again I ask - name just ONE option that you think can get us there .
If you don't I can only presume you think getting to net zero is impossible . FFS - we might agree on something .
Another great read on climate change.
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2021/11/04/the-future-is-electric/
Thanks Hutchy, might have been an interesting read. It could possibly have highlighted some benefits and solutions that come from that type of investment as well.
Always good to get both sides of the story
soggydog wrote:In combination with reduced emissions and the phase out of fossil fuels. Pretty simple.
Vested interests are what complicates it.
No reality is what complicates things, there is so many different challenges in just getting to 100% renewables, but there is even more challenges in getting to zero emissions in other areas like farming etc, just turning over/tilling soil release carbon, livestock add to emissions.
It's impossible to actually get to 100% emission free, it's only possible to get to certain point and then offset the remaining emissions.
BB- Try and stop being a weirdo .
Everyone knows that you are the most opinionated contributor on SN .
You are happy to show everyone how much you know .
Others I am sure would like to know what you think are the options /technologies on how we can achieve net zero .
I really don't give a rats arse . I don't think it can be done . I am very happy to be proven wrong and change my view .
Time to stump up or shut up on this issue .
What is ONE option ? Surely you have one and CAN share it with us all ? Time to PROVE it . Your credibility is at stake ( if you have any ) .
Hutchy 19 wrote:BB- Try and stop being a weirdo .
Everyone knows that you are the most opinionated contributor on SN .
You are happy to show everyone how much you know .
.
ha ha you are a quick learner, first you figured Constance (AKA facto) out and now BB.
Just as you two are happy to display your ignorance.
I don't usually post slabs of text but nyb has a paywall ......so here are the interesting bits.
Reviewed:
Electrify: An Optimist’s Playbook for Our Clean Energy Future
by Saul Griffith
MIT Press, 269 pp., $24.95
“As his title suggests, Griffith is fairly single-minded. Electrification is to climate change as the vaccine is to Covid-19—perhaps not a total solution, but an essential one. He begins by pointing out that in the United States, combustion of fossil fuels accounts for 75 percent of our contribution to climate change, with agriculture accounting for much of the rest.”
“The US uses about 101 quadrillion BTUs (or “quads”) of energy a year……Our homes use about a fifth of all energy; half of that is for heating and cooling, and another quarter for heating water. “The pride of the suburbs, the single-family detached home, dominates energy use, with large apartments in a distant second place,” Griffith writes. The industrial sector uses more energy—about thirty quads—but a surprisingly large percentage of that is spent “finding, mining, and refining fossil fuels.” A much smaller amount is spent running the data centers that store most of the Internet’s data, though, as he points out, much of this is wasted—“that photo of your kids you uploaded for Grandma will be seen only once, but it will require tiny amounts of energy forever as it is stored in some backwater memory bank.” (There’s also the rapidly growing use of fossil fuels to mine Bitcoin, which now requires as much energy as powering Finland.)”
“Transportation uses even larger amounts of energy—and for all the focus on air travel, passenger cars and trucks use ten times as much. The commercial sector—everything from office buildings and schools to the “cold chain” that keeps our perishables from perishing—accounts for the rest of our energy use.”
“ Let’s stop imagining that we can buy enough sustainably harvested fish, use enough public transportation, and purchase enough stainless steel water bottles to improve the climate situation. Let’s release ourselves from purchasing paralysis and constant guilt at every small decision we make so that we can make the big decisions well.”
“A lot of Americans,” he insists, “won’t agree to anything if they believe it will make them uncomfortable or take away their stuff,” so instead you have to let them keep that stuff, just powered by technology that does less damage.”
“By “big decisions” he means mandates for electric vehicles (EVs), which could save 15 percent of our energy use. Or electrifying the heat used in houses and buildings: the electric heat pump is the EV of the basement and would cut total energy use 5 to 7 percent if implemented nationwide. LED lighting gets us another 1 or 2 percent. Because electricity is so much more efficient than combustion, totally electrifying our country would cut primary energy use about in half. “
“……solar and wind will do the heavy lifting. That’s primarily because renewable energy sources have become so inexpensive over the past decade. They are now the cheapest ways to generate power, an advantage that will grow as we install more panels and turbines. (By contrast, the price of fossil fuel can only grow: we’ve already dug up all the coal and oil that’s cheap to get at.) According to Griffith’s math, nuclear power is more expensive than renewables, and new plants “take decades to plan and build,” decades we don’t have.”
