https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/26/trees-could-replace-air-con-buildings-around-trees-cooler-study/
Trees should be used to replace air conditioning, a new study by the Forestry Commission has said.
The research, supported by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, showed that areas with many trees were as much as 4 degrees cooler as places in the same city without vegetation.
By following the guidelines and advice published including selecting trees which are best for cooling, and planting them near offices, the researchers found that air conditioning could be reduced in cities by up to 13 per cent, saving £22million a year and reducing the city's carbon footprint.
They pointed to the hot summer of 2018 and argued that residents in cities could have greater comfort during heatwaves if more trees are planted in towns and cities. The Met Office recently predicted that the UK could experience four heatwaves over 30 degrees by 2050.
Scientists found that larger trees with a greater amount of leaf area, dense crowns and high transpiration rates are the best at local cooling.
Research by the University of Reading found that some of the best trees for local cooling in London were the London Plane tree, the Sessile Oak and the Cherry Tree.
These trees should be planted, they said, in an area which means people can walk or sit under them and benefit from the shade, and additional foliage should be planted in a way which shades homes and buildings from the sun.
Trees help areas cool through a process called evapotranspiration, which is where water produced during respiration evaporates from the leaves of trees, cooling the air.
The Forestry Commission said: "In collaboration with Ricardo Energy & Environment and Uppsala University, Sweden, we have identified which tree characteristics are linked to the greatest cooling and have proposed a methodology that can be used by urban planners and tree managers to compare and select tree species according to their cooling ability.
"With the University of Reading, we have published information on the evaporative cooling provided by urban forests. Using a mathematical model, we explain that air-conditioning unit energy consumption may fall by up to 13 per cent in Inner London due to the evapotranspiration provided by its trees and that this benefit may lead to annual savings of up to £22 million."
The trees selected, they said, should also be drought tolerant as they will be planted in hot and dry areas in inner cities.
The Forestry Commission in Edinburgh contributed to the research, and found that between 2011 and 2014, air temperatures around Kensington Gardens, were measured finding a cooling of up to 4°C when compared to streets nearby with less vegetation
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/09/25/green-taliban-will-sweep-away-liberal-order-unless-get-grip/
We have cracked the challenge of renewable electricity. Solar is cheaper than coal in most southern latitudes. The distortions of China's Silk Road - Beijing's way of shunting excess industrial capacity abroad - is the chief reason why new coal power plants are still being built in South East Asia. As of late 2019, at '2 cent' solar costs, they are no longer uncompetitive.
The latest auctions for UK offshore wind came in as low as £39.50. Few had thought this possible even by mid-century. Germany has got the message. It is now ramping up its offshore wind target to 20 gigawatts by 2030.
Energy storage for weeks at a time is in sight at costs that match and may soon undercut gas peaker plants to balance intermittent renewables. Highview Power's 4GW liquid air project in Texas will compete toe-to-toe with cheap US shale gas, providing wind back-up at levelized costs below $100 per megawatt/hour. It is aiming for $50 within a decade.
The latest auctions for UK offshore wind came in as low as £39.50. Few had thought this possible even by mid-century. CREDIT: TELEGRAPH
"We have a clear path to zero-carbon power from wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal covering 75pc to 85pc of the world's needs. The last 15pc is harder," said Mr Liebreich.
"All road transportation up to 200-300 miles is going electric. By 2025 mayors in European and US cities will have banned diesel vans for deliveries," he said.
Daimler says it has no plans to design an internal combustion engine for its cars ever again. All investment is going into electric vehicles. An era has ended.
Amazon is ordering 100,000 electric vans from Rivian. The bus fleet of every city in China will be electrified by 2025.
The next frontier is green hydrogen made from solar or wind by electrolysis. This is harder to crack but the top US universities are all over it. So are London hedge funds. BNEF thinks the levelized cost will drop to $24 MWh by 2030, and to $15 by 2050.
This opens the way to limitless production of hydrogen for shipping, long-haul road freight, and railways, or for replacing coke in steel making. Once the cost is low enough huge offshore islands could produce limitless amounts of energy from wind and solar for synthetic fuels.
Heating, farming, and land use will be last but nothing is beyond our innovation. The National Farmers Union has plans for net zero emissions in British agriculture by 2040.
There is no necessary macro-economic 'cost' to this great transformation. Economic systems are not like family budgets.
Net zero is better understood as an economic accelerant. A report this week by the UN's economic arm (UNCTAD) estimates the fiscal multiplier of a Global Green New Deal at 1.3 to 1.8. The spending generates a positive economic return. It soaks up excess capital and drives investment.
UNCTAD thinks it could lift annual growth by 1pc in rich countries and 1.5pc to 2pc in developing states. It is what the world needs to escape its post-Lehman low growth malaise. It shifts stimulus from asset bubbles to real economy jobs that reverse inequality.
Some will dispute the figures. The UN is avowedly Left Keynesian. But this is the discussion we should be having.
Regardless of the climate emergency, we have reached a juncture where fossil fuels are no longer competitive. They will be priced out of the market over the 2020s and 2030s, casualties of Schumpeter's creative destruction. But it will not be fast enough.
We can speed this up with 'regulatory forcing' and changes to the incentive structure, above all Pigovian carbon taxes adapted to each economy. The market will do the rest with swift efficiency.
What we must not do is carry on with business as usual. As Greta says, our remaining safe carbon budget will be gone in under nine years. That way lies the temptation of green political tyranny.
This one's very relevant to Ireland where animal agriculture produces a bigger share of greenhouse gas emissions than in most EU countries:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612452/how-seaweed-could-shrink-livestocks-global-carbon-hoofprint/
Seaweed could make cows burp less methane and cut their carbon hoofprint
A diet supplemented with red algae could lessen the huge amounts of greenhouse gases emitted by cows and sheep, if we can just figure out how to grow enough.
by James Temple
Nov 23, 2018
In a wooden barn on the edge of campus at the University of California, Davis, cattle line up at their assigned feed slots to snatch mouthfuls of alfalfa hay.
This past spring, several of these Holstein dairy cows participated in a study to test a promising path to reducing methane emissions from livestock, a huge source of the greenhouse gases driving climate change. By adding a small amount of seaweed to the animals' feed, researchers found, they could cut the cows' methane production by nearly 60%.
Each year, livestock production pumps out greenhouse gases with the equivalent warming effect of more than 7 gigatons of carbon dioxide, roughly the same global impact as the transportation industry. Nearly 40% of that is produced during digestion: cattle, goats, and sheep belch and pass methane, a highly potent, albeit relatively short-lived, greenhouse gas.
If the reductions achieved in the UC Davis study could be applied across the worldwide livestock industry, it would eliminate nearly 2 gigatons of those emissions annually—about a quarter of United States' total climate pollution each year.
Ermias Kebreab, an animal science professor at UC Davis who leads the work, is preparing to undertake a more ambitious study in the months ahead, evaluating whether smaller amounts of a more potent form of seaweed can cut methane emissions even further. Meanwhile, some businesses have begun to explore what could be the harder challenge: growing it on a massive scale.
"Very, very high reductions"
The problem is the digestive process of cattle and other ruminants, known as enteric fermentation. Microbes in their digestive tracts break down and extract energy from the carbohydrates in fibrous grasses. But the same process also generates hydrogen, which a separate set of microorganisms feed on, producing methane.
About 95% of the gas escapes through the mouth and nostrils, while the rest exits in the other direction.
Researchers have explored a number of potential paths to lowering livestock emissions, including selective breeding (some animals are less gaseous than others), vaccines, microbiome transfers, various dietary supplements, and more efficient feeds—all with varying results, says Dan Blaustein-Rejto, senior agriculture analyst with the Breakthrough Institute, a research center focusing on technological solutions to environmental problems.
But there's growing momentum behind the seaweed approach, thanks to almost shockingly effective results in initial scientific studies. In 2014, Australian researchers found that low doses of a red algae known as Asparagopsis taxiformis virtually eliminated methane production in lab experiments. Field trials with live sheep cut emissions as much as 80%, while the UC Davis experiment, the first on live cattle, showed a 58% reduction on average when a related seaweed made up 1% of their diet.
More milk and meat
Kebreab grew up in Eritrea, an East African country on the coast of the Red Sea that struggles with recurrent droughts and famines. The continual shortage of milk or meat inspired him to study livestock, in the hope of finding sustainable ways to produce more of both.