“Griffith devotes more attention to batteries than almost any other topic in this book, and that’s wise: people’s fear of the “intermittency” of renewables (the fact that the sun goes down and the wind can drop) remains a major stumbling block to conceiving of a clean-energy future.”
“Griffith is good at analogies: we’d need the equivalent of 60 billion batteries a year roughly the size of the AAs in your flashlight. That sounds like a lot, but actually it’s “similar to the 90 billion bullets manufactured globally today. We need batteries, not bullets.”
“ This renewable economy, as Griffith demonstrates, will save money, both for the nation as a whole and for households—and that’s before any calculation of how much runaway global warming would cost. Already the lifetime costs of an electric vehicle are lower than those of gas-powered cars: Consumer Reports estimates they’ll save the average driver $6,000 to $10,000 over the life of a vehicle.”
“ Griffith’s miscalculation, on the other hand, is based on a misunderstanding of how political change happens, which is not by simply repeating rational arguments in the face of vested interests. If you do that, you win the argument but lose the fight, because the fight is about money and power, not reason and evidence.”
“……the real goal of the divestment campaigns, right from the start, was to take away the social license of the fossil fuel companies by stigmatizing them for their climate change denial, and in so doing reduce their ability to dominate our political life. That we’re even considering big climate bills in the Senate is testimony to the success of that strategy (and other such campaigns, like the ones to block pipelines); activists have worked to shift the zeitgeist, and that shift is always the wellspring of political change.”
BB - How does all this get us to net zero ? You need to understand what the term means you simpleton .
No fucken CO2 ! What we produce HAS to be taken out !
All the electric vehicles and producers of energy will still produce CO2 to build and maintain them . Same with de sal plants and nuclear plants . Building new homes . New surfboards ETC ETC !
We will always produce CO2 . We exhale it .
To achieve net zero we need to REMOVE / TAKE OUT CO2 .
If trees and carbon capture can't do it what can ?????????????
Mate you are the single most ignorant person ever to pollute these forums with your excrement. You are a smug, self-righteous know nothing.
NET fuckin' ZERO you clod means that the amount of greenhouse gases being emitted is equal to the amount being absorbed.
More splashing down the shallow end of the gene pool by SN's village idiots. Is this a surfing website or a sheltered workshop FFS??
Tweedle Dumb asks " ..... What is ONE option ? Surely you have one and CAN share it with us all ? Time to PROVE it . Your credibility is at stake ( if you have any ) ....." and gleefully cheered on by Tweedle Dumber.
There is no ONE apart from a credible and honest determination to do it (and that is why what the LNP are doing is all BS). There are 100's possibly 1,000's of little and big things that will get a country and the globe there so to try to narrow it down to one, is sheer and utter BS. If we had a genuine and honest government they could bring the country with them but all we're getting from Morrison is more transfer of tax payers cash to the corrupt Nationals. Tripe BS from the govt.
Keep on splashing boys .....
You're better off smoking it mate. It's not going to solve climate change.
BB- You DO know the definition then -"NET fuckin' ZERO you clod means that the amount of greenhouse gases being emitted is equal to the amount being absorbed."
How is the CO2 that we emit going to be absorbed ? The question I have repeatedly asked you .
You say we can't grow enough trees or use carbon and capture to absorb them . I agree .
For the fucken last time . Give me ONE way that WILL absorb all the CO2 we will emit ???
Not waving more drowning in your own BS hutchy
Hutchy 19 wrote:BB- You DO know the definition then -"NET fuckin' ZERO you clod means that the amount of greenhouse gases being emitted is equal to the amount being absorbed."
How is the CO2 that we emit going to be absorbed ? The question I have repeatedly asked you .
You say we can't grow enough trees or use carbon and capture to absorb them . I agree .
For the fucken last time . Give me ONE way that WILL absorb all the CO2 we will emit ???
As far as i know there is only two ways to capture Co2 through planting trees or through algae or maybe seaweeds and plankton?.
And then artificial means like carbon capture type things either before it hit's the atmosphere or once in the air. (Direct Air Capture)
It's easy to criticise the government for looking at these avenue as it hasn't been the success hoped, but it's something both Labor and LNP have funded, i guess because if it was possible it would be a complete game changer.