JAME TEMPLE
Kebreab first began researching the methane problem more than a decade ago. But the recent work on seaweed was prompted, in part, by California's passage of a law in 2016 that called for reducing the state's methane emissions by 40%. That's placed real pressure on businesses to find effective and affordable ways of doing so, particularly among the Central Valley's cattle and dairy farmers. The statute focuses primarily on the related but smaller problem of reducing methane from livestock manure—for which there are some available means to make and measure progress. But cutting emissions from cow burps would also count toward meeting that mandate.
"As soon as SB-1383 came online, the interest level increased hugely—and it's concentrated in California," Kebreab says.
One negative side effect in the initial UC Davis study is that the cattle did decrease the amount they were consuming each day. That's a big deal, since the more the cows eat, the more milk or meat they produce. Kebreab suspects the issue was simply taste: seaweed is very salty. The researchers ultimately mixed it with molasses to help the medicine go down.
But crucially, in the initial study, they used a form of seaweed that's not as potent as the red algae employed in the initial Australian lab experiments. Kebreab intends to use that strain in the follow-up trial, and he believes it could cut more emissions even at a lower dose.
In the months ahead, Kebreab will oversee a six-month experiment with 24 beef cattle. He plans to closely evaluate whether the effect on methane persists at the same level over a longer time period, as well as whether the supplement affects health, weight, and the quality of the meat.
Theoretically, as long as cattle don't notice the taste (or get used to it), the seaweed should help them put on weight. Blocking methane production should mean that more of the consumed carbohydrates get directed to the task of building tissue. If so, farmers could see an economic return on the up-front cost of this supplement—though it may or may not be the most cost-effective option for packing on weight.
But there's another concern: how to get the 200 kilograms of red seaweed they need for the study. It has yet to be produced on a commercial scale, and doing so could prove tricky.
Getting to scale
Australis Aquaculture, a producer of ocean-farmed Asian sea bass based in Greenfield, Massachusetts, is attempting to find a way through a research project in Vietnam, dubbed Greener Grazing.
The red algae grows naturally in the wild, but it will take a heavy human hand to produce it at the speed and scale necessary to serve even a fraction of the global livestock industry. And so far, the seaweed has resisted attempts to get it to reproduce, says Josh Goldman, the company's founder.
GREENER GRAZING
Greener Grazing and its collaborators are pursuing several paths to solve the problem. If they crack it, the company will move to the next step of attempting to grow seaweed off the coast of Vietnam. The plants would be placed within the type of plastic tube netting used to grow oysters, and suspended a few feet underwater—just deep enough to be protected from waves, but close enough to the sun for photosynthesis to drive growth.
Meanwhile, DSM, the giant Dutch conglomerate, is working on a synthetic additive for the cows. A paper its researchers coauthored found that a methane inhibitor known as 3-nitrooxypropanol, or 3NOP, cut emissions by 30% in lactating Holsteins. The study noted that milk production wasn't affected during the 12-week experiment, and as a bonus, the "spared methane energy" helped generate tissue, resulting in higher body weights.
DSM Nutritional Products reportedly hopes to commercialize the animal feed and has already applied for US Food and Drug Administration approval to sell it in the United States.
While the reductions aren't nearly as dramatic as those seen in the early tests of seaweed, a large company with existing manufacturing plants and distribution channels could potentially scale up production faster and drive down costs further than the aquaculture approach, Kebreab says.
DSM didn't respond to an inquiry from MIT Technology Review.
Beyond California
Kebreab is collaborating with Joan Salwen, a Stanford fellow who founded Elm Innovations, a social venture working to raise money for seaweed research efforts and collaborate with the livestock industry.
Salwen readily acknowledges that more research needs to be done on the health effects of the seaweed—on livestock and humans alike—and that it's still unclear whether these strains can be scaled up in an economically feasible way. Moreover, earning returns on the product in a state like California, where farmers face regulatory mandates, will be quite different from selling it in poor parts of the world that also contribute to methane emissions.
But if all goes well, Salwen hopes, early markets fostered by strong climate policies could help expand production and drive down costs elsewhere.
Walking back from the barn, Kebreab mentions that venture capitalists have been visiting the campus to learn more about the research and opportunities. He's been eager to share, given the amount of investment that would be required to get a red seaweed industry off the ground.
"The more money you have, the quicker we can get it to market," he says.
But Kebreab himself doesn't have any entrepreneurial ambitions.
"I just like working with the animals," he says.
I've also seen Aussie research on the use of seaweed with very impressive results - this isn't the original, but it'll do:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-19/environmental-concerns-cows-eating-seaweed/7946630
QuoteNew research carried out in north Queensland could drastically reduce the impact the agricultural industry has on the global environment.
Professor of aquaculture at James Cook University in Townsville, Rocky De Nys, has been working with the CSIRO studying the effects seaweed can have on cow's methane production.
They discovered adding a small amount of dried seaweed to a cow's diet can reduce the amount of methane a cow produces by up to 99 per cent.
"We started with 20 species [of seaweed] and we very quickly narrowed that down to one really stand out species of red seaweed," Professor De Nys said.
The species of seaweed is called Asparagopsis taxiformis, and JCU researchers have been actively collecting it off the coast of Queensland.
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on September 26, 2019, 07:59:19 PM
I've also seen Aussie research on the use of seaweed with very impressive results - this isn't the original, but it'll do:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-19/environmental-concerns-cows-eating-seaweed/7946630
QuoteNew research carried out in north Queensland could drastically reduce the impact the agricultural industry has on the global environment.
Professor of aquaculture at James Cook University in Townsville, Rocky De Nys, has been working with the CSIRO studying the effects seaweed can have on cow's methane production.
They discovered adding a small amount of dried seaweed to a cow's diet can reduce the amount of methane a cow produces by up to 99 per cent.
"We started with 20 species [of seaweed] and we very quickly narrowed that down to one really stand out species of red seaweed," Professor De Nys said.
The species of seaweed is called Asparagopsis taxiformis, and JCU researchers have been actively collecting it off the coast of Queensland.
Would it work for humans? I work with someone who contributes a lot of methane to the greenhouse gases.
Dried seaweed is a delicious snack. I wonder if sushi eaters kick out less methane.
Safely say seaweed like most leafy plants would cause flatulance in humans.
We should have plenty of seaweed soon enough anyroad but it will be needed to pull the carbon out off the atmosphere as it did rather dramatically during the eocene.
As far as the cows diet go I thought I heard that grass was way better than alfalfa and maize anyway for methane emissions and that Irish agriculture had way lower carbon emissions that the US which is more fodder based with way less pasture grazing.
Anyway grazing leads me on to this guy
https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change/up-next?language=en
Thought it was interesting... alot of people think hes a bullshitter tho it seems, but I can see his logic. I feel that the principle is right tho more plants will act as carbon sinks and the best way to do that is to manage the land in such a way that it will also be productive for humans. Permaculture is a more holistic and sustainable way to do this
Quote from: seafoid on September 26, 2019, 04:34:41 PM
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/09/25/green-taliban-will-sweep-away-liberal-order-unless-get-grip/
We have cracked the challenge of renewable electricity. Solar is cheaper than coal in most southern latitudes. The distortions of China's Silk Road - Beijing's way of shunting excess industrial capacity abroad - is the chief reason why new coal power plants are still being built in South East Asia. As of late 2019, at '2 cent' solar costs, they are no longer uncompetitive.
The latest auctions for UK offshore wind came in as low as £39.50. Few had thought this possible even by mid-century. Germany has got the message. It is now ramping up its offshore wind target to 20 gigawatts by 2030.
Energy storage for weeks at a time is in sight at costs that match and may soon undercut gas peaker plants to balance intermittent renewables. Highview Power's 4GW liquid air project in Texas will compete toe-to-toe with cheap US shale gas, providing wind back-up at levelized costs below $100 per megawatt/hour. It is aiming for $50 within a decade.
The latest auctions for UK offshore wind came in as low as £39.50. Few had thought this possible even by mid-century. CREDIT: TELEGRAPH
"We have a clear path to zero-carbon power from wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal covering 75pc to 85pc of the world's needs. The last 15pc is harder," said Mr Liebreich.
"All road transportation up to 200-300 miles is going electric. By 2025 mayors in European and US cities will have banned diesel vans for deliveries," he said.
Daimler says it has no plans to design an internal combustion engine for its cars ever again. All investment is going into electric vehicles. An era has ended.
Amazon is ordering 100,000 electric vans from Rivian. The bus fleet of every city in China will be electrified by 2025.
The next frontier is green hydrogen made from solar or wind by electrolysis. This is harder to crack but the top US universities are all over it. So are London hedge funds. BNEF thinks the levelized cost will drop to $24 MWh by 2030, and to $15 by 2050.
This opens the way to limitless production of hydrogen for shipping, long-haul road freight, and railways, or for replacing coke in steel making. Once the cost is low enough huge offshore islands could produce limitless amounts of energy from wind and solar for synthetic fuels.
Heating, farming, and land use will be last but nothing is beyond our innovation. The National Farmers Union has plans for net zero emissions in British agriculture by 2040.
There is no necessary macro-economic 'cost' to this great transformation. Economic systems are not like family budgets.
Net zero is better understood as an economic accelerant. A report this week by the UN's economic arm (UNCTAD) estimates the fiscal multiplier of a Global Green New Deal at 1.3 to 1.8. The spending generates a positive economic return. It soaks up excess capital and drives investment.
UNCTAD thinks it could lift annual growth by 1pc in rich countries and 1.5pc to 2pc in developing states. It is what the world needs to escape its post-Lehman low growth malaise. It shifts stimulus from asset bubbles to real economy jobs that reverse inequality.
Some will dispute the figures. The UN is avowedly Left Keynesian. But this is the discussion we should be having.
Regardless of the climate emergency, we have reached a juncture where fossil fuels are no longer competitive. They will be priced out of the market over the 2020s and 2030s, casualties of Schumpeter's creative destruction. But it will not be fast enough.
We can speed this up with 'regulatory forcing' and changes to the incentive structure, above all Pigovian carbon taxes adapted to each economy. The market will do the rest with swift efficiency.
What we must not do is carry on with business as usual. As Greta says, our remaining safe carbon budget will be gone in under nine years. That way lies the temptation of green political tyranny.
He makes some good points but I stopped reading when he said hydro power was carbon free
British Polar research ship RRS Sir David Attenborough launched today should help "tackle climate change"..... except no one is pointing out that its diesel powered!
Dont understand why they didnt go nuclear with it....even just for practical reasons working in the most remote areas of the planet for long periods it would be very useful power source.
I'm going to shout abuse and spread conspiracy theories online about a 16 year old Swedish girl. ::)
In all seriousness - the second biggest producer of C02 in the world is the production of concrete.
Thankfully, some companies are getting ahead of the game and trapping the carbon dioxide into the concrete.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeKUlEOJ0p0
Very interesting discussion here with the former chief scientific advisor to the British government
https://www.talkingpoliticspodcast.com/blog/2019/160-david-king-on-climate-repair
I would estimate fraudulent renewable schemes are as big if not a bigger industry than genuinely effective renewable technologies. Everyone knows the "cash for ash" scandal but I'm sure if any are aware of just how bad it is. There's countless examples of RHI burners warming empty buildings. I know of several that literally heat a building where the doors are left open to let the heat escape, the boilers are such money spinners that it's preferable to let the heat out than to turn them off. Worst of all not only is this a dead loss of public expenditure but cash for ash is not a zero sum carbon scheme. It takes countless gallons of diesel and consumable fuels to plant, harvest, dry and then transport the wood pellets. None of this is recaptured by the willow.
Anaerobic Digestors are worse, this heavily subsidised area takes huge volumes of fossil fuels to attain miserable returns. AD almost quite literally turns oil through a series of inefficient processes into electricity. There are several in the area that I live and their wastefullness is very hard to fathom. Basically crops are tilled, fertilised and harvested to then be composted and then fermented into methane and then converted to electricity. The nutrient waste then has to be spread on the ground again, usually in in unsuitable conditions as there is such a large volume of it. Anyone who thinks the collection of said crops is negligible really needs to sit on a modern tractor for a day and see the diesel they consume in a working day. The tilling, fertilising (which also is produced by the burning of fossil fuels), harvesting and spreading of the waste is all done by machinery. I simply do not see the efficiency of this. Burning an obscene amount of diesel oil to make it back in electric simply doesn't add up. Add to this that AD plants have fuelled the rise of large scale and large polluting factory farms and it's a recipe for disaster. It's every bit as bad as the RHI scandal except it's not as blatant a scam so people and the media aren't interested in running with it bar the select few:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/16/green-energy-subsidies-fuel-rise-of-northern-ireland-mega-farms (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/16/green-energy-subsidies-fuel-rise-of-northern-ireland-mega-farms)
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/newton-emerson-if-you-thought-cash-for-ash-was-bad-wait-for-bung-for-dung-1.3746018?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fopinion%2Fnewton-emerson-if-you-thought-cash-for-ash-was-bad-wait-for-bung-for-dung-1.3746018 (https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/newton-emerson-if-you-thought-cash-for-ash-was-bad-wait-for-bung-for-dung-1.3746018?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fopinion%2Fnewton-emerson-if-you-thought-cash-for-ash-was-bad-wait-for-bung-for-dung-1.3746018)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4078820/The-great-green-guzzler-Monster-digesters-meant-guzzle-waste-churn-eco-friendly-energy-fed-CROPS-produce-pitiful-levels-power-cost-216m-subsidies-HARM-environment.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4078820/The-great-green-guzzler-Monster-digesters-meant-guzzle-waste-churn-eco-friendly-energy-fed-CROPS-produce-pitiful-levels-power-cost-216m-subsidies-HARM-environment.html)
I loathe to link the daily mail but their points are succinct and they contain evidence from David Mc Kay who was one of the pre-eminent experts on climate change. He made important points that very few people seem to realise in the following article, planting a few more trees, adding a few solar panels and building a few wind farms simply aren't going to cut it.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/cif-green/2009/apr/29/renewable-energy-david-mackay (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/cif-green/2009/apr/29/renewable-energy-david-mackay)
QuoteNow let's imagine that technology switches and lifestyle changes manage to halve British energy consumption to 60kWh per day per person. How big would the wind, nuclear, and solar facilities need to be to supply this halved consumption?
If we wanted to get one-third of our energy from each of these sources we would have to build wind farms with an area equal to the area of Wales, 50 Sizewells of nuclear power and solar power stations in deserts covering an area twice the size of greater London.
That's at half current consumption. At standard consumption we'd have to build wind farms twice the size of wales, 100 nuclear plants and power stations (in the desert!) four times the size of wales. Simultaneously.
McKay also stated that biofuels, of which we've pumped billions of taxpayers money into, simply "don't add up".
Quote from: trileacman on September 27, 2019, 11:13:23 AM
I would estimate fraudulent renewable schemes are as big if not a bigger industry than genuinely effective renewable technologies. Everyone knows the "cash for ash" scandal but I'm sure if any are aware of just how bad it is.
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
- Ronald Reagan
Quote from: five points on September 27, 2019, 11:52:12 AM
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
- Ronald Reagan
Says you from your computer that runs on electric from the national grid. No doubt after using water at some point today that came from water board pipes.
:rolleyes:
https://www.ft.com/content/bde19efc-e35a-11e9-9743-db5a370481bc
Technology can help save the planet, but it is not enough To bet everything on future innovation is one heck of a gamble with our future JOHN THORNHILL The intellectual clash I once saw between an eminent neoclassical economist and a passionate environmentalist remains fixed in my memory, even though it took place at a conference in France more than a decade ago. With icy logic, the economist dismissed warnings about irreversible climate change. By definition, unsustainable development could not be sustained, he argued. If global warming became a big enough problem in the future, then demand for a solution would conjure up remedial supply. The market would magically produce an answer. Such blind-faith thinking still lies behind much of the laggardly response to the climate emergency that was on display at the UN summit in New York last week. Even if we cannot predict the exact forms they will take, the argument runs, market forces and technological innovation will surely conjure up a solution. Why stop poor countries from developing and throw coal miners out of jobs today when technological innovation can deal with the problem tomorrow? There is an outside chance that the free market ideologues may be right. Humanity has an extraordinary capacity for ingenuity. We may yet invent the mother of all decarbonisation machines in response to the greatest investment opportunity of our age.
But to bet everything on that happening soon is one heck of a gamble with the future of our planet. If, as the environmentalists argue, there were a 75 per cent chance of a huge asteroid slamming into Earth in 2050 then we would surely mobilise all our resources today to prevent such a catastrophe. Why do we not respond to global warming with similar urgency? Edward Perello, an investor at Deep Science Ventures, which backs promising environmental technologies, says the biggest challenge is to grow solutions fast enough to deal with the magnitude of the problem. "Does the market have the capability to deliver the technology when the demand arrives?" he asks. "Technology alone is not going to solve the problem, certainly not in the timeframe needed," is his answer. The Economist magazine agrees: "Unfortunately, technologies capable of delivering negative emissions of billions of tonnes a year for reasonable prices over decades do not exist." That is in no way to diminish the astonishing — and desperately needed — technological progress that has been made in many environmental fields over the years. Solar power costs have fallen more than 80 per cent in the past decade. The tech billionaire Elon Musk has helped to pioneer an electric car revolution by producing cool Tesla cars. In 2015, two dozen governments launched Mission Innovation, which has so far allocated $4.6bn to clean energy research. The Chinese government has invested massively in renewable energy.