Its hard to know what to beleive on how realistic it is, one day your read it not possible next your read it is even Dr Karl has talked it up.
Anyway interesting read from early this year, seems to be some progress in the area, article says they have 15 machines operating across Europe.
"Engineers have built machines to scrub CO₂ from the air. But will it halt climate change?"
https://theconversation.com/engineers-have-built-machines-to-scrub-co-fr...
The oceans currently absorb around 30% of emissions. Seaweed and algae use some. Shellfish and corals convert some to CaCO3. The rest gradually acidifies the sea water. Eventually the majority will become limestone.
...and this explains it.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle/page1.php
Jesus cheeses! Adults who want to argue about climate change when they don't even have a junior high school level of understanding of the carbon cycle! What's next guys? Your opinions on the clash between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity?
BB as you should know by now if it isn’t on youtoob or in Nat’s VHS on AU Surfing it doesn’t exist for SN’s resurcher in residence, sharpen up there!!
I think Hutchys point was (as mine was) there is only some areas where humans can help with this natural process.
By:
-Planting trees
-Possibly through growing algae.
-Possibly through growing seaweeds
-Maybe other things like Shell fish?...but would have thought pretty much irrelevant?
And then artificial means like link above.
As far as my understanding goes, humans cant increase what carbon the ocean takes up for instance, so its pretty much irrelevant as are other natural ways it may be absorbed.
You still haven't come up with a technology that you think will absorb CO2 BB .
The oceans , earth and trees are not doing enough as the CO2 levels are increasing dramatically .
For us to get to net Zero YOU have to have a technology that absorbs CO2 .
Thanks Indo- I will have a look again at your link as I am unaware of this technology ( I am sure BB is as well as he would have already mentioned it ) .
I have seen a lot of your types in my 62 years BB . Many in my industry .
Know it alls that love to bully people with their non stop opinions . Very bad listeners .
In my experience they all have very high egos but low self esteem .
Almost Daily lately, I hear the grinding of the wood chipping machine again in some backstreet. Another city person has moved to our town and doesn’t like leaves in their gutters. That’s exactly what a new neighbour told me as he had two beautiful at least 50 year old tallowoods wiped from the face of the earth, a home to many of my bird friends and the sentinel of a few tons of carbon. With this kind of stupid rampant on earth only God can save us.
You're pretty much correct, Indo. Without dipping into the ethically and environmentally murky area of climate engineering, the best (only?) solution is a very steep reduction in emissions. Overpopulation and in the developed world overconsumption are huge stumbling blocks.
Pretty much every economic or social activity involves some kind of carbon emission. Currently, sustainable growth is an illusion. We need a sustainable retreat.
"Planting trees is great for many reasons but it is not the solution to climate change. The link estimates 1000 trees per person to compensate for emissions. It is US data but our emissions are comparable. In Australa that would be 25 billion trees. It's not happening!
https://savingnature.com/offset-your-carbon-footprint-carbon-calculator/"
On a global scale we would be lucky to keep up with the rate of clearing. The only feasiible solution is to reduce emissions and if people haven't got that by now then it is just some weird combination of wishful thinking and wilful ignorance. Ghe data has been clear for decades ..... though Rupe the rat has done his best to stop word getting out.
You are exactly right arcadia . The developing world quite rightly want to catch up with our standard of living . Same with China , Indo and India .
Unfortunately even the people on SN , who believe it is a huge problem , wont change their behaviour . They will continue to drive and fly to go surfing . They want more de sal plants for our increasing water needs . Renewable energy cant power them as they cant be turned off and on ( costs about $45m to turn them off due to the membranes drying out ) . They wont consider nuclear energy . They don,t want to be cold in winter and hot in summer . They want to cook their dinner and not hand wash the dishes . ETC
Due to the link that Indo provided a few weeks ago I am extremely surprised ( and impressed ) at how much energy we produce from solar and wind . I don't want endangered birds killed by blades but I now see what a big difference they are making . This is all great and I believe Australia CAN and WILL dramatically reduce CO2 emissions .
Not as confident in the rest of the world .
If it is going to be possible to get to net zero ( 2050 seems impossible to me and the cost of $US 150 trillion is too high ) we need to use nuclear ( until a new energy source is invented ) and develop some other CO2 absorbing technology ( existing carbon capture and storage is next to useless ) .