The Breakthrough Energy Coalition, backed by Microsoft's Bill Gates and other private investors, is also exploring the potential of all kinds of environmental technologies, from next generation nuclear reactors, to carbon dioxide sequestration, to prevention of bovine flatulence. The EU is backing a related €100m venture fund. But Mr Gates accepts that a far bigger systemic change is needed in the way we run the global economy. "To stop the planet from getting substantially warmer, we need breakthroughs in how we make things, grow food and move people and goods — not just how we power our homes and cars," he wrote in a blog post. Fiona Cousins, a principal at Arup, an engineering company, says there is far more we can do with existing technologies to cut harmful gas emissions as long as we have the right incentives and sufficient will. For example, we use a huge amount of energy heating and cooling buildings. The answer is to electrify them and then decarbonise the electricity supply. Replacing belching boilers, installing insulation and deploying machine learning systems to regulate supply and demand makes a difference. The trouble is that in the race against physics, winning slowly is still losing, as the writer Bill McKibben has argued. In that sense, our environmental crisis represents the ultimate market failure. We cannot rely on the market alone to solve a problem it has helped fuel. The convening and mission-setting power of governments, the mobilising force of civil society and radical shifts in consumer behaviour are all still needed to help preserve our planet. "We have got to do everything if we want net emissions to fall to zero," says Ms Cousins. "We do not have much of a buffer left."
The FT, whose columnists brag about jetting across the world, now panicking about climate change. Bless.
Quote from: five points on September 27, 2019, 11:52:12 AM
Quote from: trileacman on September 27, 2019, 11:13:23 AM
I would estimate fraudulent renewable schemes are as big if not a bigger industry than genuinely effective renewable technologies. Everyone knows the "cash for ash" scandal but I'm sure if any are aware of just how bad it is.
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
- Ronald Reagan
Posted on the internet, the outcome of several big government projects.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 30, 2019, 05:31:38 PM
Quote from: five points on September 27, 2019, 11:52:12 AM
Quote from: trileacman on September 27, 2019, 11:13:23 AM
I would estimate fraudulent renewable schemes are as big if not a bigger industry than genuinely effective renewable technologies. Everyone knows the "cash for ash" scandal but I'm sure if any are aware of just how bad it is.
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
- Ronald Reagan
Posted on the internet, the outcome of several big government projects.
solyndra
Quote from: Gmac on September 30, 2019, 05:37:23 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 30, 2019, 05:31:38 PM
Quote from: five points on September 27, 2019, 11:52:12 AM
Quote from: trileacman on September 27, 2019, 11:13:23 AM
I would estimate fraudulent renewable schemes are as big if not a bigger industry than genuinely effective renewable technologies. Everyone knows the "cash for ash" scandal but I'm sure if any are aware of just how bad it is.
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
- Ronald Reagan
Posted on the internet, the outcome of several big government projects.
solyndra
Squirrel!
The tail end of a West Atlantic hurricane
Thanks to climate change
WTF
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/high-probability-storm-lorenzo-will-track-close-to-or-over-ireland-1.4036030
BP's chairman says world is on 'an unsustainable path'
https://www.ft.com/content/5cf6246a-7afe-11e9-81d2-f785092ab560
BP's chairman said he recognised that the world's energy consumption was on "an unsustainable path" and the oil major's days of chasing ever higher output are coming to an end.
Writing in the Financial Times on Tuesday, Helge Lund acknowledged the need to repurpose BP's business for a lower-carbon future. However, he did not detail how it would do so and continued to reject investor calls to set hard emissions targets for the use of the fuels it produces.
"With the oil price above $70 a barrel for Brent crude, surely BP wants to keep producing and selling as much as it can for as long as it can? On the contrary," he said, timing his comments with the company's annual meeting in Aberdeen.
Two shareholder resolutions on climate change will be put to a vote at Tuesday's AGM in a sign of how BP, like other oil and gas majors, is under growing investor pressure to show it is taking action to prevent global temperatures rising.
One resolution proposed by Climate Action 100+, a coalition of some of the world's largest investors that manage $32tn in assets, has called on BP to detail how its business is aligned with the commitments of the Paris climate accord.
Mr Lund, whose statement is supported by chief executive Bob Dudley, maintained that BP's strategy is "consistent" with meeting the Paris goals to keep temperature rises to well below 2C from pre-industrial levels — an assertion that has been challenged by big shareholders and environmental activists.
Recommended
FT Podcast
BP prepares for low carbon future
BP has "transformed many times over . . . and are in the process of doing so again", Mr Lund said, without spelling out how BP was shifting its business strategy or changing its spending plans.
"The evolution into broader energy companies would require new carbon-neutral businesses to be created at an unprecedented rate and existing businesses to be transformed," he said.
Mr Lund added that a faster transition would require "a huge re-engineering of the energy system" and would present a significant challenge for the world's biggest oil and gas companies. But "the world can't continue along its current path".
Investors are demanding that energy companies take greater responsibility for their role in enabling global warming, caused by the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere from activities including the burning of fossil fuels.
Climate activists such as Greenpeace, which blockaded BP's London headquarters on Monday, have called on oil and gas companies to stop investing in new oil and gas production altogether and to pivot their businesses towards renewables instead.
While BP has backed the CA100+ resolution, Mr Lund reiterated that the oil major does not support another by shareholder group FollowThis, asking for hard targets on its emissions including those of its customers who burn their diesel and petrol in cars.
While Norway's Equinor has also rejected this proposal, Royal Dutch Shell has pledged to introduce targets next year that will include these third-party emissions.
BP has instead committed to keeping emissions from its own operations flat until 2025.
Mr Lund said that while BP was committed to advancing the energy transition towards cleaner fuels it could not take the lead as it had in the past, under former chief executive John Browne.
"We invested heavily in renewables . . . But we also lost a lot of shareholder money," he said, illustrating the huge tensions roiling the oil and gas industry about how it can stay profitable.
He called for governments to "accelerate development" of a carbon tax or pricing mechanisms to help them in the transformation of their business.
Some interesting stuff on rte this week as part of their "climate action week"
Anyone changing their habits in the last while to become more sustainable?
I'd say we're pretty good on waste generation (have a compost heap, brown bin and good at recycling), water usage and minimising food waste. Okay on flights, maybe 1 short and 1 medium / year. Not great on transport (although seriously considering an EV when my diesel packs it in) and meat/dairy consumption which are both high.
We've always been pretty good at keep the car use to a minimum. Considered buying an EV but at the time we changed our last car we were living in a place where we wouldn't have been able to charge it, so we got a petrol car that we use a few times a week for errands, shopping and visiting family. For everything else we walk, cycle, scoot, or take the bus or train. We used to have a car each, but we tried cutting it down to one to see how it goes, and so far it's working fine.
Asking individuals to change their habits voluntarily is going to have limited results though. Only pricing and proper incentives is going to make a big dent in emissions.
Plant trees.
Elephant in the room. Stop the population explosion. Everything else is window dressing
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on November 12, 2019, 10:51:21 PM
Elephant in the room. Stop the population explosion. Everything else is window dressing
Nail on the head.
Unfortunately no one wants to address this issue. Less people will use less resources.
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on November 12, 2019, 10:51:21 PM
Elephant in the room. Stop the population explosion. Everything else is window dressing
How though?
The elephant in the room is modern living. Man wasn't designed to live this way. Give us all a plot of land and a fishing rod and let us live self sufficiently, as we're supposed to.
Quote from: BennyCake on November 12, 2019, 11:30:53 PM
The elephant in the room is modern living. Man wasn't designed to live this way. Give us all a plot of land and a fishing rod and let us live self sufficiently, as we're supposed to.
Go back to pre-industrial medieval style living? Not going to work for 7 billion people.
Quote from: Ambrose on November 12, 2019, 10:57:49 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on November 12, 2019, 10:51:21 PM
Elephant in the room. Stop the population explosion. Everything else is window dressing
Nail on the head.
Unfortunately no one wants to address this issue. Less people will use less resources.
Global population growth is expected to level off sometime around 2100. As people become more affluent they have fewer children. China's leveling off already.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on November 13, 2019, 01:17:23 AM
Quote from: Ambrose on November 12, 2019, 10:57:49 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on November 12, 2019, 10:51:21 PM
Elephant in the room. Stop the population explosion. Everything else is window dressing
Nail on the head.
Unfortunately no one wants to address this issue. Less people will use less resources.
Global population growth is expected to level off sometime around 2100. As people become more affluent they have fewer children. China's leveling off already.
Affluence is exactly the problem not population.
And an aging population is economically unsustainable it will quickly lead to societal collapse.
China is leveling off because of it's one child policy and they can now see the probs with that. How China fares in the next 30 years will tell a story of how other countries will deal with the same problem tho they may be at an advantage to Western countries they still have some of the population to become industrialised
Quote from: macdanger2 on November 12, 2019, 11:19:36 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on November 12, 2019, 10:51:21 PM
Elephant in the room. Stop the population explosion. Everything else is window dressing
How though?
Never fear these guys have it all sorted...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism
Quote from: omaghjoe on November 13, 2019, 04:35:19 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on November 13, 2019, 01:17:23 AM
Quote from: Ambrose on November 12, 2019, 10:57:49 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on November 12, 2019, 10:51:21 PM
Elephant in the room. Stop the population explosion. Everything else is window dressing
Nail on the head.
Unfortunately no one wants to address this issue. Less people will use less resources.
Global population growth is expected to level off sometime around 2100. As people become more affluent they have fewer children. China's leveling off already.
Affluence is exactly the problem not population.
And an aging population is economically unsustainable it will quickly lead to societal collapse.
China is leveling off because of it's one child policy and they can now see the probs with that. How China fares in the next 30 years will tell a story of how other countries will deal with the same problem tho they may be at an advantage to Western countries they still have some of the population to become industrialised
Do you have a number? A figure that the human population can self regulate and level out at and be sustainable in terms of food production, food consumption, dietary balance, poverty elimination, energy production, energy use, chemical use, deforestation, reforestation etc.
Difficult to assess your argument or even call it an argument in the absence of a number
Anybody see RTÉ's programme on this on Monday night? I thought it was a bit ott, however planning for the worst is no bad thing either.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on November 13, 2019, 12:52:58 AM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 12, 2019, 11:30:53 PM
The elephant in the room is modern living. Man wasn't designed to live this way. Give us all a plot of land and a fishing rod and let us live self sufficiently, as we're supposed to.
Go back to pre-industrial medieval style living? Not going to work for 7 billion people.
There's your issue in a sentence, 7 billion people, a huge environmental disaster taking two or three billion out of the equation is the only thing going save the planet.
Quote from: omaghjoe on November 13, 2019, 04:35:19 AM
And an aging population is economically unsustainable it will quickly lead to societal collapse.
Society in general is heading for a collapse due to many factors beyond aging population.
When unskilled labour (and even some skilled labour) is largely replaced by robotics and highly skilled jobs to maintain them - what will those with poor qualifications do?
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on November 13, 2019, 12:58:24 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on November 13, 2019, 04:35:19 AM
And an aging population is economically unsustainable it will quickly lead to societal collapse.
Society in general is heading for a collapse due to many factors beyond aging population.
When unskilled labour (and even some skilled labour) is largely replaced by robotics and highly skilled jobs to maintain them - what will those with poor qualifications do?
Work in McDonalds?
Quote from: smelmoth on November 13, 2019, 07:17:21 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on November 13, 2019, 04:35:19 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on November 13, 2019, 01:17:23 AM
Quote from: Ambrose on November 12, 2019, 10:57:49 PM
Quote from: JPGJOHNNYG on November 12, 2019, 10:51:21 PM
Elephant in the room. Stop the population explosion. Everything else is window dressing
Nail on the head.
Unfortunately no one wants to address this issue. Less people will use less resources.
Global population growth is expected to level off sometime around 2100. As people become more affluent they have fewer children. China's leveling off already.
Affluence is exactly the problem not population.
And an aging population is economically unsustainable it will quickly lead to societal collapse.
China is leveling off because of it's one child policy and they can now see the probs with that. How China fares in the next 30 years will tell a story of how other countries will deal with the same problem tho they may be at an advantage to Western countries they still have some of the population to become industrialised
Do you have a number? A figure that the human population can self regulate and level out at and be sustainable in terms of food production, food consumption, dietary balance, poverty elimination, energy production, energy use, chemical use, deforestation, reforestation etc.
Difficult to assess your argument or even call it an argument in the absence of a number
I'm hardly gonna give my number to an anonymous internet poster for discussion when we could do it right here on the thread.
Hilarious there Joe.
What about that population figure? And its sustainability as a figure and its sustainable use of available resources?
Quote from: smelmoth on November 13, 2019, 03:23:52 PM
Hilarious there Joe.
What about that population figure? And its sustainability as a figure and its sustainable use of available resources?
Prehaps you missed my point, that such a number is as mythical as my phone number.
Population resource needs and extraction technologies are constantly evolving as is the level of industrialisation
Besides I wasnt even making a point about that, my point was more about the division of labour for a society with a top heavy age profile.
Quote from: omaghjoe on November 13, 2019, 04:20:22 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on November 13, 2019, 03:23:52 PM
Hilarious there Joe.
What about that population figure? And its sustainability as a figure and its sustainable use of available resources?
Prehaps you missed my point, that such a number is as mythical as my phone number.
Population resource needs and extraction technologies are constantly evolving as is the level of industrialisation
Besides I wasnt even making a point about that, my point was more about the division of labour for a society with a top heavy age profile.
I'll ask you a direct question then - are you satisfied that the current global population can be sustained without placing a greater burden on the earth's resources and biodiversity and maintain a decent living for those citizens of the globe? And if you are what evidence do you point to?
Depends what you mean by decent standard of living but anyway...
Considering the world has always been in a state of change and that the issues you point to have been occurring since civilization began indeed even before that since homo sapians migrated out of Africa they have been disrupting ecosystems from their arrival. (Indeed you could say we are sn invasive species on every continent except Africa) then to reach the perfect promised land that you propose I would say is impossible.
But as I stated originally affluence is the problem ie consumption. So by limiting our consumption it's perfectly logical that we can reduce our demand on the earth's resources. We have to balance that against the fact that no economic system has ever really existed that didnt use an expanding population and an increasing commerce as its basis. So hardship would definitely prevail for a portion of the population, I dunno if you would classify this as a decent of standard of living.
Evidence for this is the demand in commodities drops during economic downturns.
Quote from: omaghjoe on November 13, 2019, 06:09:36 PM
Depends what you mean by decent standard of living but anyway...
Considering the world has always been in a state of change and that the issues you point to have been occurring since civilization began indeed even before that since homo sapians migrated out of Africa they have been disrupting ecosystems from their arrival. (Indeed you could say we are sn invasive species on every continent except Africa) then to reach the perfect promised land that you propose I would say is impossible.
But as I stated originally affluence is the problem ie consumption. So by limiting our consumption it's perfectly logical that we can reduce our demand on the earth's resources. We have to balance that against the fact that no economic system has ever really existed that didnt use an expanding population and an increasing commerce as its basis. So hardship would definitely prevail for a portion of the population, I dunno if you would classify this as a decent of standard of living.
Evidence for this is the demand in commodities drops during economic downturns.
What percentage of the world's population are you describing as affluent?
Quote from: smelmoth on November 13, 2019, 06:18:28 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on November 13, 2019, 06:09:36 PM
Depends what you mean by decent standard of living but anyway...
Considering the world has always been in a state of change and that the issues you point to have been occurring since civilization began indeed even before that since homo sapians migrated out of Africa they have been disrupting ecosystems from their arrival. (Indeed you could say we are sn invasive species on every continent except Africa) then to reach the perfect promised land that you propose I would say is impossible.
But as I stated originally affluence is the problem ie consumption. So by limiting our consumption it's perfectly logical that we can reduce our demand on the earth's resources. We have to balance that against the fact that no economic system has ever really existed that didnt use an expanding population and an increasing commerce as its basis. So hardship would definitely prevail for a portion of the population, I dunno if you would classify this as a decent of standard of living.
Evidence for this is the demand in commodities drops during economic downturns.
What percentage of the world's population are you describing as affluent?
It's a subjective term and as I said its about the more objective term of consumption which even itself is all about degrees.