People the world over will refuse to lower their standard of living imo . A few will but they will make no difference .
" Currently, sustainable growth is an illusion. We need a sustainable retreat."
This is not true. Even now we can reduce emissions with minimal impact on our lives. Read the piece I cut and pasted from nyb. The idea that progress involves radical sacrifices is not supported by the evidence and has been part of the fossil fuel industry propaganda as they know people will not vote for any action likely to disrupt their lifestyle. The only serious barriers to solving the problem are political.
Bloke spends his whole life studying energy sources, supplies and distribution networks, publishes a book reviewed in the nyb link above in which he explains in gr\eat detail why nuclear will not help...then along comes our champion idiot who had no understanding of the carbon cycle, still does not understand what net zero means etc etc etc. And then has the mind fucking arrogance to express his opinion that no we really need nuclear. . Come on Hutchy solve the Quantum?General Relativity conundrum for us, you fuckwit!
BB - your swearing and bullying has risen substantially . A shame .
In my experience when people like you do this they are getting desperate and have run out of sensible arguments .
What I find AMAZING is that after all your research and reading you have not ONE suggestion that can absorb CO2 . Pathetic really . Do you believe in magic or the power of positive thinking ?
You say no to trees and carbon capture and storage .
You have done a lot more work on this issue than I have but EVERYONE else gets it that if we cant absorb CO2 we wont get to ZERO without substantial pain .
Synthetic trees. You can construct a proxy with a sheet of limestone and a solar powered fishpond pump in your yard if you wish.
This is a good chart that fills in as you watch it (cool) and shows the top 10 emitters.
https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/978951/
US, Germany, maybe also Japan seem trending down. Chart from 2019 before corona shock. Have no idea who flourish are as a disclaimer.
blindboy wrote:Bloke spends his whole life studying energy sources, supplies and distribution networks, publishes a book reviewed in the nyb link above in which he explains in gr\eat detail why nuclear will not help...then along comes our champion idiot who had no understanding of the carbon cycle, still does not understand what net zero means etc etc etc. And then has the mind fucking arrogance to express his opinion that no we really need nuclear. . Come on Hutchy solve the Quantum?General Relativity conundrum for us, you fuckwit!
Wheres this link to Nuclear wont help, this sounds very strange?
Cost issues aside, even the UN have said recently.(August 2021)
"Global climate objectives fall short without nuclear power in the mix: UNECE
The urgent need to reduce emissions and slow global heating, should involve the roll-out of more nuclear power stations, regional UN energy experts argued in a new briefing on Wednesday."
Article here: https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/08/1097572
Blindboy, I assume you saw the adverb, currently....
I do support renewable energy, but the need for a sustainable retreat is due to rampant overconsumption of food, resources and energy. Agriculture, construction and production all produce significant greenhouse gasses, much of which cannot be eliminated by simply switching to renewable power. Without tackling consumption and population, global warming won't be solved.
Optimist wrote:Almost Daily lately, I hear the grinding of the wood chipping machine again in some backstreet. Another city person has moved to our town and doesn’t like leaves in their gutters. That’s exactly what a new neighbour told me as he had two beautiful at least 50 year old tallowoods wiped from the face of the earth, a home to many of my bird friends and the sentinel of a few tons of carbon. With this kind of stupid rampant on earth only God can save us.
Yeah I share your pain mate. I've seen more habitat destruction in my area over the last 12 months than I've seen in 4 decades here.
Goannas have just started coming out here and they've woken up to a whole new landscape than before they bunkered down 6 months ago. Fences everywhere where there were none previously. They seem very confused. There has been quite a few ran over lately because they're following the fence lines down to the road trying to get across to their former hunting grounds.
Most locals here didn't even have fences adjacent to the bush , and if they did very few were colour bond walls , the newcomers have pretty much ended that.
Tubeshooter, that's f%&$ed.
I live in a highly urbanized environment. The only life that thrives here, apart from humans, are cockroaches, crows and sewer rats.
Do you believe you can learn a lot about a person from the company they keep?
Does this hold true on a species level?
"Do you believe you can learn a lot about a person from the company they keep?"
Most definitely, The companion of fools will suffer harm , he who travels with wise men shall be wise.
"Does this hold true on a species level?"
I think so.