Most of the world lives in an economy of some sort but the further the level of industrialisation of the economy then generally speaking the higher the level of consumption. Attaching this toa percentage of population is misleading as different persons have different levels of consumption.
Quote from: omaghjoe on November 13, 2019, 06:36:31 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on November 13, 2019, 06:18:28 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on November 13, 2019, 06:09:36 PM
Depends what you mean by decent standard of living but anyway...
Considering the world has always been in a state of change and that the issues you point to have been occurring since civilization began indeed even before that since homo sapians migrated out of Africa they have been disrupting ecosystems from their arrival. (Indeed you could say we are sn invasive species on every continent except Africa) then to reach the perfect promised land that you propose I would say is impossible.
But as I stated originally affluence is the problem ie consumption. So by limiting our consumption it's perfectly logical that we can reduce our demand on the earth's resources. We have to balance that against the fact that no economic system has ever really existed that didnt use an expanding population and an increasing commerce as its basis. So hardship would definitely prevail for a portion of the population, I dunno if you would classify this as a decent of standard of living.
Evidence for this is the demand in commodities drops during economic downturns.
What percentage of the world's population are you describing as affluent?
It's a subjective term and as I said its about the more objective term of consumption which even itself is all about degrees.
Most of the world lives in an economy of some sort but the further the level of industrialisation of the economy then generally speaking the higher the level of consumption. Attaching this toa percentage of population is misleading as different persons have different levels of consumption.
Will we get a straight answer before Brexit I wonder?
The level of consumption that you think is sustainable- what is it and what percentage of the population are currently operating below it?
Quote from: smelmoth on November 13, 2019, 06:49:25 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on November 13, 2019, 06:36:31 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on November 13, 2019, 06:18:28 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on November 13, 2019, 06:09:36 PM
Depends what you mean by decent standard of living but anyway...
Considering the world has always been in a state of change and that the issues you point to have been occurring since civilization began indeed even before that since homo sapians migrated out of Africa they have been disrupting ecosystems from their arrival. (Indeed you could say we are sn invasive species on every continent except Africa) then to reach the perfect promised land that you propose I would say is impossible.
But as I stated originally affluence is the problem ie consumption. So by limiting our consumption it's perfectly logical that we can reduce our demand on the earth's resources. We have to balance that against the fact that no economic system has ever really existed that didnt use an expanding population and an increasing commerce as its basis. So hardship would definitely prevail for a portion of the population, I dunno if you would classify this as a decent of standard of living.
Evidence for this is the demand in commodities drops during economic downturns.
What percentage of the world's population are you describing as affluent?
It's a subjective term and as I said its about the more objective term of consumption which even itself is all about degrees.
Most of the world lives in an economy of some sort but the further the level of industrialisation of the economy then generally speaking the higher the level of consumption. Attaching this toa percentage of population is misleading as different persons have different levels of consumption.
Will we get a straight answer before Brexit I wonder?
The level of consumption that you think is sustainable- what is it and what percentage of the population are currently operating below it?
Depends very much on the commodities being consumed.
I get the distinct impression your looking for a simple answer to an extraordinarily complicated question
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOJdz_LgDBE
Interesting watch. NZ small though.
Quote from: smelmoth on November 13, 2019, 04:29:11 PM
I'll ask you a direct question then - are you satisfied that the current global population can be sustained without placing a greater burden on the earth's resources and biodiversity and maintain a decent living for those citizens of the globe? And if you are what evidence do you point to?
Quite easily.
But it would take seismic changes and some sacrifices (but would still maintain decent living standards) to do so and thus will never happen.
=> Meat grown in labs & hydroponics would at a stroke eliminate impact on soil & air from food supply.
=> Using nuclear fission to supply 100% of electricity would eliminate emissions from generation (but not build) of electricity.
=> Same could be done for large boats.
=> Electric cars, lorries, buses, trains for transport.
=> Air travel could use hydrogen generated from enzyme reactions instead of JetA.
Pretty much all the problems have a solution - its just the solution costs more than the status quo.
New builds need garden space. Many social housing have little to no gardens. That space is needed to escape, being around plants/trees is good for mental health and people need their own getaway spaces/time from the home/technology etc.
Kids should be taught basic growing of fruit/veg, plants, and having gardens is part of that to encourage them to do it themselves at home. Growing your own salads, say, would cut down on food miles/costs/waste.
Bike dynamos generate electricity, and you can get similar for walking shoes, to generate your own electric, even if it's enough to charge your phones or boil the kettle. It all reduces the need for fossil fuel-generated electricity and encourages families to get active, do without the car, get healthy.
Only minor things, but done on a national scale would make a big difference. Not only that, but it makes sense to generate/grow things yourself (with little effort) without paying for it
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on November 14, 2019, 12:32:20 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on November 13, 2019, 04:29:11 PM
I'll ask you a direct question then - are you satisfied that the current global population can be sustained without placing a greater burden on the earth's resources and biodiversity and maintain a decent living for those citizens of the globe? And if you are what evidence do you point to?
Quite easily.
But it would take seismic changes and some sacrifices (but would still maintain decent living standards) to do so and thus will never happen.
=> Meat grown in labs & hydroponics would at a stroke eliminate impact on soil & air from food supply.
=> Using nuclear fission to supply 100% of electricity would eliminate emissions from generation (but not build) of electricity.
=> Same could be done for large boats.
=> Electric cars, lorries, buses, trains for transport.
=> Air travel could use hydrogen generated from enzyme reactions instead of JetA.
Pretty much all the problems have a solution - its just the solution costs more than the status quo.
I'm still processing "Quite easily.......but it would take seismic changes "
Quote from: omaghjoe on November 13, 2019, 07:01:20 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on November 13, 2019, 06:49:25 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on November 13, 2019, 06:36:31 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on November 13, 2019, 06:18:28 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on November 13, 2019, 06:09:36 PM
Depends what you mean by decent standard of living but anyway...
Considering the world has always been in a state of change and that the issues you point to have been occurring since civilization began indeed even before that since homo sapians migrated out of Africa they have been disrupting ecosystems from their arrival. (Indeed you could say we are sn invasive species on every continent except Africa) then to reach the perfect promised land that you propose I would say is impossible.
But as I stated originally affluence is the problem ie consumption. So by limiting our consumption it's perfectly logical that we can reduce our demand on the earth's resources. We have to balance that against the fact that no economic system has ever really existed that didnt use an expanding population and an increasing commerce as its basis. So hardship would definitely prevail for a portion of the population, I dunno if you would classify this as a decent of standard of living.
Evidence for this is the demand in commodities drops during economic downturns.
What percentage of the world's population are you describing as affluent?
It's a subjective term and as I said its about the more objective term of consumption which even itself is all about degrees.
Most of the world lives in an economy of some sort but the further the level of industrialisation of the economy then generally speaking the higher the level of consumption. Attaching this toa percentage of population is misleading as different persons have different levels of consumption.
Will we get a straight answer before Brexit I wonder?
The level of consumption that you think is sustainable- what is it and what percentage of the population are currently operating below it?
Depends very much on the commodities being consumed.
I get the distinct impression your looking for a simple answer to an extraordinarily complicated question
Im looking for solutions. Ones that can work. We do need to reign in consumption but can't help but feel that this is easier done with a smaller population especially when there is a chronic need to improve standards of living across so much of the globe. It's very difficult to see how any effective resolution isn't going to involve population reduction
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on November 13, 2019, 12:58:24 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on November 13, 2019, 04:35:19 AM
And an aging population is economically unsustainable it will quickly lead to societal collapse.
Society in general is heading for a collapse due to many factors beyond aging population.
When unskilled labour (and even some skilled labour) is largely replaced by robotics and highly skilled jobs to maintain them - what will those with poor qualifications do?
To even get a job in a engineering factory they are looking decent standard grades nowadays, its not like when I left school and walked into an apprenticeship with no qualifications. the poorer grades will not get you a decent semi skilled job, the ones with the poorer grades will only get non skilled jobs, and those jobs a lot of locals won't work them!
Improving wages in the skilled sector might encourage people to get a trade rather than go to college, and feck about for 3 years
Quote from: smelmoth on November 15, 2019, 01:25:47 PM
I'm still processing "Quite easily.......but it would take seismic changes "
I should amend that to "Technically quite easily... but it would take seismic changes in attitude and opinion"
Quote from: smelmoth on November 15, 2019, 01:33:13 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on November 13, 2019, 07:01:20 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on November 13, 2019, 06:49:25 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on November 13, 2019, 06:36:31 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on November 13, 2019, 06:18:28 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on November 13, 2019, 06:09:36 PM
Depends what you mean by decent standard of living but anyway...
Considering the world has always been in a state of change and that the issues you point to have been occurring since civilization began indeed even before that since homo sapians migrated out of Africa they have been disrupting ecosystems from their arrival. (Indeed you could say we are sn invasive species on every continent except Africa) then to reach the perfect promised land that you propose I would say is impossible.
But as I stated originally affluence is the problem ie consumption. So by limiting our consumption it's perfectly logical that we can reduce our demand on the earth's resources. We have to balance that against the fact that no economic system has ever really existed that didnt use an expanding population and an increasing commerce as its basis. So hardship would definitely prevail for a portion of the population, I dunno if you would classify this as a decent of standard of living.
Evidence for this is the demand in commodities drops during economic downturns.
What percentage of the world's population are you describing as affluent?
It's a subjective term and as I said its about the more objective term of consumption which even itself is all about degrees.
Most of the world lives in an economy of some sort but the further the level of industrialisation of the economy then generally speaking the higher the level of consumption. Attaching this toa percentage of population is misleading as different persons have different levels of consumption.
Will we get a straight answer before Brexit I wonder?
The level of consumption that you think is sustainable- what is it and what percentage of the population are currently operating below it?
Depends very much on the commodities being consumed.
I get the distinct impression your looking for a simple answer to an extraordinarily complicated question
Im looking for solutions. Ones that can work. We do need to reign in consumption but can't help but feel that this is easier done with a smaller population especially when there is a chronic need to improve standards of living across so much of the globe. It's very difficult to see how any effective resolution isn't going to involve population reduction
I was simply trying to shed light on the problems associated with a simple proposal like population decrease would no.1 have drastic consequences, no.2 on its own is not a solution and 3 prob not even be achievable.
The consequences as I have already pointed out are likely economic and thereby societal collapse
Not a solution without reduction in consumption.
Population is unlikely to reduce due to human instinct to reproduce, steady food supply and Western medicine.
Quote from: smelmoth on November 15, 2019, 01:33:13 PM
Im looking for solutions. Ones that can work. We do need to reign in consumption but can't help but feel that this is easier done with a smaller population especially when there is a chronic need to improve standards of living across so much of the globe. It's very difficult to see how any effective resolution isn't going to involve population reduction
I don't think the emissions from gas chambers will be helpful.
Quote from: smelmoth on November 15, 2019, 01:25:47 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on November 14, 2019, 12:32:20 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on November 13, 2019, 04:29:11 PM
I'll ask you a direct question then - are you satisfied that the current global population can be sustained without placing a greater burden on the earth's resources and biodiversity and maintain a decent living for those citizens of the globe? And if you are what evidence do you point to?
Quite easily.
But it would take seismic changes and some sacrifices (but would still maintain decent living standards) to do so and thus will never happen.
=> Meat grown in labs & hydroponics would at a stroke eliminate impact on soil & air from food supply.
=> Using nuclear fission to supply 100% of electricity would eliminate emissions from generation (but not build) of electricity.
=> Same could be done for large boats.
=> Electric cars, lorries, buses, trains for transport.
=> Air travel could use hydrogen generated from enzyme reactions instead of JetA.
Pretty much all the problems have a solution - its just the solution costs more than the status quo.
I'm still processing "Quite easily.......but it would take seismic changes "
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on November 15, 2019, 02:50:18 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on November 15, 2019, 01:25:47 PM
I'm still processing "Quite easily.......but it would take seismic changes "
I should amend that to "Technically quite easily... but it would take seismic changes in attitude and opinion"
I share your hopes but not your expectations. Nearly all the things you list are things that need to be explored urgently but it is fanciful to describe them as technically quite easy. There also remains an array of practical challenges
The work on cultured meat will continue not least due to the unsustainability of current meat production and the rapidly growing demand from parts of the world. But there is no viable means of meeting this demand from cultured meat nor any prospect of doing so soon. Major issues around commerciality, scale and allergies still need to be resolved.
In your eutopia with 100% of electricity generated from Nuclear fission what is your plan for the waste (on that scale) and you response to the first problem with a reactor or the waste?
Electric transport relies on batteries. Cobalt is bust. You won't be able to rely on lithium batteries for that reason. Can you develop and produce non lithium batteries on the scale you are talking about?
Hydrogen planes could very easily be a pipe dream. It's high cost, highly chemically unstable and low performance.
Apart from Nuclear I'm convinced that everything on you list is worth looking at further but there are massive doubts on all of them. Every one that works helps. But even the ones that do are not going to be helped by ever growing demand. The population question remains
Bless someone needs a hug. :-*
All solutions need to have a positive financial reward for the consumer. You have to encourage a sort of double reward. You are better off because of your efforts and your planet is better off.
We have a lot of hardship, life changing decisions and adaptions coming down the line. It is important that they are sold as positive as possible.
Taxing the sh1te out of people will only make us bitter, encourage a level rebellion and encourages lazy ways for Governments to get money for the exchequer.
Quote from: From the Bunker on November 17, 2019, 12:55:53 PM
All solutions need to have a positive financial reward for the consumer. You have to encourage a sort of double reward. You are better off because of your efforts and your planet is better off.
We have a lot of hardship, life changing decisions and adaptions coming down the line. It is important that they are sold as positive as possible.
Taxing the sh1te out of people will only make us bitter, encourage a level rebellion and encourages lazy ways for Governments to get money for the exchequer.
How about a Renewable Heating Incentive scheme?
Coldplay 'not touring' until concerts are 'environmentally beneficial' - thank fcuk best thing to date about Global Warming, hopefully they also consider not being on TV again or recording any more "music"!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-50490700 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-50490700)
Quote from: t_mac on November 21, 2019, 08:03:44 AM
Coldplay 'not touring' until concerts are 'environmentally beneficial' - thank fcuk best thing to date about Global Warming, hopefully they also consider not being on TV again or recording any more "music"!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-50490700 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-50490700)
Hopefully, and pity they didn't decide this about 17 years ago instead of subjecting us to their shite music.
https://www.ft.com/content/56238e12-14ef-11ea-b869-0971bffac109
Opinion Climate change
Climate change is reaching a tipping point
The earth's vulnerabilities could interact with each other in unpredictable ways
ANJANA AHUJA Four years ago, it was Paris; for the next fortnight, it is Madrid. The scenery changes but the message does not: the world is running out of time to halt catastrophic climate change. The efforts made to honour the 2015 Paris pledge to limit the rise in global average temperature to under 2C, and ideally 1.5C, above the pre-industrial average, have been "utterly inadequate", according to the UN secretary-general. António Guterres, speaking in Spain ahead of the COP25 climate summit to negotiate an emissions trading system, warned that the Earth was belching its way towards a "point of no return". He blamed politicians for continuing to subsidise fossil fuels and refusing to tax pollution. Perhaps Mr Guterres had caught sight of an article, published last week in the journal Nature, speculating whether the planet has already reached a critical state of warming and is now, climatically speaking, doomed. The analysis of nine climate "tipping points" concludes that we are in a "planetary emergency", and possibly heading towards a hothouse Earth. While some climate dangers, such as the runaway melting of ice sheets, have been historically predicted to happen if global average temperatures rise by 5C, later models have lowered some of those margins down to between 1C and 2C. Worse, the tipping points might interact with each other in unknown ways, the researchers warn, to threaten a global cascade of irreversible harm.
"If damaging tipping cascades and a global tipping point cannot be ruled out, then this is an existential threat to civilisation," writes Timothy Lenton, director of the Global Systems Institute at the University of Exeter, UK, who collaborated with academics in Germany and Denmark. From a risk-management perspective, they urge immediate political and economic action to keep the rise to below 1.5C. A tipping point is defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as a "large-scale discontinuity" in one piece of the Earth's climate. Interrelated pieces include familiar totems such as Arctic sea ice and the Amazon rainforest. Less well-known components include the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, a "conveyor belt" that shifts warm water from the tropics northwards and brings deeper, colder water back south; and boreal forests, the evergreen thickets that ring northern latitudes, sometimes sit atop permafrost and act as a vast carbon store. In practice, a tipping point is a threshold beyond which a small tweak can have abrupt irreversible effects. Some components of the world's climate, the researchers suggest, seem closer to the brink than others. The Greenland ice sheet may be nearing a point after which it will inexorably shrink. The loss of Arctic sea ice is another potential flashpoint: ice is more reflective than dark seawater, so melting ice fuels more heat absorption and further warming.