Arcadia the problems you identify are serious and it would be great to solve them at the same time as reducing emissions. It is certainly possible ...... except for the politics. We have corrupt parasites in power in too many countries for that to happen. At the moment we are struggling to get an agreement that would reach the minimal essential reductions. Even in those countries who are relatively supportive there are powerful well funded forces seeking to undermine the agreement. To suggest, in any way, that the changes would cause inconvenience or lower standards of living would be fatal to any chance of success.
Read the material I posted earlier from nyb it explains a feasible approach.
Arcadia - Some suggestions I have just read .
"With the UK due to host the world’s annual environmental conference, COP26, in Glasgow next month, everyone’s been talking about climate change.
And there’s no doubt we all want to cut our own carbon footprint — our impact on the planet — but it’s not easy to steer the correct course between ‘greenwashing’ and denying ourselves the earth-damaging luxuries we love.
DITCH: That cotton tote bag.
SWITCH TO: Re-usable hessian.
We know that even if you use a plastic bag multiple times before ending its life as a bin liner, it is still made from fossil fuels, which are indestructible and leach toxic gasses if burnt.
The same applies to a ‘bag for life’ which uses even more plastic only to meet the same end.
More shocking still? Cotton tote bags fare worse.
A 2018 study by the Ministry of Environment and Food in Denmark found strong plastic ‘bags for life’ need to be used 37 times to offset the carbon required to make them, while each non-organic cotton tote requires 149 uses before breaking even, and an organic cotton bag needs to be used 20,000 times to offset the volume of water (in short supply in many of the countries where cotton is grown) and electricity which powers the irrigation required for cotton production.
DON’T GO VEGAN, GO LOCAL
DITCH: Foreign-grown vegetables and obsessing over organic.
SWITCH TO: Local and seasonal fruit, veg and yes, even meat.
Food represents 20 per cent of our total carbon footprint (the weight of CO2 and other greenhouse gases released as a consequence of our actions).
According to Mike Berners-Lee, a professor at Lancaster University’s Environment Centre, a meat-eater’s diet typically produces 8.2 kg of carbon and equivalent gases (CO2e) each day.
HOLIDAY WITH A CLEAR CONSCIENCE
DITCH: Flying.
SWITCH TO: Rail.
Of all the energy consumed in the UK, the biggest chunk is transport. A plane is the most polluting form and a train is the least.
According to Professor Berners-Lee’s book There Is No Planet B, flying from London to Edinburgh emits 128 kg, driving would emit 100 kg, but the train uses 21 kg.
If you do fly, go economy, and long-haul: it’s more energy efficient because more people are on board, and long-haul is more efficient than short hops as proportionally more energy is required for take off and landing than in the air.
CUT YOUR PET’S CARBON PAW PRINT
DITCH: Red meat.
SWITCH TO: Chicken or insects.
Pets eat around one fifth of the world’s meat and fish, and studies have found that a dog has a carbon paw print twice as big as a 4x4 car.
Scientists Robert and Brenda Vale calculated an eco rating for the average dog by working out how much land it took to generate its food.
A medium-sized dog consumes 90 g of meat and 156 g of cereal in every 300 g portion of dried dog food. That takes 0.84 hectares to generate annually.
If a 4.6-litre Toyota Land Cruiser does around 6,000 miles a year, it uses 55.1 gigajoules of energy.
That would take 0.41 hectares to produce, so the SUV’s eco footprint is less than half the dog’s."
Daily mail .
After 13 years in power what has the Federal Government achieved on climate action? .....zilch.
https://theconversation.com/yes-australia-can-beat-its-2030-emissions-ta...
Clooney will be a keynote speaker at the upcoming conference as will the Queen .
Before he does , he and his wife will be in Australia . He is really trying to set a good example on his choice of abode to give his speech extra clout .
"George and Amal Clooney are rumoured to have secured a palatial mansion on the outskirts of the Gold Coast for when they visit Australia in the coming weeks.
The Hollywood star, 60, is bringing his family Down Under while he films the romantic comedy Ticket to Paradise alongside Julia Roberts.
George and his wife of seven years, 43, are believed to be renting a 49-hectare estate in Tallebudgera Valley called Bellagio La Villa."
Daily Mail .
Watch Catch22 on Stan. He acts and directs it. A bloke who can produce work of that quality is welcome to the benefits.
.