Recommended Special Report: Managing Climate Change Both phenomena might already be feeding instability into the system, by pushing more water into the North Atlantic and slowing down the conveyor belt. In turn, a sluggish circulation might, by interfering with the west African monsoon, trigger a drought in the Sahel region of Africa. Subsequent knock-on effects include a warmer Southern Ocean, which could accelerate ice loss in Antarctica. Once the climate dominoes start falling, the risks become twofold: not only is there a slowdown in mopping up ongoing emissions but the planet could also begin burping out the carbon already locked away. Permafrost emissions, for example, could inject 100 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. That is three years' worth of CO2 emissions (a record 33.1 Gt was emitted globally in 2018, according to the International Energy Agency). Not everyone is fully behind the apocalyptic analysis. "Greenland ice sheet collapse is pretty improbable at 1.5C warming, or it would take centuries to melt, so it wouldn't fit with a reader's perception of a tipping point," warns Piers Forster, professor of physical climate change at Leeds University and an IPCC author.
But Prof Forster does agree that the delay on decarbonisation might lead us to "dither ourselves into a catastrophic future. As the world warms, we'll need to spend more and more . . . coping with the risks and adapting to a warmer future, with appropriate flows of money from global North to global South. This would take the wealth and capacity out of societies that are trying to get to net zero. If this happens, we would see a catastrophe." Not apocalypse, then, but catastrophe: the language changes but the message does not.
https://www.ft.com/content/b9e8e721-6d1c-4513-9034-3f6d99d983b8
Big Oil has been rocked by a climate reckoning. International oil companies have laid out detailed plans to drive down carbon emissions. But stunning boardroom and courtroom defeats this week showed how powerful forces in society want faster change. Shareholders at ExxonMobil, a titan of corporate America, backed a long-shot activist campaign to overhaul the company's board, handing the new directors a mandate to push a more aggressive strategy to drive down emissions. The vote on Wednesday came after a Dutch court ordered Royal Dutch Shell to accelerate and deepen its emissions cuts. Meanwhile, investors in Chevron defied management on a major climate vote, approving a measure for the company to set stringent targets on the emissions from the products it sells for the first time. The actions show the increasing pressure on international oil companies to respond more aggressively to climate change, with broad consequences for energy supplies and energy investors. It's a historic vote that represents a tipping point for companies that are unprepared for the global energy transition Aeisha Mastagni, California State Teachers' Retirement System Assumptions about energy that were common a few years ago are being shredded. The International Energy Agency said in a landmark report last week that hitting emissions goals would require ending investment in new oil and gasfields. Threats to future oil demand were underscored by this week's enthusiastic reception to the new electric version of Ford's F-150 pick-up truck, a gas guzzler that reigns as America's most popular automobile
Detroit is starting to see the light too.
Ford recently announced an electric version of the F150 pick-up truck. Think the F150 is the best selling vehicle in the states.
It will take a while before the infrastructure is in place to allow people to use it for work or long-haul purposes, but its a start.
Quote from: J70 on May 27, 2021, 03:52:59 PM
Detroit is starting to see the light too.
Ford recently announced an electric version of the F150 pick-up truck. Think the F150 is the best selling vehicle in the states.
It will take a while before the infrastructure is in place to allow people to use it for work or long-haul purposes, but its a start.
The UK is going to spend £300m installing 1,800 fast chargers.
The US is obviously much bigger. The rollout of Electric car infrastructure will provide a lot of employment.
Quote from: seafoid on May 27, 2021, 09:29:46 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 27, 2021, 03:52:59 PM
Detroit is starting to see the light too.
Ford recently announced an electric version of the F150 pick-up truck. Think the F150 is the best selling vehicle in the states.
It will take a while before the infrastructure is in place to allow people to use it for work or long-haul purposes, but its a start.
The UK is going to spend £300m installing 1,800 fast chargers.
The US is obviously much bigger. The rollout of Electric car infrastructure will provide a lot of employment.
how long would it take to charge a big suv or an f250 ? most people driving big distance are driving big vehicles to carry their baggage etc, it's cheaper to fly for lone travelers . Also most people who own their home install a charger at their house if they need a charger.
I see a charging area in local car park with about 10 stations and it is empty most of the time
Quote from: Gmac on May 27, 2021, 11:03:07 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 27, 2021, 09:29:46 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 27, 2021, 03:52:59 PM
Detroit is starting to see the light too.
Ford recently announced an electric version of the F150 pick-up truck. Think the F150 is the best selling vehicle in the states.
It will take a while before the infrastructure is in place to allow people to use it for work or long-haul purposes, but its a start.
The UK is going to spend £300m installing 1,800 fast chargers.
The US is obviously much bigger. The rollout of Electric car infrastructure will provide a lot of employment.
how long would it take to charge a big suv or an f250 ? most people driving big distance are driving big vehicles to carry their baggage etc, it's cheaper to fly for lone travelers . Also most people who own their home install a charger at their house if they need a charger.
I see a charging area in local car park with about 10 stations and it is empty most of the time
Electric cars will only become mainstream when you can charge up in half an hour tops and it will last all week. Until then, diesel all the way.
Quote from: Armagh18 on May 27, 2021, 11:12:35 PM
Quote from: Gmac on May 27, 2021, 11:03:07 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 27, 2021, 09:29:46 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 27, 2021, 03:52:59 PM
Detroit is starting to see the light too.
Ford recently announced an electric version of the F150 pick-up truck. Think the F150 is the best selling vehicle in the states.
It will take a while before the infrastructure is in place to allow people to use it for work or long-haul purposes, but its a start.
The UK is going to spend £300m installing 1,800 fast chargers.
The US is obviously much bigger. The rollout of Electric car infrastructure will provide a lot of employment.
how long would it take to charge a big suv or an f250 ? most people driving big distance are driving big vehicles to carry their baggage etc, it's cheaper to fly for lone travelers . Also most people who own their home install a charger at their house if they need a charger.
I see a charging area in local car park with about 10 stations and it is empty most of the time
Electric cars will only become mainstream when you can charge up in half an hour tops and it will last all week. Until then, diesel all the way.
With diesel cars slowly being phased out surely it doesnt make sense to buy a new diesel as the resale value will be horrific in a few years time?
Quote from: Armagh18 on May 27, 2021, 11:12:35 PM
Quote from: Gmac on May 27, 2021, 11:03:07 PM
Quote from: seafoid on May 27, 2021, 09:29:46 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 27, 2021, 03:52:59 PM
Detroit is starting to see the light too.
Ford recently announced an electric version of the F150 pick-up truck. Think the F150 is the best selling vehicle in the states.
It will take a while before the infrastructure is in place to allow people to use it for work or long-haul purposes, but its a start.
The UK is going to spend £300m installing 1,800 fast chargers.
The US is obviously much bigger. The rollout of Electric car infrastructure will provide a lot of employment.
how long would it take to charge a big suv or an f250 ? most people driving big distance are driving big vehicles to carry their baggage etc, it's cheaper to fly for lone travelers . Also most people who own their home install a charger at their house if they need a charger.
I see a charging area in local car park with about 10 stations and it is empty most of the time
Electric cars will only become mainstream when you can charge up in half an hour tops and it will last all week. Until then, diesel all the way.
Charging is cheaper than diesel. Plus you can recharge while driving downhill.
Solar panels should nearly be mandatory on any new builds at this stage.
They're a no brainer.
Quote from: J70 on May 27, 2021, 03:52:59 PM
Detroit is starting to see the light too.
Ford recently announced an electric version of the F150 pick-up truck. Think the F150 is the best selling vehicle in the states.
It will take a while before the infrastructure is in place to allow people to use it for work or long-haul purposes, but its a start.
I can't fathom the point of pick ups, but I do love the new F150 !
Wifey and I both have plug in hybrids. Charger at home and in both workplaces. Electric only range about 30-40 km, which gets us into work. So (pre-Covid) it's months between petrol fill ups, unless we head down the country for a weekend or something. Though I've actually no idea how much it costs to recharge the cars at home.
Pick-ups make perfect sense for a farmer or construction worker, especially in the states. Or if you're pulling a caravan or boat or something.
I grew up on a farm in Donegal, and we could simply take the tractor to the local coop to pick up fertilizer or fencing supplies or bags of nuts or meal. In the US, where the farms are often huge, you could have to drive tens of miles to get supplies, something that just isn't practical on a tractor, no matter how highly powered and hi-tec.